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.
The CIA's Langley complex provided the perfect simulation arena for a NASA-lunar 'landing'. Langley would have provided much of the basic material and telemetry which could be married to a film.
In this post:
Prologue: Vlad the Invader bad; ‘Thriving Democracies’ good
‘Tracking’ what exactly?
Cannon Air Force Base and Langley
What is a Simulation?
Apollo 11 and the Test Simulation Landing
Langley’s Simulators
Command Module
Lunar Module
The Crane
Lunar Landing Training Vehicle
Lunar Orbital Approach Simulator
Scenery and the Movie Set
Simulation Engineering
Bottom Line
1-Prologue, Vlady is a baddy, ‘Thriving Democracies’ good
The Russians are getting bolder about the Apollo hoax. When Google AI was fed data from a Russian investigation on the Apollo-hoax, including the moon shot photos themselves, it pronounced the moon landings a fake and cinematic legerdemain (Google AI admits the photos were synthetic).
This is Google AI, not Putin AI. As Putin said, the faked moon landings were bread and circuses, pure Hollywood at a time when American boys were being killed and wounded for no purpose whatsover in Vietnamese jungles. The Russians have also stated that the Apollo flights were never tracked outside of NASA, ‘debunking’ another fanboy narrative-claim. NASA controlled and cloaked all communications.
NASA Fanboys of course howl with outrage at Vlad the Invader who takes the impossible position of not wanting his country conquered and controlled by NATO. Anyone who believes anything from Vlad the Droner is a fascist and a traitor who denies they live in a ‘thriving democracy’. So scream those who support NATO, the world’s largest terrorist organisation. Ergo, heretofore, the Russian claims about Apollo-space fakery are invalid. Are they?
Apparently everyone knows that Russia is a dictatorship and any statements from the Kremlin must be fraudulent. Russia is different from ‘Western’ states where for example, you are 10 times more likely to go to jail for a thought crime than in Russia (30 people a day are charged in the UK with a social media thought crime). These ‘Western’ states, which are looking more ‘Eastern’ and ‘Southern’ by the minute, are labelled as ‘thriving democracies’.
In your ‘thriving democracy’ you can be debanked, fired or arrested for not praying and sacrificing to secular-pagan gods (abortion, warming, gender, tranny, queer, diversity, Muslims, open borders etc).
In these ‘thriving democracies’ for 3 years, the sheeple happily wore baby diapers on their faces, injected poisons, locked themselves down, and watched BLM, fascist anti-fa and other Fascist-Communist terrorist groups set urban areas on fire and rip down historical monuments, whilst doing nothing.
In these thriving democracies a majority of the sheeple wanted to forcibly vaccinate the unstabbinated and maybe toss a few of them into an oven as a warning to others. This was to save granny, who was murdered behind a closed door during a lockdown.
Sheeple in the thriving US democracy witnessed the most obvious and ridiculous election fraud and coup in recent history, and most did not care (this was a key reason for implementing the Rona plandemic in early 2020).
In these thriving democracies no proof can be offered of any flying dead-RNA viruses, their very existence, transmission, transmutation, or their acclaimed ability to cause illness and death.
In the thriving democracies, the dead and injured from pharma-government poison injections against a non-existing particle are ignored and ridiculed.
In the thriving democracy, foreign wars and the attendant money-laundering are pursued without a mandate, without a referendum, without a debate.
Such a thriving democracy we inhabit. Follow the government and its ‘science’. Remember, Russia bad, thriving democracy good. Simpleton theology for a simple society.
In this vein, we have of course the US Government-NASA funded farce-checkers like Politifact who have ‘debunked’ Vlad the Invader’s claims about the Apollo 11 fraud and what your lying eyes and ears can see and verify. The farce-checkers are sent into action, well-paid of course, to confirm the narrative, reimagine reality and common sense, and call any who dissent a ‘conspiracy theorist’ and lunatic. They never disclose their financial payments or connections.
