Apollo 17: “I Was Strolling on the Moon One Day”

IS this fake? Bring it on, you shit-for-brains moon landing idiots …

68 Comments on "Apollo 17: “I Was Strolling on the Moon One Day”"

  1. Anyone who thinks we never landed on the moon is a idiot.

  2. I Dunno – it doesnt look fake? How would you fake that and why? It seems plausible that we went to the moon. It aint that far away and all. I dont see this as a particularly noteworthy conspiracy theory.

    • most of the theories that I know of are based on the van allen belt, that being that it may be lethal to humans that try to pass through it without a THICK lead shell to hide in, which doesn’t sleep well with propulsion rockets. OR some fun facts that “crazys” have dug up like, an astronaut wearing his suit shouldn’t be able to open the inward opening door to the lunar capsule, or little tricks like that.

      I’m not really on either side.
      the fact that we haven’t gone back since is really weird though… will be interesting if some entrepreneurs get up there and get burned alive trying to leave Earth’s orbit. We’ll have quite a few more questions after that.

      Some of the extreme “theorists” claim that we went to the moon, but it was with help, and had nothing to do with our shitty rockets. Thus bypassing the radiation belt problem with LASERS!! or something cool like that, etc.

      A lot of the pictures taken from the surface are really weirdly doctored too, like blatant style, but others aren’t, so who knows.

      • The so called “shitty rocket” you are referring to stood 363 feet high and had 33 million horse power on the first stage of the rocket alone. 400,000 people were involved in the Apollo program and in my opinion going to the moon was mankind’s greatest ever achievement (politics aside). The conspiracy theories have been proven time and time again to be utter bullshit dreamed up by imbeciles who know very little about the rudiments of space flight and orbital mechanics.

        Believe it or not, people used to have balls and take high risks to achieve great things, unlike the half-baked, wishy-washy society and culture of today. The reason we never went back to the moon was (1) cost, (2) the dangers involved, (3) America had won the space race, (4) the money was better spent in low earth orbit learning the effects of long duration space flight on the human body so that when we choose to go further into deep space, we’ll not make a complete fuck up of it.

        If people think the Apollo program was too far-fetched to be true then they should look at the Hubble service mission STS-61 where 5 individual EVAs were carried out over 11 days, some of them lasting almost 8 hours long. None of those repairs would have been possible without the invaluable experience and knowledge gained through the Apollo program.

        Incidentally, thick lead shielding is utterly useless against radiation as it can actually cause what is known as secondary radiation – something far more damaging to the human body. Yes, the astronauts were exposed to radiation – it was a calculated risk that paid off and on their return proved to be no more damaging than a few hospital x-rays.

        If anyone thinks the moon landing were a hoax, then I suggest they go and read up on the matter, learn about different kinds of radiation, learn about orbital mechanics, and understand the nature of the task at hand.

        • I’ll agree with the greatest achievement line any day.
          More than anything I think it’s a bummer we’re able to so easily list these as problems: (1) cost, (2) the dangers involved. There are so many “crazys” out there jumping off cliffs, surviving ridiculous mental challenges, and taking whatever the world can conjure up, certainly there are intelligent people willing to risk their lives to go back to the moon with modern equipment. And cost? =o= we all learn in college money is actually just paper… sure all those people need food and you can’t just disrupt the system, but that’s only because we live the way we do; it’d be great if in some distant future we could just vote that space exploration is super important and anyone working towards that effort doesn’t have to pay, gets a free house, and a shuttle to work so long as they don’t get fired.

          We’re capable of so much more than we seem to endeavor these days.

          In the least I’d like to see some robots with LASERS on the moon, everyone love lasers, that’s proven fact. Shitty rockets are shitty though I’m sorry, combustion is so 13th century… let’s hope cheap energy in any of it’s forms can make us some space elevators or at least a nice slow vertical take off. eliminate the weight of rocket fuel and we’ll be all over this solar system like flies on poo… er I mean, like… doves… on.. a statue… er… nevermind…

  3. chinagreenelvis | Feb 16, 2012 at 3:29 am |

    What exactly is supposed to be fake about this?

