If the Moon Landings Were Real, Then Why is NASA Stumped by This?

moon landingBuck Rogers, Staff Writer
Waking Times

During the cold war era the Soviet Union and the United States were locked in an arms and technology race, each nation wanting to prove their dominance over the other, each striving to be the next reigning superpower in a world still shattered by the second world war. The Soviet’s took the lead when in April of 1961, cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin successfully orbited the earth and returned home safely. In May, president John F. Kennedy made his special message to Congress on urgent national needs, declaring America’s intention to send a man to the moon.

“I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space.” -President John F. Kennedy, Address to Congress on Urgent National Needs, May 25, 1961

And so we did. In 1969, under the leadership of President Nixon, the entire world watched in grainy, black-and-white awe as the ‘giant leap for mankind’ was broadcast on television sets around the globe. Neil Armstrong planted the American flag in the coarse lifeless dust of the moon, and the space race was over. America victorious. Take a look at this marvelous achievement here:

Fast forward 45 years to a much more technologically advanced and interconnected age, where ideas spread like wildfire, and questions that have gone unanswered for generations are easily put to millions of people. One person’s ideas and understanding of our world can swiftly be supplemented by the knowledge of many others, dots are easier to connect, and truth is more freely revealed.

Were the Apollo moon landings faked by the government to gain political advantage at a time when it was not technologically possible to land a man on the moon then bring him home safely?

Many alternative researchers and skeptics of government and cultural narratives have put together a substantial and rather captivating case that the moon landings were faked with the help of emerging television and film technologies.

They posit that the government hired acclaimed film director Stanley Kubrick to stage the landings by creating a convincing movie set in a secret location. Evidence to the support the idea that the video is indeed an elaborate forgery includes anomalies such as the appearance of multiple sources of light in the footage, the flag planted by Armstrong seems to be waving in an environment with no wind, there does not appear to be an impact crater from the lunar landing module, unexplainable objects appear in reflection on helmet visors, the unusual slow-motion effect of the astronauts walking on the lunar surface, the lack of visible stars in the background, and more.

The footage is one thing, but many point to the existence of a dangerous concentration of solar and cosmic radiation that surrounds the earth as proof that Apollo never made it to the moon. Between the earth and the moon lie what is known as the Van Allen radiation belts. 

“The Van Allen radiation belts are a torus (doughnut shape) of energetic charged particles circling Earth around its magnetic equator and held in place by Earth’s magnetic field. The main belts extend from an altitude of about 1,000 to 60,000 kilometers above the surface in which region radiation levels vary. Most of the particles that form the belts are thought to come from solar wind and other particles by cosmic rays.” –Robert A. Braeunig

VanAllenProbes Decal2012_4Print

In order for the Apollo, or any lunar mission, to be successful, the equipment and crew aboard the spacecraft would have to be adequately shielded from exposure from the intense radiation surrounding planet earth.

Robert A. Braeunig, author of Rocket & Space Technology has put together a compelling scientific refutation of the Apollo hoax theory, making the scientific case that the trajectory of the Apollo spacecraft allowed the vessel to avoid the highest concentrations of energy in the torus shaped Van Allen belts which do not fully encircle the earth. With the right trajectory, he purports, it would only be necessary to shield against the possibility of an unexpected increase in solar activity, something Apollo was indeed prepared for.

This makes sense and would seem to close the case, but for many the question still remains, especially so in light of the fact that there have since been no more lunar missions, and almost 50 years later NASA’s Orion mission is apparently just now trying to solve the challenge of the Van Allen belts.

In the following video clip a NASA engineer working on the Orion project explains the challenge of bringing a ship and crew into space well above low earth orbit, and beyond the radiation belts. Speaking about their effort he remarks, “we must solve these challenges before we send people through this region of space,” implying that this question had not already been solved by the research and accomplishments of Apollo.

If in the 1960’s we were able to successfully overcome the challenge of reaching the moon and beyond, then why is it an issue now?

In addition to the questions raised by the Van Allen belts and the footage of the moon landings, there are many other interesting scientific and political anomalies surrounding the authenticity of the Apollo lunar missions. A quick look down this rabbit hole can easily suck you in all the way.

For a more comprehensive view of the information supporting the theory that the moon landings were faked, take a look at the following presentation or search online for more resources. And for a reasonable refutation of some of the alternative theories on this, take a look at the work of Robert A. Braeunig.

About the Author

Buck Rogers is the earth bound incarnation of that familiar part of our timeless cosmic selves, the rebel within. He is a surfer of ideals and meditates often on the promise of happiness in a world battered by the angry seas of human thoughtlessness. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com.


©2015 Waking Times, all rights reserved. For permission to re-print this article contact wakingtimes@gmail.com, or the respective author. 

~~ Help Waking Times to raise the vibration by sharing this article with friends and family…

  • bobfairlane

    Surely a competent space agency could send a rocket with sensory equipment to measure the radiation in space, and dissect the information before launching manned vehicles through it. Was anything like that done or attempted before the 1st moon mission?

  • Paul Chach Mcarthy

    Interviewer “Buzz, did we really go to the moon in 69?”

    Buzz “Fuck knows, mate, I spent that year pissed 24/7, thanks taxpayers for the free booze, don’t forget to buy your official Disney Land nasa moon rocks!”

  • Gabriel

    Niemals auf dem mond! (Lunikoff-Mondlandung,L-Kaida album NS musik) :)) F*KK JEWNITED STATES OF F*KKIN’ AMERIKA! biggest joke of deceit jewish propaganda.SH!

  • Bob Douglass

    Regarding the point about the Soviets loving to discredit America, I ask: why didn’t they? After all we have a mountain of evidence that the moon landing were faked. Even if you don’t believe the evidence is correct, the Soviets could have still presented everything the way a million people today are, and yet they didn’t. The truth is, the space race (like the equally exaggerated arms race) was good for business and good for morale in both countries. No point in disrupting a good thing. Khrushchev once complained to Kennedy that he was controlled by the same military apparatus that Kennedy was.

    Regarding that Gizmodo video, that’s completely stupid. They had multiple machines recording, and staggered the tapes. It’s how they recorded the telemetry data too (and isn’t any kind of secret).

  • Rod Kreinbrink

    The Apollo capsule had a thin sheet of foil that was resistant to radiation. However, it was not impervious to radiation. Thus, the astronaughts did receive higher levels of radiation during the time in space.

    • Frank

      Something like a tin foil hat?

