Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

[Misha]

Misha: its the practical joke version, made popular by Ashton Kutcher's MTV show:

http://www.mtv.com/shows/punkd/series.jhtml

Geezzzz!!! Thanks, Arouet. I'm not up on pop-culture.

[SydneyPSIder]

It was actually formed as a result of thrown rock from a meteor, Syd.

And how would we "know" that? The astronauts saw it coming in? Schmitt didn't have the instruments with him to do any kind of analysis of the make-up of that rock.

The difference in terrain between f/g, m/g and b/g seems even more striking in this photo, and it's not just an artifact of receding distance. The f/g looks like a 'real' pic probably taken on earth of real soil and rocks -- suspiciously broken down in size from weathering effects that are not possible on the moon -- to the smoother and eerily lit m/g and b/g.

Available in your choice of sepia or B&W, apparently...

[SydneyPSIder]

Since everyone is throwing around the word "punked" or "punking" I thought it best to find out what you fellas mean by this. I'm from New York and it means only one thing:

1. punking

1. a male prison inmate blank another male prison inmate in the ass
2. succesfully playing a practical joke on someone

Originally, the word "punk" was prison slang, meaning the first defintion. the second comes from the idea that blank someone in the ass is a sign of disrespect (such as male dogs humping one another to show dominance, instead of sexual attraction, which could very well be the motive behind prison rape as well)
"here come' bubba, you 'bout to get f'd in the a' ok?"

Now I haven't been to prison and I also don't find the same sex attractive. What gives?

oh sorry, i meant we'd all been punked by David Harland. The 2nd definition from the urban dictionary, altho the first is reasonably close as well... anyway, nothing the average Republican candidate doesn't like doing in their secret and special "time off" after church service...

[Misha]

Thanks, SydenyPSIder. New York has its drawbacks, especially when it comes to the vernacular of a word.

[SydneyPSIder]

There's a fairly complex treatment at Aulis of more strange artifacts with scale of mountains at:

http://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo2.htm

I don't subscribe to the constant 'whistle blower' refrain so much as sheer incompetence and assumption no-one would check any details.

As they point out,

Only one ‘genuine’ setting can be valid – each one is mutually exclusive. This scene with seriously HUGE and FORBIDDING mountains might well be the most valid representation of what it's like on the Moon – but apparently not what NASA wanted as a backdrop for the photo action scenes. It would appear that a suitable 'arena' was created for both the action photography and for recording the TV coverage.

Why would NASA even want to make the transition between the less intimidating mountains (behind the LM and astronauts in the previous pictures) to the HUGE and FORBIDDING mountains taken from around five miles away? – Perhaps because when used on their own, images like 139-21203/4 convey SCALE and IMPRESS. Exactly what was needed back in December 1972 as Project Apollo came to an end – powerful images in magazines such as National Geographic promoting the awesome achievements of NASA’s space program – manned or otherwise.

[SydneyPSIder]

This is a pretty incriminating pic of how dust REALLY blows up under the force of a 10,000 lb thrust rocket. This was the test firing of a 7,500 lb rocket on earth, which kicked up a huge amount of dust. With the moon's 1/6 G gravity and lack of air resistance, you would expect dust to be blown even higher and further, not the tiny amount of dust we see in the landing sequences, presumably produced by a fan. No blast crater either -- or, more accurately, a necessary blast trench -- or a landing area cleared of dust, and an astronaut on the 'second' mission even comments 'no blast crater, just like Armstrong', an amazing piece of scripted BS to attempt to cover up physics problems by repetition.

NASA has recently released a video of the test firing of a 7,500 lb thrust LOX/Methane rocket engine. This new NASA test inadvertently demonstrates the effect of a 7,500-lb thrust engine on dust and dirt, a stark comparison to the claimed effect the 10,500-lb thrust Hydrazine engine had during the Apollo 11 landing.

