NASA Finally Reveals the Truth About Fake Moon Landings

General (other)
304

I don't think it's plausible to think that they a) adlibbed it, nor b) wrote the speech themselves and revealed their true location by mistake

Now that we both understand my A) B) C) questions, can you answer what you think would be the most plausible answer?

"Right now we only can fly in earth orbit, that's the farthest we can go, and this new system that we are building is gonna allow us to go beyond and hopefully take humans into the solarsystem to explore, so the moon, mars, asteroids, there's a lot of destinations that we could go to, and we're building these building-block components in order to allow us to do that eventually"

He's saying that RIGHT NOW they can only fly in earth orbit. They don't have a program/technology to, for instance go to the moon. This doesn't mean that he's saying that they never could go to the moon.

Example: Right now I can't go into town to the supermarket because I don't have my car. This does not mean that I wasn't able to go last week too (I could, because I had my car)

Same with when he's saying that eventually they will, this doesn't rule out that they went before.

Example: Eventually I will be able to go to the supermarket because I will get my car. This does not mean that I've never been able to go

I've posted explanations to this at least twice before, the explanation to why NASA can say that they don't have the technology to go to the moon right now. Here they are again:-

305

Of course they destroyed any evidence that proved they DIDN'T go to the moon. Do you seriously think anyone believes that they lost ALL the evidence for Man's "supposed' greatest achievement. It's laughable man and more fool you for believing such blatant lies. They know people who believed they went to the moon are so gullible they will swallow any amount of lies they put out there. It's like the schoolboy who didn't do his homework, lying and saying the dog ate it. Tell me do you believe the Government about everything?

th-3743654739

306

And I suppose Boeing couldn't construct a bi-plane in a couple of weeks, course they could.

307

They didn't.

There isn't any proof they didn't go.

Comparing a bi-plane with a moon-mission program isn't an accurate comparison.

308

Neither is taking 2 weeks compared to 50 years.

309

They destroyed all the proof, all that remains are theater props and old footage which could have been taken in a studio, gone is all the supposed telemetry data, which can not now be scrutinized.

310

Again if someone did a scientific experiment, which could not be repeated independently in 50 years, it would be junk science.

1 Like
311

Take crossing the Atlantic by plane, a few died attempting it before it was successful. When it was succesful they never stopped going. The Moon mission supposedly succeeded on the very first attempt, then they stopped after 6 missions never to go back ever again 50 years later.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/21/first-transatlantic-flight-alcock-brown/

Don't you see how implausible the whole thing is?

Should be easy now with 50 year old better technology, what's keeping them?

312

Questions about the official story

  1. Why have the plans for the Saturn and LEM not been put on the web? There is no reason for it, except for a cover up. The plans should have been sent to many universities. They should have been kept for constructing a new Lunar Lander, such as for the upcoming Constellation project.

  2. Why no photos of a vast horizon on the Moon? Stanley Kubrick's scenes seem more realistic, including the Earth and stars in the background. Apollo shots make the Moon look the size of an asteroid, with a short horizon, followed by just black.

  3. Since the Moon has 1/6th of Earth's gravity, we would only need a LEM 1/6th the size of the Saturn to descend, plus another 1/6 to get back up into orbit. So the LEM would need to be 1/6+1/6 =1/3 the size of the Saturn. At the very least, the ascent module would need more fuel, and would need to be larger.

  4. The 2 astronauts would be standing too near the heat of the burning descent and ascent modules of the LEM. How could they survive such temperature extremes - boiling in the sun and freezing in the shade?

  5. Radiation and heat on the Moon are a problem for the Kodak film - and the men.

  6. 42 years, and counting, since the last visit, with mobile phones with more computing power than the LEM, makes the problem increasingly obvious. Here are 22 inventions that show how advance we are now. http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/welcome-to-the-fuetch?bffb

  7. Neil Armstrong never said "Hey, the Van Allen Belts no problem! More people can safely go to the Moon!" On the contrary, he became reclusive, rarely agreeing to interviews, as if ashamed to be lying.

  8. Clues in the speeches of other Astronauts: Eugene Cernan often uses euphemisms, such as "I was the last to call the Moon my home" and other indirect speech. They avoid saying "I walked on the Moon."

  9. "Loss" of the telemetry data, even at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. Who would "lose" the Moon landing data tapes? It should have been freely distributed to all interested universities, and put on the web. This is the sign of a cover up.