  • token420

    We still don’t know how to leave Low Earth Orbit. Not in 1969. Not in 2016. Last I checked there is an inflatable bounce house dangling off the ISS.

  • James Paterson

    So how does NASA tell us that the Van Allen belts problem was overcome in 1969? They must have had the problem solved or else they wouldn’t have risked sending people to the moon.

  • mike

    The moon is too close for Hubble’s optics to get any fine details of the lunar surface. It’s optimized to a focal length for deep space observation.

  • m320753

    So does that mean everything in orbit is fake? Wouldn’t any rocket also have to pass through this zone, meaning the whole space program is a big hoax created on some sound stage that no one can find? I knew it all along!

  • Noelle Jordan

    Sorry, but the Soviets were doing their own faking; and this big thing with them, the, “cold war,” was another swindle. They were never an enemy. As for the dust, it flew exactly the way it would on earth, not the moon. On the moon, it would have shot up much faster and higher, and would have lingered in space for a much longer time than here on earth. But does it do that? No. So the dust activity proves hoax, not vice versa.

  • Stephanie T

    People will believe anything a liar tells them, but hate and not believe the truth. Man could have landed on the “Sun” and people would have believed it. It was on TV so they believe it, like man is going to take his earthly camera to the moon and film it.
    It was a poorly produced B movie very cheesy

  • Bob

    Like I said, it doesn’t bother me either way, but I checked out the third party evidence, and if anything, it raises more questions, especially for those who truly “believe” in the hoax (I have an objective view on everything, or try to). I mean even the 2010 Chinese pictures which they say shows something are not public? What? And the others you mentioned are about landscapes and disturbances.. Anyhow, being a freethinker and skeptic I have to see it all with a very open mind, but being a scientist first (astrophysics), and studying the universe for a very long time, the whole thing is very fishy to me, but like I said in the OP, science is not something most people will look at (like with 9/11, where the laws of physics were suspended by our enemies for a few hours apparently, according to mainstream account of events), imagine that, one has to rely on circumstantial evidence to get to the truth even if science is clear on the issue (like the AGW hoax for example, as opposed to real climate change science). Have a good one.

  • Bob

    If science is not enough to convince people the moon landings (with people) were faked, then it’s a simple matter of asking why they have not simply sent a satellite to take pictures, you know, an anniversary type thing, international, and show the greatness of the 60s. Of course not, they have to wait until they get all the props up to the moon before they allow that, then they’ll do the show for us! In any case, it really doesn’t matter, as long as we get into space, I don’t care that it was faked, just don’t give up people, our destiny is in space.

  • Skip

    The government seems to have been caught lying about almost everything. As a first step to analyzing the Apollo project anomalies one could postulate that it too may be a bold series of lies. Then it is not implausible it too is fakery. Otherwise we would be swept into accepting the official line. People are fired for whistle blowing these days on any number of issues. At a final resort what amounts to death squads sanction objection and trying to correct faults. The substance first amendment exist to make certain that voices are heard that would make a better world. Otherwise we are doomed to repeat a tyranny of the future even the rule of criminals.

  • Jimmy Hartman

    how does a golf ball sit on a tee and stay there while a fake space cowboy takes a swing .??? . .exactly, just another govmnt lie

  • Smilin’ Jack

    Besides, an eroded rock is still the same age as an un-eroded rock. Erosion has nothing to do with the age.

  • Smilin’ Jack

    You who don’t even know how to spell “dumb-ass” needs to read Luca’s comment above.

  • dorkofnewyork

    You realize we’ve been back more than once? And multiple spacecraft have been launched into the solar system and beyond? Oh and we also have a space station in orbit?

    • Noelle Jordan

      The space station, if real, is in LOW earth orbit, probably no more than 300 miles above the earth, which is a far, far, cry from the 237,000 miles that the Apollo missions are said to have gone.

  • Luc Ouellet

    This was’nt a hoax. I am sorry for the conspirationist that will only retain what
    is related to their theory and flush the remainder. They really went on moon.
    At that time, all aspect of the Apollo missions has put the
    astronauts into jeopardized situations. The astronauts knew that will be
    exposed to radiation. That’s why they were isolated in quarantine after back to
    earth. Also the electronics equipment was more tolerant than today
    sophisticated computers that are really sensitive to radiation. So stop being
    stupid by believing the conspiration theory. Also the huge cost of these space
    missions was probably the real reasons why they did not return to moon.

  • Tuhin Sadhu

    Repeat the same feat now in the daylight. Certainly money n technology wud nt b the issue. Also from nat resource pt of view it b profitable.

  • Smilin’ Jack

    One thing I don’t understand is how an astronaut can stand on the moon, pick up a rock and say, “By golly, this rock is THREE BILLION YEARS OLD!” How could he tell? By the copyright date stamped on it? SMH

    • Luca Starone

      He can do it because he went and did something called “Geology” at a place called “school”

      • Smilin’ Jack

        Oh, that’s right – he can tell the rock’s age by the fossils associated with it. Sorry `bout that.

        • Luca Starone

          Also radiometric dating. And they wouldn’t determine the age on the moon, they’d bring it back to study them. Which is how we got that number.

          • Smilin’ Jack

            But, he said that BEFORE he brought the rock back. That is what I am referring to.

          • Luca Starone

            Really? Hmm. I’ll have to look into it. They might have had spectroscopy tools, and being a geologist may have discovered the elemental makeup while on the moon. I’ll get back to you.

          • Luca Starone

            It turns out they did bring a ALSEP unit to the moon on every trip, which was equipped with tools to date the rocks.

      • gofwallace

        I love how you say “school”. You obviously mean indoctrination center.

  • Smilin’ Jack

    The flag was held out by means of a horizontal bar along the top edge.

  • LeeH

    It’s an issue now because they have solid state circuitry and other electrical refinements that the original Apollo spacecraft didn’t. Kelly Smith is a systems engineer and works on navigation and guidance for Orion. He’s speaking about getting modern electronic systems through the Van Allen belts. He has no expertise in biology and wasn’t talking about astronauts getting through the belts. They already know they can do that. That did it six times already with 18 astronauts. They wore dosimeters and got about 2 rems each during the flight.

  • Dallas

    They brought a sand buggy and took it for a spin, played golf and even base ball but they never bothered to leave a mark like drawing a little smile (or a sign made of aluminium foil, 100×100 feet would’ve sufficed) big enough to be seen from earth by a large telescope. It’s an obvious hoax.