Dietrich von Schmausen* has pointed out that as the LM descended it reduced its thrust from 9,800 lbs to approx 7,000 lbs for three minutes, then down to approx 2,600 lbs. As seen in the above photos/video link, and considering what a 7,500-lb engine will do to loose material on the surface, Dietrich von Schmausen considers that a vertical 2,600-lb thrust plume at several feet should do far more than just ‘waft’ the surface.

During the Apollo missions the LM approached and landed at a descending angle, and not straight down. The descent engine had sufficient energy to raise dust at 100 feet, and dust kick up from the LM engine was commented on by the Apollo crew at 40 feet. Deep dust was present near and around the landing site.

Mr von Schmausen says the lander was approaching the target at a 16-degree angle with a decent rate of 60 feet per second forward to 16 fps down from an altitude of 500 feet. Descending from 100 feet at that rate the dust disturbance markings would have become increasingly deeper for the last 100 feet to the landing site. He calculates that there should have been a blast trench at least 32 feet long.

Yet, no such landing approach trail was ever photographed or discussed. The LM would have left not only a visible crater (if not actually wiping the area clear) but also a visible trail approaching the landing site. In Dietrich von Schmausen's view if this did not occur, then the down-looking video showing dust movement at forty feet was totally fake.

Mr von Schmausen speculates that the so-called ‘Apollo conspiracy’ was ultimately the benevolent application of the generally noxious idea that the “end justifies the means”. In his view this time it truly did, for the failure of Apollo would have theoretically set the United States Space Program back by decades.

Politicians would have been hard pressed to justify continued funding for NASA programs. “I don’t harbour any ill will towards NASA or the United States,” says Mr von Schmausen. “I do, on the other hand, believe that politicians are a deceitful breed, and conspiracies do exist, especially in agencies that suckle those politicians.”

Dietrich von Schmausen concludes however, that no humans have ventured beyond Low Earth Orbit – other than those who claim to have been sent to the Moon yet refuse to discuss the adventure candidly.


* Dietrich von Schmausen was employed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA, between March 1974 to April 1982 as a category "A" contractor.

http://www.aulis.com/dusttodust.htm

While I’m at it, I think that it should be mentioned that there were collapsible surface contact probes attached to the bottoms of the Apollo 11 landing pads. Since the LM (as the record states) came in at an angle and those contact probes did not retract upon surface contact but rather dragged along the lunar surface, what happened to the drag marks left by the surface contact probes?



Furthermore, if the contact probes were dragged along the lunar surface on a straight course, why are they shown in photographs sticking out at odd angles? (see photo above) It's as though the LM had landed straight down and was rotated in opposite directions during landing, consistent with being lowered by a crane.

I note also in that final picture that the contact probe looks more like it's sitting in wet sand, and, of course, the gold foil wrapped landing pads are suspiciously clean in all the shots we see.

[SydneyPSIder]

Some more dramatic BS spun out by NASA from the Apollo 17 mission:



The 'astronauts' whinged that their hands were red, raw, bleeding messes from the pressurised gloves, that they had chafing, blisters, the skin on their knuckles was gone and all their fingernails removed in one case! However, footage of the return flight and splashdown shows absolutely no damage whatsoever. One colour pic appears to have been doctored to show 'nail bruising', although there was no nail bruising evident in pics at splashdown. Nor any evidence of blisters, chafing, red rawness or fingernails missing.

They complained throughout the 'mission' of this problem and one of the astronauts spun it out into a dramatic saga in his memoirs released in 1999. All BS, all faked. Why would you spend one sou or one second of time listening to any of the 'adventures' of these guys when they never left earth, except to go up in a plane for the splashdown fakery?

It's a little like the 'footage' we've seen of the plane that hit the Pentagon! 5 blurry shots from one camera with no plane, with footage from 82 other cameras missing and never to be released!

[SydneyPSIder]

OK, once more into the fray. Models this time. Does anyone know the original provenance of these pics of very large lunar models being made, apparently accurate copies based on unmanned lunar topographic surveys before the Apollo missions. These are meant to be at the Langley Research Center complex.

