The Moon Landing Never Happened, a serious discussion

Post Reply New Topic

There was an awesome video on youtube a year or so ago of a guy who's father had been at the soundstage of where they filmed the moon landing in the Desert of the American West, who just died of cancer. I've been trying to find it but it seemes that YT just deleted it. Sadly YTs been quicker and quicker about deleting great content like this. His testimony seemed pretty legit, or if you don't believe it it was quite interesting at least !


Hmmm... like I said for me I've hated central secular rule for as long as I can remember, and Political Correctness and all they do and all this from above. I would say though stuff like the Moon Landing I never seriously started to question until I saw just what a joke everything to do with Covid and the Vaccine was and just how fully and completely this was orchestrated. All this and how this was run took it to the next level, in my opinion, with what I think these bastards have been capable of, all these years. Now in my opinion, Western Science is hardly worth the paper it is printed on.

I would hardly know to begin at this point, on what topics to start ripping apart the Lamestream and their credibility and all this. Like for me, all these woke idiots running all these bureaucracies now, it looks about as valid as like it would be in the Middle Ages a bunch of churchmen standing around a body and discussing how they're going to do some surgery like trepanning.

So for you it started with COVID conspiracy theories, which have never seemed credible to me.

Epidemics happen from time to time. No need for a conspiracy to explain them.

Deadly epidemics happened a lot more often back in the bad old days, before vaccines became commonplace.

Alas, there will likely be more epidemics, more often, again, thanks to growing numbers of anti-vaxxers.

It wasn't done on a soundstage. The necessary lights to create the images we have didn't even exist at the time. The shadows themselves couldn't have been made with lights that were available at the time. Getting those sorts of inky black darks to bright lights with no transition and all of the lights being more or less completely parallel was just not possible with technology available at the time.

The whole thing has been thoroughly debunked numerous times. https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/h ... ing-sites/ for how to view the sites with a telescope.

There`s an interesting discussion on Joe Rogan`s show with Bart Sibrel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7xu0t9dTbI

I`m about 80 / 20 that the moon landings were faked

56 years is a long time in tech and science, the main arguments for fake:-

1. Fact that they haven't gone more than a few hundred miles above the earth`s surface ever, apart from the moon landings where of course where they supposedly went 250,000 miles

2. Its debatable if the tech existed at the time - 1969 -1972, just over two decades after WW2

3. The strange behaviour of most of the astronauts after particularly Neil Armstrong

4. The Van Allen belt of deadly radiation (back to point one) the craft walls were thin aluminium that would have given no protection, even if they survived the trip, nearly all the astronauts would have had radiation poisoning later. As far as I'm aware they all lived a normal life span with no adverse medical conditions related to their trip.

5. They done it on first attempt, has this ever been done in science? look at the first attempts at flying machines, many were crude dangerous devices that crashed killing the pilot, it took a while before it was perfected.

6. It was a strange time in US history paranoid about losing to the Soviets, they made up a lot of stuff anyway like the Gulf of Tonkin incident that started the Vietnam war and killed 65,000 Americans, operation Northwoods also another made up event. So the idea they wouldn't lie is absurd.

7. I don't buy the lost technology cant do it anymore argument, doesn't make sense and its easily debunked when you look at ICBM missile and aircraft tech improvements from then to now, leaving aside electronic and computing power . NASA is deeply tied to and is practically a military organisation just not in name.

8. The Soviets and Chinese would tell doesn't add up either. I don't believe they had the tech to monitor it properly, soviet technology & satellite quality was extremely poor back then, Chinese space tech non existent. Truth is they would not have known the difference on radar between an unmanned craft and a manned one, they had no tech that could zoom in and see men walking on the moon back then.

9. They keep pushing back the date of the next moon landing, they have been doing so for about two decades now, 2014 was one then that was forgotten about, 2024 was the last big date i believe, now they don't even talk about it anymore. Ellon musk just keeps talking about Mars.

He`s an intelligent man does he really believe it, that they are going to Mars under Trump? or is he just looking for attention and funding for his business, its debatable.

What happens if/ when space x sends astronauts just into the Van Allen belt and they all die or get hideous radiation poisoning the whole moon landing story dies instantly with it. They are afraid of this so its unlikely to happen soon.

The question is who is alive who knows the full story?, most decision makers tend to be older men 40+, more than 50 years has passed, are they all dead with evidence burned?, some astronauts are still alive one enjoying the publicity of it.

To counter:-

The only thing i can think of to debunk is the no stars in the photos argument, easily explained by light pollution, its the same explanation why you cant see stars under a street light.

Either way its becoming a bit of an embarrassment for the US gov, they must cringe on every decade anniversary, in 4 years it will be 60 years.

