Moon Landing Hoax - Evidence, Logic and Common Sense

[really?]

[SydneyPSIder]

[really?]

[really?]

Moon Base Clavius http://www.clavius.org/ offers critical analysis of ct Moon hoax claims

[SydneyPSIder]

[SydneyPSIder]

[SydneyPSIder]

[SydneyPSIder]

[Arouet]

To be clear, I was using the cluvius article to help define the relevant questions, as I said, they don't source their answers so I don't take them as authoritative. What I wanted to do first was identify the relevant questions, see if White addressed them (since he's been proferred as an authority to rely on). If he has, we'll look closer at his answers. If he hasn't we'll look into it ourselves.

We're accepting that we're all lay people here, doing the best we can to understand technical issues. But I think this is a good way to proceed.

Then we can do the same with the pictures.

[Misha]

[SydneyPSIder]

???? Thoughts?



Further, another researcher calculated that the moon rover wheelbase, when folded, is too long for the storage bay, i.e. it could never have fitted.

And one of the 'trackless rover' pictures:



The rover had allegedly needed a 'running repair', hence the jerry rigged piece of cardboard in lieu of a mudguard. Except it doesn't appear to have been running anywhere with no wheel tracks but plenty of boot mark impressions. Either the astronauts had superhuman strength and lifted it into place there, or it's been dropped there by a crane. My money's on the crane.

There's a cutesy story about how one of the astronauts 'ripped off the fender by accident' with a hammer in his suit while constructing -- fragile little thing -- so I suppose the legend is that they had just constructed it and put it in place there -- although you would think they would have to at least pushed it there. Not to worry! There's plenty of other trackless rover pics out there from other scenarios -- such as the final resting place pics -- of which the rovers are completely different in what are supposed to be the same shots -- and still missing tyre tracks:



Editor's Comment: Three more questions:

1) Why is the dish antenna pointed forward, when in the inset photo the dish is pointed backward?

2) Is the distance of the LM in this photo commensurate with the 4 ks from the LM indicated on NASA map of Apollo 17 stations? (See later study Same hill used many times.)

3) Why is the lighting so different in both these pictures? In the inset photo, the light source is from left of frame and the front wheel is in shadow, in the main photo the wheel is in a different position and not in shadow. In the main image the lighting is higher and onto the rear of the LRV. Therefore a) the rover has been moved between these images – except there are no tracks, as Jack White points out – and b) the lighting is from a completely different height in the 'sky.'

[really?]

[SydneyPSIder]

Here's some videos after the pics, looking at the issue of wire flashes or pings from cables suspending astronauts in sprung harnesses to emulate low gravity -- and video of course is slowed down 50%.

Look at 2:16 in particular.



Here's one of the US flag waving in the breeze on the airless moon. See what happens when the astronaut bunnyhops by 2 feet away from the flag at 2:38.



And these are some really good flag flaps in the breeze:



Really impressive, that's the whole bottom half of the flag going right up to the top in some of those shots, particularly from 0:42 onwards. These were most likely shot 'outside' in the desert somewhere in the US, clearly natural breezes could get through the set. Or that's some hella 'static electricity' effect.

I like the soundtrack on the third video, it's the pseudoscep anthem playing!

The astronauts always sound incredibly cocky for people who are on an important mission, could be hit by a meteorite travelling at 20,000 mph at any moment, could spring a suit leak, might never return to earth in case of any mishap, etc etc. They fall over a lot and don't seem to care too much about potential suit tears or a/c malfunctions either. They kicked rocks around, hit golf balls, and seemed to get increasingly cavalier with each mission.

Next: some 'model making' pics...

[Misha]

Really wrote: Oy ve iz miry misha ! This isn't about rockets. It's about all the people that help put humans on the Moon being able to keep the secret it's was all a hoax. It's not plausible.

For your consideration, Really. If it's not plausible that the Apollo Moon program was not a hoax then is it "plausible" that we went? Is this not the antithesis? Here's the definition from the Oxford dictionary:


plausible
Pronunciation: /ˈplɔːzɪb(ə)l/

Translate plausible | into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
Definition of plausible
adjective

(of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable: a plausible explanation it seems plausible that one of two things may happen
(of a person) skilled at producing persuasive arguments, especially ones intended to deceive: a plausible liar.

Plausible does not make it a fact. In fact, it is reasonable to question "plausibility." Need I remind you that U.S. National Security engages in Plausible disclaim or denial. Yes, this cuts both ways whether for or against the Apollo program

[SydneyPSIder]

Something from James Collier, who also wrote "VOTESCAM: The Stealing of America" -- another topic worthy of consideration.

