Evidence Man Never Landed On The Moon - Documentary

[Theatreboy]

My memory is not great, but was reading about the moon landing and some of the things this article claimed were that the moon ran like a bell when they landed, another was they found an obolisk on the moon, the article went on to say the ;moon landing ; hoax was just to distract from this "truth" the article claimed.

It was in Nexus Magazine so it might be on ATS, as the magazine did have an account there.

Apollo 13 was supposed to drop something on the moon so they could study the hollow ring. I can't confirm it, but I have heard that numerous places.

A while back, a piece of debris fell on the moon...China maybe? Anyway, my first thought then was that some country was testing that belief.

I sometimes entertain the thought that the US has misled more than it's population since WWII, and others are starting to go down the rabbit hole.

[Tecate]

Funny, I just remembered how I found ATS in the first place. I picked up a book called Above Top Secret by Jim Marrs years ago and realized he was mentioning the website. Maybe 2009 or so? Still have the book, and it has a chapter about who placed the moon or something like that.

Some weird shit in that book for sure!

Tecate

[Encia22]

One fascinating piece of information I ran across, I regret I can only relay anecdotally.  I don't have access to much of my old materials (hard drive crash and burn)... but I did long ago, watch a video... in this video I understood that there had been a 'tradition' among the astronaut core, the commander of the mission gets to design the mission patch that the next mission crew would wear on their gear.

After Apollo 11, when the design was submitted, it was rejected because it featured a moon background in the patch of rocks in a "Stonehenge" design. Needless to say, that patch wasn't adopted.

I don't know if that little tale is true (or at least I can't prove that I heard it) but if any of you remember it, let me know... I would hate to think this was a Mandela Effect thing.

It seemed weird to me that somebody didn't want to use the patch because it would have sparked too many questions... and what was going through their minds at the time.

Hi Maxmars,

I was curious about the patch design. I could only find references to the Apollo 17 mission... There's a design with Stonehenge... could it be that?

From the following: Apollo patches website

Some preliminary sketches by Robert McCall for the Apollo 17 patch. The top four images all incorporate iconic aspects of McCall’s stylistic pallete. Regarding the fourth image, McCall mentions in his JSC Oral History Project interview: “Jack Schmitt was the geologist astronaut on that mission, and he thought Stonehenge would be a wonderful image to include.”

And here at the very beginning of this music video that has two rudimentary patch designs, one is the same as on the website above, the other a combination of sorts, although it doesn't mention the source.

[Video: https://youtu.be/_r2Y-i_oQqE?si=N1DjD6N1O3M08YIh]

 

[VulcanWerks]

I’m now about an hour in.

The “lines” for the backdrops on the stages is an interesting callout.

I also find the NASA simulators to be almost oddly good for the time period.

I do think the “reflector” on the moon is at least proof something man made went there. I’m not sure it’s proof of a lunar landing.

I’m sure this will be covered eventually but I’m still a bit shocked over how much was “lost” regarding capsules/rockets/equipment or general documentation of the lunar flights. One angle is the flights never happened. The other is that whatever we figured out on those missions needed to be destroyed.

Then there’s the “400k people worked on this they couldn’t not know what went on if it was hoaxed” comment. I do think it would have been very challenging to keep a hoax like this under wraps.

Regarding the Van Allen belts, I’ve seen other documentaries that talk about how the belts aren’t are problematic as once made out to be. Said differently they may not be as much of a limiting or concerning factor as once thought.

Lastly, I still kind of scratch my head that we’re figuring out how to build crew capsules again. This is an ignorant comment, but, that feels a bit to me like learning to make an airplane again. Musk made one (and iterated it) in a very short period of time. Obviously that’s 60 years later but that doesn’t mean we couldn’t have figured it out all the same before.

I’m still in the “we went there” camp.

[FlyingClayDisk]

As an astronomer, physicist and former NASA contract employee, I can tell you most assuredly, we went to the Moon.  Staging an event like this and keeping it secret simply isn't possible.  Too many people would know, and the incentive to reveal this secret and/or hoax, over the decades since then, is simply too fantastically large.

So, a couple things here, and I've long said this in the Moon landing debates on ATS and elsewhere; going 'to' the Moon, and standing 'on' the Moon, are two completely different things.  I personally "know" man stood 'on' the Moon.  And, while going 'to' the Moon is virtually 'un-hoaxable', standing 'on' the Moon, on the other hand, would have been relatively easy to fake.  This technicality eliminates the hundreds of thousands of personnel who would have needed to keep a secret, leaving a mere handful who would need to keep the secret.  Let us not forget the fact that the Russians had every reason to prove the landings were faked, so if there was any possible way to prove this fact, their entire national pride as a nation would have compelled them to do exactly that.  But, let's look a little more closely at the differences between 'to' the Moon, and 'on' the Moon.