  4. It’s real! I can tell. 

  5. Sealbreaker | Feb 16, 2012 at 3:45 am |

    The question i often wonder, when this subject is brought up, is: “So what if it is?” It’s not like the U.S. government has never lied, so if you were to prove it fake, then what? Does it really change your world view? In a sense, it doesn’t really matter. When i was a child i liked the idea of being on the moon; picturing what it is like and taking my time to fill in the details, like gravitation and textures. It still brings a smile to my face when i think of it — regardless of fact or fiction. I am curious to know why it is that it matters so much to come people. Please, tell me what you think as why it’s important to know if it’s false information.

    • chinagreenelvis | Feb 16, 2012 at 6:15 am |

      It’s important to know that it actually happened and that the myths surrounding it being faked are easily debunked and rely on shoddy, truncated bits of easily manipulated information and foreboding background music in order to be taken seriously because it serves as a fine example of how quickly members of the public run wild with crazy ideas.

      If, as a hypothetical, it were indeed faked, it serves as an example of how our view of the world can be shaped by those in control of the media. This is true regardless of the Apollo missions, as public opinion is motivated every single day by what the masses see on the air. Andrew Breitbart is a master of this kind of social engineering, the literal Palpatine of disinformative video because he has a ready and willing “news” monster to perpetuate his dastardly creations. Sean Hannity has been called out for it as well, though the difference between them and the idea here is that rather than outright counterfeit original footage, they take a pair of scissors to something real and shape it into something that pisses off every loyal right-wing voter in the States.

      • Sealbreaker | Feb 17, 2012 at 2:34 am |

         Interesting. I have found, indeed, that we are all shaped by our perceptions of whatever information is being presented whether we agree with its validity or not. However, one can take this to a very extreme point, if one wanted to, about verifications and influencing opinions. Everyone has to trust that people speak non-falsehoods to some degree, else you would have to validate everything from mathematics to nuclear physics, and even then you would likely be left with more questions than answers — this is assuming you have the time to do all of this. And people are influenced in whatever way they choose to be influenced; the power of that choice is not ours to make for others. [[[ Turning to gesture to the entire audience; not  in reply to chinagreenelvis ]]] So, i see the validity of asking the question ‘did Man really walk on the Moon?’, but i am not sure how strong recriminations (like many that have been levied at the astronauts who purportedly walked on the moon) really help to solve anything. If one is in doubt, is it enough to simply ask the question and leave it as an open question? What if they did? What do you think then of all the muck-throwing and anger that has been issued? What about the next person who still doesn’t believe it, even after the proof was enough for you? Perhaps it’s better to thinly agree (at worst) and simply be skeptical, than to be pushy and angry. The facts do eventually present themselves, after all. 🙂


        • chinagreenelvis | Feb 17, 2012 at 6:02 am |

          Keeping an ever-open mind about what constitutes truth and fact is pretty important in order to maintain an understanding of how easily information is manipulated. Of course, I’ve also said before that the only thing worse than believing everything you read is specifically disbelieving everything. The opposite of gullibility is paranoia, so suspect that everything is a lie, rather than seeing half-truths in most things. I think the only solution is an imperfect one, which is the corroboration of information from various sources and a hefty amount of critical thought. The relative trustworthiness of those sources can also be determined by the same processes. Epistemology and the nature of information, questions about whether or not anyone can ever truly “know” anything are all very interesting to me.

          I think if it suddenly came out that the Moon Landing was a fabrication, you’d have a lot of angry people on your hands, the United States would lose massive amounts of credibility, and a can of worms would be opened, especially in regards to other conspiracy-related subjects (9/11 immediately comes to mind).

          • Sealbreaker | Feb 17, 2012 at 2:14 pm |


            I just think that the notion, whatever the actuality, is too cool to throw away. “We landed on the moon? Freaking sweet!” [disheartening news as to the counter] “Really? Well… Shit. Who wants to give it a go?”


      • Shermer is anything but skeptical.  I will read through it but I have no respect for him.  

