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

This is often a test of a person's world-views, their philosophy, which they religiously hold, and how that informs their belief in, and their reaction to, authority, 'experts' and 'The Science'.

(rewrite of an original post from March 2023)

July 1969 NASA press release, referencing the ‘inertial [flight] guidance system’ for its Apollo spacecraft.

“Essentially it (the Apollo module) knows where it is going because it knows where it came from and how it got there. It does not give out any signal so it cannot be detected by radar or be jammed.” You can’t track it. But it happened. Trust us.

Bill Clinton, p. 156 of his autobiography ‘My Life’:

“…Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and ‘walked on the moon’, beating by five months President Kennedy’s goal of putting a man on the moon before the decade was out. The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on ‘television’. He disagreed; he said that he didn’t believe it for a minute, that ‘them television fellers’ could make things look real that weren’t. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn’t ahead of his time.”

The word Apollo comes from Apollyon, another name for the Devil, also known as the Great Deceiver (Revelation 9:11, note the 9-11….).

And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.

Purpose

We can frame an analysis of the moon landings in the following manner. The Corona coup and plandemic should have taught people that:

• You cannot trust government(s),

• Government(s) are often corrupt, immoral and diabolical,

• You cannot believe what is on your TV,

• You cannot place your confidence in medical ‘professionals’ and ‘The Science’,

• Much of ‘The Science’ is corrupt and wrong,

• Technology, media and information platforms are largely controlled in some way, by the US government and Deep State,

• The Deep State will steal elections, enact coups, start endless wars, and commit any number of evils and crimes,

• Globalism preaches a ‘New World Order’ of totalitarian digital and social control, along with anti-human-transhumanism, enabled by injections of gene altering chemicals.

With the above as a framework, all seminal episodes and theories including ‘virology’, cosmology, Relativity, materialist-’science’, ‘evolution’, mainstream ‘scientific’ beliefs and claims, 9-11, the Iraq and Vietnam wars, the war in the Ukraine, and the Apollo programme, must be re-evaluated and critically re-appraised.

This post lists about 75 issues with Apollo moon programme and discusses the Apollo 11 journey, end to end. You can decide yourself if you believe these to be real issues or not. The lunar landing module is particularly interesting as a focal point. An example is the memory and networking within the lunar module which makes the sending of ‘rich data’ over thousands of miles an impossibility (the author has worked on many large IT projects including advanced networking).

The author’s personal favorite are the jeeps or ‘moon rovers’ of course. Nice touch. There was no payload capacity you understand for a second camera, but they were able to pack and transport EV driven jeeps weighing ~ 460 pounds in Earth weight. They folded up like a chair NASA claims. Including the ~100 pound battery. I suppose that folded up too. Sure if you say so. But no room for a 2nd camera, or telescope.

It folds up like a chair! Also the battery! It is too sciency to explain to the sheeple. Just believe!

Every single phase of the program can be analysed and issues found. It is not just the painfully obvious manufacture of fraudulent photos and videos that are at issue which send moon-landing-true-believers into epilepsies of fury and aggression. It goes far beyond photographs and videos.

n.b. this is a long post ~10-12 min read.

Sections

• A. Introduction and gentle raving

• B. World-views

• C. NASA’s current plans

• D. Background (and those crazy Russians)

• E. Cui Bono?

• F. Debunkers say….

Apollo and the Red Pill:

1. 1969 Press Conference

2. Kubrick

3. Communications, networking, memory

4. 1960s Technology

5. Laser Beams

6. Photos, Lighting

7. Earth in a Window Trick

8. Radiation, Belts, Speed

9. Spacesuits

10. Saturn V Rockets

11. G Forces

12. Perfect Technology

13. Landings

14. Lunar Module

15. Re-Entry

16. Moon walking

17. Sand Jeeps

18. Rocks

19. Nixon and his green phone

20. Murders of Grisson, Baron

21. Armstrong and monastic life

22. Debunking the debunking

23. Patterns

24. Bottom Line

25. Videos, movies, with criticisms of the Apollo programme (end of the post)

A. Introduction: You don’t need to be an ‘-ologist’…

People should investigate and decide for themselves if they believe that the Americans landed on the moon between 1969-1972.