(For some reason some JPEGs won't display here, so I've just provided the image URLs along with the source page.)

http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/

Note the 20' globe and slightly curved panorama board (with camera rail tracks) about to be filled in with moon topography artwork:

http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/inde ... b31b80.jpg

http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/inde ... c59b80.jpg

http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/inde ... dcb680.jpg

http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/inde ... ecb680.jpg

Once it was finished it was backlit from inside:

http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/inde ... 0868c0.jpg

http://apolloreality.atspace.co.uk/inde ... ff48e0.jpg

More pictures and explanation on the website.

Then there is this plaster cast of Hadley Rille made *before* Apollo 15 landed there. Complete with Hasselblad reticules??? (Unlike the Apollo 17 pic that was somehow released *without* reticules.)

http://apolloreality2.atspace.co.uk/ind ... ca3c20.jpg
"Plaster cast" of Hadley Rille

Faked space pics using the models above?

http://apolloreality2.atspace.co.uk/ind ... 11cae0.jpg

See treatment at http://apolloreality2.atspace.co.uk/

Some unrealistic videos of these models to follow, if I can find the footage...

[SydneyPSIder]

Where's the reticules on this one?

[SydneyPSIder]

Just an interesting intermission movie while I look for the other vids:



glad some Americans can investigate other Americans...

[SydneyPSIder]

This short footage of the ascent module supposedly approaching the orbiter for docking is extremely suspect from a physics perspective:



While it may seem like an innocuous 37 s clip, the acceleration and deceleration shown by the module at 0:20 and 0:36 is just not possible -- that is not how things work in reality. It is like a model being rotated on a stick by an electric motor. You cannot start and stop rotation with near infinite acceleration and deceleration and constant velocity of a massive object with vernier rockets in that fashion without any overshoot. It's worth watching a couple of times. Then consider how you would use the fake lunar models above to construct this footage.

There's at least three problems with the footage of the Apollo 11 LM ascent video below:



One is that the LM, as we know, or have seen in other footage, took off straight upwards. However, here we see the LM flying quite low over the lunar landscape at a fixed distance and for a long time -- not quite sure how it achieved that trajectory or fixed low orbit. Second, there appears to be a bug flying in at 1:14 and landing on the fake moon model. Finally, the shadows look a wee bit fake on the revolving model also -- I mean, why are the shadows the same length all the way round, as though the moon is rotating towards the sun at the same rate as the ascent module is flying over the moon?

[ProfWag]

Where's the reticules on this one?

I guess I;m not understanding your question, Syd. First, only a casual look shows the LM was taken at a different angle which would obviously produce a different background.
Also, your post was plagiarised from this forum:
http://alienanomalies.activeboard.com/t ... generated/

I'm sorry, but the credibility of your post is zero. If you are wanting to have an accurate discussion without bias, then the posts we make should be our own thoughts based on what we consider credible. If you really think your sources are credible, then there really isn't anything else to discuss. Wasting our time by making us examine forged photos and unresearched posts is rather rude, wouldn't you say?

[ProfWag]

At this point in time if someone gave me a choice by putting a gun to my head on whether Apollo was real or hoaxed I would have to say hoaxed.

Wow. You are willing to put your life on the line because of what Jarrah White says on a website that has already been shown to have misrepresentations? C'mon Misha, you appear smarter than that.

[Misha]

At this point in time if someone gave me a choice by putting a gun to my head on whether Apollo was real or hoaxed I would have to say hoaxed.

Wow. You are willing to put your life on the line because of what Jarrah White says on a website that has already been shown to have misrepresentations? C'mon Misha, you appear smarter than that.

ProfWag, my belief is not solely based on Jarrah White's research. And this is not about being smart. Much of it is about wisdom and how the world really works. When you finally come to terms that what has been fed to the masses on this planet is about control then your world will truly open up. Tommy Lee Jones is correct when he said to Will Smith in MIB (first film) - "Can you handle it." Are you prepared to handle your world being turned upside down?

I hope to put you on a park bench for hours at a time in consideration of this.

[NinjaPuppy]

When you finally come to terms that what has been fed to the masses on this planet is about control then your world will truly open up.

I totally agree with this statement.