        • chinagreenelvis | Feb 16, 2012 at 11:49 pm |

          This is only one source of information that lists legitimate answers to common “unanswerable questions” raised by Moon-landing Conspiracists. People think they’ve stumbled upon something devious because the shadows in a photograph don’t line up perfectly with one another, and yet very often these people don’t have any kind of experience in space flight, photography, or astrophysics. If you don’t have all the details, you can’t properly answer all the questions you have. Unfortunately, because of this, when conspiracists don’t have the answer, they automatically assume that it lends credibility to the conspiracy angle because to them the only obvious answer is that it was faked. This is the same kind of tactic used in Intelligent Design to justify the existence of an arbitrary and single God who created the whole Universe. “We don’t have the answer, therefore, God.”

          A great example is the guy above who says, “Who was operating the camera? Was there a third person? [We know there wasn’t a third person.]” This is used as “support” for the idea that it was faked. Implied is the statement “Don’t have an answer to this question? Then the argument that it was faked is stronger.”

          That is, until, of course the guy who responds to him says, “The camera was remotely controlled from the Earth.” Suddenly there’s an answer, but the argument is not made any less strong as a result; it was never strong to begin with. It’s a logical fallacy to assume a conclusion based on an unanswered question. Especially when you have to use creative thinking to come up with answers to that question which support your theory.

          For example, let’s take the shadow question. People see shadows that don’t match, so they think, “This means it was done in a studio with fake lighting.” But that answer is arbitrary! There is no evidence of this having happened! No documentation, no photographic evidence actually showing the studio where it was shot, just mere conjecture and speculative reasoning. In order to support an idea you need evidence for it; the perceived lack of evidence for an opposing idea is not enough.

          • Strawman alert 😉  I never brought up the angles of the shadows or any such thing.  I asked that you reference the documentary I listed also with the caveat that I dont’ subscribe wholeheartedly to Mr. Weidner’s theories but that there is compelling evidence that Mr. Kubrick would have had the means to achieve such an illusion.  Also considering the inclusion of relevant symbolism in “The Shining” & Kubricks last film being released 30 years to the day of the Apollo 11 moon mission as per his contractual demand, it seems as though it is within the bounds of reason to consider that we may not know the entire truth about NASA nor the moon landings, and that perhaps Mr. Kubrick was speaking out in the only way he could, via symbolism. This is what I am presenting for consideration.  As for Shermer,   I can prove unequivocally that he has lied in the past and therefore is tainted as a rational skeptic forever more in my mind.

            Also you mentioned that this was some sort of elaborate hoax akin to Paul is dead.  Please provide substantiation/sources etc and please do comment on what I have written above if you don’t mind.  

          • chinagreenelvis | Feb 17, 2012 at 6:18 am |

            Well, by shadow question, I didn’t mean *your* shadow question, simply the question in general since it seems to be the first point that any Moon Landing skeptic seems to take. Not saying you’re a skeptic here, it’s just a general refutation of the idea that there are these gaps in the official story that need to be filled by any other explanation. Even with those questions unanswered, alternative explanations of any kind are, as I say, arbitrary.

            Now, if someone went and found a video of the lunar landing and it was signed “Kubrick” somewhere on the tin, that would be supporting evidence. If Kubrick had left behind a journal where he claims to have been involved, that, too would fit the bill. But where you say the video contains evidence that he could have been involved, I see only persuasive conjecture – not actual presented evidence of it. Be aware that the word “could” leaves open a wide expanse for the imagination to run wild.

            Symbolism is a difficult thing to argue, because it, too, by it’s very nature, is almost always vague enough to be subject to many kinds of interpretation. Having been a steady researcher on the Publius Enigma for a good number of years, I have plenty of experience with seeing people construct their own explanations from relatively little to go on. Take all the albums of Pink Floyd and tell a Usenet group that there is a puzzle hidden somewhere inside the artwork, lyrics, and music, and you get an unending supply of terribly interesting results, some more convincing than others, all unique, and all terribly fascinating. Kubrick films are no different; the brain is adept at pattern recognition, so good at it that we tend to see patterns where there are none. On the same note, holistically speaking, we live in a fundamentally interconnected universe. Any exhaustive analysis of practically unrelated subjects will eventually yield seemingly meaningful coincidences.