So this is a serious discussion but UFOs are not??

The deployment of reflectors isn't a good argument to use against Moon Landing deniers; the soviets did the same with unmanned moon landings.

So it's proof-positive in favour of the Establishment because they didn't have "necessary lights" and somehow weren't able to come up with some special kind of light to make certain kinds of shadows happen in photographs, but yet they were able to fly 250,000 miles to the Moon.... oh, ok.... (LOL)


Great points above about how back in the 60s the US Government was lying so blatantly like that into Vietnam with the Gulf of Tonkin, and with Operation Northwoods. Of course, based on stuff like this I also equally believe they would have no qualms about lying with something like this about landing on the Moon, if they thought they needed to to help them, like with public propaganda. Of course, I find it generally suspicious that in the 60 years since they seem to be nowhere close to being able to duplicate this alleged feat, like I said before.

and indeed, the behavior of the Astronauts like with Armstrong and Aldrin has generally been pretty strange, in my opinion, like I was getting at, like there's some kind of contract out on this or something, or was.

I don't often call people for trolling, but whether intentionally or inadvertently, that is exactly how your posts come across with the use of language in your sentences, as quoted above.

As Mona Pereth has hinted, you sound like you have gone down an anti-science, anti-intellectual rabbit hole and I don't think you have made any convincing kind of argument at all as to why the moon landings were supposedly faked.

Wrong. Read up on the preceding missions of the Apollo program, especially Apollo 8, 9, and 10. See Wikipedia's List of Apollo missions.


No, this is not debatable. Read up on the history of the space program, including not only the Apollo project but also the preceding Mercury and Gemini projects. There was a long series of both crewed and uncrewed missions leading up to the moon landing.


What specific "strange behavior" are you talking about?


Debunked in several of the articles I posted here. Briefly, the walls of the craft were in fact sufficient to protect the astronauts, given that the craft also (1) avoided the most hazardous parts of the Van Allen belts and (2) moved quickly enough through the Van Allen belts to keep the total radiation dose very small.


These "first attempts at flying machines" were not part of a massive, highly coordinated program with massive preparation and funding. Again, there were many preparatory missions, both crewed and uncrewed.


Yes, there is certainly such a thing as a government lie.

But some things are much harder to lie about than others. The U.S. space program was huge, unclassified, open to public scrutiny, with lots and lots and lots of people involved.


ICBM's and other military rockets don't go to the Moon.

Be that as it may, the main problem that the Artemis project has is its extremely low budget, compared to previous space programs.

The "lost tech" issue would not be a significant problem with a higher budget. What has been lost is not any fundamental relevant scientific knowledge, but only some of the details. With a higher budget, those details (or equivalents thereof) could be re-learned much more quickly.


... because the U.S. government, and the American public, just were not willing to spend enough money on it anymore.

Last edited by Mona Pereth on 26 Mar 2025, 11:45 am, edited 3 times in total.

It absolutely is proof positive. Shadows don't come in perfectly parallel and that bright from the lighting tech of the era. Shadows have a bit of fall off from bright to shadow normally.

I think we've pretty well established that this isn't a serious discussion. We know the stuff is up there, the tire tracks from the rover are even visible from the moon and have been since the respective mission that put it there.

* Groans * more conspiracy theories

Considering that I linked to an article on how to see the stuff that was left behind, I'm not sure how this is a serious debate. A telescope to look isn't that expensive. And I'm not sure how the tire tracks were put up there in the early '70s if nobody has landed there.

Depends what kind of Moon landing denier, I guess. Some deny only that the crewed missions got there, while others deny all Moon landings by any human-created craft, crewed or uncrewed.

But then again, some Moon landing deniers would likely claim that both the reflectors and the tire tracks were left by space aliens, not any human-created craft. [sigh!]

I think that part of the problem is that there are some that deny that we did it when we did it, so if they look through a telescope and see tire marks, they may not be impressed. From what I can tell, it just takes a 4" telescope with like 75x magnification to see some of the stuff that was left behind. That article I linked for anybody that has doubts and has them in good faith, even shows some photos where you can literally see the tire tracks left by the rover they used during a mission.

Personally, I'd like to get a telescope like that just because my parents acquired some land a couple years ago that's relatively far from the city limits and during the summer when the ski slopes are closed, it gets about as dark as anywhere in modern times. Which makes for a great opportunity to learn how to look for things like the rings on Saturn.

The whole moon landing denial thing isn't a particularly good faith position for adults to be taking, there's plenty of information that corroborates that people did indeed go up there and were active on the moon.

Some conspiracy theories are based on unexplored mysteries.

Like I always say:

"If Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landing, then Irwin Allen faked Apollo 13."