|
If
You Can't Make It, Fake It!
The
Apollo Moon Landings:
Technological triumph or the mother of all hoaxes?
Over
600 million people watched as Neil Armstrong took his first step on
the moon. The Apollo 11 mission, along with 6 other missions (six
total were "successful") made the trip to the moon
according to the US government. The moon landing fake may be one of
the grandest hoaxes ever imposed on the American people. Motives are
endless: Russian competition, need to fulfill promises to the American
people, for increased nationalism, faith in technological
advancements, distraction from the Vietnam War, etc. Here are the facts, you make the decision for
yourself whether this was legitimate or not!
USE
OF STUDIO LIGHTING?
During
the Apollo moon landing missions (1969 –1972 ) the crews did not
use any additional sources of light, not even flash photography
according to NASA.
The
ONLY source of light was the sun. Therefore, any reflection in the
astronaut’s visor has to be the sun. In proportion, the distance
of the sun from earth is roughly the same as that to the moon, so
the sun should appear the same size from the moon as it does from
earth.
The
astronaut’s visor is convex in shape
(somewhat similar to that of a full face motorcycle helmet).
Due
to the shape of the visor, the sun should only reflect as a very
small speckle of intense light,
like in this picture taken on a space walk during a recent
space shuttle mission depicting a correct size reflection of the sun
in the visor.
Now
compare the size of this reflection with the reflection on the
visors during the moon missions. The picture and videos appear to be
taken from a much further distance, so they should therefore have an
even smaller reflection, yet it is MUCH bigger and far too big to be
the sun.
Huge
reflections can also be seen in the following videos, some of them
covering about half of the visor’s surface:
Apollo 15
Apollo 15 (2)
Apollo 17
Therefore
it is reasonable to conclude that the source of light in the moon
picture and videos is way too large in diameter and seems to
originate close to the visor unlike the real sun in the space
shuttle picture. Whatever the light source is, the wide spread of
light on the convex visor CANNOT be explained as being caused by the
sun reflecting.
Try
this with a full-face motorcycle helmet
NO
SHADOW – WRONG SHADOW
Some
official NASA pictures have NO shadow, like this one where the flag
post does not throw a shadow :
Others
do not show parallel shadows, which is impossible if the ONLY light
source was really the sun.
JUMPING
SALUTING ASTRONAUT
On
one of the missions the astronaut jumps in the air and salutes
Apollo 16
Salute Video
Note
that he only jumps about ¼ of his height into the air, no different
than in earth gravity, only in slow motion. However, the fact is
that the moon’s gravity is 1/6 of that of the earth; therefore, he
should jump 6 times as high as on earth!
He should have no problem exceeding his own height with his
jump.
FOOT
PRINTS
There
is little, if any, water on the moon, and ALL of this water is
frozen. Therefore, there is no moisture present in the ground. Try
to make footprint in dry sand, or solid ice. It won’t show. Now
look at those perfectly defined astronaut footprints. How can those
prints form without any non-frozen moisture in the soil? Even more
amazing is that the astronaut, much lighter than the entire capsule,
makes an imprint in the ground and the lander foot doesn't!
NOT
A SPECKLE OF DUST
Amazingly,
the rocket of the moon-lander did not form a blast crater whatsoever
during landing! Even more amazing is that there is not even a single
speckle of dust (see above photo) from the rocket booster blast
showing on the lander’s feet!
NO
NOISE OF ROCKET BOOSTER IN LANDER
There
is no air on the moon, but does that mean we should not hear any
engine noise inside the pressurized lunar lander? No. Rocket motors
are EXTREMELY noisy and produce strong vibration. Since they are
mounted to the lander, at a minimum, their vibration should
transform into noise inside the lander. Yet it is completely silent.
Listen to the video of the landing below:
Apollo 16
Landing
TAKE
OFF FROM MOON, FUEL, AND NAVIGATION
A
takeoff from them moon is at least as complicated as a takeoff from
earth, most likely even more complicated. It may have even been the
most critical part of the mission. It had never been done before,
even in an unmanned configuration.
Yet
in NASA’s scenario it does not play a significant role.
Remember,
instead of thousands of people helping the effort on an earth
takeoff, there is nobody on the moon to help. Additionally, there
are no moon based navigational aides or beacons to ensure a
successful rendezvous with the mother ship (the command module)
still circling the moon. Keep in mind, onboard computer power of the
Apollo mission was LESS than your average four-dollar calculator has
today. How were takeoff time, angle, speed and power settings
calculated and properly executed? What were the three dimensional
reference points in space, and how were they established?