            As for the hoax: 

          • Thank you for your response but I must disagree with your assumption that ” alternative explanations of any kind are arbitrary.”  I’m not sure how you can state this while implying you don’t have the full truth of the matter in various posts.  Also your conjecture is interesting but does not relate to the evidence presented one iota. I would prefer you discuss the documentary I posted above and refer to it as that is what I brought forward.  Also wouldn’t it make sense to craft a counter film or narrative dismissing any questioning of the moon landing as a hoax preemptively.  You do realize that some of those spoofing this idea are war criminals responsible for untold carnage all based on lies.  Not exactly the best character witnesses to involve yourself with to dismiss “conspiracy” theory.  I’m referring to Rumsfeld and Kissinger.  There may be a few more I can’t recall at the moment.     As for Kubrick and the potential meaning of his symbolic portrayals, again you would have to watch the film to understand what I am referring to exactly.  I feel without you doing so we are having two separate conversations.  Once you have watched it, and compared the technique utilized in 2001 (front screen projection) you may reconsider how easy it would have been for him to fake footage from the “lunar” surface.  There are many questions and of course much of the original footage was destroyed conveniently so it would be more difficult to determine if some type of shennanigans were at play.  You’d think we would care more to preserve such historic footage… Just a few examples that leave the door open for speculation.   The wiki entry seems to utilize various red herrings and non sequiturs while appealing to authority and ridicule rather than dealing with the serious questions brought forward by those who question the government’s version of events regarding moon landings.  Thanks for posting, let me know what you think having reviewed Weidners articles and documentary please.

          • chinagreenelvis | Feb 18, 2012 at 1:01 am |

            I’ve reviewed the documentary and I’ve seen the film. You keep using this word “evidence,” but the fact remains that there is none. I think you are misusing the word.

            Drawing a line on a photograph to induce the feeling that the foreground somehow allows the background to be separate is not evidence. It is unsupported fantasizing. Similarly, “processing” an image and getting blocky lines in the sky is exactly that. The explanation that “it’s showing the texture of the backdrop” is absolutely 100% arbitrary.

            The simplest explanation is that this Kubrick thing is a hoax because all materials that reference it as a joke predate those that take it seriously. Rumsfeld and Kissinger were merely interviewed at various points in order to make the mockumentary; they didn’t create it themselves. The fact that they’re warmongers is entirely irrelevant.

            I’ve not implied that we don’t have the full truth. Any references I’ve made to “unanswered questions” are situations in which questions have been raised by conspiracists that neglect to provide the actual answers given in other sources. The list I gave you provides those answers, and regardless of how you feel about the author of that particular paper, these answers neither originated nor end with him. Even the MythBusters did an entire episode on this. There are explanations for every single one of these questions raised by Moon Landing skeptics. The burden now lies on them to refute those answers. Otherwise, there is no hole that needs to be nor can be filled by any theory, including the Kubrickian one.

            You’ve been fooled, my friend. Do you think it’s easier to fake a moon landing than it is to fake a conspiracy theory?

          • I’m running out of space here to type.  I disagree with your position as you are upholding the declarations of the state that we successfully went to the moon as proof alone from what I have seen. If this is not the case please present your case again and sorry if it has some how eluded me.  What hard evidence do we have that we actually achieved this feat?  Also you have oversimplified Weidner’s position in my opinion.  I don’t see it as the most damning evidence, just more food for thought regarding the ability to achieve the illusion of our having landed there. I don’t know whether we have or have not for certain and I am arguing that there is evidence that demonstrates we had the motive as well as the means to fake it.  I would also present this evidence as more damning because it captures direct manipulation of video by Astronauts while in Earth orbit to craft the illusion that they are much further away from Earth than near orbit alone, say 130,000 miles away as Neil Armstrong announces on the tape.  Have you seen this footage? http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/55246835#pm_cmp=vid_OEV_P_PWhat do you make of what is transpiring?  There are 2 main perspectives I have heard, one that we are witnessing a slide placed over the glass I imagine and 2 that a stencil in coordination with zooming in and out is responsible for creating a sense of distance to fool the viewers at home.  Again I’m not saying one way or the other what happened.  I’m just presenting evidence that establishes room for honest skepticism and doubt.  Why would NASA fake any footage at anytime?  Given that we have this footage time stamped to coordinate with the supposed first moon landing how is it then we are to believe in their success when they are so obviously lying about their relative position to the Earth here?