As a lay person, if you have the time and inclination, you could go through any aspect, or part of the Apollo program, end to end, and come up with your own questions and observations. The paid debunking-military complex, so richly compensated, not only has problems with the many issues, but also with every aspect of the programme, punctuated as they are by issues and inconsistencies.

What the paid-debunking-military-industrial complex usually focuses on are the photos, or the ‘rocks’. This is not the heart of the problems that the narrative faces and fails to address.

It is not the photographs or Kubrick and Hollywood being involved which are important. In the author’s opinion these are the least important of the issues which present challenges for the believers. It is the myriad and quite substantial scientific and mechanical challenges which remain unanswered and are in fact, completely ignored.

Cue the word salads, aperture, lens, camera calibration….the smartest guys ever were too stupid to set up a telescope on the moon to view the stars. The real reason there are no stars is that would tell you where the observer is.

In looking at the evidence it is specious to declare that someone is ‘anti-science’ or a ‘flat earther’ for pointing out the obvious problems in the Apollo narrative. This is after all, precisely what the Corona totalitarians did against those who did not buy the lies and propaganda of the Corona plandemic.

What if NASA and the US government did commit the most grandiose of frauds, and never went to the moon? Then what?

Moon landing disbelievers?

Recent poll: in the US no more than 10% believe that the landings could have been faked.

In the ‘West’, maybe 10% of the population believe that the moon landings were faked. This is about the the same number of those who understood that the Corona coup of 2020 was a planned and deliberate implementation of an engineered global-medical totalitarianism. This is both interesting and revealing. It appears that about 10% of the population will apply critical thinking skills to deeply held world-views.

B. It depends on your world view

Group think?

The vast majority of people believe that the moon-landings took place. Some reasons are given below. This of course includes education (propaganda) beginning in nursery school. Very few have bothered to look at the evidence or the claims of the ‘conspiracy theorists’. This was also evident during the Corona coup and plandemic. The vast majority bought the narrative without asking even the simplest questions such as ‘does a bat virus lethal to a human really exist, can you show it to me and prove how it would spread?’

Most will regard a ‘documentary’ on their TV which ‘debunks’ the claims of the ‘moon landing conspiracy theorists’ as fact. Satisfied and nourished, they can then retreat back into their pink-pony world where once again, they, ‘the science’ and their government are superior.

For many, the moon landings are ‘a scientific (or religious) fact’ and this ‘fact’ is emotionally and intellectually integrated into their world-view and personality. We can describe moon-landing true-believers, even those who have supposedly sifted through the ‘evidence’, and identify some common characteristics.

True believers and characteristics

1. They implicitly trust Government and believe that Government is profoundly worried about truth, and the health and safety of citizens.

2. They deny that government and its agencies would be engaged in corruption, fraud, murder or immoral acts.

3. They rely on government controlled media for information including NASA and television. TV is for many, a source of truth and ‘news’.

4. On average they are heavy abusers of TV and mainstream ‘news’.

5. They declaim that they will ‘only follow the science’ (or to put it more accurately, they will follow ‘whatever the science tells them’ to follow). If NASA is ‘space science’, they believe NASA.

6. If you are not apart of ‘the science’ complex, you cannot criticise what goes on with NASA or ‘the science’.

7. They believe that ‘scientists’ and ‘experts’ are honest, knowledgeable and trustworthy and would never lie about the moon landings.

8. The moon landings for Americans are a source of ‘national pride’ and any criticism is ‘un-American’.

9. Every Western country has a story that its own space programme was vital in the effort to land American astro-actor-nauts on the moon. ‘We all did it’.

10. Too many people, experts and geniuses were involved with Apollo and none of them have said it was a fraud.

11. True believers usually reference group-think, ‘authority’ and ‘consensus’ as a key basis of their belief system.

12. They self-identify as intelligent, urbane, educated, sophisticated, rational and mostly irreligious. They respond to any messsaging which appeals to these traits, or which uses the shibboleths of science, intelligence, or consensus.

