More Questions: Lunar Rover Seems to Have Been a Willys Jeep
By Daily Bell Staff - June 01, 2016

Moon Landing Hoax | “Moon Buggy” LRV is a Willys Jeep – Lift the Veil

The “moon buggy” that NASA astronauts drove around on the lunar surface seems to be, in actuality, a stripped down jeep.

This sounds hard to believe considering development of the “lunar rover” is said to have taken years and cost tens of millions.

We would encourage readers to go HERE and watch a short video on the  topic.

A blueprint of a Willys jeep is superimposed over the moon buggy and the dimensions seem identical, down to  a fraction of an inch.

If this video is to be believed – if the information is accurate – Boeing and the others that worked on the lunar rover did nothing more than reconfigure an American jeep.

They added some antennas, figured out a way to fold it up (so it could be taken to the moon) and then billed the US government $40 million in 1960 dollars.

Is a lawsuit hiding here?

What’s even more baffling about the development – if indeed it is the frame of a World War Two jeep – is the historical narrative that accompanies it and that can be found in many articles on the Internet.

This narrative seems to have nothing to do with stripping down a jeep.

Instead, we learn that the vehicle was developed from “original plans.” In a comprehensive article entitled, The Difference It Made: Developing a Car for the Moon, we learn about the exacting standards that were necessary for planners to fulfill when developing the rover.

Here, from the article:

The LRV was subject to the same inviolable standards as all the rest of the Apollo hardware – and needed to meet “unprecedented challenges.”

Here are just three of many stated in the article:

  • deploy safely in 1/6 G from the bay on the LM Descent Stage and be operable within 15 minutes or so;
  • operate in a vacuum with temperatures between ±250 degrees Fahrenheit
  • permit ease of use by drivers wearing bulky protective suits …

Was the best solution to these demands a jeep?

At The Daily Bell, we regularly analyze elite “dominant social themes” – various forms of propaganda – and have been doing so for a decade or more.

But as we continually delve into this subject, we find that the propaganda becomes more invasive and all-encompassing.

There seems for instance to have been a determined cover-up when it comes to vaccines and the damages they can cause.

And central banking is a form of price fixing that creates terrible recessions and depressions.

And then … dinosaurs.

We recently discussed whether dinosaurs were real! Some surely are, but the timeline between dinosaur discoveries and Darwin’s presentation of his evolutionary theories is almost identical. Is this overlap just a coincidence?

Also, recently, we reported on the international space station currently orbiting earth.

There are numerous questions about how the station orbits in such a hostile environment and what exactly it does. Some have suggested space-station activities are actually taking place under water on earth.

And here is an odd observation: There are very few pictures of earth itself. One in particular has been regularly in use for decades. It appears to have been heavily photo-shopped.

This leads to questions about what exactly is orbiting the earth. There are supposed to be thousands of satellites overhead. But if so, why haven’t they taken pictures of each other or the earth?

We did what someone else did – make an “image” Internet search. We found lots of pictures of satellites. But that’s what they were, just pictures. Apparently photos of satellites in orbit are very hard to come by.

In the recent past, we’ve written about nuclear weapons and brought up some questions about what was actually dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This seems to be part of a larger pattern. As long-term analyzers of mainstream media themes, we have increasing concerns not just about individual trends but about their totality.

Certainly, as technology advances, there are fewer and fewer “checks and balances” when it comes to reporting truthfully on what’s going on.

Whether it’s satellites, nuclear weapons or lunar rovers, the general public is increasingly in the position of trusting reports from authorities.

The bought-and-paid-for mainstream media is almost useless when it comes to providing alternative points of view. In fact, if a theme or trend is regularly developed in the media, increasingly it seems to be sign that the information is in some sense untruthful.

These are not hypothetical or unimportant issues. As public disenchantment builds, it begins to have a corrosive effect on society. Civilization deteriorates.