          • This is pretty hillarious too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwQGBZ6v89Q  Not arguing any points, just food for thought.

          • chinagreenelvis | Feb 19, 2012 at 5:44 am |

            This is silly. The thing in the top left corner is a floodlight from inside the craft. You can see it clearly during the transition as the lights come on brighter and the camera’s aperture adjusts for the light.

          • Camron Wiltshire | Feb 20, 2012 at 9:36 am |

            So you dont’ think it is odd that they faked how far away from the Earth they were?  Also what about the several other questions raised during the presentation.  It doesn’t appear you’ve given this a fair shake.

          • chinagreenelvis | Feb 19, 2012 at 6:08 am |

            Yes, running out of room, so this debate will have to come to a close. My final thoughts:

            “What hard evidence do we have that we actually achieved this feat?”

            If you take Occam’s Razor to the Kubrick theory, the logical conclusion is that it was a hoax. I have demonstrated that the joke came first, the conspiracy theory second. The arguments for it rely entirely on conjecture and creative thinking and not on documentation or physical evidence. It’s a fun idea, but as fragile as a house of cards.

            The body of information in support of the moon landing is astoundingly large, and there are no questions raised by conspiracists that have not been answered. In order to dismiss those answers, the burden lies on the shoulders of the conspiracist to actually demonstrate that the answers are false.

            I’d suggest, if you don’t already, studying critical thinking, argumentative form, and logical fallacies. I’d also suggest looking up the MythBusters episode where they tackle the lunar landing. Watch more science videos. The more you learn about history and astronomy, the less you will be inclined to give credence to conspiracy theorists who don’t understand the subjects they’re attempting to call into question.

            If you want a fun link, take a gander at this: 

  6. Found the documentary.  http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en/videos/1rIacraaE4jS/info/Kubrick-s%20Odyssey%20-%20Secrets%20Hidden%20in%20the%20Films%20of%20Stanley%20Kubrick/  Watch and consider.  

    • chinagreenelvis | Feb 16, 2012 at 5:33 am |

      The only hoax here is this urban legend.

      • China, you didn’t argue any points.  I question whether or not you watched the documentary?  I don’t agree with much of what Weidner says on many things, but he does bring some interesting and valid points up arguing the likelihood that Kubrick could have easily achieved  the visual  effects required to fool most of humanity at that time.  Also the film “A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon” though it is supposedly farcical actually has a few clips that viewed outside of the contextual lens of the forced ridicule perspective again provide ample reason to question what we are told about hist-story.

        I would also mention that if you are to believe mainstream media, we have fair elections, 9/11 was done by 19 muslims with box cutters and the Federal Reserve “saved” us from a complete economic collapse.  Never mind it precipitated the great depression (boom and bust cycle anyone.)

        It’s funny how even in this online forum there are certain thresholds that cause people to participate in the same knee jerk denialism they abhor when their favored ideas are not challenged (not referring to you here.)

        I agree that given that the nature of government is rule by secrecy and deception, that almost nothing would surprise me.  
        There is no need to deify NASA or other American myths any longer.  We need only be willing to look at all the evidence involved in any case and be reasonable.

        • chinagreenelvis | Feb 16, 2012 at 11:37 pm |

          I think you would do better to research the history of the claim that Kubrick was involved. Much like “Paul is Dead,” its roots can be traced back to something that was done as a joke.

        • Tuna Ghost | Feb 16, 2012 at 11:41 pm |

          I would also mention that if you are to believe mainstream media, we have fair elections, 9/11 was done by 19 muslims with box cutters and the Federal Reserve “saved” us from a complete economic collapse.  Never mind it precipitated the great depression (boom and bust cycle anyone.)

          You forgot “the US has never fought an unjust war” and “Israel is the victim in all conflicts, innocent of everything except defending itself”.   Frankly, I’d grit my teeth and let the “lunar landing was FAKE” crowd talk as long as they want if it meant the US mainstream media could talk about Israel without verbal diarrhea pouring from every mouth on the screen.  