    • LeeH

      Yes, that’s why you can see the footprints and tracks from the lunar rover (which was used to extend their EVAs up to 5 miles) and the instruments they left behind from lunar orbit.

      • James Bauer

        the devil put them there…

  • rachel rox

    I guess it would be easier to believe nasa if they weren’t telling different stories or act weird during interviews or maybe the time line of events just looks all together strange perhaps it’s the fact that you can see a shadow of a guy not in a space shit taking a photo of buzz in the “visor’: shot!” Perhaps we do have a government that lies and covers things up
    Perhaps if they told realistic lies I too would believe the nasa ordeal but until then….. maybe they can build a camera oUT of tin foil as well one that can take ONE photo of earth and not the cgi bs images….
    Just some food for thought…..

    • Nigel Blake

      Aahm… you meant “space suit,” right?

  • See some of the amazing moonland images http://moonregister.com

  • JimJim

    I’m undecided whether it was a complete hoax or we went and it was filmed separately to cover up aliens, mode of travel, etc……perhaps we went into orbit and used some secret technology (or alien technology) to complete transfer to and back from the moon to the orbiter??

    What I don’t get is why not one of the astronauts blabbed the “secrets” …..I know many say they and their families would be killed but how hard would it be really for an astronaut during a live interview or press conference to say “Here is the truth…..and if anything happens to me or my family the government has threatened my life and theirs if I said any of this so if me or anyone in my family is killed they are responsible”…..cat would be out of the bag and the media would treat any “unfortunate” death with more coverage than the OJ chase/trial. Plus…there were some outspoken astronauts like Edgar Mitchell and G Cooper who talked about aliens but nothing about fake moon landings.

    • Wayne

      What I don’t get is why not one of the astronauts blabbed the “secrets”

      There you go. None of them did because it actually happened. Like, no one in Mission Control blabbed. No one involved in building the ships blabbed. No one in the press corps blabbed. Because it actually happened,

      Read here for some real science …..


      And if you can’t believe any of that, ask yourself – if they did fake it, why would they fake it seven times? Really?

      • Paul Chach Mcarthy

        Or maybe they just were warned not to blab or risk their loved ones being killed. Wanting to keep the people you love alive, is the best incentive ever to keep a dirty little secret.

  • richie

    the moon landing was an OBVIOUS hoax…anyone with the IQ of an amoeba can see through the ruse…heres all the proof you need……………https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xciCJfbTvE4

    • Anonymous

      You are correct amundo richie

      • Wayne

        No he isn’t. He’s a moron.

    • snowfront

      @richie actually you have the IQ of an amoeba. On the top of that you are a believer rather than an analytic mind.

    • LeeH

      Ah, nine hoaxes and if you don’t believe him watch this YouTube video. What a tool.

  • Tyler Durden

    Preliminary evidence indicated a high correlation between radiation and photon flux which showed up as spots on the Hasselhoff camera system they had specially made for the mission. The ruse collapsed when it was found that the recovery vehicles were all contaminated by pnictogenic agents and cortanic acid in a diffused matrix of berrylium sulfate. Undeniable and a matter of pubic records.

  • nemo

    IF you want some real moon research follow this link as this person is real good


  • fucking idiots

    You are really all idiots. You believe everything you read on the internet don’t you… Face reality you fucking idiots, We really did go to the moon and there is fucking proof. All that bull shit proof you made up is the real fake shit. Maybe go get some education you fucking dumbass people. Idiots like you that walk this earth make me want to kill my self.

    • please please end your suffering, release your tormented soul into the ether.

  • philip

    they did landed on the moon, but most of the video and photos were adulterated because they were not alone on the moon.

  • ron

    I thing the europeans didn’t land the craft on the comet recently either

  • The Van Allen belt did give the astronauts health problems but they got through it and DID land on the moon & came back (rather hastily).

    Kubrick apparently did film the moon landings our government wanted the rest of the world to see, because they didn’t wish to reveal what the real astronauts ACTUALLY found on the moon. ‘Buzz’ Aldrin in an unguarded moment pretty much intimated that they were instructed to take their moonrocks & go home by whoever was -already- there.

    There’s a growing contingent of cinema analysts that see Kubrick’s masterpiece ‘The Shining’ as not only an indictment against US Native American genocide & the repeating sins of domestic/sexual abuse, but also as a personal confession of his government involvement with the Apollo 11 TV broadcast. Kubrick’s ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ pretty much foretells WHY he did this – because “there is something on the moon.”

    • LeeH

      I got to give you credit. At least you admit we did go to the moon.

  • Pea Brain

    The thing that doesn’t sit well in my pea brain, is the lunar launch. The moon is one sixth earths gravity. So it would stand to reason it would take one sixth of the equipment to reach lunar orbit than it would earth orbit. It appears they only needed one 100th of the equipment. It’s not possible (imho) to escape the moons gravity in a tinfoil sardine can, with no ground crew, very little fail safe, and basically a vinegar and baking soda motor? But somehow it worked flawlessly everytime? No abort launches, no explosions on the launch pad. Just hit the red button and pop, your in orbit? They went to the moon alright but clearly, they haven’t told us everything.

    • End of story

      Okay, so you are an engineer that can design all the working parts for the launch.
      What? you’re not?

      case closed.

      • Pea Brain

        Seriously? That vague sentence doesn’t close anything. I don’t need to be an engineer to know the chances of 6 flawless launches from a remote self contained RV on the moon, are very, very low.

        • You’re forgetting that there was no atmosphere to push through for the launch from the Moons surface. Therefore no friction at all on the lunar lander. It wouldn’t have taken a massive amount of constant power to break the lunar gravity. What slows the rocket down leaving Earth is the density of the atmosphere as much as gravity itself.

    • Rob D

      When it comes to rockets, everything is exponential. The more mass you want to send up the more fuel you need, which adds more mass, which needs more fuel…you get the idea. This is detailed in a formula called Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. The Saturn V rocket was huge because it needed to send up a big payload.

      The assent stage of the Lunar lander however was very small (less than 5,000kg including fuel). They even left the engines used to descend on the moons surface to save weight. The Lunar module could be tiny, because it’s payload was basically two astronauts and some rocks.

      On top of that, you have failed to account for the atmosphere. The biggest obstacle when trying to orbit the earth isn’t gravity, but the soupy air which will slow you down. The vast majority of a rockets fuel is used escaping the atmosphere, once you are in a vacuum it is easy to build up speed.

