[Steve]

The truth behind the moon landings (?)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9FtQCtlyJU

[awakened53]

A Funny thing Happened on the Way to the Moon

https://youtu.be/xciCJfbTvE4

[The Apprentice]

Where did all the money go, I think into a secret coffers to enable the NWO's next stage of global control.

If you work out how much it would cost to build all of the failed attempts at creating the engineering to create the hardware to bring the trickery into being, it will be a fraction of how much was filtered out and into the NWO banks.

If Truegroup from DIF was here he could give us a professional explanation as NASA did eventually.

I say the whole thing is a conology.

[awakened53]

Richard D Hall discusses secret space programme and Elon Musk during his UK Tour

https://youtu.be/RB43e95ZtdY

[awakened53]

Some of the moon landings and NASA Anomalies

https://youtu.be/xCsocm4Yngg

[awakened53]

The Moon Landings.. Have NASA Collectively Forgotten 1969?

https://www.davidicke.com/article/498885...otten-1969

[Firestarter]

Today, it’s been 50 years ago that “One small step for man, one giant hoax for mankind” was staged...
The most important “evidence” to convince gullible fools was the video that was broadcast all over the world.

The Apollo 11 video shows Buzz Aldrin turning transparent as he descends from the “lunar module”. Notice the black line that indicates the horizon (?!) through the astronaut.
To make it more interesting for the viewers at home, Buzz jumps up and down the ladder again.
At about 1:00 in the clip, a silhouette emerges out of nowhere behind Buzz's back. That can’t be Neil Armstrong, without his space suit, can it?




Also see from 0:54 in the video - The astronaut walks in front of the pole, but we can still see the pole through him (why doesn't he leave a trail?)...
https://youtu.be/3CMlHmURHm0


Arguably the most important “evidence” of Armstrong and Aldrin doing their “One small step for man...” was destroyed to “save money”...

In 2009, NASA admitted that the original tapes of the first, Apollo 11, moon landing were probably erased. NASA engineer Richard Nafzger stated that these historic tapes were erased and reused to help save money during the 1970s and 1980s.
These tapes were reportedly of a much better quality than the fuzzy video that was shown on telescreens all over the world: https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/06/0...ost-tapes/

Just like any other movie, Hollywood assisted NASA in “digitally remastering” the original footage of the first, Apollo 11, moon landing to improve the images …
The digital restoration was carried out by the Burbank, California firm Lowry Digital, that has also “remastered” 400 (other) films, including the first Star Wars trilogy.

According to NASA engineer Richard Nafzger:

There is nothing being created or manufactured here. We are restoring and extracting data from the video.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science...style.html
(archived here: http://archive.is/FEA3o)


Maybe the most important argument that space exploration is impossible, are the Van Allen radiation belts. NASA even “admits” that we never went to the moon.
These NASA spokespersons (of course) don’t admit that “we” never went to the moon. They sort of say that it would be more difficult to go to the moon in 2018 than almost 50 years earlier, because “we don’t have that technology anymore”.
How gullible do people have to be to believe BS like that (running time 9:07)?
https://youtu.be/DpPMoIv1lxI


Then the following video of the Apollo 17 moon landing …
0:18 – 0:33 - The astronauts are wearing a spacesuit (including oxygen tank) that would hamper their movement. He is jumping up and down like some buffoon, knowing that a tiny hole in the suite would mean instant death!
This doesn’t look like a scientific mission exploring the moon, but more like bad actors trying to make it interesting to watch at home.
0:34 – 0:44 - lift off of the probe. There is some kind of red “ignition” at 2:05-2:06 in the video. And some animated parts, rocks blown away, but no crater.
The lift off is immediate, without a slowly increasing speed (before) lift off. EDIT video was deleted...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fOSTfGXVN4


Here is the "Moon Rover" in the middle of a moon landscape. How did it get there without the wheels leaving a trail?


See a close-up.


For comparison I looked at the previous video when the astronaut jumps up and down like a buffoon.
I’m not saying that the following are convincing footsteps on the moon, but they showed after the astronaut had jumped up and down at that spot (so you would expect that the Rover would leave a trail)...

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwZb2mqId0A


See the following video from the Apollo 17 hoax.
General observations on this video:
- Most of the video looks like it’s played in slow motion.
- There is no reason to believe that this was one continuous “take”.

In my opinion the most damaging in this video is...
From 0:43-0:45 - First the leg of the astronaut, who is behind the flag, goes through the pole. Then the backpack goes through the flagpole and flag…


The astronauts should be conducting scientific experiments and would be on a tight schedule (maybe the most expensive “experiments” ever). I would expect them to “act” differently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk4bJqF-ZbQ


The following 2 photos are found in the book "Carrying the Fire" by Astronaut Michael Collins.
Photo 1 shows astronaut Michael Collins practicing for zero gravity inside an airplane.
Photo 2 shows the reverse (photoshopped) image of photo 1, Collins supposedly out on a spacewalk from the Gemini 10 capsule (NASA picture #66-40127).