13. Many of them feel that all ‘this space and science stuff’ is far too complicated to be understood by a common person and is best left to be interpreted by the high priests of ‘science’ with advanced degrees.

14. They believe that there is a ‘scientific method’ and that it is transparent, and self-correcting.

15. If the moon landing was revealed as a hoax, their entire world-view would be exploded and incinerated. Their soul, if they have one, would shrivel. They refuse therefore to even assess the veracity of the moon landings or contrary evidence. Better to live in pink-pony world and leave it alone.

The above is reflected in the fact that most of these personality types followed and believed in the Corona coup and plandemic. On average they truly believe in the ‘safe and effective’ narrative of any ‘vaccination’ and they followed, and would follow again, government imposed restrictions and mandates as long as magic words such as ‘health’, ‘pandemic’, ‘science’ and ‘consensus’ are used.

None of the above beliefs and characteristics are valid of course. They are distorted, prejudiced, uninformed, egocentric and not objective.

Such personalities will often subscribe to other cult belief systems including inter-alia, virology, space travel, aliens, ‘evolution’, long ages, ‘Relativity’, ‘The Dark Ages’, transgenderism (or pangenderism), ‘climate change’ and Net Zero. There are overlapping memberships and cultic beliefs. These people don’t view their cultic systems as religions, preferring to label them as ‘humanist’, scientific or ‘rationalist’.

Not everyone, however, accepts the moon-landing narrative. Outside the Excited States and most Western nations, many polls, whatever their value, indicate that 25-75 % (Russia) of adult populations do not believe that NASA landed men on the moon. These people intuit that something is wrong. Or maybe pace debunkers, they are simply ‘anti-American’ and ‘anti-science’.

NASA’s ‘moon’ orb

C. NASA’s current plans

One can read the latest December 2024 NASA ‘plan’ for Moon and Mars exploration. NASA is moving the goal posts. It now discusses plans to use the Moon as a base station to explore Mars. This implies that the Moon is already old news and does not warrant a lot of discussion. Been there, done all that. Mars now replaces the moon as the locus of its marketing.

This buys NASA time. They can ignore the Moon and not bother ‘returning to the Moon quickly’ because Mars beckons. NASA will now claim that setting up base sites on the Moon, as the key staging area to travel to Mars, is not only extraordinarily difficult and complex, but financially draining and will take more budget, time and new innovations to realise.

NASA will soon claim poverty and that the xxx_administration is not funding ‘science’ and is ‘anti-science’ which prevents further ‘space travel’. As if the Moon or Mars has anything to offer normal humans. It is all a monumental waste of time and money. The real objective is keep money pouring into the trough for the unlimited array of feeding, fat-bellied, hairy, squint-eyed, snorting, porcines.

Does the below sound like a group of people who had their ‘astronauts’ riding in jeeps and playing golf on the moon in the early 1970s, in 250 F temperatures?

Under NASA’s Artemis campaign, the agency will establish the foundation for long-term scientific exploration at the Moon, land the next Americans and first international partner astronaut on the lunar surface, and prepare for human expeditions to Mars for the benefit of all. 

(12 new white papers on key Moon to Mars topics)

The next press release will ask for more money of course.

If they are contemplating ‘long term’ habitation on the moon, the moon colonists will be confined to shelters built 6 feet under the surface for most of their time. But of course NASA knows this given they have landed 12 men on the moon who did a thorough analysis and discovery right?

D. Background (and those ‘crazy’ Russians)

Yuri Gagarin was supposedly the first man in ‘Space’, ejected into the aether on April 12, 1961. The United States launched its first astronaut, Alan Shepard, shortly after on May 7, 1961. Shepard flew a fifteen-minute parabolic orbit of just over three hundred miles with a maximum altitude of 116 miles. Gagarin by contrast was in space for one hour forty-eight minutes, flying a complete twenty-five-thousand-mile orbit of the Earth at a maximum altitude of 203 miles.