In reality, Vlad the Invader is disseminating very old news. Hundreds of people worldwide have long concluded that the NASA moon photos are fakes and composites, and the entire Apollo program nothing but a Disney inspired movie. This enrages the fanboys who will die to defend the right of the waving US flag on the lunar surface (a fan or ventilator on a movie-set is making it wave).
2-’Tracking’ what exactly?
Then we have the old, tired, ugly prostitute called ‘Tracking’. An absurd claim easily ‘debunked’ by those with the simplest knowledge of IT systems. Santa Claus exists, I tracked it.
‘Tracking’ an object from a simulator does not prove much. I can build a simulator, run a program to have Santa journey across the globe, and send the results to a front end presentation layer for you to view (build your own flight tracker, use AI to fake ‘actual flights’). I can then point to the simulation on the screen, or to the UI rendering of my code and say, ‘I told you Santa Claus exists he is flying over Norway, look at the monitor loser!’ You won’t have a clue it is a fraud (children and by extension, fanboys who have the mentality of children, will believe).
[Personally as a side note, the author has no problem with a belief in Saint Nicholas but for entirely different reasons, dating back to the 4th century AD and a firm faith in the reality of the bishop of Myra (now interred in Bari Italy), who saved young women from forced-prostitution. Saint Nick was not a Coca-Cola advertisement. The ‘modern’ Santa Claus is just another modern-secular fraud, similar to the Apollo deception.]
I can also send the signal telemetry to other systems and have them ‘track’ the object including a non-existent Concorde flight in 2025 which fooled thousands (below). It is not difficult to provide a network feed and data for a moving object for other systems to ingest and use. In the example below I could build a fraudulent flight on my own system and send the data and have it render it another system’s UI (flight radar in this case). Given that NASA controlled all the comms and telemetry, this would have been simple enough to deploy.
[April 2, 2025: Thousands of flight enthusiasts excitedly tracked a Concorde flying from New York to Paris. Until they realized Flight Radar had got the better of them. Whoopsie.]
3-Cannon and Langley
Did NASA admit to the fraud? Nah, all debunked Chud!
Critics of Apollo 11 often state that it was a movie shot at Cannon Air Force base in New Mexico. This is quite likely true and it was called ‘Project Slam Dunk’ (it had to succeed and it would succeed). This primary production was shot in June 1968. It is likely that this air force base was used in conjunction with the massive CIA-NASA research centre at Langley Virginia which provided all the telemetry and simulation material that was needed including of course, the black curtains to act as the omni-present backdrop.
The author would assume that the Langley module-simulators or copies of the same, were also used at Cannon Air Force base. If they shot simulations at Cannon in June 1968, they could edit, align and marry with the simulation telemetry and imagery from Langley which must have been produced between 1963 and 1969 (NASA, CIA Centre at Langley overview).
In reality it was not that difficult to fake the landings. The simulation data could be sent to ‘the front end’ or the control room, through a simple network and data join.
Emulated imagery and telemetry could easily be broadcast as real and fed into the user interfaces.
Tracking could easily be falsified against a pre-recorded flight plan. NASA controlled all the communications and all the telemetry including the ‘flight signal’ which was cloaked.
It would be easy to feed a ‘signal’ into a network and broadcast that to be ‘picked up’ by external operators if necessary.
The Cannon movie productions would have been overlaid against the simulated telemetry and imagery.
4-What is a Simulation?
When the CIA-NASA simulations are edited and reproduced, there is almost no way to determine the difference between a ‘small step’ of a Langley-Cannon Air Force base production and the alleged ‘giant leap’ of a ‘lunar landing’.
A few words on ‘simulation’. Simulations are precisely the same exercise as the ‘real thing’. This includes ‘tracking the flight’.
In IT you have a simulated pre-production environment. It is the exact same environment as production. You cannot go ‘live’ until you have passed pre-prod and all the associated test cases.
In theatre you have a simulated ‘dress rehearsal’. It is the exact same performance as opening night.
In sports you have ‘test matches’ or ‘pre-season games’ which do not count for points but simulate everything in a ‘real game’.