      So no, It does not take 1/6th of the equipment to orbit the moon that it does to orbit the Earth. To be specific, you need to be travelling at 11.2 km per second to orbit the Earth, where as a lunar orbit would be closer to 2.4 km/s.

      The lunar assent engine was purposely engineered to be as simple as possible. The designers knew that if anything went wrong with it, there could be no plan B. The design was selected for the sole reason that it was the least complex of the proposed designs. The engine was based heavily on the RM-81 Agena, which is an upper stage rocket. I’m not sure how many (if any) failures the Agena had, but I do know that it had 365 launches all together. This was an extremely reliable engine design!

    • RKunath

      In addition to what Rinty stated. The propulsive fuel for the LEM was a hypergolic (basically, it requires no air and no spark to ignite). You combine the fuel and oxidizer and they ignite. They’re used extensively on satellites in orbit around the earth for attitude correction, and they have much more power than an equivalent amount of baking soda and vinegar. When Apollo left the earth, it had to take all of the equipment it required for the whole mission. That was a lot of mass that had to be propelled thru the atmosphere. However, once in its transfer-orbit (no atmosphere), then it “only” had to escape earth’s gravitational pull, which is less than on the surface of the earth. Regardless, the propulsion stage required was still pretty big. Also, the launch stage used a combination of kerosene and oxygen, and hydrogen and oxygen engines. The upper stage was hydrogen and oxygen as well (because it can produce more thrust than an equivalent amount of hypergolics).

    • KenB

      And the Saturn V worked PERFECTLY every manned mission …. suppose they were also faked?

  • Laughing

    All of you need to put down the crack pipe.

  • Dean

    The only person who has ever been to the moon is Alice Kramden.

    • m320753

      I posted a picture to prove it too

  • Randall Parker

    We haven’t been back because it costs too much. PERIOD! My grandfather didn’t believe we ever even went out to space. He was still walking behind a pair of mules as a cotton share cropper in 1950. The world is still arguing and fighting over the same “One God”, and there are still folks out there who think women should be covered up and ignorant. Everything that is done and or thought of is based on money. No money or no expectation of returns on investment means, no manned missions. PERIOD.

    • Realmadrid

      They had no problem in frittering away $6 trillions on warfares, how much it would cost to go back?

      • LeeH

        And THERE you have the meat of the problem: No money for science. Lots of money for wars.

    • Nawaponrath

      Well the F35 cost more than a trillion so I guess you are not short of cash

  • Kenneth Elder

    NASA made fake films after Apollo missions due to the many ET space ships coming close during our moon missions not because we didn’t go. The USA military has the Project Aurora anti-gravity ship that can travel all over the solar system now.

    • Shobhit Singh

      @Kenneth Elder your point is true.After did a deep and lot of research i found that if we really want to go moon or mars or anywhere we should have anti gravity craft like alien came at our planet.That is the basic requirement,Now i have heard that NASA get some success,its a great thing.Only one possibilities there if really if really man moon mission is true than really its a help of visitors who accidentally came to the earth .I believe man on moon but the help of visitors.Its so simple.Forgive for my english…

  • Ter ber

    I was convinced as a baby boomer who had watched it that we had landed.
    I thought it was weird, we or the Russians never went back.
    then when Pres. Bush jr. Said we need to go to the moon! He didn’t say we need to go back. He acted like we had never gone.

    • Anonymous

      On the contrary, we went back several times, we called it Apollo missions 12,and 14-17.

      • Paul Chach Mcarthy

        Somebody should tell Bush Snr that.

  • Round yes, sphere no Way D! I’m thinking today, tomorrow, who knows?

    Lynn this one’s for you! Spent some time putting it together over the past few days. Enjoy.

    “Is the suit can’t fit, you must admit, it’s all one Big, huge lie”

    This is going to get good….

    • Rob D

      Your website is frankly a bit of a joke. Not a very funny one either. Firstly, you claim that heat cannot transfer through a vacuum. This is obviously not true, and a dose of common sense or a quick google search would have shown you as much. The heat of the sun is travelling through space and heating the earth right now. How did you think that worked?

      You claim that the parachutes of the capsule couldn’t come out of the nose because the docking port is located there. You also claimed that the parachutes wouldn’t be able to fit into the capsule. Again, a quick google search would have shown you why you are mistaken. Here is a video of the parachutes being loaded in to their compartments. As you can see, the parachutes are actually stored in a ring of segments around the docking nose. The do not come out of the very top. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QglyJDvZkew

      You said, “The Command and Lunar modules were an abomination to basic aerodynamic physics, especially the octangular shaped Moon Landing Lunar Module (LM), but no one seemed to care that flying the damn thing had to be nearly impossible to maneuver”. There is no air in space. There is no air on the moon. Why would they need to account for aerodynamic design in a place without an atmosphere?

      Under the picture of Buzz and Neil on a training exercise you called the LEM a mock space shuttle. That is not correct at all. The space shuttle is an entirely different craft.

      You also made a big deal about the heat situation. What you failed to take into account is that all excursions on the lunar surface were done at dawn. Moon rock is a bad conductor of heat, and takes a long time to heat up, so the soles of the astronauts was never going to be a problem.

      You questioned how the Rover fit into such a small compartment. There are videos of the rover being unpacked on the moon, as well as pictures of it being packed into it’s compartment on Earth. The wheels fold up, and it actually takes up a very small amount of space. Once again you could have answered your own question with a quick google search. I find it completely mystifying that you would spend so much time analyzing the most minuscule detail of rocket engineering, without spending a few minutes to make sure your claims are correct. How do you expect anyone to take your ideas seriously if you obviously fail to do even the most basic of background research.

      You ended your “article” with the New York Times quote, where you said “Goddard was full of it, rockets can’t work in a vacuum”. What you failed to mention is that the New York Times later recanted that post with a correction editorial, where they said “Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th Century and it is now definitely established a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error.”

  • um Armstrongs “suit” was bigger then the opening of the lunar module. Both are in Museums, check it out.
    Oh what a tangles web we weave when first we plan to deceive.

    • Gus Mueller

      As to Armstrong’s suit being too big, I’ve checked it out and you’re talking out your ass, so go screw.

      ”Oh what a tangles web we weave when first we plan to deceive.”

      Should have taken your own advice.