Russian space technology was far ahead of the US’ in the 1960s. Yet a short 8 years later, the Americans are flying ~238.000 miles and landing on the moon, playing golf and driving jeeps. Since 1972, nothing. So the narrative declares. Any analysis of 1960s space technology would declare the Russians to be far ahead in critical areas such as rocketry. How then did the Americans ‘blast past’ the Russians so quickly in the 1960s? Genius? Smartest guys in the room?

Those crazy Russkies…

Russian Soyuz craft have been continuously improved and have purportedly accomplished dozens of space missions far in excess of American endeavours and attempts (so the Russians claim). The Soyuz is the main vehicle that transports humans to and from the International Space Station for example (SpaceX is also capable of the same). To cover the cost of the transportation of US astronauts to the ISS, the Americans pay Russia about $80 million for each Soyuz seat. This is very good business for Russia and helps fund its space program.

The Russians have never admitted, contrary to the narrative and the controlled media, that the Americans landed on the moon. Yet their criticisms are somewhat muted and oblique. Why? Most likely because they are guilty of their own fraud. There is ample evidence of Russian-American cooperation during the 1960s and beyond to pepetrate varieties of space fraud during the ‘Cold War’ (see PhD A. Popov, Apollo-Soyuz; a Joint Hoax, 2018). The Russians have their own myths to keep hidden, their own failures, including dead cosmonauts, dead animals and many failed missions.

Do the Russians really want to get into a sword fight with the Americans over the ‘moon landings’ and lose billions in potential revenue and have their own dirty laundry aired and have much of their vaunted space exploration and technology revealed as a potential fraud? Possible, but unlikely. Money talks.

Supposedly the Russians sent unmanned probes to the lunar surface in the 1960s which brought back 100g of moon soil. These samples look suspiciously like they were culled from the later deposits of rocks and soil supposedly brought back by the Americans and shared with the Russians and others. They don’t comport with more recent analysis of the moon’s soil (more below). These samples are likely fakes. Recently the Russians have promised an investigation using more ‘modern’ moon probes into the purported American landings. We will see what comes of this, once the proxy war with the US in the Ukraine ends (if it ever does).

About 65-75% of Russian adults do not believe that the Americans landed on the moon with their 1960s technology, which was demonstrably inferior to the Russian. Some of this is obviously due to the residue of Cold War animus and the current NATO assault on Russia. Much of this attitude is also informed scepticism.

In the US media, anyone who voices a contrary opinion on the moon landings is deemed uneducated, ignorant and ‘anti-science’. Anyone having lived or worked in Russia, knows that the average Russian adult is in no way ‘less intelligent’ than the average American and is more scientifically inclined on average. They are in the main, and rather ironically, less indoctrinated. The Russians in general are less interested in TV propaganda. They lived through Soviet information distortion. The Americans by contrast seemingly love and embrace media propaganda.

The Russians also don’t dump fluoride into their water systems which causes a wide variety of mental, neurological and encephalic issues. Such toxic poisoning diminshes critical thinking.

E. Cui Bono?

In today’s money, the Apollo moon programme was worth at least U$280 billion.

Money. $cientism. This is of course never discussed as one of the main galvanising principles to set up NASA during the ‘Cold War’. Apollo fed the US military and its web of contractors and suppliers. This money flowed into the bank accounts of politicians, senators, corporations, contractors, the military, the ‘media’, the ‘scientific’ establishment and universities.

The tidal flow of lucre still pours into and waters a vast array of special interests and brokers. The Apollo programme birthed NASA and its current and very lucrative U$25 billion per annum budget. A great lie put out by NASA and its paid-media apologists is that it is ‘underfunded’.

Big business - the biggest business. JFK was assassinated over his firing of Dulles at the CIA, his opposition to invading Cuba and the extremely profitable business models of the Cold War and the Vietnam invasion, and his doubts about reaching the moon within a decade and his rethink on reducing budget spend on space and military initiatives. In the US it is simply a truism that you can be killed if you get in the way of powerful interests, their profits and systems of control.