Conclusion: At some point, especially when it comes to various forms of technology, the public will question more intensively what it is being told. Probably, it will come to believe, in some cases, that it is subject to purposefully misinformation.  This is a cumulative process. And the consequences could be serious and destabilizing.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

Tagged with:
  • Daniel

    You can see the International Space Station with the naked eye on Earth. With free iPhone apps, it will alert you when it is overhead at night, it passes irregularly.

    I have seen the ISS on clear nights, its quite bright and really moves fast, nothing like the stars and planets.

    Also, amateur astronomers with large telescopes have taken pictures of the ISIS from the ground, and many are posted in Google Images, search:
    iss images from ground

    The real danger is to read and accept scientific-political public information and conclusions for matters that are inherently too difficult or complex or inherently for the general public to verify. Climate change is an example.

    But other matters are far more simple: the ISS is easy to personally verify.

    Also some conspiracy theories are way too simple to discredit, so much so, you wonder if the conspiracy theory is part of a greater conspiracy.
    For example, the Flat Earth-ers, which there seems to be a real group of followers who believe in this, is completely verifiable to be false by so many ways with personal experience: Northern constellations not viewable from the southern hemisphere and vice-versa.

    So once again, the real danger are scientific pronouncements with huge political implications that the general public inherently find it difficult to verify.

    • Good points. Our perspective at this point would be that NASA is not always telling the truth about the space station (and perhaps rarely). Where exaggerations leave off and the truth begins is more of a puzzle. We suggest reporters be more aggressive about trying to figure it out.

      • Will Kit

        $40 million/$35 x $1212 = $1.385 billion

  • ZebBlanchard

    DB has taken one giant step backward in credibility for proposing aerospace conspiracies of this nature and offended lots of old timers who actually took part in those “space age” efforts.

    • We didn’t propose a conspiracy. We didn’t comment on the moon landings. We suggested that the lunar rover was developed from a jeep. Sorry if that offends you. It’s a pretty convincing video in our view. But if other information is available that contradicts it, we’ll be glad to present it. You ought to watch the video instead of being offended.

      • Erik Garcés

        OK, so they designed the rover from an existing, successful platform. That’s not a promotion or even a swindle, it’s sound engineering. I see the schematic and photo overlays and I do see the resemblance. All it indicates to me is that they chose not to start from scratch with their design process. However, I generally agree, these people are evil and we ought to be questioning EVERYTHING.

        • But the narrative surrounding the Rover is that it was built from scratch. And the cost for “developing” it was in the tens of millions. Why?

          • Erik Garcés

            More than likely greed. These people knew the Apollo program wasn’t going to go on forever, so milk it for what it’s got while you can. I agree, there is something there. But, Occam’s Razor…

          • Pilgrim

            My dad worked in aerospace and got fired when he blew the whistle on a wasteful project that would never come to fruition. He was a chemist on the project and knew his company was milking the project by submitting hopeful reports year after year.

            Everything government does is wasteful and there’s greedy contractors on all sides getting sweetheart deals padding their bank accounts with taxpayer money.

            I’m a strong advocate of paring government down to its two primary functions, military and law enforcement/justice.

        • Fred

          I concur. It is my experience in industry to “not reinvent the wheel” ad nauseam. So it would be normal to take an existing, proven design and try to adapt it to the new requirements. In this case there would be things such as weight considerations, packaging and deployment, extreme temperature variation, operation in low gravity conditions, etc. Some or all of these modifications could prove to be difficult when applied to operation on the moon. It is certainly possible that they jacked up the price if there was no competitive bidding. But, it could be a difficult modification because of issues with some or all of the above.
          Daily Bell: I am skeptical about anything the government does, so keep on raising questions. You are the watchdog press we need. I am thankful for what you do.

      • william beeby

        Don`t bother to defend your article there is nothing wrong in what it said , period . Your credibility is way intact.

  • no republicrat

    i get a kick out of the visual image of a mammal produced from a couple of bone fragments.

    • wrusssr

      Or a piece of skull bone rendered as a ‘homonoid uprighttus’.

  • Dimitri Ledkovsky

    This is funny. Was that Jeep/Rover powered by an internal combustion engine too, using unleaded gas? I guess that would require some more “atmosphere” (in a canister?). You could go on and on. What a mass communication diversion!