  • Andy Malinski

    I want my subscription to this STOPPED IMMEDIATELY. Are you fucking kidding me? With a decently powered telescope you can see the shit we left there. Uh. Duh. You f’n retards…

    • fr3ddy

      You are an idiot. I do not stand convinced either way on this topic but you stated a lie and so are not to be believed.

      “As you’re well aware, no telescope on Earth can see the leftover descent stages of the Apollo Lunar Modules or anything else Apollo-related. Not even the Hubble Space Telescope can discern evidence of the Apollo landings. The laws of optics define its limits.”


  • patrick
  • The Chaz Gomez

    What? Buck Rogers… If that’s your real name… Look I know it’s a pseudonym just like mine but…. Are you a F#cling moron or are you just a troll who gets paid by the keystroke… It’s been proven by science and the conspiracy theorists the WE DID GO to the moon… Hell, even Mythbusters did an episode proving we did…

    And besides… This website says and has posted many times that we have aliens among us and astronauts have seen alien bases on the dark side of th moon… You do realize youcan’t post sh!t like cuz it looks like you’re making it all up…

    Oh wait… You are…

    • Paul Chach Mcarthy

      Solid proof we went? Please present

      Nah, thought not.

  • Pete

    There are other anomalies besides the Van Allen Belt passage.

    There’s the case that there were no stars and Constellations recorded.
    The strange reflection on the astronaut’s helmet.
    The hardship of the moon jump over the moon buggy,
    And The wiring noted on the spacesuit.
    The lack of dust on the foot of the spaceship.
    The stupidity of make us think the flag could be waving.
    THe absolutely clear photos themselves, as if, the astronauts could take photos from the cameras on the front of the suit.

    ANd then the complete disappearance of all the film footage.

    And so much more.

    • Anonymous

      you are 100 percent right.

  • Brad

    Greetings Buck,

    I have studied many “conspiracy theories” over the years. I’ve remained neutral on many. Some, I’m quite sure of. In ALL cases, I’m aware the the government-media propaganda engine is focused on a two-pronged agenda.

    1. Telling us what they what us to BELIEVE IS IMPORTANT
    2. Telling us what they want us to BELIEVE ABOUT said IMPORTANT events

    In modern times, the events of 9/11 were just such an “event” and it was a massive fraud they taught the world that day (and still to this day). There have been many others as well, ISIS being their flailing attempt to hijack the power of the word “Isis” and its energy of love.

    However, I always remained neutral on the moon landing hoax. I’ve seen many questionable points elucidated over the years by “hoaxers” – videos, articles, books, etc. I’ve also seen many thorough “debunkings” of these points (flags, shadows, Van Allen belts, simulation/movie sets, Kubrick, etc.).

    With it all, I remained a neutral 50/50 “unsure” on it all. I was not swayed either way.

    Now, I don’t know whether you buy into “channeled” information. Surely you’ve seen some of it over the years if you’re familiar with “Waking Times” as it is mentioned/cited from time to time.

    I personally put high value on SOME of it (not all). Sources I’ve come to trust as “positive” and valid have commented on the moon landings over the years. And they’ve all agreed that “indeed, man has landed on the moon many times”.

    However, they go further and state that man encountered UFOs, moon bases and even messages from these ETs to not return. Far-fetched? Perhaps. But if you believe in hoaxes, you’re no doubt open-minded enough to realize we’re not alone.

    These channeled messages go on to state that man has actually travelled much further than the moon, even out of our solar system since that time. Our technology is far more advanced than anything we’ve ever been led to believe as I’m sure you’re aware. This goes back to the government/media propaganda engine delivering to us only the things they wish us to know.

    Being aware of thousands of other “conspiracy theories”, I find this information not only possible, but probable.

    Anyway, I’ve come to the conclusion that what was presented to the world regarding the “moon landings” is in fact a MIXTURE of genuine images and footage of moon landings as well as phony-baloney images and footage from simulation/movie sets as well. They surely weren’t going to show us the alien bases/craft/etc. if they wanted to keep them a secret, now would they?

    So which are real and which are phony? Without insider knowledge, whom amongst us can truly say?

    The aliens/extra-dimensional beings that warned us to not return to the moon after the final Appolo mission are now gone (as of late 2013) according to the channeled information I read. They have withdrawn their “dark” influence over us due to the influx of light entering our realms in these new times of awakening (Waking Times). And thus, we can now begin preparing to return if we so desire.

    This will require a new space program, new materials, new craft, new training, etc. as we’ve only been building “Near Earth Orbit” space shuttles for the past 35 years.

    Take this as you will.

    If there’s one thing we can all agree on, government run, taxpayer-driven, bureaucratic behemoths like NASA take EONS to turn the battleship around. The NASA engineer referred to in the video is most likely talking about their challenges with building modern craft (unlike the old Apollo designs) to handle the radiation from the Van Allen Belts. They are, in effect, trying to reinvent the wheel. A more modern, lightweight, efficient and safe wheel that matches the technology of our times.



    • Seeker

      I’m with you, Brad. I think the truth is some mix of all the aforementioned angles. I follow channeled info, too, esp that of Laura Knight-Jadcyzk and crew. What I’ve read, on a variety of subjects, resonates with me the most. Regarding the moon, a YouTuber called Dark Sky Watcher 74 does a great job catching anomalous moon images. Check it out!

  • thejetson

    lol now even NASA Engineers are telling the public we can’t go to the moon until we solve a problem that we some how solved in 1969 but what forgot? The majority of American public are PT Barnum slaves and NASA and your government know this. I have run into so many we landed on the moon nutters in the face of evidence like deadly radiation not to mention 1,000 of other reasons why we didn’t go to the moon that I am now cynical and believe most of the US population don’t think just follow. Have a nice life moon landing slaves.

  • Jasper

    In the ‘original’ footage, the astronauts are communicating with mission control in a seamless fashion. In reality, there would have been a 2.6 second time lapse.
    The reason why the USSR and China did not shout ‘foul’ is that they are all singing from the same song sheet for the same conductor.

  • Bad-Clown

    Are yous kiddin’ me? Everyone knows there ain’t never bin no moon landing!
    Cats loves sardines, so that proves my point! (It’s all so logical, ain’t it?)

  • Kevin

    I don’t know whether they went or not. Anyone with a brain knows the pictures were fake.