Lots of wordly incentives…

If Apollo was faked there were very good financial and geo-political reasons as to why it was done. If it was a hoax the US Deep State comprised of the Pentagon, DoD, CIA and related actors, would be rather violently determined to keep it covered up. No expense would be spared, including funds paid out for ‘fact checking’ and ‘debunking’. Many ‘experts’ and ‘commentators’ are paid a lot of money of course, to confirm the narrative and destroy heretics and their questions. If a hoax was either revealed or believed by enough people, US credibility in every sphere would implode. It would change everything.

But surely all doubts and conspiracy theories, as wild and ridiculous as they are, have been ‘debunked’ to use the silliest of modern jargon. Or have they?

More on this and other related images below.

F. Debunkers say…

It was on TV

This was Bill Clinton’s argument to his carpenter. Is the rather abstract and unimpressive dictum, ‘I saw it on TV’, a reasonable belief or assertion? Does ‘TV’ provide ‘proof’ of a moon-landing or indeed, much proof of anything? If NASA controlled the communications and feeds why would anything on the TV be truth or reality? You could source anything into the satellite feeds and edit the imagery before transmission to TV receivers. Didn’t people learn anything from the Corona coup?

Lots of people

Does the claim, ‘400.000 people worked on the program so obviously they could not all lie’ mean anything? The larger the group the less any individual knows and most of the workforce on any large project work on small tasks, and most are contractors with a limited view of what is going on. Many contractors would have done little to no work (this is prevalent on all large projects) and many others were moved around on various tasks, limiting their knowledge of what was going on. This of course generates engineering and quality issues (which is another reason why making a film was much easier).

Anyone who has been on a large project knows that the larger the group, the less you know. Nothing would be easier than to hide a fraud behind a large workforce. Gene Kranz, who ran mission control said the mission control room would not know the difference between a real flight or simulation. They simply reacted to the feeds on their monitors. The number of people working on Apollo is a very weak counter-argument to sceptical observations.

Complexity

Another debunking claim is that the entire journey end to end would be too difficult to falsify. This would entail the creation of film, tapes, audio and detailed, pre-programmed scripts. On top of this there is the vast compendium of technology, sites, modules, rockets, hardware, crude software, networking and communications equipment which had to be built. This was supposedly proven to work though the author sees no evidence of this entire process being verified independently.

Further, a few hundred people (not 400.000), including stage set hands, the astro-actor-nauts, communications teams, those who made the films and audio, people involved with the observability of telemetry and signals, would all need to be involved in this plot and fraud, at least in part. They would have noticed something odd.

This is the most lucid of the debunkers’ debunking.

It is not the ‘400.000 people’ or the workforce en masse argument. That is an asinine argument. Their best defense rests on the system complexity and coordinating the various components to work fraudulently, yet in realistic synchronicity, from the lift off to the journey, to the landing and back, and remain unrevealed and unnoticed. It had to be realistic, integrated and fool everyone within the process who was not involved in the fraud. It is the complexity of the systems and faking them, not the scenarios or phases of the journey and related information feeds, which could resonate as true.

But….

However, as outlined in this post it would have been possible to do just that. It would have involved dozens, perhaps hundreds of people as a maximum. But it could have been created. This is afterall what Hollywood was already doing in the 1960s. More below.

Realism…

Anyone who has worked on big projects with many people understands that the chance of pulling off Apollo’s end-to-end system complexity using 1960s technology in so short a time is likely impossible. One can turn the complexity argument on its head. ‘Conspiracy theorists’ can argue that it would have been much simpler to create a fascimile of a working system, than to actually build and deploy the same.

Much would depend on the choke points of the information system, and how that was managed and how many people had access and control to the real information feeds. Further, would it be more or less complicated to create imagery versus actually going to the moon and failing? More below.

Communications

Following from the ‘complexity’ argument, the communications architecture is interesting. There is a section on comms below. The main issue with moon-to-Earth communications and imagery is that the end-to-end architecture is never revealed nor proven to have existed as claimed. It is possible to send signals from space to the Earth, but the current topography of NASA communications has little in common with the platform used in 1969, which supposedly, worked flawlessly with very limited and primitive computational capacity on the first attempt. This is hard to believe and is not a strong argument for debunkers.

