The Moon Landing Never Happened, a serious discussion

Post Reply New Topic

It is 100% correct actually to call the Artemis Project a "DEI rocket"... The first sentence of this for NASA says this will "land a Woman and Person of Colour on the Moon" (even though I doubt this will ever get off the ground, and I think certainly now prime and correctly in the target for Musk's DOGE cuts... hahaha).... Also another part in the goal of this was this was going to heavily try and showcase the contributions of women and minority scientists, and while there is nothing wrong with this, if this is about making this a priority, then this is the definition of DEI... I know it seems to be literally illegal to call something DEI these days, but the Artemis Rocket which they literally called "Goddess of the Moon" for these reasons and to have a Feminist glory project for someone like Kamela Harris, is literally DEI.

https://www3.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/index.html

Why they have to spend Trillions of dollars just to have the show of women and minorities off the rocket for something they ostensibly already achieved decades ago, just seems like the biggest squandering of money to me for these woke goals, and also the height of woke-insecurity for this kind of glory project.... which is funny because it's been shown that the American public has not cared at all about space and stuff like the rover programs for quite awhile anyway, like with Jay Leno's Jokes and what the Big Bang Theory has joked about.


My guess is that actually getting to the moon, the distance involved, landing on it and taking off from it again, and broadcasting it back to earth, like I said, was just far beyond the capacities of late 60s technology.... similar to like the abilities of people in the Middle Ages if they were to be able to come up with an aeroplane. It's actually been the complete and utter bumbling around with the Artemis Project that has caused me to put this in the realm of serious questioning where I now don't believe they actually did this.

Here's the video I was trying to find, I couldn't find it earlier. I think something like this is pretty close to accurate, what went down to film this.

^^^ Dude! I'll have whatever you are on.

Claiming fake moon landings are linked to DEI is wild.

Maybe you didnt read your link? , here are some highlights:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gemini

A reminder "LOW EARTH ORBIT"



So there is a link between military ICBM technology and NASA rocket technology and supposedly they don't have this technology anymore, somehow i dont think the US military would be so careless, besides US ICBM Minuteman and Trident is lightyears ahead of 1969.

You state:-



Apparently the craft was made of 2.5 cm thick aluminium which offers minimal protection, let alone the glass windows that would have been less. Depends what you mean by moved quickly enough through the van allen belt, there are two of them, belt 1 has a thickness of 6880 miles, belt 2 - 29,200 miles so that's approx. 35,000 miles of high radiation they would have to travel through, taking several hours. Maybe someone forgot to tell the Chernobyl liquidators who only had 2-3 minutes exposed to high radiation clearing the roof of the plant and were sick after, that being exposed to high radiation is ok they could have stayed longer.



Not very logical since technology has improved so the cost would have gone down quite dramatically.

I believe the real reason is the same reason why they haven't gone more than a few hundred miles in earth orbit, they haven't solved the van Allen belt.

They are caught in a lie, if astronauts die then the lie gets exposed.

In fact its probably holding up progress, since the problem is not being exposed and worked on. Its probably out of their control now since China could try its own mission & if their astronauts die of radiation poisoning the whole thing is exposed.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

FYI viewtopic.php?t=394357#p8798946

^ Good call. h/t Fnord.

Just fly off somewhere? And what did it do when it arrived at wherever it was going - switch on the invisibility shield and... hover? It seems more than unlikely that it managed to somehow land or get ditched - all secretly and with no loss of crew.

Was all the NASA ground-based hardware somehow faked so it appeared to the ground crew that the Saturn 5 went to the moon? Or did they all just lie, every last one of them, ignoring their decades of training and dedication with not one owning up to it after all these years?

This all seems a bit... fanciful.

You know that thing was independently tracked, right? - the physical object, the comms traffic and so on.

So, sooo many little conspiratorial rabbit holes of coulda, woulda, mighta minutiae.
I prefer Neil deGrasse Tyson's take - {transcribed from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTChrirK-hw 00:24 - 01:22}

We just dont know, how can we prove there were astronauts on the rocket, that it was manned? It was 1969 everything was very controlled and societal trust was very high and information was carefully managed.

As far as ground control is concerned it was revealed in the bart sibrel interview ground control would not have been able to tell the difference between a real launch and a simulation.

Also everything is compartmentalised, the person doing one job would have had limited or no info on the job being done by someone else, bit like the military.

Maybe in the year 2069 people will be debating the latest comments on a VR forum from the new Space X leader - Elon Musks grandson saying its a shame we haven't been to the moon for 100 years, how we`re working on the tech we lost and how he wants to continue the work started by his grandpa

But the Gemini project was followed by the Apollo project, which included a series of both crewed and uncrewed missions that went much higher than low Earth orbit. Several of these went to the Moon without actually landing on it, in preparation for the eventual Apollo 11 Moon landing.


Yes, but, as per your quote, this pertains to the Gemini project -- not the subsequent Apollo project, which required further development.


What's missing is not any fundamental capability, but just odds and ends of details.

Even if it is basically known how to do something, it still takes work to actually do it and get it right.