  7. You people fail to recognize the importance of this issue, because you dismiss the historical context. The US was fighting a propaganda war against he USSR, and they were ahead of us in the space race. I agree with you that is not really important if went to the moon on that ocassion: if Nixon had to make the though decision of lieing to his own people and the rest of the world, it was in the best interest of humanity as a whole, becouse it meant the victory of the marriage of democracy and capitalism and the defeat of comunism in yet another field. It is not important if it is a hoax or not: what really matters is our faith in the achievements of mankind guided by the principles of free enterprise.

    • MoralDrift | Feb 16, 2012 at 6:37 am |

      true to an extent…except NASA is a government funded operation. But yeah…everyone knows it was about proving america was better than the ruskies

    • Chewy_chunko | Feb 16, 2012 at 2:24 pm |


      THE MARRIAGE OF CAPITALISM AND DEMOCRACY…..you say that as a goodthing …..you are blind …capitalism is one of the most problematic and destructive Anglo Saxon disease it is the reason why global economy sinks every 10 years. democracy= freedom but capitalism = new liberal bullshit from the rich banks of the world…democratic comunism that is a great way of freedom

      • would we have internet if capitalism was not around?

        • Jin The Ninja | Feb 16, 2012 at 3:36 pm |

           obviously- the internet was created by scientists and physicists for academic and open source purposes. it was never intended to be commercialised. it’s initial inception was for military use, paid for by the gov’t- but it was a very collaborative project and people from around the world worked on aspects of it.

        •  Maybe…maybe not, it could have maybe have taken longer or not as long to develop.  One thing that I firmly believe is that Capitalism is great for a little while, as far as promoting progression goes, but the capitalism we practice is fundamentally flawed and doomed to fail from the beginning.  I think that capitalism is a transitional system that will allow us to move to something more stable, and much more egalitarian, via improved technology in the end.

        • Tuna Ghost | Feb 16, 2012 at 11:37 pm |

          Probably.  Like all the technological fields in which America is the global leader, great advances are made through huge government subsidies and are protected from free market incluences.  

        • Does the human imagination and the ability / want to create have anything to do with money? Simple answer- No.

        • Sealbreaker | Feb 17, 2012 at 2:22 pm |

           The history of humanity was not written by capitalism, though Corporate Capitalists would love to differ. The argument, here, is motivation; just because capital is not the motivation, does not mean that there can be no other way for a society to progress. Generations removed, people have forgotten this.

  8. MoralDrift | Feb 16, 2012 at 6:38 am |

    I dont care if it was real or fake…but lets go back! I still cant believe that America is incapable of launching humans into space in 2012

  9. The moon is fake

  10. Were there 3 people on the moon in that mission? Who the hell pan and zoomed the god damn camera?


    This government lies about every god damn thing it ever does, and yet fools go around believing all of the lies anyway. Did we actually land on the moon? I don’t know anymore, and really don’t even give a crap about it anymore.

    Anyone who has half a bran can read both sides of the equation and easily see that a lot of the so called “evidence” that they were faked is easily debunked, but then there are other bits that make that should make anyone question it.

    The real problem with this country is that they have you so scared to question anything, and anyone who questions anything is immediately called out as a nutcase. Well I hate to inform you that the people who you all supposedly worship on the 4th of July questioned what the hell was going on in THEIR TIME.

    I’ll just leave it there.

    • The camera was mounted on the rover and controlled by a guy back on earth at mission control. 2 people went to the moon whilst the CM pilot remained in the command module orbiting the moon.

      Suggested reading for the skeptics: ‘A Man On The Moon’ by Andrew Chaikin.

      Suggested viewing for the skeptics: ‘From The Earth To The Moon’, ‘Moonwalk One’, Failure Is Not An Option’, ‘Moon Machines’, ‘Space Race’.

    • Symbollox_the_Druid | Feb 16, 2012 at 6:14 pm |

      “This government lies about every god damn thing it ever does . . .”

      Amen.  Yet do suckers buying into that “Food Pyramid” scam ever consider for a moment the obvious fact that Bread can kick Yogurt’s ass any day of the week?  Not likely.