Lack of whisteblowers

Debunkers can cite a dearth of ‘whistleblowers’. The lack of a high level ‘whistleblower’, say an Apollo executive, or an astro-actor-naut is also evidence against a fraudulent moon landing. This might seem compelling but it is weak given that Grisson, Aldrin and Armstrong, amongst many others intimated that fraud had occurred. Maybe they were ‘misunderstanders’, misinformed or lying.

Whistleblowers have indeed come forward, usually marching to their social death, impaled by an avalanche of media and even physical violence. Some have been found dead. They are either ignored or gored by the mainstream-science media. Their character, careers, family and social life attacked and slandered. It would take courage to be a whistleblower, and I would imagine some very powerful and angry people would pay you a visit or two.

The author does not find this argument convincing. How many are going to raise their head above the corn and have it scythed off? We saw the same phenomenon with the Corona coup and the myriad of dissenters who were censored, delisted, deregistered, fired, debanked and even imprisoned and physically attacked. They were warnings to others.

Debris

This is also unconvincing. In reality we can’t see debris or detritus on the moon’s surface.

Astrophotographer Robert Reeves (video), “The Moon is about a quarter million miles away. The smallest objects on the Moon that can be seen with any earthbound telescope, even the largest research telescope, are only a little under a mile across.”

The best ‘proof’ are ‘shadows’ of flags or equipment from NASA images. Using such digital photos as proof is very weak indeed.

Laser reflections from the moon

Lasers were happily bounced off the moon in 1962 if not before. This is probably the weakest possible defence of the Apollo program. Information as to why is below.

Camera ‘aperture’

Debunkers make up the story that the lack of stars is due to the calibration and construction of ‘very special cameras’. This debunking is debunked below. It is absurd. There are other reasons why the stars are not shown.

Apollo and the Red Pill

Did the US government, a bloated, fat, corrupt entity, with its ‘climate’-crazy offspring NASA (not a space agency?), actually send 7 missions* and 12 men to the moon, during a 4-year period from 1969-1972, using 1960s technology? Is the US government and NASA that smart, that productive? Or, is it reasonable to harbour doubts, misgivings, and scepticism?

(*7 missions, including 1 failure, Apollo 13, with the Russians finding the module floating in the Bay of Biscay a few days after the ‘launch’…NASA and the debunkers claim it was a training module.)

The proofs should be overwhelming, the evidence mountainous, the claims obvious, the declarations and data transparent and revealing. Are they? Let’s list some rational, scientific, intelligent objections to the claim that the Americans went to the moon.

Why would Clarke and Kubrick be meeting with the great and good of Apollo.

1-Actornauts and confusion?

Happy guys in the post flight press conference. Obviously they just completed the greatest voyage in history, or was it the greatest movie-deception?

(Aldrin, Armstrong, Collins, do these look like men that just conquered the moon, or men filled with shame and guilt?)

Why did Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin look confused at the post-splash down conference in 1969, when asked if they saw stars from the moon’s surface. The narrative is that they were tired, they did not like the media, they were uber-intelligent superheroes who didn’t have time for silly questions. Why does Armstrong look so nervous and befuddled in his opening remarks? This does not look like a man who traveled to what must have seemed like certain death and back again.

Why did they need to look at computer prompters in front of them when they gave their answers which contradicted each other?

If you were just on the moon you would remember every little detail including whether you saw stars or not. You would be a veritable fountain of information and detail. Real stories about an event from 3 people who were there, not only overlap, but in some details they must logically contrast. Different viewpoints and angles will be offered. Not so with the actor-naut narratives. Confusion and uncertainty abound as they try to align stories. Nervousness, twitching, and body language indicates that something is wrong.

Maybe it was fatigue, radiation, vertigo or some other condition afflicting them.

Further, why is there not a single still photograph of the most famous man in the world at the time, Neil Armstrong, claiming to be standing on the lunar surface. The narrative offers that only Armstrong was fitted out with the Hasselblad camera. Does this make sense? 3 men travel to the moon and they take 1 camera? Armstrong survived what must have seem like a certain death and is uninterested in having his photo taken?