At an elementary logic level, one way we know with absolute certainty that man actually walked "on" the Moon is simply by the fact that the Apollo 11 astronauts returned to Earth.  This is all the proof that logic requires.  You may ask yourself, why?  And I will explain this in a moment, but first we have to examine some other facts.

The technology of the day, even then, was such that it would have been easy to prove man didn't go 'to' the Moon, in a whole variety of ways.  Anyone who suggests otherwise is simply foolish.  However, that same technology would have made it very difficult to discern whether man was actually 'on' the Moon, or just very near 'to' the Moon.  This is a key distinction in this discussion.  Radio communications (signals) from the surface of the Moon did not have the ability to travel back to Earth, they had to be relayed from the Command Module orbiting overhead.  And, the Command Module had to be on the proper side of the Moon in order to relay these signals.  So, all the audio and video from the surface of the Moon was actually signals which were received from the Command Module orbiting the Moon, not directly from the LEM on the surface of the Moon.  Thus, confirming man was actually standing on the Moon based on transmitted radio signals would not have been possible as these signals were originating from the Command Module (from Earth's perspective).  The Russians would have had the same problem.  They could easily verify the Command Module was orbiting the Moon, but nothing beyond that.  NASA knew this.

Again, I firmly believe, know in fact, that man did actually stand "on" the Moon, but faking that 'on vs. near' element would have been fairly easy.  And, I find it difficult to imagine that NASA didn't have some sort of a contingency plan to do exactly that if something had gone wrong.  IF...something had gone terribly, tragically, wrong. 

So, then what sort of scenario might have triggered such a hoax?  Well, for example, if the Apollo 11 LEM, Eagle, had crashed on the Moon.  Then, Armstrong and Aldrin would have been stranded (minimally) on the Moon (with no way to rescue them), or dead.  Dead would have been easy to explain, but stranded on the other hand would have been much more difficult to deal with.  Imagine what hung in the balance as the entire planet watched, for hours (or days), the stranded crew slowly die on the surface of the Moon.  Technical failure aside, the human side of a  tragedy such as this would have been absolutely 'stellar', unprecedented, and unimaginable in proportions.  The phrase "Failure is not an option" was arguably never one of NASA's actual mantras, despite numerous movies suggesting otherwise.  But if there ever were a place and time where such a phrase would have been used, it would have been the stranded scenario.  In that case, it seems probable that NASA would have pulled out the staged Moon excursion scenarios.  Interestingly, Collins up in the Command Module could then never return (either), else how would this be explained, his returning alone?  But I digress.

Had this scenario played out in real life, the fact that man was 'at' the Moon, but not 'on' the Moon would have been very difficult to prove.  Impossible, using 1960's technology, and very difficult today (but not impossible)...and NASA knew this too.  So, for this reason alone, staging the landings would have been truly a very last resort after the unimaginable and unthinkable had gone wrong.

As reality would have it, Eagle did not crash on the Moon, and Armstrong and then Aldrin did in fact walk on the Moon, as we all saw.  But IF something had gone terribly wrong the US simply could not broadcast to the World such a spectacular failure.  That was not an option.

Either way, the history books would have had Armstrong and Aldrin on the Moon on July 20th 1969.

So, some other questions about the Moon landings also frequently come up, and I'll attempt to address those here as well.  'Why haven't we been back (after Apollo 17 in 1972)?'.  In order to answer this question we have to look at one more proof that man really did walk on the Moon, and this is the Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 missions.  Had Apollo 11 resulted in tragedy, then these missions would have never taken place.  Staging one Moon landing would have been a tall enough order, but staging (6) Moon landings would have been unimaginably more difficult, bordering on insane to impossible.  So, man did walk on the Moon, several times on several different missions.  Okay, then why haven't we been back? 

It's important to realize that (my oft quoted phrase) 'space is hard'.  It seems like such a silly statement, but it's so tragically true; space travel is insanely dangerous and Biblically difficult .  And, landing human beings on another satellite or planet in space is exponentially more difficult than just simple space travel.  So, every mission is a gamble, with some pretty high odds for failure.  Like Las Vegas, the more you gamble, the higher your odds of losing are.  People don't often die in Las Vegas, but in space the paradigm is the exact opposite; people don't often survive.  Each time you make another attempt, your odds of a spectacular failure go up exponentially.  With public interest waning in the early 1970's, the benefits compared to the odds of failure were not sufficient to justify further missions.  And this is why man hasn't returned.

The larger and more pertinent question is, what has happened, or more specifically, what "hasn't" happened since then, and why?  Part of this question can be answered by the difficulty factor noted above, but there are no credible answers beyond this.  Complacency is one component.  People just "assumed" that because we did it once we could easily do it again.  But again, people overlooked the most important point with this assumption...space is hard.  Space is a lot harder than all those people realized (now), and returning to the Moon is not the 'slam-dunk' people thought it was.