The Apollo programme had a simulated environment that would have imitated to the greatest extent possible, the entire process of a moon flight, and the lunar landing. As a viewer of such a production, you would not be able to differentiate between a simulated or a ‘real’ moon mission.
5-Apollo 11 and the Test Simulation Landing
The Apollo 11 communications between the capsule and ‘Houston’ are an obvious tip off to the fraud. They constitute many hundreds of pages and hundreds of hours of audio and are genuine simulations. You get the impression that you are listening to one of the world’s greatest and dullest time fillers – an American baseball game, so banal and so calm is the language and discourse.
Bottom of the 9th, what a game folks, what a game, home team at bat down by 3 runs, 2 men on: ‘Okay Houston we are descending to the lunar surface, 1000 feet in altitude’.
Swing and a single into right, runners advance: ‘Okay Houston we are at 100 feet’.
Bases loaded folks, here is the pitch, fastball down the centre, a solid strike into left-centre, runners heading home: ‘The eagle has landed (can you pass me a beer Buzz?)’.
I can’t believe this, we have a miraculous inside the park grand slam, all runners have crossed home plate, wow what a way to win, a miracle folks: ‘Okay Houston we will go outside and have a walk around on the lunar surface. Buzz, pass the shoes.’
How do you feel about winning the big game hero? ‘Sorry Houston for yawning just now, but you know, this landing on the moon stuff is not very challenging for a top gunner stud like myself. Can’t remember if I saw stars or not. Over.’
Sitting 2 feet away from a roaring, 10.000 pound thruster rocket which would have shaken the homeless shelter, posing as a lunar ‘landing module’, into small pieces, or at the very least, have made your voice modulation rise and fall in imitation of the Appalachian chain, there is nothing. No noise, no quivering, no fear, no rattling. Just nothing. This is anti-science NASA fanboys.
The lie in the Apollo 11 story resides in this artless, effortless, emotionless, communication. You are obviously listening to a test simulation.
There is no possibility you are dealing with 2 guys 250,000 miles away on another orb, astride a large powerful rocket with no noise upon landing.
The air in the capsule and the structure itself would transmit the noise beginning with the descent communications - this is very basic ‘science’. Yet there is no noise, nothing but silence, which informs the lie of the event.
Another way to frame it would be the following:
1) Isn’t it more practical to assume that NASA used simulated environments, including communications and telemetry to give the appearance of a lunar landing?
2) Wouldn’t a film based on realistic and quite intelligent simulations, guarantee the success that the Americans had to have to be the first on the moon by the end of 1969? NASA could not fail with the Apollo 11 ‘landing’, it was as simple as that.
Logic and critical reasoning should be employed when dealing with governments, the military and their agencies including NASA.
The legerdemain of the flight itself is easily identified in almost innumerable areas. As with Gagarin, the Apostles of Apollo 11 could not answer the simplest questions. Did you see stars Neil of the Strong-Arm? ‘I don’t recall’ replies Saint Neil looking at the black curtains. Of course you don’t remember anything Saint Neil because quite logically, using ‘the science’, you never went anywhere.
Apollo 11 Press chinwag. Video of the circus.
In the 1969 Apollo 11 press interview Collins denies seeing stars. However, in 1974, he writes that he saw billions of them. In his autobiography ‘Carrying the Fire, an Astronaut’s Journeys’ (1974) (sic), Collins, orbiting the moon in the Apollo 11 command module claims:
“Outside my window I can see stars—and that is all….If a count were taken, the score would be three billion plus two, and then there is me. I am not lonely. In fact, I have an opportunity to reflect on a beautiful, beautiful planet, and to be absolutely alone with the stars.”
Collins did not have the wit to maintain even the simplest of lies for 5 years.
6-Simulators
Langley Research Centre had simulators (plural) for Apollo 11. There are 5 key simulators we can mention, though more existed.
