Apollo 11 'Moon Landing': Spreadsheet summary of the Physical and Mechanical objections to the narrative. A hoax in plain sight.

Summarises various posts. Induces Fanboy rage and apoplexy. Attracts ad hominems and allegations of Flat Earthism. Chance that Apollo 11 went to the moon, landed and came back as advertised - 1.8%.

When you travel in space, laugh, giggle, and tell jokes. It is so easy and so much fun.

"For the shadows to be non-parallel in the way they are shown in the NASA lunar photographs, the light source would have to be very close—within the lunar environment itself. From a physics standpoint, the Sun, being 93 million miles away, acts as a point source at infinity. Parallel shadows are a mathematical requirement of that distance. The photos prove a local, artificial light source." — Dr. David Groves, Physicist/Image Analyst

A good discussion could be generated over whether the Sun is really 93 million miles away (other posts deal with the Euclidean counter argument that it is not). But let’s aceept Dr Groves’ submission for indeed he is right in his observations. The issues with the photography, however, are one small piece in the great puzzle of the Apollo 11 fraud.

Chance

Probability theory informs us that the percentage chance that Apollo 11 went to the moon and back is ~1.8%. This is generous. Probability theory is accumulated by component. There are many models one can use (Random Forest, SVM, ML Ops etc) but you can keep it simple and do it yourself. You can go through every significant ‘event’, ‘step’, ‘node’, or important attribute and apply a probability percentage based on past events, testing (if known) and if the processes are ‘tried and true’ or novel and unique. Multiply along the chain and see what the result is. Anything less than 5% is stastically meaningless. A number less than 30% means certain death.

Slingshot as one item

Take one row item, ‘Slingshot return’. So riddle the skeptics this: if Apollo 11’s Command Module is already in the moon’s orbit at 60 miles altitude, with Collins (‘did you see stars?, no I don’t recall seeing stars’) inside; how did he pilot the CM to escape the moon’s orbit and use the moon’s ‘gravity’ to slingshot back to Earth? Fanboys can take their time with this one. Is this why Orion is going to avoid the moon’s gravity as it purportedly attempts the slingshot? Consider:

1. For Collins to maintain an orbit at 60 miles altitude above the moon, based on NASA’s own data, the CM had to be travelling at 3,600 mph

2. To head back to Earth, based on NASA’s own data, the CM must increase its velocity to ~5,300 mph

3. Based on NASA’s own calculations this requires a massive, sustained burn of fuel they did not have, so this increased velocity did not occur

4. Besides the lack of fuel, in reality, a CM cannot slingshot around a body it is already orbiting!

5. A slingshot only works if you approach a planet from outside its gravity well

6. This is why Orion is planning to stay above 80 miles in orbit when it supposedly does its fly-by

That is just one row, one critique. There are ~100 other items, any combination of just a handful of them, disprove the Apollo 11 moon landing narrative. But of course we were all taught this at ‘school’ and in our ‘critical thinking’ university centres.

Table it Chud

Below is a summary table of ~100 rows which summarise many posts and issues with Apollo 11 and the Apollo ‘moon landing’ narrative. Many more can be added, this is just a skeleton.

When confronted by the Fanboys it can be used (and searched) for answers. This is a first step to creating a proper database, cloudifying it, and sharing it. When that is done, I will post the real database as well. Looking forward to the Artemis-Orion ‘moon fly by’, promised now for about 10 years and analyse that ‘flight’ against the data details presented.

Embedded below, searchable.

Spreadsheet link on Google Drive (can request viewer access)

Why Chud, oh why?

Maybe the Apollo landings were faked for reasons related to geo-politics, misdirecting attention from a lost war in Vietnam, endless money-laundering (a prime motivation), power, control and technological prestige which enables the erection of an American-New World Order. That seems to make more sense than believing the fairy tale that Apostle Collins the Confused, Saint Buzz of the bottle; and Saint Neil of the Strongest Arms went to the moon and back - in July 1969.

All hail.

The fraud of the Apollo Moon 'landings'. Were the moon landings staged and filmed? A compendium of material and questions.

The Apollo Missions: a new look at Photographs, Earth vs Moon Size, the Hasselblad camera & the many issues with Apollo's imagery.

Artemis II vs Apollo 11. First: Artemis disproves the Apollo Moon Landings. Second: Extremely low probability chance of an Artemis Moon 'fly-by' succeeding (if reality still exists).

Apollo 11: NASA, the CIA and the Langley Research Centre; Simulators, Replicas, Detailed Models, a Crane and a Movie. Even Google AI confirms the fraud.

Why the Earth is a spheroid and not flat.