  11. The men who went to the moon were, by far, some of the bravest, most badass men the United States has ever had the privilege of calling Americans.  The people who like to say that “they couldn’t have survived the trip through the Van Allen radiation belts” don’t understand that these men knew what they were doing and understood the very real risks that their mission required they undertake.  Just because conspiracy nuts wouldn’t risk their own lives to get to the moon doesn’t mean that braver, more courageous Americans wouldn’t either.

    You can not begin the fathom the sheer immensity of the steel balls these men had in order to get to the moon.  To say that their accomplishment was a hoax seriously undermines the massive risks these men took to keep America on top.  They’re not American heroes because they went to the moon; they’re heroes because of the unbelievably gargantuan risks they took in order to get there.

    Moon Landing conspiracy theorists bring my piss to a full, raging boil.  Remember this?


    Hell yea, Buzz!!!  I would have done the same damn thing to somebody calling me a coward/liar/thief after risking my life for my country, science, and humanity.

    • Tuna Ghost | Feb 16, 2012 at 11:44 pm |

      yeah, they basically sat on a bomb the size of a high rise building and rode that fucker to the goddam moon.  Pretty ballsy shit, I gotta admit

  12. I love the people who speak with absolute authority like they were there at the time on the moon. Spare me, anything is possible. 

    • Mooninites | Feb 16, 2012 at 1:59 pm |

       Right, because you need to experience something in order for it to exist … like I need to walk on the surface of the Sun to know it is there, you are making a dumb argument …

      • Chewy_chunko | Feb 16, 2012 at 2:31 pm |

         actually quantum mechanics disprove what you just said……you do need a concius being watching it all go down for it to exist if no being alive can watch it or do it it does not exist…..so many things are open to discussion like if god exist or not …becouse no one can prove or disprove his existance it is possible and imposible

        • Mooninites | Feb 16, 2012 at 2:47 pm |

          Not sure what a ‘concius being” is, but it sounds made-up …

          • Sealbreaker | Feb 17, 2012 at 2:38 pm |

             I do believe the word was supposed to be ‘conscious’. And really, it is a little more complicated than as stated, but the idea is about right. Quantum Mechanics, essentially says in regards to this subject, that in order for anything to exist for you, you must be able to perceive it in some fashion or sense. If you have no perception of a thing, the thing simply does not exist — at least for YOU it does not exist, though the lack of existence ceases the moment the idea is grasped by your mind. In this case, the validity and shape of the reality is subject to the perceptions of the observer. Neuro-Linguistic Programming was found through the avenue of psychology, but does give overwhelming evidence to support the validity of this, and without ever touching on Physics.


  13. The moon landing is a puppet show, we’ve been on mars since they invaded back in the 1930’s the so called “War of the Worlds” Broadcast was a clever hoax cooked up at the last minute by the then OSS to hide the landings. They really did die of earth bacteria and we got their ships. When we used them to go back to Mars the pandemic we brought from Earth killed off much of the already low population of Mars like the ones that came to Earth. Newt Gingrich knows all about this as do all high office holders. That’s why he let slip the moon colony plans, we are not going to start that operation will 2026 by Treaty of Olympus Mons of 1969 with the remaining Martians. No cold war era missile was ever aimed at the US or USSR it was all aimed at space in case of an 2nd invasion!

  14. Tio Holtzman | Feb 16, 2012 at 6:05 pm |

    I love Stanley Kubrick’s work.

  15. So we’re supposed to believe that just because there was some editing and different camera angles that it’s just too hollywood to be real?  Yeah because this footage couldn’t possibly have been edited post moon landing with the sound added later after the fact and/or different cameras mounted on the moon or the landing module filming from different directions.  Sheezus. 

  16. my dad lives on the moon

  17. How many people have seen this doc? http://krishnatube.com/video/490/A-Funny-Thing-Happened-on-the-way-to-the-Moon

    I would suggest watching from ~30:00-45:00 to see what I think is the most obvious evidence of manipulation of footage.  Please only respond to that particular segment in comments. 

  18. More interesting points raised here
    I think #10 is very compelling in it’s own right. Will review the rest and see what is brought forward.

Comments are closed.