To Buy a copy of "Was It Only A Paper Moon?" go to http://moonmovie.com

Did America really go to the Moon. . .or were taxpayers just taken for a ride?

This 2-hour report by James Collier, author of "VOTESCAM: The Stealing of America" includes new evidence videod in the Johnson Space Center in Houston -- and questions whether NASA was guilty of spending billions of taxpayer money -- to stage the greatest theatrical hoax of all time.

This video demands answers from the U.S. Government before we go to Mars.

1) Was the hatch between the Command Module & the Lunar
Module too small for the space-suited astronauts to pass
through no matter what contortions they could go through to try?

2) Did the front hatch of the Lunar Module open inward
making it impossible for the astronauts to exit the cramped LM?

3) Was there actually no NASA manual instructing the astronauts how to get out of the LM, leaving it up to each individual to figure that out for himself? (As told on camera to Collier by Frank Hughes, Chief of Astronaut Training at NASA)

4) Was the 10-foot Rover too long to fit into the 5-foot side of the LM?

Collier challenges NASA to disprove the above in a public demonstration to American taxpayers! This investigation and that of others, including investigator Bill Kaysing, who is now suing Astronaut James Lovell for slander (jury trial, Santa Cruz, Ca., Oct. 7th), cannot be ignored.

ARTICLE THAT APPEARED IN MEDIA BYPASS MAGAZINE AUGUST, 1997:

INVESTIGATOR CHALLENGING NASA
By James M. Collier

IN 1994, Victoria House Press in New York received a manuscript titled 'A Funny Thing Happened On Our Way to the Moon.'" Its author, Ralph Rene, a brilliant lay physicist who had studied Bill Kaysing's thesis (see July issue) that NASA faked seven Apollo moon shots, wanted it published.

Since I had written the investigative report "Votescam: The Stealing of America," (Victoria House Press) they asked me to investigate Rene and his manuscript to determine the credibility of both.
"I read Kaysing's book 'We Never Went to the Moon'", Rene told me, "and although it was compelling, it lacked technical details, a grounding in physics that would convince scientists, beyond a doubt, that America never went to the moon."

Rene was positive that NASA had pulled off the hoax of the century.
"NASA didn't have the technical problems solved by l969 when they launched the first moon shot," he insisted, "but I believe they couldn't admit it or they'd lose thirty billion dollars in taxpayer-money."

I read Rene's manuscript and although I understood basic physics, I couldn't immediately assure the publisher that Rene's assertions were scientifically accurate. Least of all, I couldn't assure them that we didn't go to the moon. I needed time.

So what began as simple research turned into months at the New York Public Library, the Library of Congress in Washington and the United States Archives. Surpisingly, precious little had been written about the Apollo missions except standard "puff" pieces in the New York Times
and the Washington Post.

Then my research turned to Grumman Aircraft in Beth Page, New York. Grumman built the Lunar Module (LM), that unwieldy looking craft that never flew on Earth but supposedly landed safely on the moon six times. I asked for blueprints detailing the scientific thought behind its design. Did it run by computer? If so, who built the computer? What made Grumman engineers think it could fly?

Grumman told me that all the paperwork was destroyed. I was stunned. The LM historical paperwork was destroyed!? Why!? They had no answers. I turned to Boeing Aircraft in Seattle. They built the Lunar Rover, the little car that NASA claims traversed the moon on Apollo missions15-16-17. NASA claims it was transported to the moon in a five-foot high by six-foot wide, triangular corner section of the LM.
(The LM's bottom section was basically a tic-tac-toe design with nine sections. Five sections were squares with the four corners being triangles).

But my research indicated that the Rover was at least six feet too long to fit into that corner compartment, thus making it impossible to ever get to the moon.

Next was the National Air and Space Museum in Washington and the Johnson Space Center in Houston where I video taped an actual LM. Here research indicated that the crew compartment and hatches were too small for the astronauts to actually enter and exit. After taking the video footage I challenged NASA to prove that two six-foot astronauts, in ballooned-out pressure suits (4-psi in a vacuum) could either get in or get out of a LM.

Trying to understand how the moon acquired a ten-foot layer of top soil without wind, rain or water to erode the volcanic-crystaline surface, I spoke to a geologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Boston.

Much of my time was spent just trying to mentally picture the physics of light and shadows, jet propulsion and solar radiation, because most of what NASA was claiming about the moon shots -- and what was supposedly discovered on the moon -- appeared to be diametrically opposed to present text book physics.