1) Command Module Mission Simulator
This simulator would have been used for the entire mission, except for the lunar landing and take-off which was the task of the lunar module simulator. The CMMS would have enabled all the functionality of a spacecraft to be simulated including its flight characteristics and its ‘flight path’ which was ‘tracked’.
Inside the CMMS the astronauts were able to perform everything expected on the mission.
Acoustics, optical signals, communications, everything was simulated to be genuine.
The pilots could even rehearse the coordination of movements between the capsule and the lunar module.
Failures could also be simulated as witnessed with Apollo 13.
Each simulation game could be programmed to provide normal, emergency and abort conditions. NASA had a choice of over 1000 training programs.
Communications and telemetry could be sent to mission control and fed into their computers and monitors.
NASA could therefore provide data and enact a simulation of mission control activities and how they controlled and responded to a flight in ‘real time’. This ‘front end’ testing, of the mission control team, would have been crucial.
Simulations were easy to setup. The simulated data feeds would have been fed into a land-based network and then into the mission control systems, appearing to be real data. Gene Krantz who ran the mission control room during Apollo 11 also admitted to this fact. It was simply a join of 2 networks which would take less than a few hours to setup. Similar test environments are deployed in IT every day.
If one looks at the photos of mission-control during the ‘live’ TV broadcasts they are just as blurry as the supposed photos from the lunar surface. It is impossible to tell what you are looking – real time or a copy of a training session. The ‘live’ feeds or visuals from the mission control are wide, half-shots, unprofessional and unconvincing. There are some shots of mission control at the moment when the ‘Eagle landed’ which show a room full of men doing nothing except staring into their monitors or playing with pens and paper.
![[Mission Control at touchdown of Apollo 11 lunar module, Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!bxkQ!,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdb843377-4436-4f2a-b9ca-d64e6e5d521b_700x516.jpeg "[Mission Control at touchdown of Apollo 11 lunar module, Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston]")
2) Lunar Module Mission Simulator (LMMS)
The LMMS was a precise replica of the capsule or module with 4 large projectors to transmit images of an artificial lunar surface outside of the windows. Pilots slept over night to get used to the idea of being ‘on the moon’. NASA was also able to introduce a wide variety of mishaps into the simulations, to create problems or emergencies.
In this simulation environment almost any episode could be manufactured, performed and trained. Virtual spacecraft were created and split into two components: one with a functioning model or simulator and a second with the optical models for photographs or TV emissions. This would allow NASA to show rather easily, an approach to the moon’s surface. This was especially true when we consider the massive crane.
3) The Crane
Langley possessed a monstrosity of a crane. The 80 m high and 120 m long contraption was the largest gantry crane in the world in the 1960s. This crane would pick up the LMMS simulator and frame it with the projected images of the ‘moon’ on the outside.
The enormous crane could pick up and ‘float’ the lunar module against any variety of artificial backgrounds imitating a wide assortment of phases including flight and landing. The crane would be an ideal ‘simulator’ to create the impression of a lunar landing as the module was swung over a synthetic lunar background. Every aspect of flight, landing and take-off could be modelled with this crane. And yes fanboys, you could ‘track’ this and declare it to be valid.
4) Lunar Landing Training Vehicle
The LLTV was the training appliance simulator for lunar surface engagement. This was a functioning and fully capable system imitating the lunar landing module with all the necessary communications, telemetry and optical imaging. The LLTV was propelled by the crane. It never fired its engines.
Astute observers have noticed that the Apollo 11 landing and lunar lift offs did not show a flame of any kind, and did not carve out a huge crater upon landing. Curious that, given they were riding on a 10,000-pound rocket thruster. Fanboys spit with rage!
In fact, the landing module rocket would have melted concrete or asphalt. Yet on the moon, there is no impact. The crane of course would emit no flames and would not generate the expected crater. Just a ‘no-flame-no-hole-cidence’ that one. Fanboys have no reply to this.