Another
aspect often forgotten is that of fuel needed in the lunar lander.
NASA
put the earth weight of the lander at about 30,000 lbs. Common sense
tells us that the payload and the actual dry weight of the lander
accounts for about half of that.
Therefore
there is about (a very generously calculated) 15,000 lbs of fuel on
board of the lander.
In
terms of jet fuel, that would amount to roughly 2,500 gallons. But,
the lander doesn’t use jet fuel; it uses rocket fuel, which is
consumed at a much higher rate than jet fuel.
This
fuel quantity has to be sufficient to:
1.
Decelerate the lander from its cruising speed of ten thousand miles
plus per hour to zero while navigating directionally with rocket
power.
2.
Briefly hover over the landing area.
3.
Have at least a few minutes reserve for that maneuver.
4.
Take off and overcome moon gravity
5.
Accelerate to cruising speed of 10,000 plus mph while navigating
with rocket power
6.
Execute a precise rocket powered rendezvous maneuver.
7.
Have a least a few minutes reserve left after the rendezvous
maneuver.
How
likely is it that all lunar module maneuvers could have been
accomplished with about 13,500 lbs of fuel (allowing for a 10 %
reserve) when the Saturn V rocket taking off from earth had a fuel
capacity of 4.5 MILLION pounds? You be the judge!
VAN
ALLEN BELT, RADIATION AND PHOTOGRAPHY
Earth
is surrounded by the Van Allen Belt. It is a magnetic radiation belt
that starts about 300-500 miles up and goes as high as 20,000 miles.
It acts as a filter and protects the earth from deadly cosmic
radiation. Without this belt life on earth would be impossible. The
belt itself contains concentrated radiation that it has filtered
from space
Note that all space missions of NASA and the Russians to this day
always stayed well BELOW the protective cover of the Van Allen Belts
with the only exception of the Apollo missions. Those had to
penetrate the belt, thereby exposing the crew to extremely high
doses of radiation with virtually no protection. Yet miraculously
none of these astronauts ever developed radiation related diseases
(leukemia, etc.).
Digital
photography was not invented at the time of Apollo. Therefore, all
pictures taken were on film. The camera was an almost stock
Hasselblad and the film was Kodak.
Radiation
exposes film (x-rays) and there is tremendous radiation in space and
on the moon. Skylab in the 70’s had a massive lead film vault on
board that protected the film from being exposed by space radiation
(and Skylab was far BELOW the Van Allen belts). How did the film not
get exposed by radiation and yield nothing but perfect and crisp
pictures?
TEMPERATURES
AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
First
lets look at the Space Shuttle. A big problem of the shuttle mission
is heat from exposure to the sun. Keep in mind that the shuttle is
in earth orbit and therefore is in the earth’s shade 50 % of the
time. And STILL, heat
is a major problem during the shuttle mission. To divert heat, the
shuttle is turned upside down, so the protective ceramic tiles
underneath deflect the heat.
On
the trip to the moon, however, there is NO SHADE for many days. The
capsule is exposed to the direct and brutal heat of the sun ALL THE
TIME! It is always daytime for the capsule. There is also no
protective tile on the underside; there is nothing more than the
capsule’s tip which had a small heat shield.
The
capsule should have heated up like an oven and nicely fried the
astronauts.
NASA
claims that they rotated the capsule constantly in order to divert
the heat. This however would not reduce the heat, just distribute it
better. And traveling in the vacuum of space the heat has NOWHERE TO
GO! No air to take it on! Space is a vacuum and a vacuum does not
have a ‘temperature” because heat requires matter, thus, space
itself cannot be ‘hot’ or ‘cold’.
How
do you cool a car’s engine? With the radiator. Where does the
radiator dissipate the heat to? The air. Put the car’s radiator
into a vacuum and the engine will overheat.
Another
unanswered question: Where does the backpack of the astronauts
dissipate the body heat to when there is no air to exchange it into?
Liquid maybe?. But that will not effectively get rid of the heat
either….
MISSION
PROCEDURES
A.
During all missions 2 astronauts occupy the lunar landers. They both
get out of the lander and simultaneously walk around on the moon.