  • jb

    why didn’t the russians go to the moon

    • landshark123

      Because their N-1 rocket (their equivalent to the Saturn 5) had major kaboomski issues (it kept exploding, once on the pad). Because they could not build engines anywhere near as powerful as the F-1 engines on the first stage of the Saturn V, (1.5 million pounds of thrust each, and the first stage had 5 of them) they were forced to design a rocket that used 30 engines at launch. All you have to do is take one look at the bottom end of the first stage, and you can see right off that it was almost guaranteed to fail.

  • willymae

    Why are we worried about this when so many people are concerned when their next meal is coming from?
    So what if we did or didn’t go? How does that change my life- your life?

    • Adam

      Willymae, getting as close as one can to Actual Reality is The first name of The First Game, the exposure of which has all manner of magical side effects such as making one healthier, wealthier, and wiser, and has a way of translating into real life terms such as putting adequate food on one’s table. Remaining ignorant of germane realities is certainly no way out of any thing, but is the way IN to remaining a dumb, starving dog amongst a world of otherwise plenty. So, what is Knowledge? Those that know call it POWER!

  • Jane r

    And NONE of the astronauts EVER let on about this or admitted to it?? You people make me laugh..I used to like this site…

    • Paul Chach Mcarthy

      Amazing what threats to your loved ones can achieve.

  • Kyle

    We need to stop arguing about the flag “waving” in the wind or the moon dust being too shallow and so on.

    The most important piece of information IS the Van Allen belt. Period end of story.

    How did we have 6 NASA missions meaning a total of 12 times crossing the Van Allen Belt? (6 x up, 6 x down) How did this happen without a single crew member not being killed by the radiation? This is THE question.

    • Gus Mueller

      The author apparently does not know that we went to the moon more than once, and there’s a mirror there that anyone is free to bounce a laser off of.

      As to the Van Allen Belt, are you saying the Russian space program was also a hoax? Maybe we should ask the people on the International Space Station, which is visible to the naked eye.

      As for the author, isn’t that cute, it’s trying to think.

      And we totally didn’t drop a small truck on Mars. THAT’S a hoax too, right?

      Occam’s Razor indeed. When the author seems stupid, go with that.

    • The answer to that question is that NASA actually did their job when building these rockets. That’s what the gold lining in the ships are for – to protect against radiation.

    • Drew

      That wind that blew the flag around was so strong that it even bent his wrist back and forth. I don’t know how they could have stood up in such a wind storm with those backpacks adding windage.

      • Paul Chach Mcarthy

        They were held aloft by wires. Like you see in kung fu films.

    • LeeH

      First, it wasn’t 6, it was 8. Apollo 8 and 10 also went to the moon but they didn’t land. They got 2 rems of radiation crossing the Van Alan belts, according to their dosimeters. That’s not a fatal amount.

  • If we did not go to the Moon, then have we really gone into outer space? Remember,the head of NASA for 25 years was ardent Nazi, Werhner Von Bruan, who came to the U.S. through Operation Paperclip after he was the ‘Wunderkind” who built the V1 and V2 rockets unleashed on U.S allies in Europe.

    Many Astonots,including #2 B. Aldrin were Freemasons.

    All pictures ever seen, all stories ever told have come only from the Department of Defense funded NASA and their employees. All of them.

    Here is a CGI specialist telling all he worked as and independent contractor for NASA to fake pictures for NASA. He claims he is coming out to save his life.

    “The answer is in the question”


    So, why would they pull off such a huge lie? Maybe, to continue a even bigger 500 year lie? Waking Times indeed!


    Keep posting more of this stuff Buck and Dylan, this is just starting to get really good…


    • Thanks for the comment Jamie. Here’s one for you. How can we be so certain that the world is even round?




      • JoR

        I hear the world is not round. As a FACT. ps Nice you all will let anyone tlk here. If most things are electric, like gravity ( is the cause of…) then I think what I had heard was correct where as, clears throat. There is a giant ball of something or another rotating around earth which might just cause it to be a little oblong.

      • Danny

        Good point. I have been looking into the contained earth plane theory myself. One thing is obvious to me is that the earth is not a sphere that is rotating on its axis at 1,000 miles per hour at the equator. I still have a lot of unanswered questions but like so much information available there are lies planted in with the truth to make it difficult to determine what the truth really is.

  • Dan

    They went to the moon AND the footage was faked! Prior to going they expected to encounter some UFO activity because of the many alien bases they had discovered all over the lunar surface, so the ‘live’ footage was delayed by 20 minutes allowing them to switch to the faked footage if the aliens showed up (which they apparently did).

    A lot of this information can be found via the disclosure project:

    Additionally, Richard Hoagland was a senior scientist at NASA for over 20 years who now spends his time lecturing around the world about what NASA have found in the solar system with regards to alien life which they are keeping from the public.

    • christoph

      Richard Hoagland has a problem….what he sees as massive dome constructions on the moon are nothing more than sound stage rigs set up here on earth. He claims that by using photoshop or other methods he can see the massive constructions that only show up with maniuplation of the photos and concludes they are alien bases….but the fact is, occams razor will tell us that its more than likely these are the backdrop of a artificial sound stage here on earth.
      I have seen video footage of a dark figure running on the right side of the screen in one of the latter footage of the Apollo missions. Some said this was proof of alien presence.
      To me it was the presence of a sound stage worker, caught on camera.
      I am not saying that aliens are not there and I am not saying we did not go to the moon…..but the footage is of a faked landing and faked aliens. If this is all NASA has…well we did NOT land on the moon.

      • LeeH

        Occam’s Razor will actually tell us they are photographic artifacts.

  • hp

    If the US of Phony Baloney flew to the moon and back in 1969, (when astronauts were still winding their alarm clocks by hand), why then, with the exponential leap in technology, aren’t they now flying up and back with one thruster tied behind their back?

    • Supposedly this is where a lot of our black budget $ gets sucked into. So they are flying around in their Boeing UFO’s & not telling us about it. For those who have seen starcraft in the sky the question is not “Is it real?” but more often “Is it theirs or ours?”

  • Destiny’s Soldier

    Buck Rogers should at least know that Lyndon Johnson had left office on Jan 20th 1969. The Lunar programme was under the leadership of Richard Nixon in July 1969.
    Other than that it seems more logical that the moon landings were likely to have been hoaxed.
    Each White House administration since JFK have been master liars on a grand scale.

    It’s only the small things that need to be kept secret. The big things are kept secret by their public incredulity.

    • Yes, that was intended to read as President Nixon, thanks. And what a shady bugger he was.


      • Wee Liam

        Shady indeed, and Watergate was the bloodless coup that removed him from office.

