One line of credible thinking espoused by top researchers like Jay Weidner is that NASA did go to the moon but the film and photographic record of it that we have is fake. All I know is that the footage of Apollo 11 is front screen projection technique and it takes a half hour to learn and spot that process online. Good luck folks.

Believing NASA that it did land on the moon, I think, is a sign of a significant mental difficulties.

I'll explain.

If I was known to you to consistently lie about several thing you know for a fact, would you believe me on anything at all I might say, absent the indisputable evidence? If you would, then you might want to deal with your mental difficulties.

The government has lied to us with regards to numerous subjects. It has done so habitually and consistently. With this in mind, if you have a healthy judgement, then your default stance toward anything the government is saying would be to assume it is a lie.

I have no problem believing the government with it's claims of moon landing, provided there is some evidence, of which there is none. All the government has is the hearsay of it's hired mouthpieces, doctored papers and fabricated artifacts. THERE IS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE.

Why don't they send a man to the moon, and let us watch that man thru a telescope (they have reportedly made Hubble, should be small work to make one to see a man), and I will believe their story. There might be even better methods to prove the man on the moon. I am all patience. Just don't expect me to act like a fool and trust a known habitual liar on his word.

"This is a man who is best known among the EAA, a grassroots organization of ordinary people who's hobby is building small aircraft for personal use."

Rutan dared to compete with the established Lear Corp. with an innovative and highly efficient business class craft named Starship. His enterprise was crushed by a combination of gov regs, banking and bad press. Yet his triple redundant computerized avionic system has made it into commerce without credit due to him. Now Beechcraft has taken up his design.

Click to view link

The man belongs on a pedistal next to other great and hardly celebrated contributors like Nicola Tesla, Preston Tucker, Howard Huges, Ken Olsen,...

I believe that Burt Rutan is the man most responsable for showing how NASA has become such a bloated and inefficient organization. For very small fraction of the cost NASA would spend he has sent people into space with a reliable, reusable aircraft the Spaceship One.

This is a man who is best known among the EAA, a grassroots organization of ordinary people who's hobby is building small aircraft for personal use.

The government seems to lie about everything. Stigmatizing skepticism is not the same as creating trust.

Nobody that I am aware of is disputing that NASA developed and repeatedly launched a heavy lift Saturn V rocket into extended earth orbit (whatever the payload) and safely returned the men to earth. It is an acheivement that all Americans... no, mankind can be proud of.

To bad it was made into a mockery by over the top theatric claims of landing on the moon. It is criminal. But we ought to be used to that by now.

David McGowan has done a great job, I think, of analyzing the entire moon landing story. See "Wagging the Moondoggie". Here's one of the links Click to view link

The lunar module itself, with the cobbled together sheet metal, zippers and gold tape, was the clincher for me, when it came to my completely not believing that this event ever occurred.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Yes, thanks, Kristen. We've recommended it too.

Any suggestions or predictions, DB, on what the next hoax will be? Since the monsters who perpetrate these events have every reason to think the public will believe anything, especially after the staged event of Sandy Hook, whatever it turns out to be, it will be a doozy!

I intend to break out my tinfoil suit.

Reply from The Daily Bell

Interesting question. But we track 'em, we don't create them.

Haven't we read this somewhere before?

Reply from The Daily Bell

Perhaps, Dmitri, but there is one of us and then there is the worldwide power-elite mainstream media. A little repetition doesn't hurt. We track memes. That's what we do.

So why haven't there been any clear images of the equipment left behind?

Does anyone know if there has been a study of liquid fuel calculations done?

Such as the amount of fuel needed per mass of vehicle to:
1. Lift into earth orbit
2. Free earths gravitation (leave orbit)
3. Decelerate to enter moons orbit
4. Decelerate / land on moon (this is still fantastical to me, riding a rocket engine in reverse!)
5. Lift into moon orbit (moon camera shows no fire, in fact no engine)
6. Free moons gravitaion (leave orbit)
7. Decelerate to enter earth orbit.

The moon landing represents the greatest government and media hoax of all time. Once I opened my eyes to the fact that the moon landings did not happen, my world-view changed forever.

For me, the biggest piece of evidence is the fact that no one can reasonably explain how the piece of junk lunar module, which looks like it was built by teenagers for a high school play (see Click to view link managed to ascend to lunar orbit and dock with the Apollo Command/Service Module, which was traveling a mere 4,000 mph.