[Steve]

Buzz Aldrin: “We Didn’t”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmlQsgRNJn0

[Firestarter]

Ralph Rene - NASA Mooned America

I haven’t found much good information on the supposed moon landing, whether it’s the mainstream propaganda or alternative “conspiracy theories”.
The following book on the Apollo moon hoax by the late Ralph Rene (1933-2008) is quite good (the best story I’ve found so far). Rene has tried to sell himself as a self-educated physicist but of course doesn’t understand physics to the full (as far as this is even possible).
Most of the following comes from the book, but I’ve added some more on radiation.


Radiation
One of the important problems in the moon landings are the Van Allen radiation belts: energetic charged particles circling earth and held in place by earth's magnetic field.
The following Youtube video shows that even in 2018, the Van Allen belts are considered a serious problem in staging a new moon landing. I wouldn’t say that NASA “admits” that the Van Allen belts would have prevented the Apollo moon landings though.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDBBUwdyz4I

If theoretically the rocket could get passed the Van Allen belts the radiation problems do not end. The Van Allen belts and our atmosphere effectively protect us on earth from radiation.
According to the “reputable” NASA:

In the late 1940s, sounding rocket experiments showed that the Sun is, in fact, a very strong X-ray emitter. Astronomers were surprised! What's going on?

The X-rays we detect from the Sun do not come from the Sun's surface, but from the solar corona, which is the upper layer of the Sun's atmosphere. Only very hot gases can emit X-rays, and the corona, at millions of degrees, is hot enough to emit X-rays, while the much cooler surface of the Sun is not. Thus, the Sun's atmosphere is an excellent source of X-rays.

https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/objects/sun2.html

The problems with radiation also apply to the voyage to the moon…
There are ways to block radiation, but these (metals) add a lot of weight, which makes them impossible to use in rocket “science” (but in rocket “science fiction” radiation won’t be a real problem).

A large solar flare emits massive amounts of radiation and if any would happen during the moon missions, including the voyage, this could be fatal. These solar flares cannot be predicted...
In 1963, Soviet rocket “scientists” told the British astronomer Bernard Lovell that they "could see no immediate way of protecting cosmonauts from the lethal effects of solar radiation". Had the Soviets never heard of science fiction writer H.G. Wells (a member of the Round Table)?

The table below shows the monthly amount of solar flares from 1967 to 1973. From 1969 to 1972, when the moon landings were staged, there were 18.5 flares a “day” (24 hours) on average. This is even worse than the Van Allen belts.
The astronauts would have gotten more than 100 solar flares per trip on average. If one flare wouldn’t kill you: 100 surely would…



Heat on the moon
Most people imagine that it’s very cold on the moon. The following picture shows the surface temperature on the moon according to the “reliable” NASA.


Surface temperatures on the moon range from about 120 degrees above zero Celsius in the sun at lunar midday, to precisely 273 degrees below zero in the lunar night.
The moon landings were staged at the part of the moon in the full sun: hotter than the hottest desert in the burning sun or a car that has been standing in the burning sun (hotter than boiling water). This doesn’t only apply to the time on the moon, but even to the 3-day-trip in the rocket from and to the moon…
Touching objects on the moon, like rocks, would burn your hands because of the heat (unless of course you have magical gloves).

Because of vacuum, it is very difficult to get rid of the heat as there is absolutely nothing to give the heat to – no cooling wind. Theoretically opening a window while moving fast wouldn’t even get rid of the heat.
The only way I know of to get rid of heat in vacuum is by radiation. Getting rid of heat by radiation can be calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law: how much heat an object can get rid of through radiation is dependent on its temperature. Under “normal” circumstances this would be a slow process (especially for the type of reflective material they would use to block radiation), not enough to cool down the additional heat that continues to come from the sun.
I guess that NASA has made up a great story on “radiation cooling” – not only for the “normal” cooling of the rocket, but also for the magical engine that could generate enough power to stop the lunar module from crashing and lifting off the moon…


Magical space suits
How these elegant space suits would be able to prevent those poor astronauts from boiling in their skin because of the heat is beyond my comprehension. Another big problem (arguably even bigger) would be the vacuum.
There was reportedly a crotch-to-shoulder zipper across the suit. In science labs, where they use vacuum compartments to conduct experiments, they don’t use zippers. Maybe because zippers have many small holes...
Going to the toilet would be impossible. I haven’t heard stories on how these courageous astronauts wore diapers yet (although maybe at the age they are now)…

Of course these flexible suits looked great for the cameras! I would expect that, because of the difference in pressure inside the suit compared to the vacuum outside, the space suit would blow up like a balloon. This could cause a fatal puncture in the suit…
This ballooning effect is missing from the moon videos and photos.
Collins has explained how this ballooning was overcome:

Instead of having a simple restraining net, it controlled the shape of its inflated bladder by a complex array of bellows, stiff fabric, inflexible tubes, and sliding cables.