Given the unknown environment, would you call that a safe and
reasonable procedure? The lander is left alone without a human
monitoring its systems. What if there is an electrical fire or an
oxygen or fuel leak?
B.
If you hear recordings of the space shuttle communications they are
very professional and technical; the lay person cannot understand
most of it. The moon communication recordings on the other hand are
far less technical and are always understandable by a layman. They
sound like a script rather than reality. “Were finally here
Houston, Fantastic!” is what the crew says after touching down on
the moon. There is no indication of them executing an after landing
checklist or a shut down procedure.
Apollo 16
Landing
C.
Safety on the moon: The surface of the moon is un-researched. There
could be quicksand and the astronaut could just disappear in it. Why
did the astronauts not have a cable attached to each other as a
precaution so one could pull the other out of such a dilemma?
D.
The lunar rover was far to big to fit in the lander. Watch this
video and judge for yourself if this is a metal rover being
deployed, or a fake inflatable version of it! This one is
ridiculous!
Rover Video
SPACE
SUITS?
Everybody
knows that on the moon as well as in space there is no atmosphere
and therefore an atmospheric pressure of ZERO.
Today’s
astronauts wear much bulkier suits, unlike the moon astronauts, they
cannot even let their arms hang down straight. What happened to the
design of these suits? Did we go backwards in technology?
The
suits of today consist of hard parts on the torso, the arms, as well
as hard hinges to connect them, mostly for the purpose of
pressurization. What technology existed in 1969 that does not exist
today that allowed an all-soft, hinge- and hard-part-free space suit
to perform so flawlessly on the moon?
Additionally,
given the laws of physics, an astronaut in a fully pressurized
“soft” suit like the one worn on the moon should have looked
like the Michelin man! Yet in the moon pictures the suits fold and
even cave in , therefore indicating that the soft suit CANNOT
possibly be pressurized in the pictures. If the picture was really
taken on the moon, the unpressurized astronaut should be dead on
arrival with his blood boiling, not to mention him suffocating.
NASA’s
FAIRY TALE
ALDRIN:
“We had a pulley system to load on the boxes of rocks. We found
the process more time-consuming and dust-scattering than
anticipated. After the gear and both of us were inside, our first
chore was to pressure the LM cabin and begin stowing the rock boxes,
film magazines, and anything else we wouldn't need until we were
connected once again with the Columbia. We removed our boots and the
big backpacks, opened the LM hatch, and threw these items onto the
lunar surface, along with a bagful of empty food packages and the LM
urine bags. The exact moment we tossed every thing out was measured
back on Earth- the seismometer we had put out was even more
sensitive than we had expected."
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-350/ch-11-6.html
Ok,
so they got into the lander, shut the hatch and pressurized the
lander, therewith enabling them to take off their boots which were
part of the pressure suit. So far so good.
BUT THEN they opened the hatch again (with their boots off =
unpressurized suits) and threw out some stuff!
The resulting decompression should have killed both of them
ON THE SPOT!
NEUTRAL POINT
On
a trip from earth to the moon there is a VERY significant point at
which the gravity of the moon and that of the earth cancel each
other out, the so called neutral point. This point is significant
for several reasons:
- The
Apollo space ship should stop decelerating and start to
accelerate towards the moon.
- Physiologically
the astronauts should experience a change of their equilibrium.
- Lose
objects in the space ship should start moving in opposite
directions.
YET,
in none of NASA’s records is there ANY mention of this significant
point during ANY of the moon missions, nor is there any radio
communication between Houston and the Apollo ship which refers to
the subject!
NEIL
ARMSTRONG
And
finally, here’s what Neil Armstrong says as he steps on the moon:
Armstrong.wav
What
he really meant to say however is revealed when you play this clip
backwards:
It
says “We never did that, no, man no space walk (no sir?)”
Armstrong-reverse.wav
If
you don’t believe it, reverse the first clip yourself in a program
such as Sound Recorder!
CONCLUSION
We
haven’t been back to the moon in 30+ years. Why? Is there no
significant research left to be done?
The
truth is that it could not even be done given today’s technology!
Cooling and radiation will always be the main obstacles.
Apollo
was nothing but an expensive Hollywood production that certainly
does not compare to today’s special effects. It was the mother of
all hoaxes. You can fool some people sometime but you cannot fool
everyone! For a closing piece, take a look at Buzz Aldrin's response
to the allegations:
Buzz Video
|