Could Armstrong not have taken the camera off his chest and given it to Aldrin? It was small and lightweight. Apparently these men were changing costumes more frequently than a sagging middle age woman looking for a date. Surely in putting on this cumbersome suit you could also affix the camera to Aldrin’s chest?

NASA claims that after a short time on the surface, they retired to the LEM where they were supposedly safe from radiation (no testing or in-situ proof of that assumption exists). If it was me I would do a camera handoff and ask for a photo on our next walk-about. I wouldn’t be traveling ~238.000 miles and not taking a photo to put in my living room.

Why does Aldrin in 2019 say we never went to the moon? (‘It didn’t happen and we need to know why it didn’t happen'.’)

On Conan O’Brien, Aldrin says the landing was an animation. Was he playing the jester, or was he inebriated?

Like Armstrong, Aldrin left NASA after the Apollo landing and spent a few years institutionalised for mental health issues. He was best described as a functioning alcoholic. Why? Did something break inside Aldrin after 1969? Or was he just exhausted from the travails of the program and journey? The hero who gave his all, including his own mental health, for humanity.

2-Kubrick, film media

As mentioned a few times, the video interview with Director Stanley Kubrick which says he directed and created the moon landings as a film, is made after 2002. (‘I perpetrated a huge fraud with the United States government…the moon landings…I consider it to be my masterpiece.’) The video mentions Bart Sebril (the ‘conspiracy theorist’), asking Aldrin to swear on a bible that he walked on the moon. This occurred in 2002. Kubrick died in 1999. The video itself looks odd, and is probably taken with an early version of a mobile phone with an integrated camera (these came out around 2002-04).

Nevertheless, Kubrick was sighted around the Apollo mission and met with its executives. Why? Why is anyone from Hollywood involved in a ‘scientific endeavour’?At the very least he must have been involved with NASA’s ‘training sets’ providing guidance and consulting. The sets look suspiciously similar to the supposed landing zones.

The simplest reason Kubrick was involved was to make the ‘landings’ look realistic using his front-end camera angle technique and his existing film sets (see the section below on the ‘landings’).

If Kubrick was responsible for the Apollo film he certainly would have reused his masterpiece ‘2001 Space Odyssey’. This was fundamental for the Apollo program. Kubrick’s movie 2001 Space Odyssey, was completed in just 3 years from 1965-1968. This provided the pilot project, the sets, the hangar(s), the lighting and the visual effects approach (especially the front end camera views), to enable an Apollo hoax fraud to appear believable.

Kubrick developed many ‘tricks’ and techniques to make space travel seem realistic. If you have not watched this movie, the author highly recommends a viewing. Did NASA use Kubrick, his tricks and his sets? Is this what the 1965 meeting between Kubrick and the Apollo execs was about?

The strutting arrogant Nazi von Braun who retired after Apollo 11….why?

Here we have the Nazi von Braun, strutting on a moon set, 2 months after the supposed 1969 splash down of Apollo 11. This looks exactly like the supposed ‘footage’ of a landing zone does it not? But NASA furiously intones, it does not own, nor operate film studios. This is untrue given its partnership with US film studios. NASA was and is an enthusiastic partner in film making and set design.

(Below, Danny’s sweater in Kubrick’s movie ‘The Shining’, is Stanley trying to say something, in a movie rich with symbolism?)

Is Kubrick blowing a whistle, or pace the debunkers, was he just a ‘fan’ of space travel and NASA?

3-Communications

The single point of communications control has never really been explained. Neither have the transmission details. The narrative maintains that Australia was the only location on Earth with a clear line of contact with the moon in July 1969. The communication links between the moon and Earth, as explained by NASA and the narrative, also seems fundamentally improbable to work the first time it is tried.

• To emit images from the moon’s surface a black-and-white Westinghouse television camera was installed in the Lunar Module. It must have been small, weighing 4 or 5 pounds.

• This small camera was supposedly built to deal with the high contrast between light and shade on the Moon (hence why no ‘stars’, but how would anyone know the extent of such contrasts in advance?)