I think the most amazing thing about the Apollo program, and the Moon landings, is the technology of the 'computers' of the Apollo era was less than the technology contained in a common grade-schooler's calculator or smart watch today. 

"That's one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind"

[Waterglass]

I’ve wondered if two things can be true at once regarding the moon.

I am firmly in the camp that we went there but also realize there’s a lot of anecdotal evidence to say we didn’t.

Being strongly convicted we did go there, I also think it’s possible we either went/didn’t go more times than we’re aware of.

Said differently, few people know the “truth” about what went on or goes on “up there”.

Totally conceivable we both went, made it and faked other excursions for reasons not to be discussed.

So if we never went to the Moon why werent we called out by our enemies back then and now. They would have a field day. This entire line of BS seems to be fueled by the highly edumacated Front Porch logic crowd.

[Nerb]

I do think the “reflector” on the moon is at least proof something man made went there. I’m not sure it’s proof of a lunar landing.

A reflector is not necessary to bounce a laser off the surface of the moon. It was done years before the moon landings without. The information is in the video.

---

This entire line of BS seems to be fueled by the highly edumacated Front Porch logic crowd.

Thanks for the respect. Better a skeptic than having a head stuck in the Moondust.

Did you even watch the video?

---

Either way, the history books would have had Armstrong and Aldrin on the Moon on July 20th 1969.

The winners of wars write the history. Nobody can prove so many of the "facts" after an event.

You say you"know" so many things which does not force truth. Facts do, and WE weren't there to witness anything.

I appreciate your long reply, but there are still so many unanswered questions that cannot be answered with a few words on an internet forum.

I hope you enjoyed the video regardless. Interesting accumulation of information isn't it?

[FlyingClayDisk]

A reflector is not necessary to bounce a laser off the surface of the moon. It was done years before the moon landings without. The information is in the video.

---

Thanks for the respect. Better a skeptic than having a head stuck in the Moondust.

Did you even watch the video?

---

The winners of wars write the history. Nobody can prove so many of the "facts" after an event.

You say you"know" so many things which does not force truth. Facts do, and WE weren't there to witness anything.

I appreciate your long reply, but there are still so many unanswered questions that cannot be answered with a few words on an internet forum.

I hope you enjoyed the video regardless. Interesting accumulation of information isn't it?

Well, I was speaking for myself when I said "I know", so I encourage everyone else to do as much research as they feel appropriate to satisfy their understanding and beliefs about what actually happened.  I do not expect anyone to accept my knowledge of what happened, but was merely trying to point out some possibilities and some scenarios where trickery might have been used (if something had gone wrong).

Regarding the video, and many other sources like it, yes, there are scores of anomalies related to the Moon missions which have driven a deeper understanding of things like photography, visual phenomenon (or lack thereof) and many other things.  I always find some of these things interesting to see what people come up with.  I didn't watch the whole 3 hours and 30 minutes, but I did watch a good portion.  I didn't see this particular item in the video (but maybe it was later on), but one of the anomalies I always found curious was a certain famous photograph of Armstrong on the Moon.  The reflection in Armstrong's visor shows the moon, the Earth, the LEM and other things.  The photo in question was going to be used on the famous US postage stamp, but someone questioned the authenticity of the photo before the stamp went to mint.  It turned out the photo had actually been retouched (photoshopped, if you will, but long before the software, Adobe Photoshop, existed) and NASA had to admit this.  It was some kind of a promotional glamor shot done for some reason.  The photo was subsequently changed to a similar but slightly different image for the actual stamp.  It was played off as a harmless mistake, but I always found that curious.  In fact, I think this was my very first proof-positive that the government was willing to dupe Americans, even if accidentally, and that government subterfuge was not only possible, but likely going forward.  It was innocent enough, but just the fact that it happened at all was notable.

To this end, most people today do not realize they see false images every day and they accept these images as fact without any proof.  A great example of this is many of the space telescope images.  Almost all of these images are heavily edited (visually) to portray the interpretation of data in a way that John Q. Public can understand.  There's no malicious intent with these images at all, they are just computer generated images based on raw data.  It's just that many people do not fully understand what they are looking at.  Anyway, I'm off-topic, so I'll stop.

[VulcanWerks]

So if we never went to the Moon why werent we called out by our enemies back then and now. They would have a field day. This entire line of BS seems to be fueled by the highly edumacated Front Porch logic crowd.

We did go to the moon. At least once.

[Raptured]

I watched this entire doc yesterday and it was fun.  I learned a few things and appreciated the level of detail, especially when they brought in the professional photographers to discuss some of the imagery.