We can see this with the purported take-offs. Given we don’t have engine flames for some reason from the lunar module, it is common sense to assume that the module was simply hoisted up by crane. The massive gantry was certainly capable to lift up the replica module at the requisite speed of 30 km per hour to a height of 60 metres within 8 seconds. This would also explain why the TV images of the lunar take-offs always end at low altitude.
(below - one of the most absurd photo frauds in history)
The LLTV could also explain the fluttering flag, one of the images that send the fanboys, Trekkies and true believers into paroxysms of spitting hate. The flag might be waving due the ventilator which is attached to the underside of the lunar module. Another explanation for the flag failure is that the lunar module may have possessed hydroxide thrusters, and these cool emissions could also have impacted the flag.
5) Lunar Orbit Letdown Approach Simulator - LOLAS
This was quite ingenious. A massive lunar globe was made, with an astounding attention to lunar detail. A true work of art. The LOLAS was used to move the module back and forth on rails between replicated lunar models.
A globe was made and used in simulation for an approach to the moon. Another globe was made and used in simulation of low lunar orbit above the moon’s surface. The impression given is one of movement in space. These simulations produced images, and it is impossible to discern if these were offered as ‘official’ photographs.
(video of the LOLAS in action below)
7-Scenery and the Movie Set
Then we have the other paraphernalia that NASA produced. Innumerable sums were invested into simulators for docking manoeuvres, and into planetaria and renditions of ‘skies’ and stars. ‘Space’ was reimagined at Langley. It was a gigantic movie set.
Consider the huge landing zone area at this site, right underneath the crane shown below. This area was built and painted to look like a lunar surface. Craters, holes, shadows, light patches, everything was fixed, painted, or positioned to look like the moon’s surface. Floodlights were erected at the proper angles to simulate lunar light, craters were painted black by hand to give the impression of shadows and contrast, a black screen was installed at the far end of the gantry to imitate the airless, starless lunar sky.
This is why there are no stars in the photos. Given that NASA has never been above LEO it was impossible to convincingly display the heavens and far too complicated. Black it out, or, to quote Philosopher-Scientist-Mathematician-Mick Jagger, ‘paint it black’. Rely on the word salad explanations and magic terms (aperture, light contrast, hues, vacuum) to explain the black background. Don’t forget to tell the actor-naut Armstrong that he did not see stars.
There was a rather astounding amount of detail invested into the lunar surface at Langley. On a grainy black and white film or photograph you would not know if you were looking at a replica or the real thing. NASA and its defenders would say that this was effort was simply an attempt to try and be as realistic as possible in the simulation environment.
Please. Why would NASA spend so much time and money on building such a detailed replica of the lunar surface unless they were emulating the entire journey? It does not pass the common sense test fanboys (you do have a PhD in common sense don’t you, or ‘CommonSense-ology’?).
8-Simulation Engineering
The Langley site is an apogee of simulation engineering. It is astounding and impressive, both in size and detail. Every possible simulation scenario, including unforeseen failure as that with Apollo 13 (whose real capsule was found by the Soviets in the Bay of Biscay a few days after its liftoff), could be programmed and attempted.
Yet one of the great engineering feats of the 1960s has now been deprecated and largely demolished. The only explanation for this is that new simulation environments are now based on CGI, advanced simulation software and AI platforms.
The obvious problem is that given the verisimilitude of simulation and AI output, the average person can be easily fooled. It will be difficult to ascertain from a production whether it is actual footage or audio of a real space flight, or another contrived simulation using an admixture of AI and CGI software. Back to advanced film-making and reality-distortion.
For the time and era, and considering the technology available and the new frontiers in film and simulation that were being developed, the 1969-1972 Langley productions were extremely intelligent, professional, high grade, and provided much of the necessary ‘evidence’ of lunar navigation and discovery.
Unlike the Russians, the Americans produced a gigantic ‘onion’ possessing layers of ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’ that 12 men - the Apollo Apostles - were rather effortlessly dropped on the ‘light side of the moon’ in 250 F temperatures, bathed in radiation and then without much fuss, returned safely to within a few miles of an intended splashdown zone in the vast Pacific ocean, away from prying eyes and inconvenient commercial plane routes. This defies common sense, reason, science, technological reality and constraints, the verities of space, radiation and mathematical chance.