I would expect that the gloves in particular would be impossible to design. How could they make vacuum-proof gloves and prevent the balloon-effect?


Apollo 13
While the “normal” Apollo missions were clearly impossible, the Apollo 13 was even more laughable.
Because the main rocket ship was having problems, they took the Lunar Module instead and got safely back to earth…
If this would be possible, they wouldn’t even have needed 2 different space ships (the main ship and the module) in the first place!


A mistake!

A Funny thing Happened on the Way to the Moon

https://youtu.be/xciCJfbTvE4

The author Ralph Rene claims that he “saved the best for last” (added information after his book was first published)…
Rene explains that he and Bill Kaysing had been working with Bart Sibrel. And refers to Sibrel’s video "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon" (2000).

Rene claims that this video (about 34:00 to 40:30) exposes that on 18 July 1969, Aldrin, Armstrong and Michael Collins were supposed to be half way to the Moon (“130,000 miles out” from earth) but in reality they were in a low Earth orbit (under the Van Allan Belts) staging earth shots.
The voice-over sounds convincing when claiming that also on 19 and 20 July 1969 (only 9 hours before they reportedly reached the moon) they were in low Earth orbit again staging earth shots. I don’t see any evidence for this wild claim…
I conclude that Rene was “mooned” by disinformation agent Bart Sibrel!


More strange shadows
Just look at the shadows of Armstrong (on the left) and Aldrin (with their magical gloves!).
Their shadows aren’t parallel, which is only a minor discrepancy compared to the huge difference in length of their shadows. Neil and Buzz are of a comparable length (Buzz a little longer), but Buzz's shadow is almost 1.5 times as long as Neil’s!



Ralph Rene - "NASA Mooned America" (1994): https://ia800406.us.archive.org/31/items...37%20p.pdf

[Firestarter]

Dave McGowan - Wagging the Moondoggie

This post is abou the 14 part essay on the moon landing hoax, by the late Dave McGowan - "Wagging the Moondoggie": http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/

McGowan didn’t spend nearly as much time as Ralph Rene to “research” this nonsense, but McGowan is easily the better writer. The big advantage in reading this next to Ralph Rene’s “NASA mooned America” is that there is hardly an overlap between their stories.
McGowan also takes aim at the (lying) “debunkers” that harass anybody that tries to expose NASA for the fraud it is.
Following are some highlights from the “Moondoggie” articles...

Strangely in the overhead pictures, the alleged lunar modules are the only things casting long shadows on the moon...


NASA once contemplated using “force fields” to repel the radiation, an interesting idea (for a science fiction movie), but certainly not available to NASA in the 1960s. The lunar modules didn’t have any type of physical shielding…

See the image below of one of the landing pods of the 33,000 pounds Apollo 11 lunar module, that left no craters nor sink into the surface…


Several pictures show unequivocally that more than one light source was used. See for example the following famous picture of the Apollo 11 movie.
The surface of the moon is unevenly lit.
Notice the lack of shadow on Buzz Aldrin’s spacesuit (that should be in the shadow). Because on the moon there is no atmosphere shadows would be much darker.
Notice that Buzz’s spacesuit isn’t pressurised.


In the final photo, the lunar module suddenly appears much closer to the “mountains”.
It’s also strange that the mountains in the background look very similar to the second photo. Notice the tracks: http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-4/
(archived here: http://archive.is/WLqXx)


See a NASA image of the moon rover folded up (to save space in the lunar module) and ready to go.


The following picture shows a Soviet Lunokhod rover that was supposedly used in the late 1960s and 1970s and had an “ingenious method” to generate enough power to operate for up to 11 months.


The very smart NASA “scientists” made up a story including astronauts landing on the moon. The Soviets came up with another story about dropping their own “rover” to “research” the moon. Maybe this could be considered “easier”, as they wouldn't need a story on lifting off from the moon and flying back to earth.
They would need some heavy duty computers to be able to perform this feat. Back in the 1960s and 1970s computers weren’t what they are now. See for example the specifications for the 2012 iPhone 5 compared to the 1969 Apollo “guidance computer”: http://ibb.co/cCQQnH


Apollo 13
On 13 April 1970, Apollo 13’s command and service modules were made powerless by an explosion that seriously damaged the exterior of the craft while cruising some 200,000 miles from home. The oxygen tank explosion was strangely not powerful enough to alter the course of the ship.
The 3-man crew retreated to the 2-man lunar module. How could they find enough room in that tight module? The lunar module’s descent engine was used to “slingshot” the module around the moon and successfully back to Earth again!