  • Howler

    The 90s called. Wants its laughably pathetic and long ago debunked conspiracy theories back.

    • Wee Liam

      Reality called. They asked if you could deal with the subject matter in a more realistic manner, instead of just tossing ridicule around like confetti.

      • Skyguy

        It deserves ridicule!!!

      • Luca Starone

        Seeing as it has been debunked thousands of times, the only thing left to do is laugh and point fingers at stupid people.

        • rlw120

          Shouldn’t one debunking do the trick? Debunked 1000 times: The burden of proof has shifted.

          • Luca Starone

            It’s been debunked thousands of times because you imbeciles can’t accept evidence the first time.

          • rlw120

            You got nothing, just ad hominem. Typical.

          • JB

            Actually he provided documentation and evidence. I think you need to read the definition of ad hominem again.,

          • rlw120

            “Stupid people” / “Imbeciles”

            I think YOU”D better have another look at AH.

          • Noelle Jordan

            And you believe the “new” science, the brand new science that supports the moon landings? Hmm…since the lethal radiation of space is the biggest impediment to manned space travel, science now says, what’dya know, that radiation is not so harmful after all. So much for all those melanoma scares. Let’s all throw away our sunscreen. And the searing heat on the moon, reaching 250 degrees? Science now says 250 degrees is only hot on earth, apparently, but not on the moon! Wake up kid.

      • Valarious V

        I find all the conspiracy ideas of fraud kind of unsound.
        nothing yet seemed solid enough to say it did not happen.
        It seems scandalmonger cherry pick footage and videos out of the context of real events as Protestant do with BIBLE scripture.
        at this point I have no reason to believe man has not landed on the moon.

        • Dickie Dawkins

          What solid evidence that it happened do you have other than the word of a constantly lying govt?

          • Valarious V

            I do not have any, I am simply saying that the idea that man has made it to the moon is far more sound than the ideas going around about it being a government deception.
            Is there any proof that it has not happened, to me a large rocket blasting out of the atmosphere is believable enough.
            I am not very into researching such things as interesting as they are, but the idea that it never happened seems more likely the hoax.

          • Nawaponrath

            They can’t even make it into orbit without Russian rockets and you believe the BS of moon landing

          • mike

            The statistical odds of a successful lunar mission on a spacecraft’s maiden voyage are abysmal! Then there were 5 more perfectly successful lunar missions and one half successful mission with no loss of craft and no loss of crew. Nasa couldn’t even run the shuttle program without two completely catastrophic losses of the both crew and craft yet somehow it’s believable that they pulled of six perfect lunar landings? Maybe if one suspends disbelief!

          • Bob Douglass

            Did you know that a large number of WWII rocket scientists came to America after the war (around 60 in total)? Did you know that back in Germany, Van Braun once convinced Hitler to fund V2 development by showing him footage of the German rocket program’s experimental prototypes, which was in reality a mixture of real test footage of rocket launches and footage from the silent German movie Frau im Mond (Woman in the Moon)?

            The same guy was ultimately in charge of the Apollo program. He already faked footage successfully once in his career. Why not twice?

  • Lynda Doerner

    Supposedly we didn’t go back to the moon because there is at least one alien base there,and we were warned not to return.I remember reading that there were many,many ufo’s swarming all over the place.

    • Anonymous

      Dear Linda, your explanations is even more fantastic ,than NASSA. claims of a moon landing, with visible evidence of the U.S. flag fluttering where there is no air… what a laugh? even Lucifer must be rolling with glee…..

  • Bill F

    1969, under the leadership of President Johnson? In what alternate universe did this happen? Nixon was president in July 1969 when Apollo 11 mission took place.

  • Mark

    Why then did the Soviets and Chinese at the time concede that we did land on the moon – They never disputed the fact.

    The Lunar landings have been spotted by China’s Chang’e 2 lunar probe, the Indian Chandrayaan-1 probe, and various other independent (non NASA-funded) space agencies. Also, we can see the Lunar landing sites thanks to the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

    • Why indeed! Clearly NASA say they are trying to solve the Van Allen belt problem when just as clearly they already solved the same problem in 1969. I think that fact trumps counties saying they agree Apollo was genuine. One can speculate on politics but technology should be scientific fact.

      • Thought

        I think the movie “Idiocracy” explains the young engineer’s comments quite well.

        • Sylvester

          Idiocracy explains a lot.

          • SheSays

            God for a comedy that sure was a depressing film.

      • Quin

        Well… The Van Allen belt CAN cause problems, nobody has ever said it would fry everything, everytime. It all varies and could be destructive one day, and almost harmless another day based upon the sun. Use your brain please.

      • Dave

        They were simply stating that before a craft with so much electrical equipment goes through the belt, they have to shield it. He didn’t say they have never done it. It was just going through the process of what needs to be done before a spacecraft goes into space. Like showing you how to bake a cake. You are being too literal and getting too excited. I don’t read it the way you do at all.

      • BUZ

        Radiation is a strength of radiation vs. time exposed problem. Orion mission is months long vs moon missions of a few days. There is a lot more problem to be solved now that we are looking at long term exposures.

      • LeeH

        Except we’re not using the same technology in the Orion as we did in the Apollo. Technology has advanced and is no longer electrical wires going everywhere in the capsule (BTW, a spark from a wire started the sequence that killed the Apollo 1 astronauts). It’s solid state — packed electrical circuits — that are more susceptible to radiation.

    • Tan Abacrombie

      All I have ever seen is some low res picture of a landing site looking nothing at all like high res pictures Google Earth has. Surely these orbiters have the best but they do not show it when it comes to Apollo sites. Where are the pictures?

    • Chanel Boucher

      First a correction:”under the leadership of President Johnson” ALL Apollo moon landings took place under Tricky Dicky Nixon. No other President before or since Nixon has had the nerve to participate in this hoax, even though flights to the moon, by mid 1972, had become as routine as flights between New York and London (6 successful landings in 33 months plus a near miss). (Nixon: “It’s not what you do, it’s the lie that gets you!)

      To answer the question, the cooperation (silence) of China and Russia came at a high price: (i) For no apparent reason Nixon rushed to Mao Zedong’s Communist China to open the US market the Chinese goods after a decades of boycott and (ii) Having won the very strategic and very phony “Moon Race”, for no apparent reason and at the height of the cold war, Nixon approves a 5-year joint space program with Russia, in May 1972, and announces that there would be no further moon expeditions.