Not to mention the LM's supposed kickass life support system that somehow allowed astronauts to survive on the moon for 74 hours in the harshest temperature extremes; which somehow managed to keep all of the dust out of the controls (you really think that piece of junk was vacuum sealed?); which included one hell of a battery system that could operate the whole life support system without a single mishap; which included extra batteries, parts, oxygen (think of how much oxygen was needed for 74 hours), fuel, backup suits, etc.; and even included an optional dune buggy that you could just attach without any detrimental effect whatsoever.

For all of you conspiracy theorist "debunkers" ... please direct me to the video (or photographs) in which the astronauts practiced using the ascent stage of the lunar module, taking off from the ground on Earth and then successfully docked with a jet flying anywhere near 4,000 mph?

According to Wikipedia, "Successful testing of two LLRV prototypes at the Dryden Flight Research Center led in 1966 to three production Lunar Landing Training Vehicles (LLTV) which along with the LLRV's were used to train the astronauts at the Houston Manned Spacecraft Center. This aircraft proved fairly dangerous to fly, and three of the five were destroyed in crashes. It was equipped with a rocket-powered ejection seat, so in each case the pilot survived, including the first man to walk on the Moon, Neil Armstrong."

They didn't even attempt to perform the impossible ascent and docking maneuver and 3 of the 5 test vehicles crashed (which look much more advanced than the actual LM). I'm sorry, but you have to be an idiot if you think that they would just skip repeated successful performance on Earth before venturing to the moon where there was no radar or other real time support, and no ejection seats to save Armstrong's ass.

Check out this Apollo 9 footage, it's laughable. Click to view link

It follows that if the U.S. government faked the moon landings with the assistance of the media and the complicity of other governments worldwide, even without any serious objection from the Soviets, then the U.S. government/elite can get away with anything, including 9-11, Columbine, the Osama story, Sandy Hook, etc. But it really does seem like the Internet is changing everything. I saw that one Sandy Hook conspiracy video had over 11 million hits - that never would have happened ten years ago.

"It should be the goal of sites like this
to raise the IQ of this country (and the world) rather than giving
credence to these insane theories."

Raise the IQ of the country? How would one do that? And then what, watch more TV, more official story?

Does it really seem like the people who believe that man landed on
the Moon protest to much? or that on the occasion of these crazy
conspiracy stories they feel they must opine? Besides the logic
used in "Why the US Moon Landing Was Not Faked" (We didn't have the
technology to pull off such a trick) there is the over riding fact
that our success was a terrible blow to the Soviet empire at the
time. If there was anything to all this conspiracy the Soviets would
have moved heaven and Earth to expose it. Indeed we have telescopes
here and in space that can easily detect the liter we've left on the Moon
and perhaps a footprint of two I'd imagine. The real reason more and
more of us gravitate towards these conspiracies, is that we have become a
a population of the uninformed. With the assistance of a spineless
media people are convinced that our current President is doing a fine
job and our trillion dollar deficits and 16 trillion dollar National
debt is of no consequence. It should be the goal of sites like this
to raise the IQ of this country (and the world) rather than giving
credence to these insane theories.

There are the facts, and then there is the story. I don't doubt the facts, but some of them tend to get left out of the official story. Like how Osama bin Laden was originally trained by the US to fight the Russians.

In the case of the Moon landings, one big fact that gets left out is that the Russians got TO the Moon first. The first person to orbit the Moon was a cosmonaut. They weren't, however, able to land him. And before Kennedy made his announcement, he asked his advisors at what point the US would be able to beat the Russians, and that is precisely what they determined, that they would be able to orbit the Moon first but not land on it. So Kennedy figured out where the US could win the race before even declaring it.

Another fact about the Moon landings that has been lost is that it was pretty much a dead-end road. There were tremendous obstacles to overcome, and by Apollo 17 we had pretty much pushed our technology to the limit. There really wasn't anything else left we could do.

So while I don't believe the Moon landings were faked, they were just a major propaganda ploy and proxy war boondoggle for the military-industrial complex.

G. Harry Stine's "Halfway to Anywhere" is a great source for the facts that didn't make it into the official story.

"Uncle Stanley," or Uncle Stanley Kubrick?

Reply from The Daily Bell

Ha, we should have mentioned that. Here's more from the Slate article ...