  • Blank Reg

    Unbelievable. You guys are really jumping the shark on this one. Keep it up, and you will lose all credibility you worked a decade to gain. I go to several space conferences a year. I’ve dined with such luminaries as Buzz Aldrin. Yes, the Moon happened. Period. A Japanese lunar orbiter even took pics of one of the landing sites, just within the last year. You need to move on.

    • You need to read the article. We wrote “They added some antennas, figured out a way to fold it up (so it could be taken to the moon) and then billed the US government some $40 million in 1960 dollars.”

      Where exactly did we write the US didn’t go to the moon? You sound a bit paranoid.

    • alaska3636

      I think there is a broader point about verifiability, especially in the public realm where they are trying to justify their power and existence as well as spending enormous sums of public money.

      Personally, I haven’t seen evidence push me one way or the other, which is telling: you would think a moon landing would be definitive. But it doesn’t seem that way.

      • william beeby

        They didn`t go to the moon as anyone with an open mind who bothers to do the research will find out. Bring up an article online called ” Wagging the moon Doggie ” by Dave McGowan and read it . It is a very good starting point and there are loads of videos well worth watching . But only if you have an open mind . There are many people who just take it as the truth that we went without looking into it and I was one for many years but not anymore . Another thing just type in “The Van Allen belts ” read about it then come back and tell us how they got through there and back with the equipment they had .

    • MetaCynic

      Have any of your space buddies offered an explanation why NASA never went back to the Moon? How long has it been now, 44 years? One would think that with immeasurably better technology today especially computing power, visits to the Moon would be much cheaper, safer and as commonplace as Shuttle missions or visits to the International Space Station are. Look at where aircraft development was 44 years after the Wright Bros made their famous flight, but Moon visits have gone nowhere in a similar time span. Something is wrong with this picture.

      Are we to believe that nothing more of value can be learned visiting the Moon, but some important purpose is served by monotonously orbiting the Earth these many years? That’s like endlessly riding the same kiddie roller coaster after having easily mastered the killer coaster.

      Russia almost got there 47 years ago. What’s holding it back now? Doesn’t want to be #2? I doubt it. What’s keeping the EU, Japan, China or India from making the effort. I’m sure that all of their space technology is far superior to what the US had back in 1969, and the prestige of a successful Moon landing would be enormous. Yet no one wants to make the effort. Why? Perhaps the reason NASA never went “back” is because it never went there in the first place, and the rest of the world knows that such a feat is still impossible even with today’s technology.

      • Fred

        Amen. I find it totally baffling they have not gone back to the Moon. Instead they talk about going to a far away planet Mars. If space travel for humans is the plan then it would be very fruitful to revisit the moon and further develop space technology for colonizing other planets. I wish someone would explain their logic.
        Personally, I think all space travel will be done by robots. Biological humans are not designed for space travel.
        I am not ready to say they did not go to the moon in the first place. But the actual landing could have been faked and only a few would have known about it due to compartmentalization of information on a need to know basis. There were some mysterious deaths of astronauts. Eliminating dissenters? It is hard for me to believe, though. I am more inclined to believe the current push is for a one world government first, rather than bothering with space travel. With a NWO established they can do whatever they want and no one will be able to question it. It is a puzzle.

      • wrusssr

        Forgive us if we draw a blank on this moon thing, reg. But here’s one for ya: Rumor has it BigPharma has been working feverishly on a vaccine to immunize ‘Naughts against radiation. Almost got ‘er done. Takes a while as this young astronaut points out.

        Russians put a pencil on what it would take to get a craft and its “moon travelers” through the Van Allen Belt and it came out something like a 3′? 5′? 6-foot (whatever) thick lead shield craft that left very little room for anything else if the rocket could get it off the ground. And that was a maybe at best. Then again, you know how them Russians lie.