Part 8 ends with the following conclusion:

As we already know, their cockiness was entirely justified since that aluminum foil capsule provided all the protection the astronauts needed to get home safely. No fewer than eight lunar modules allegedly made the hazardous voyage to the Moon, and all of them arrived in immaculate condition. The Apollo 13 lunar module was exposed throughout virtually the entire mission – all the way to the Moon and all the way back. In all, the eight LEMS allegedly logged some 2,000,000 miles of unprotected space flight and not one of them suffered so much as a scratch. That, my friends, is 1960’s technology at its finest.

I’ve spent some time thinking about these magical engines in the lunar module used to make a soft landing and lift off from the moon.
Dave McGowan shares my idea that this is a major impossibility in the official story: http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-8/
(archived here: http://archive.is/LlGL6)


I won’t limit myself to McGowan’s arguments though...

1 – No testing possible
Because it’s impossible to make a large vacuum testing site, the lunar engines couldn’t effectively be tested at all (besides “simulation” exercises). Because the engines couldn’t be tested, they couldn’t be designed. It’s that simple!
Because the fuel and oxidizer were so corrosive the engines could only be used once, so they needed an engine for the descend AND for the ascend, and they couldn’t test-fire the engine prior to flight.

2 – No possibility to get enough thrust in vacuum
In vacuum the only way to slow down (or accelerate) a space ship is by “shooting” out objects. Just imagine throwing down rocks to slow down after jumping from a skyscraper. You could also try to shoot a machine gun at the ground to go “flying like an eagle”...
You probably know that this is preposterous, but this would be a feasible method to make a relatively minor change (correction) in the direction of the space ship.

To use this for the amount of power needed to descend to and ascend from the moon is impossible. Completely impossible amongst others because they would have to carry all of the mass needed to “shoot” the amount of power needed.
In “rocket science” the only feasible solutions are lightweight...

According to Newton’s Action = Reaction law the “thrust” would come from “shooting” the exhausted gasses from the combustion chamber in a certain direction.
The following image shows that in vacuum the lunar module engines could at best work at a very low efficiency because in vacuum you can’t “shoot” out the air in 1 direction because it will automatically spread out in different directions (free expansion).

If a nozzle couldn’t "exhausts" in only one direction in very low pressure, this would be even worse in vacuum. This shows that the "rocket engines" in vacuum couldn't work efficiently...
The following picture is based on a picture from the following Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine_nozzle


3 – Engine burning in closed compartment
The only way to have an ignition where there is no oxygen is to provide it. But because there’s vacuum, the oxygen would immediately disappear in thin air (quite literally). So they could only make the engine fire in a closed off compartment.
Here’s a NASA picture of the lunar engine.


This leads to the following impossibilities.
The engine would get very hot (much hotter than boiling water). Cooling down wouldn’t be possible.
Even “more impossible” is how to somehow transfer the massive amount of energy needed (to “shoot down” the needed mass that couldn’t be carried along in the lunar module) from the closed off engine to the outside.
As there is no fire outside the (closed off) engine this wouldn’t even look like the burning fire we would see in the lift off from the moon Apollo movies.

4 – The spinning lunar module
Descending to the moon would need an engine that could stop the very fast movement of the module in front of the movement.


Even if they could build an engine with the huge power to make a “soft landing” on the moon possible, there is nothing designed that would prevent the rocket from spinning. In vacuum that would be an even bigger problem than in earth’s atmosphere.

5 - 100% success rate
This amazing feat never once went wrong: every astronaut to reach the moon… got safely back to earth.
This is statistically impossible.

6 – Design story
What I was looking for was a science fiction story on the design of the lunar module that would explain the amazing discoveries by a group of genius “rocket scientists” by accident.
The official story reads like they were designing a new version of an engine of proven technology.

NASA asked several money laundering arms companies to come up with a “plausible” story of designing (parts of) the engine.
The descend engine was especially impossible to design as they would need a “throttleable engine ... new to manned spacecraft” and “Very little advanced research had been done in variable-thrust rocket engines”.
And this couldn’t be tested!

Even though there was no way of real-life testing and this was completely new, NASA later said that they could have chosen both companies - STL and Rocketdyne – as both of their stories were “plausible” enough to sell to the gullible public.


Here’s a link to information from the “independent” Wikipedia on the Lunar Module Engine for the lift off and reconnection with the main module: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascent_P...ion_System

Here’s a story from the “reliable” NASA: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Histo...ch6-5.html
(archived here: http://archive.is/QuQS)