      As part of his reelection campaign, Bush 43 promised to put a man on the moon by 2020 (in the 60’s we could do it in 9 years from Kennedy’s promise, now it would take 16 years … I guess all that space lab stuff didn’t pay-off). Four years later, the first thing Obama did upon taking the White was to cancel it.

      But don’t take my word for it, take it from to Neil Armstrong:


      ” the parrot is the only bird that can talk … but it don’t fly too good”

      Occam’s razor: the reason we ave not been BACK to the moon, is because we never went …

      • The Van Allen belt did give the astronauts health problems but they got through it and DID land on the moon & came back (rather hastily).

        Kubrick apparently did film the moon landings our government wanted the rest of the world to see, because they didn’t wish to reveal what the real astronauts ACTUALLY found on the moon. ‘Buzz’ Aldrin in an unguarded moment pretty much intimated that they were instructed to take their moonrocks & go home by whoever was -already- there.

        There’s a growing contingent of cinema analysts that see Kubrick’s masterpiece ‘The Shining’ as not only an indictment against US Native American genocide & the repeating sins of domestic/sexual abuse, but also as a personal confession of his government involvement with the Apollo 11 TV broadcast. Kubrick’s ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ pretty much foretells WHY he did this – because “there is something on the moon.”

        • christoph

          Dont fall for it….we did not go to the moon. Kubrick did the filming….the fact that there are numerous sources of light, the hills in the background and the horizon effect show that it was filmed in a studio.
          If we went in the 1960’s , with transitor tech, we have eclipsed this by magnitudes of thousands of times….but we cant go back. We send probes but no manned craft. Why???…its bloody obvious.
          Hitler talked about the big lie….we are seeing it here.

          • SheSays

            @Chris: I guess it all boils down to whether you know of the existence of UFO’s & that our government managed to get their hands on some of this technology or not. I’ve seen starcraft not just by myself but in the company of others & I know the difference between UFO’s, planes, helicopters, natural phenomena & other satellites, thank you very much.

            Understandably, if you have never seen a UFO, no one else is going to convince you of their existence. But if you manage to lay hands on a pair of long-range night vision goggles & point them in a section of sky where UFO’s are reportedly spotted by others, you may well be surprised at how -busy- it is up there.

        • Sniggih Smalls

          LMAO!! This is Hilarious, because the ASStronauts said they didn’t go thru anything. And later said, oh we went thru them.

      • Anonymous

        Parrots are not the only birds that can talk….minors are another. And parrots like the Rainbow lorikeet are excellent flyers.

      • LeeH

        The reason for the amount of time it takes, comparing then and now, is the AMOUNT OF MONEY put into the project. Nothing else. If we’d kept spending the money at pre-Apollo levels, we would have been on Mars by 1980. Arthur C. Clarke wrote 2001 in 1968. He fully expected we’d have a moonbase before 2001. At the rate we were going with the race to the moon, I expected a base on Mars by 2001. But politicians with no vision saw all that money going for the space program and didn’t think it was worth it. NASA funding was pulled and we ended up with the Space Shuttle, that was basically a big bus to carrying astronauts and suppies to the International Space Station. Ironically, the Russian Soyuz spacecraft — first built in 1967 — is the only manned spacecraft left that can service the ISS.

    • joe

      In Behold a Pale Horse, Cooper says that he discovered in 1962 that the US and USSR had joint bases on the moon and Mars at least from the 50’s.

      • landshark123

        Cooper was a paranoid NWO-Illuminati conspiracy nut who was killed by a deputy sheriff after he (Cooper) fired at him when he was served for non payment of taxes.

    • E. Grogan

      This hoax has been going on for eons. Mrs. Kubrick came out and even said this was a hoax. It has been debunked many, many years ago. I can’t believe this article even got published.
      NASA isn’t stumped by anything, this is complete bunk.

      • missiongal

        I can’t believe I’m reading this garbage again it gets me so angry, yes we went to the moon several times and Santa clause (chuckle) guided Apollo in. There are structures on the moon buildings, towers, pyramid, a Swastika and it’s colonized too, so too is Mars we have been traveling to the stars for years, but we are lied to from guess who NASA and apparently it only takes 90 minutes now to travel to the moon due to the mach speeds they are doing but have forgotten to inform us all about.

        The original photos of the moon landing have the cross hairs on from the Haselhoff camera that was used in those days I saw these photos many years ago but don’t have a copy of them any more oh and BTW there were no blocking out of the horizon on those photos and they showed huge portals in the sky line just like the ones portrayed in star trek very wide and several of them all in line with each other, I just wish I had a copy to view them again

        • bloomoon

          Haselhoff camera? Haselhoff camera??? (sigh!)

          • LeeH

            He meant Hasselblad camera. LOL

        • m320753

          So you’re saying Star Trek is real also

    • Padraigin Eagle

      Because they’ve always been in on the deal, the east/west cold/hot war meme is a scam, they all sit around the same big round table, knights of The Cabal, no division except in the minds of the sheople.

    • Guns N Rosaries

      The USSR and the PRC were made in the USA. These countries are just mannequins as the USA is a mannequin, thus there was no reason to “spill the beans.”

      • Staniel

        Well said, you missed to mention, that the Earth is 2000 years old, and there were no dinosaurs.

    • SM

      Because their governments new it was BS so they didnt want to participate in this Hollywood show. They said “OK we sent man out there first, we know its impossible to send a guy to the moon so why bother. Let them have fun and spend billions on that circus.”

    • Wee Liam

      Is the presence of American military hardware in the places we said we are proof that American men walked on the moon?

      I think you need to ask yourself that question before you proceed further.

      • Wee Liam

        Scratch “military”. Why isn’t there an edit function?

    • JR

      Nobody has been to the moon, no parts are there, no pictures of equipment on the moon exist, reflections of lasers was done long before the air date.

      It’s impossible to launch from the moon with that module. Then to find another satellite going 4000 MPH and flawlessly dock with it every time.


      • Drew

        Why would it be impossible to launch from the moon? Light the rocket, up you go. They even brought their own launch pad with them. And strange that they can use the laser reflectors on the moon (left by the astronauts) to measure the distance to the moon.

      • Alessandro

        Saying it’s impossible without providing evidence of such statement, means it can be dismissed with no need for evidence.

        Learn how science works, please.

      • m320753

        Then what the heck has happened to all the money NASA got?

Thank you for sharing. Follow us for the latest updates.