        But here’s what clinched it for the scientifically challenged like myself who sometimes have to rely on gut-feel and instinct when looking at a group of humans following a “momentous event”. Take Bush 2 and his entourage on their stage platform overlooking 9-11’s ground zero addressing the world. As he talked, little bullspit alarms went off among the lucid in America. Reason? There wasn’t a sincere expression of genuine sadness or concern on anyone’s face on that platform. One group of humans can recognize that in another.

        Similar alarms when off when Armstrong and crew got back for their first press conference from what should have been one of the most joyous moments in history, but you know what? Their expressions were ones of occasional anger, resentment, sullenness, nervousness . . . something was terribly wrong and troubling those men. Pull that conference up and watch it again. Even after the implausible facts surrounding the “moon walk” had been documented and revealed, it was the expression on the first moonwalkers’ faces at that conference that clinched it for me after reading the revelations. Those men were under duress and probably great threat to their lives and families, and had been forced to live a terrible lie the rest of their days.

        Jeep or no, it’s irrelevant.

          • mutonic2db

            Jeez, don’t they look all happy, smiley and excited after their phantasmagorical trip 😉

          • alaska3636

            That is an awkward interview.
            “The greatest day of our lives in the last decade…”
            He sounded like he was talking about a colonoscopy.

    • James Clander

      I’ve dined with such luminaries as Buzz Aldrin.

      Well bully for that little brag. Who would have thought such luminaries would confess to you -that it was all BS ?

    • Bill the eighth

      We all agree the moon happened, just not sure about the landings on it.

  • mike

    Developing it from a Jeep seems logical. The jeep was a universal war/civilian vehicle. General Suvarov said he would take with him two weapons: The jeep and the Kalishnikov.

    • It may be logical but NASA certainly didn’t admit it. Not that we know of, anyway.

  • Praetor

    Yeah, you do start to wonder about all this.

    I was sitting in the front yard the other day, watching a plane going over head, back and worth. It came to mind about ‘google earth’. You have a space shot of earth. Presumably of earth, from space, by a satellite, and then you can zoom down to anywhere on earth, to street level. You could believe google can see all from space. On the other hand, you can see how they do this. Planes some higher, some lower and some in-between. Than there is the google car with the camera bubble on top.

    Yeah they could do that, seamlessly make it look like, they can see you from space. A picture of earth, than a plane high-up, than one not so high-up, and than one why closer to the ground. Then add in the ‘bubble car’, which is the key to make you think such a thing is possible. And using computers, make it flow into what you see on googly earth.

    Yeah you do start to wonder about all this. What we’re shown my not be real!!!

    • Perhaps more questions than answers in our view.

      • Praetor

        Yes. And the biggest question. Who got all the money, and as time passes. Those questions can be answered!!!

        • MetaCynic

          Actually, the biggest question is “did anyone even visit the Moon?” One would think that the weight carried by the mission would be a primary consideration. When every pound carried should have been critically evaluated, the mission was burdened with a heavy steel Jeep frame when a much lighter aluminum or even titanium frame could have been developed. It makes no sense.

  • r2bzjudge

    Let’s go to 4 minutes 11 seconds. A superimposition of the jeep schematic over the rover schematic.

    The schematic dimensions don’t match. 60 inches vs 90 inches, wheel center to wheel center. The rover is not a Willys jeep. The rover does however, have 4 wheels, just as a Willys jeep does, or any other name brand motor vehicle.

    • Hm-mm … Seemed pretty close to us …

      • mutonic2db

        Perhaps a “stretched Limo version?”

      • r2bzjudge

        60 inches is not 90 inches.

        In the video, a drawing was superimposed on another drawing. A drawing may be resized to fit the comparison by using visual effects. The video producer simply brushed aside the fact that the printed schematic dimensions didn’t match.

        Nowhere were the two actual vehicles seen side by side.

        Every vehicle has a wheel base. Even if the wheel bases were identical, that doesn’t make the Moon Rover a Willys jeep. The rover doesn’t look as if they simply cut the body off a jeep and slapped some moon tires on it.

        One of the comparisons was that an antenna and camera were where the windshield would be on the jeep. So what? The camera was placed so the astronaut could operate it, which just happened to coincide with where the windshield was on the drawing of the jeep.