9-Bottom Line
There is nothing irrational or ‘conspiratorial’ in assuming that the entire Apollo 11 program was simply a film based on simulated and controlled trainings from Langley Research Centre. Let’s keep in mind a simple axiom which informs US foreign policy and is the basis of any activity that will be internationally scrutinised:
The failure in Vietnam, and losing a foreign war along with 50,000 dead and wounded, taught US policy makers one important lesson: never commit to an objective unless there is 100% chance of success.
Now add the context of the Cold War and the ‘life and death battle’ to win the space race.
Mix in the Gagarin fraud and the deceits of Shepard, Grissom and Glenn and the puerile declaration by a rather ignorant President Kennedy, that by the end of the decade, the Americans would land on the moon. Now we are starting to get the full picture and extent of the 1960s space fabrications.
Given the above antecedents there was no chance whatsoever that NASA would have taken any risks with the 1961-1972 missions. They had to have 100% success. They would never risk another' ‘Vietnam’ in the space-race.
It does not take an ‘Einstein’ to figure out what NASA did. Zero risks with the 1961-1972 space program. Therefore quite logically, the baselines for 1969 must be traceable back to 1961 and Shepard’s Capricorn One stunt, itself based on the Gagarin fraud. The Apollo film was almost a decade in the making. When we ‘follow the science’ the conclusion is inescapable.
During the 1960s the CIA-NASA complex with their partners in Hollywood became really good at space movie productions using Langley and Cannon Air Force Base.
But now they are screwed.
Their only recourse is CGI-AI-simulations. These will be easily ripped apart. Every year NASA promises a lunar return. They have committed to February (now) April 2026, when they supposedly do a moon fly-by over 10 days, some 54 years after the last ‘lunar landing’. Given the billions spent on simulation it might be realistic, but it will still be revealed for what it is.
In reality NASA cannot fly past 400 miles. It has neither the technology, rocketry or necessary radiation protection. When the truth eventually comes out - and it will - the monumentally negative impact on American power and prestige will transform international relations and might finally help to end the tyranny of the CIA.
Needless to say ‘the science’ will again be proven to be a fiction. A common theme in the ‘modern world’. Short term gain, long-term pain comes to mind as well as money-laundering, looting and the CIA-NATO-NASA-New World Order control of our planet.
Tempus fugit. Memento Fraudatio.
All hail.
==
· https://www.nasa.gov/langley/
· Crane or gantry being demolished, if you are planning to go to ‘other planets’, why would do that, or has the crane served its purpose and can be demised due to CGI and AI? https://aerospaceamerica.aiaa.org/a-piece-of-apollo-history-faces-demolition/
Sources from Apollo Moon landing post and:
J. Level, Space Fraud: The massive lies and money laundering through space programmes, 2018.
A. Popov Phd, ‘The Joint Hoax?’, 2018. Aulis Link
The Liberty Beacons, Never a Straight Answer, NASA and the Occult, 2015
Y. Baji, The Space Arms Race and the NASA scam, 2009
Hibbeler Productions, The Fraud behind NASA and the Space Program, 2023
State of the Nation, APOLLOgate: The Greatest Conspiratorial Fraud Ever Committed by the U.S. Federal Government, 2024
J Foxworth, structural engineer, on the failings of NASA’s Orion program, 2025
Ralph Rene, NASA mooned America, 1992 (somewhat more professional and readable than Bill Kaysing’s work, some good logical objections to the moon landing narrative, needed a good editor)
Gerhard Wisnewksi, One small step? 2011.
It was the phone call that did it for me. We have been lied to about so much. As for the Hollywood connection, I’m not surprised. They have the means to help create a monumental psyop (and this one is not the only example).
I was born in 1953, so I lived through all of this (don't forget "New Math"). We've been lied to my whole life, and I just woke up to this fact in 2020. I feel like an idiot.