The 1969 Moon Landing -- fake or real?

[Snarky Oracle!]

I was sleepy when I wrote all those things, so I can very likely have read something completely wrong.

Technology wasn't as good then as it is now, but I believe that it was good enough. How hard can it be? They were flying concords and other huge planes, and had long experience of shooting up things in space. Not to mention that the Russians were close to beating USA in this matter. Yuri Gagarin was the first man in space, orbiting our planet and then landing successfully again.

I don't recall the Russians calling the moon landing fake and wanting evidence - but maybe they did? If they didn't, then I think it adds to pointing that Armstrong & crew did indeed land on the moon.

How hard can landing on the moon be???

Actually, the Russians have indeed said the moon landing was fake. But they also said the CIA killed Kennedy. So what do they know, those ol' vodka-swilling Commies..?

 

[Emelee]

How hard can landing on the moon be???

Actually, the Russians have indeed said the moon landing was fake. But they also said the CIA killed Kennedy. So what do they know, those ol' vodka-swilling Commies..?

Once you get down to the moon's atmosphere, it should be quite like landing on Earth. A little different, but they were prepared for those differences, as they had made plenty enough research and practice. For an experienced pilot, I don't think it's extremely difficult. The hard part is creating space shuttles that can travel safely in space. Which has been proven many times, with all the exploding shuttles.

 

[Willie Oleson]

I'm also very curious about the purpose of a fake moonlanding. How would they profit from it?
Merchandise?

 

[Richard Channing]

I'm also very curious about the purpose of a fake moonlanding. How would they profit from it?
Merchandise?

You mean like:

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Once you get down to the moon's atmosphere, it should be quite like landing on Earth. A little different, but they were prepared for those differences, as they had made plenty enough research and practice. For an experienced pilot, I don't think it's extremely difficult. The hard part is creating space shuttles that can travel safely in space. Which has been proven many times, with all the exploding shuttles.

Oh, yeah. Moon landings. No prob.

I'm also very curious about the purpose of a fake moonlanding. How would they profit from it?
Merchandise?

Moon rocks. It's funny how many years it took me to realize that the "moon rocks" that were being officially sold by the government and purchased by my parents and given to me as a child were in fact not from the moon.

Also, it was a multi-billion dollar program. That money goes somewhere. And if you're not actually paying for what you're claiming to be paying for, it's even more obscene profit all around.

The "missile gap" myth was spread throughout the '50s to mobilize huge spending increases on additional and unneeded warheads.

Vietnam was a completely unnecessary war, but it became the single biggest business in America in the late-'60s. LBJ and Nixon kept promising to pull out, and no one really made an effort to destroy Nixon until he'd won reelection in '72 and then proceeded to finally scale down the war and withdraw. (Not that I'm particularly sympathetic to Tricky Dick).

And the war on terror today is the same thing. We don't really know what ISis really is.

These are all ways to raid the Treasury again and again of middle class tax revenues in order to re-route those revenues into the coffers of the super-rich who already have everything anyway. While slicing away more and more at the expectations of the middle class as to what they can anticipate getting back for their taxes.

Was the moon landing one of these deceptive Treasury-raiding programs? I, for one, don't know for sure. But I now think the "it was a hoax!" crowd deserve to not have their arguments dismissed out of hand. And, over time, I've found the debunkers and their smug tactics in attempting to portray anyone who doesn't believe the official version to be "crackpots" less and less credible than I once did.

I'm more likely to believe it when I see Victoria on the lunar surface burning the birth certificate she buried in a crater on Tranquility Bay.

 

[Willie Oleson]

in order to re-route those revenues into the coffers of the super-rich who already have everything anyway

Ah, but that's the thing with being rich. The only way to keep all that money is to have more, otherwise it'll disappear.

 

[Alexis]

It pains me to inform you all that the moon has been cancelled.

But I've seen the whole of it!

 

[Willie Oleson]

But I've seen the whole of it!

Are you sure it wasn't faked?

 

[Alexis]

Are you sure it wasn't faked?

No! It was real! Oh for God's sake! What do I gotta do?

 

[Emelee]

Here's a much more important question: What does the moon do when it's not visible in the night sky?

Coffee break? Vacationing to Jupiter? Napping in dark pajamas?

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

This topic of conversation came up at my workplace a few weeks ago. The younger ones were astonished when the elders disputed our landing on the moon. Before I continue on I should note I'm dealing with work colleagues who also believe the Kardashian family are actors.

I was only 4 when some bloke supposedly made that giant leap for mankind so I have no recollection of the event. I did find it interesting when one my work mates (elder) questioned whether we did in fact go there. One of the younger ones seriously questioned his thinking, the other guy said, "Well with all the advances in technology, especially in the last 10 years, why the hell have we not gone back?" Which had me thinking he had an excellent point. It's been 45 years since man has been there, what gives?

Perhaps it has something to do with this generation growing up with the Internet where no absurd conspiracy theory goes un-aired at length, juxtaposed with a mainstream media where no conspiracy scenario is given attention at all.

The result? An age of kids who believe everything and yet believe nothing.

Not that I'm being serious. Or am I?

Anyway, those of us old enough to recall how, say, the JFK assassination was the only major conspiracy theory out there for eons have now seen outrageous theory on top of theory on top of theory about other issues effectively obscure and swallow up the ones that have a basis. It's all gotten lost in the shuffle.

But is that a conspiracy theory in itself?

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Are you convinced by docs like this?

 

[Seaviewer]

Can we protect historical sites on the moon before it's too late?

Experts say there's a critical need to advocate for global cooperation and policy frameworks to protect lunar heritage before irreversible damage occurs.

www.space.com

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Candace Owens -- who is undoubtedly correct about the Macrons -- interviews one of the moon-hoax researchers a few months ago:

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Do we believe that the recent trip to the moon's orbit was real?

And is it connected to the 11 missing and dead scientists -- scientists involved in space and nuclear technology?