  10. Deliberately using 2 GHz transmission frequency from Apollo craft, which ham radio and other independent operators could not monitor, to verify location of the Apollo craft. Only 3 satellite dishes, all owned and controlled by NASA, received the "live television footage" of the landing. Highly suspicious.

  11. There was huge, billion dollar incentives for Lockheed, Rockwell, and other contractors, to keep the ruse going on this profitable project. It is cheaper to fake a landing than do a real one, meaning more profits.

  12. America is the main exporter of illusion - mostly from Hollywood and Broadway - events that are interesting but fictional.

  13. Astronauts weighing 180 pounds would weigh 30 pounds in 1/6 gravity. Their 180 pound packs would be another 30, for a total of 60 pounds. We saw no impressive jumps, just pitifully small hops. John Young made highest hop on camera, only 1.5 feet when it should have been about 6 feet.

  1. NASA refuses to point the Hubble Telescope to the Apollo landing sites. Why not? The Wide Field and Planetary Camera (WFPC) had a field of view (WF) f/12.9 - 2.6 x 2.6 arcminutes with a resolution of .043 arcseconds (pixel size Planetary Camera). It can distinguish 2 objects 1 meter apart from 384400 km from NY to San Francisco 2500 miles away (4140 km). The Moon is 238900 miles (384400 km) So it could distinguish 384400 / 4140 = 92.8, or objects 100 meters or a football field from each other. So Hubble might not be able to do it. But there are also telescopes on Earth with larger reflectors, that could be used to distinguish between the LEM and nearby equipment. The point is, why are none of these telescopes even trying?

  2. NASA admits we don't have the technology to deal with the dust and temperature extremes. But we did in 1969? The recent Orion launch was unmanned, to go through the Van Allen Belt. Why not manned? This speaks volumes.

  3. Werner Von Braun was under a very tight deadline. (Let us remember he was a Nazi.) Yet he had time to go to Antarctica, where Moon rocks (kicked loose by asteroids) got caught in Earth's magnetic field and fell to the Earth. Why would he go there, unless to get samples?

17) A rock was given to the leaders of Netherlands that turned out to be petrified wood. This should never happen. This looks very bad.
BBC: Fake Dutch "Moon Rock" Revealed
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8226075.stm

  1. Google Moon does NOT show the Apollo landing sites, if you remove the graphics. And they should. It is really s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g it to say a bright patch or dark spot is a Lunar Module. (See samples at Google Moon)

  2. Conversations between Astronauts on the Moon and Houston were too quick. It takes 1.25 seconds each way for transmissions. (see Nasa Fast Talking)

  3. NASA claims to have "accidentally" erased 200000 Moon landing videos. We are seriously supposed to believe this,
    and that there were no backup copies? http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/07/16/us-nasa-tapes-idUSTRE56F5MK20090716

  4. Lunar Rover is just ridiculous. Too heavy. No photos of assembly - it just appears. No tire tracks in some photos. It does not kick up dust high enough. Not enough battery power - huge batteries in 1970's

  5. Take off of Lunar Ascent Module had to be timed perfectly to intersect the Command Module.

  6. A single module Descent Module could tip over easily

  7. How did they fit 3 astronauts in the Lunar Module on Apollo 13?

Source @http://americanmoon.org/

313

Curious how advanced their communication systems where. Just theater props?
(playlists below, not just single videos)

What is the problem with it being old?

There are many details that show that it would not have been possible to fake in a studio.

Then there are the photographs too, for instance of earth.

I don't see anything sneaky or misleading in NASA's explanation about the telemetry:-

No I just don't see the implausibility in this and comparing crossing the Atlantic by plane and going to the moon isn't a good comparison. The many articles I've read about this give good reasons for why they haven't gone back to the moon, in my opinion.

If NASA received a cut in finances and the Apollo program stopped then you can't just turn it on and decide to go to the moon again without refurbishing / building a brand new very expensive program program.

314

The moon is 1/4 earth size. There's no atmosphere and haze so it's hard to discern distance.

Here for instance, Apollo 15 AS15-90-12187

Imgur

That peak is over 22km away.

Here's a simulation of that photo that I made in Google Earth

image
image1063×652 63.1 KB

Another one, 27km

Screenshot from 2023-05-23 20-55-38
Screenshot from 2023-05-23 20-55-381063×652 346 KB

In the video below the mountain is about 17km away.

Not easy to determine how far away the horizon is on more flat images though.

The computers built for the Apollo program were good enough for the calculations needed.

Already covered

Too heavy, 210kg?

image
image500×511 92.9 KB

image

https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html

If it was designed for 2 persons then I don't think it's impossible for a third person still to fit.