        Whether the device was worth 40 million is a different issue. On the surface, it would appear to be no.

  • william beeby

    THink of all the other bogus contracts that were handed out . It was all compartmentalised remember so no-one , or very very few , would have known the truth .

  • ED.F

    I’ve Seen satellites with my telescope,coincidentally of course,looking at the moon ironically.odds of that I don’t know ?,probably high.whizzed by my field of view in less than a second,pretty question is why doesn’t any observatories have moon junk viewing sessions.seems easy enough,why no pictures from Hubble scope,even though they could be educated in aviation so have some knowledge of subject.dont know why these conspiracies are not put to far as a remodeled jeep,maybe as a blueprint,would have definitely had to been made out of aluminum for weight factor.what else is new of govt. paying exorbitant dollars for things like an $800 hammer!!my friend is a machinest for a electronics company that makes all things for defense and space.they ask him how long to develop a new product,he tells them two weeks,it takes him 2 days!! This is Govt…= waste!!!

    • Pilgrim

      Since you have a telescope, would you mind if I ask you a question. Here it is: Can you see anything on the moon left by our space program? Supposedly there’s all kinds of stuff still up there. Can it be seen from your telescope? Landing site debris, staging areas, the lunar rover, etc.

      • ED.F

        Pilgrim,,no,you need a very large telescope like the kinds that are in observatories at the tops of very high not sure,but I would think they would be capable.the more you increase magnification the less field of view you see in the eyepiece and the faster it goes by.due to earths rotation.

  • mary

    It seems that this video is one of the weakest ones of all those exposing the moon hoax. But he did point out something pretty funny–why exactly did the moon buggie have those “antennae” especially the one that’s supposed to look like a satellite dish? What a hoot. Absolutely nothing makes sense about NASA, other than it functions as a money sink for the MIC.

  • Real – in situ – photos of orbiting satellites are not only very hard to come by – they are simply not available. Neither have I found one yet. Also, those who have studied this topic know that the CGI pictures of Earth is a joke. What we want is Real footage of the whole, spinning Earth seen from space at a distance – one or two spins would do. Our technology & funding after 50 years since 1969 should well be able?

    This discussion reminds me of a tidbit that I have long waited to share in a fertile place. This may be it. Less than 10 years ago I saw a TV news clip where a director of Gran Telescopio Canarias was interviewed. (The clip may still be dug up). I distinctly remember how he was happy with the newest equipment installed, and he proudly stated that now they could even read a car’s license plate on the Moon… I’m not kidding – his voice still rings in my ears.

    You may know something that I don’t, but seen casually from the outside I cannot quite see why you here should be somewhat rude towards Blank Reg and ZebBlanchard. From your (tentative?) wording now and previously, one could easily infer that you actually do doubt the (narrative about) Moon landings. If so, you are in good company. We have yet to see conclusive evidence, whilst, as you clearly know, there are lots of documented indices against. The other comments show that many are aware.

    Don’t get me wrong – I enjoy your blog and even refer to it in my own. The Daily Bell has been on my reading list almost since its inception. It is the best of its kind.

  • Dimatteo

    Your reporting has evolved from a mere look at financials and mainstream socio-political trends/memes to a far more comprehensive overview of this planet. Indeed, the piece above confirms my belief in that if you start questioning one aspect of the current paradigm you end up questioning all of it……another great piece.

  • Steve Johnson

    It is not possible to land on the Moon.
    The Moon is a luminous body.
    The Sun is only a few thousand miles above us.
    If the Sun was 93,000,000 miles away, you could not triangulate it from California and Europe and form an Obtuse angle.
    This implies that the distance from California to Europe is greater than the distance from the earth to the Sun. (IT IS)
    The farthest any two points on earth could be is 8,000 miles if the earth is a ball with a circumference of 25,000 miles..
    Which means any angle formed from two points on the earth and the Sun would have to be less than 1 degree.
    This is clearly not the case.
    The Sun could not move uniformly across the sky like it does if it was 93,000,000 miles away.
    This is basic Geometry.
    NASA is a complete FRAUD.