Analogy: Every car manufacturer knows how to build an car, but still needs to spend significant time and money on building a prototype before going into production with any new model. If they just went straight into production without bothering to build a prototype, the results could be disastrous, due to all manner of pesky overlooked details. For that matter, even if an old model is being built at a new factory, some initial trial runs will be necessary before going into full production.

Another analogy: When doing any kind of experimental research in the physical sciences, it is standard procedure to try to replicate previous relevant results before going on to do anything new.

Reasons for both of the above will be obvious to anyone who has ever worked as any kind of physical scientist or engineer.


Even if it is "lightyears ahead," it is still a different project. Different project, many different details. Some knowledge carries over from one project to another, of course, but not everything.


They were able to avoid Belt 1 almost entirely.

The Van Allen belts do not have uniform radiation strength everywhere around the entire Earth. They are roughly doughnut-shaped. So it is possible to minimize exposure by avoiding the areas of greatest radiation strength.


Wrong again. They were not able to avoid Belt 2 entirely, but took a path through a relatively weak part.

For more about the Van Allen belts and their impact on space travel, see pages here and here.


The space program did continue, but with mostly uncrewed missions, which were deemed to be more cost-effective than sending people. Since then, many uncrewed space probes have even been sent far further than the Moon, to other planets in our solar system.

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 26 Mar 2025, 8:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Replicating what was done decades ago is only the first step. As the Wikipedia article on the Artemis program explains: "The program's stated long-term goal is to establish a permanent base on the Moon to facilitate human missions to Mars."

They probably flew in the middle of the pacific ocean and just ditched it, in my opinion.

Oh yeah, so Neil DeGasbag Tyson, the man who can talk for 14 minutes and say absolutely nothing and is the Establishment's ultimate mascot, said it happen, so that's also proof-positive right there... hahaha. He's also said on TV numerous times he wouldn't be where he was if not for DEI, so that explains it, IMO. He's literally never said anything interesting, ever, but just sits there with a stupid look on his face while other people talk and then waits for them to say something of detail to piggyback off of it in the moment so he can kind of sound smart... (LOL). and he's also had numerous allegations as well, so they probably have a contract on him as well to control him for all this to get him to do what they want.

No, the mere fact that he "said it happen" is not in and of itself "proof-positive" of anything.

But he made a substantive argument as to why the conspiracy theories are unlikely to be true -- an argument which you ignored, claiming instead -- falsely -- that he said "absolutely nothing."

I doubt the technology & knowledge existed back then to perform an accurate map of the Van Alen belt to allow them to avoid harmful parts.

I first heard about the moon landing hoax back in the 90`s, but never really paid attention, finding the idea far fetched, despite being interested in other things classed "conspiracy" like UFO`s.

Then came 2009 and the noise started becoming louder with first serious articles in the media (10 years after bart sibrel movie)

2019 they became even louder with many people seriously doubting it ever happened.

In 4 years it will be 60 years since the event and its likely by then the majority of the public with not believe the official story.

If trump seriously angers the Chinese and the CCP are ruthless enough to send a couple of their astronauts knowingly to their deaths through the van allen belt, the lie could become exposed like never before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4

Even back then it was possible to independently determine where radio comms originated. Guess where? The ground station and Saturn 5.

So the capsule was loaded with faked recordings forming part of some elaborate opera wherein the ground station had scripted responses designed to appear as though they were talking to living people?
Oh please.

What? The huge crowds and independent news organisations filming and actually watching the launch were all hypnotized?
That the recordings/films of the event were magically altered by some mysterious space ray so that instead of showing an empty field or launchpad, or a rocket just standing there - they showed a rocket leaving the launchpad? And showed the various separation stages occurring as planned?

I'm all for being open-minded, but not so open minded that one's brains fall out.

And this, ultimately, is the problem with these laughable conspiracies - they're... laughable.
Challenging an official narrative ought to involve something more substantial than the equivalent of "a pink unicorn did it".

And all the international, independent tracking stations didn't notice?

Unsurprisingly, instead of considering the wider point he was making you have nothing but a lengthy ad hominem attack.

Not a good way to improve what little remains of your credibility here.

I was referring to the rocket being manned and the radio communications or data from it could have been recorded previously or diverted from elsewhere and just fed to the control room

I believe that was what Bart meant by ground control telling the difference between real and simulation

I’m not suggesting the launch was some mass holographic hallucogenic experience

I'm not terribly impressed about the Independent tracking stations thing. I don't think it would have been terribly hard back at this kind of time for them to have some kind of decoy and/or just ultimately ditch it in the remote Pacific without anyone really being about to tell. I'm not really convinced, all-in-all, anyone was going to be able to go against the huge US government and system on this sort of thing.


I've seen enough of Neil DeGraisse Tyson and what a pointless public figure he is that anyone bringing him up is 'Strike Three, you're out !" I've just never seen anyone consistently "talk so much, and say absolutely nothing at all." I literally don't care what he says, anything he says is stupid

I cant belive we are having "a serious discussion" here about if the moon landing happened or not. What's next: The Earth is flat?