"With the command module losing power fast, the astronauts had to move into the lunar module, or LM, to use it as a lifeboat. Designed for two, the LM's cabin was a tight fit for three people, with Swigert keeping mostly to the small section at the rear of the cabin."

315

It had been hoped the launch, called Start Me Up after the 1981 Rolling Stones hit, would turn the country into a global player - from manufacturing satellites to building rockets and creating new spaceports.

Perhaps, "Give It Up" would have been more apropos.

Virgin Orbit: Branson’s rocket dream ends after mission failure.

The demise of Virgin Orbit shows just how hard this race to space can be - and there may well be more failures along the way. But the UK's ambitions for space are far from over.

316

@DG-Truther-Videos YT link in description

317

@DG-Truther-Videos YT link in description

318

@DG-Truther-Videos YT link in description

319

Doesn't look like a foot or an arm.

NASA claims that Al Shepard pulled the camera's cable with his foot although he says nothing of it. The object is too thick for a cable,which was on a tripod. The camera does not move or tip over...

It's not just the cable but a connector. The camera is clearly moving.

image
image556×550 81.4 KB

At about 135:24:38, late in the Apollo 14 EVA-2 close-out, Ed Mitchell was about to head up the ladder. Al Shepard was walking toward the ladder from the MESA with the rockbox, which he would hand to Ed once Ed was up on one of the lower rungs and had had a chance to stomp his boots to clean some of the dust off his legs. As Al moved toward the ladder, his foot caught under the TV cable and pulled it enough that the camera tipped forward and fell to the ground. As indicated below, this was at least the fifth instance during the close-out that the camera moved as a result of Al snagging the TV cable with his boot. An analysis of this sequence of cable tugs suggests that, cumulatively, they put the camera and cable in a much more vulnerable configuration than would have otherwise been the case.

Analysis:-
https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14TVCablePulls.html

I've not been able to find a long video to look into it properly. They say he/they snagged on the cable 5 times.

You can also read it in the transcript:-

135:16:39 Mitchell: Your feet are about to get tangled up in the TV cable again. Don't fall.
135:24:53 Haise: ...someone must have got caught in the cable; we just saw the TV go over.

Dishonest quote-mining.

"In September 2015, Buzz Aldrin gave an interview at the National Book Festival in Washington, D.C. Flat-Earthers misrepresented and quoted it out of context as if Buzz was admitting that the Apollo Moon landings never happened.

The original interview was 17 minutes long, and there were other occasions Buzz clearly said the Moon landings happened, without any possibility of misinterpretation."

"We are also really pushing the boundaries in terms of where we are going forward, with exploration. I think humans are naturally driven to do this. And, this is really the beginning, I think, of human beings leaving low Earth orbit. I certainly plan on being around to see that."

I don't see her explicitly admitting that humans have not left Earth's orbit before. You can begin and stop things many times. She's referring to current NASA programs and them being a beginning to leave low Earth orbit. Since there hasn't been programs to do that since the Apollo programs it's a big deal and a new beginning. Mentioning the Apollo programs isn't necessary because they are self-evident.

Seeing/reading other interviews by her talking about the Apollo programs makes it hard to believe that she would believe/know that the Apollo missions were fake and somehow make a slip up like that.

320

Found the videos:-

https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/video14.html#Golf

They are in ancient RealVideo format (VLC/Mplayer will play them)

Here's the video that includes this:-

135:24:53 Haise: ...someone must have got caught in the cable; we just saw the TV go over.

321

We Are Completely Puzzled by This Video of a Chinese Astronaut Playing Ping-Pong in Space

That's one way to stay active in space.

Ping-pong in space? Sounds awesome.

But footage shared by Chinese media of astronaut Deng Qingming whacking a ball around in the country's Tiangong is frankly very puzzling. The ball always returns to Deng's paddle, but he doesn't seem to be bouncing it off a flat surface, and it wobbles mysteriously as it moves through the air, leaving us with far more questions than answers.

How is this extraterrestrial game actually work? And whatever's going on, does it really count as playing ping-pong in space?

Here's our theory: Upon closer examination, the ball appears to be attached to some sort of long static tether, kind of like a floppy antenna, which is itself attached to the floor of the station, circled in the screenshot below.

The ball seems to hover in midair when Deng isn't actively hitting it with his paddle, which supports our theory.

322

Yes. The octagonal black shape is the base of the antenna which can even be seen.

Here are some amateur astronomer videos and images of this Chinese space station.

324

@DG-Truther-Videos