Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

[Misha]

[SydneyPSIder]

[SydneyPSIder]

[Misha]

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

[SydneyPSIder]

[SydneyPSIder]

[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]

[ProfWag]

[Misha]

[NinjaPuppy]