----snip

By exaggerating the details of the story and photographs (which are clearly not authentic despite being made to look old), Herbrich is certainly poking fun at the massive suspension of disbelief that goes into even considering such conspiracy theories.

Because of the way Herbrich styled his photos (in black-and-white, with people wearing period clothing, and the “prints” themselves having jagged edges), he found that many people were fooled into believing his story.

He explained, “… A lot of my audience is in love with conspiracy theories! There are two kinds of audience [members]: those who see the pictures and text and stay quiet (the believers and conspiracy theorists), and the others, who laugh out loud and understand they are fake from the beginning—they buy the book.”

DB: "Exactly what we're talkin' about!"

-------------------

Yep. Now please fix that "wealthy individuals funded by the Internet" typo, and, voilà, another DB Staff Report that may stand the test of time ...

;-)

DB: "The moon landings, in fact, are a most significant elite dominant social theme. They act as a metaphor for the regnant State, a justification for big government, a signifier for empire. Everything about the moon landings supports the current scenario of the Western paradigm."

-----------------------------

Exactly. Here's an article about the "moment of greatness" that features nearly every meme out there.

And then some ...


'Man on the moon: moment of greatness that defined the American century - The moon landing capped a tumultuous American decade - the Vietnam war, Kennedy's death, civil rights - and helped assert the country's global dominance.

(…)

It was a moment that still defines what many have come to call the American century. Amid all the turmoil and horror of that most bloody 100-year stretch, the sight of the first human being to walk on the moon, transmitted on television screens all over the world, was a sublime vision, the power of which was not marred by the blurry images that brought it back to a breathlessly awaiting Earth.

(…)

Indeed, in many ways Armstrong's triumph was a much-needed feelgood counterpoint to the horrors of the Kennedy killing. The event, coming as it did at the end of the turbulent 1960s, functioned as a brief national antidote to the whole decade. This was a tumultuous period that had seen Kennedy slain, the civil rights movement triumph and then despair over the killing of Martin Luther King and the spreading blaze of race riots. The 1960s saw vast and unsettling social change, the beginnings of white flight and urban decline and the upheaval and national trauma of Vietnam.

But for that single moment staring heavenwards - as the world focused on the sheer derring-do and genius of American ingenuity - none of that really seemed to matter. America was a country that in eight short years had lived up to the command of its slain hero president and put a man on the moon. Staring up in the night sky at that silvery circle above would never be the same for anyone again.

(... )

The landing sent a message that America could compete in and win the cold war. The nation had been startled and terrified by the Russian success in putting the first satellite, Sputnik, into space. Suddenly, there was a fear that America might never catch up. But, in eight short years, the Apollo programme dragged the country ahead.

Just as ordinary people had been scared witless by the thought of a beeping Russian probe overhead, so they now celebrated the triumph of the moon landing. Families huddled around their television sets in awe together. Those without the then expensive devices booked into motel rooms so they could watch too. It was a popular rumour at the time that some people even peered up at the moon through telescopes hoping to catch a glimpse of the American citizens they now knew were walking around up there.

(…)

… the moment itself was not about Armstrong. It was about his nation. The achievement was not stepping off that ladder and kicking up the dust on the moon. It was about the thousands of engineers who had worked so hard to get him there. It was about the public money poured into the sheer effort by a government determined to explore beyond the bounds of earth, now that every corner of the globe was known. It was about celebrating the wealthiest and most powerful nation the world has ever seen and the nature of its crowning achievement: not the conquest of another people, but the act of putting one of its own on another world'

Click to view link

Reply from The Daily Bell

Exactly what we're talkin' about! The Guardian of course ...

"Man on the moon: moment of greatness that defined the American century" ...

Superb -site ,-typo 'impossibly wealthy individual's funded by internet' ..?

I like the way Ye repeat the crucial-core-message's .
I in Ire-land & lot's are(were totaly'til 'net-reformation) subject to a disgusting elite-mouthpiece trivial false-flag-Hegelian dialect 'media'.

I'd love &( many would ) an interview with the great Vincent Browne (journalist here Ye mentioned in past).

Also a piece on the insanity of fluoridated tap-water in Southern Ireland(& other unfortunate locality's): a dis-Grace.

Thank's again for this dailyBell -psych-saver -source !

Reply from The Daily Bell

Well, thank ye! And yes, we have thought of interviewing Mr. Browne who is apparently one of the only real journos in Ireland.