* * *

Anyway, I was knee-deep in all this research, when Rene became impatient and decided to self-publish his book. He changed the title to "NASA Mooned America". I, however, had been hooked.
But now there wasn't a book to research. I was left hanging, questions plaguing my mind. Questions that neither Kaysing nor Rene entertained.
Their research had led me into a scientific wonderland, filled with possibilities. What was I going to do? I had been thrown out of a great movie and I'd never know how it ended.
I decided to continue the research. I proposed a book to the publisher titled "Was it Only a Paper Moon?" and I promised it by 1998.

* * *
I started with the technical problems NASA faced in outer space. In fact, I discovered there are two separate zones out there, an inner space and anouter space, and that fact eventually became very significant in my research.

It appears that humans are most likely operating in inner space (the space lab) but outer space, beyond the Van Allen radiation belt, the magnetosphere, 560 miles up, may be too deadly to enter due to solar radiation. If that data proves to be true, Earthmen could not have gone to the moon and returned without some signs of radiation poisoning, cell damage and DNA alteration, and most likely, death from cancer.

* * *

The first concern I faced when I started to write the book was my own public credibility. After all, I was the person who told the country (Votescam) that their votes were being rigged by a cartel of powerful elite, including the owners of major media in America.

Now I found myself investigating the possibility that we didn't go to the moon. "You've got to be nuts," said my friends. "First you told them the vote is rigged and now you question whether we went to the moon!? They'll hang you in Times Square!"

So I decided to test the waters with several talk-radio shows in the midwest. Most of the callers said they never believed we went to the moon in the first place. Others protested that I was doing the station and myself a disservice for even bringing up the subject. They argued that I shouldn't malign "those great American heroes, the astronauts."
What could I say to these people? I wanted to explain that I not only sympathized with their point of view, but that at one time I had shared it.

It wasn't easy being the Cassandra of the airwaves, telling people what they definitely didn't want to hear. Half of me wanted to be proven wrong, but the other half had both hands on the tail of something that sure looked like a duck and quacked like a duck. The last time that happened, the duck turned out to be an expose of computer vote rigging in the United States. As an investigative reporter, I just couldn't let go of that damn duck.

In the final analysis, I had tested the waters by doing radio and found that although they were hot, they wouldn't burn me alive. There were still scores of calls from listeners who encouraged me to continue the investigation.

* * *

Then, a funny thing happened on my way to writing that book. I was trying to use words to describe the strange visual phenomena that I saw in NASA photos and videos. Those provocative images are the first evidence that people investigating NASA use to draw you into the fray.
"You won't believe this NASA picture," they say, and the tantalizing hunt for clues is forever on.

It was then I realized you had to see it to believe it.

Those NASA pictures were supposedly taken on the moon's surface, but the lighting from the only available sources, the sun and reflected Earth-light, seems all wrong. It is too soft, appearing more like a Disney studio photo; soft pastels and diffused light.

How could there be diffused light on the moon?

Earth's atmosphere takes light and bends it, spreading it around objects. Light reflects off air molecules and lights up the dark sides of objects. It is atmosphere, bending the sun's light, that makes the sky appear to be blue. However, on the moon there is no prism of atmosphere to diffuse or bend light so the sky is totally black.

On the moon, the sun's light should be blinding. In fact, the astronauts wear gold tinted face plates on their helmets to cut down 95-percent of the light from the sun. [Although they left the visor up in many instances to show their faces]

The dark side of objects in NASA photos should be pitch black, while the lit side should be hellishly bright. Yet, all NASA photos from the moon are softly lit, and they appear to be taken in Earth's atmosphere. Why?

If NASA film footage was actually taken on the moon, then it would be a tremendous scientific story. One would expect new physics books trumpeting an incredibly new physical reality: atmosphere has nothing to do with diffusing light! Therefore, and forever thereafter, a new scientific principle would be taught in schools: where there is no atmosphere, light will react exactly the same as light in atmosphere.

What was wrong in the world of science? Why were the scientists silent about such an important discovery? Why was the major media mute on the subject?

I called Kodak, in Rochester, N.Y., the company that supplied the film for the Hasselblad cameras the astronauts used on the moon. "At what temperature does film melt?" I asked.

"One hundred and fifty degrees."

But NASA video and film prove the astronauts to be on the moon's surface when the sun was at high noon; the temperature was +250 F. degrees.

"The film, in the uncooled cameras would melt," Kodak said.
So the duck was quacking.

* * *

When I realized that everything I was trying to describe with words was strongly visual, I decided to commit the research to a video tape instead of a book.

"Was it Only a Paper Moon" video was released in Spring of this year. It contains a 90-minute unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence that, if not refuted by NASA, proves we could not have gone to the moon.
I feel this evidence demands Congressional hearings.