• The first part of the communications is the networking to send sound and videos. Images and sound signals were transmitted from the camera to a lightweight antenna on the top of the lander. According to NASA it was an umbrella-like antenna, lined with ‘38 miles of fine gold-plated wire’, to reflect the signal ~238,000 miles back to Earth. After liftoff the antenna would be opened and would be pointed at the Earth.

• In the lunar module, whilst on the moon, there was a circuit breaker connected to the camera (though details on this are not given), which would then be closed to send black-and-white TV pictures to Earth, through a network connection from the camera to the antennae the details of which are not given (comments on this below).

• Given the ‘low energy state’ of space (the new defintion of ‘vacuum’), the signals would not be distorted or interfered with on the way back to Earth.

• The 2nd part of the communications network was the wireless connection between the moon and Earth which was provided by an S-band transponder, emitting at 2-4 Ghz frequency. A transponder is used for wireless communications and signal exchange. This is how the astro-actor-nauts voice-communicated with Earth and how the spacecraft sent signals to NASA. It was built to withstand the extreme -274 F to +250 F temperatures of space and the Moon.

• The S band transponder weighed ~32 pounds, and was powered by the module, its power consumption kept below 70 watts. It employed a 20-Watt wave tube amplifier to transmit images from the moon’s orbit. Supposedly the signal strength was strong enough to travel the ~238.000 miles to the Earth (how was this tested in advance?)

Apollo 11 transponder model.

• The receipt of signals, photos and videos occurred at NASA’s Australian Honeysuckle Creek complex. The Parkes radio telescope dish, also in Australia, began transmitting once it was able to have line-of-sight contact with Apollo 11.

• These pictures or videos were then uploaded to Earth-orbiting satellites and transmitted back to NASA’s Manned Spaceflight Centre at Houston and, via further satellite links, to TV receiving centres around the world. There was thus many hops and delays.

• Oddly, almost all of the original TV footage has been erased. NASA calls this ‘normal’.

• The current architecture (2023) is explained here but does not comport to the steps mentioned above.

Networking, Communications issues and objections

None of the above architecture was in place in 1969, yet the communications worked ‘perfectly’ and as expected with the rather crude (by today’s comparison) components and systems. The system design itself is not explained in great detail, nor can any independent verification from end to end be found.

There are many issues with the purported transmission of videos and images. The Apollo 11 onboard guidance computer (AGC) was programmed to interface with the ground-based mainframes, which in the 1960s were fractionally as powerful as a modern cell phone. The ACG had 4 Kb of memory. It is the author’s view that the AGC connection to these rather crude mainframes did not have the capability to convert the data for the thousands of miles per hour trajectories in real time over such a poor network interface.

Take your cell phone. 4 kb is equal to 0.0000038147 Gb. Your current cell phone will have 4-32 GB of memory. Take your cell phone and reduce that memory down to .000004 Gb (or far less), and see how well it works. Now connect the reduced .000004 Gb cell phone to your wi-fi. Divide the wi-fi bandwidth by 1000. Take a video with your phone. Now try and send that video to an IP address (or email) over that network. This is what NASA claims to have done from the Moon.

The author has worked on many complex networking projects and understands that the limited memory (4Kb) of the ACG, limited battery life to run the sysetms, and the constrained network bandwidth connecting the ACG to Earth-situation mainframes makes the transference of ‘rich data’ i.e. videos, impossible.

Further, the module would have to run air-conditioning non-stop as it sat on the lunar surfce, bathed in balmy temperatures of 250 F. How then, did they have the power to transmit the images through the communications system as described above?

There is no possibility that without a functioning and ‘robust’ computer system, which possesses GB of memory, a central processing unit capacity with at leat >3 Ghz, you could pull off the complicated machinations needed to orbit the Moon, disengage the LEM from the command module, land the LEM, perform the various networking-memory limited tasks and transmissions, lift the LEM off the moon, reconnect it to the orbiting command module, and then return to the Earth.

You cannot program and run even the most basic project code in a system with no memory and no Ghz CPU power. NASA has never provided the original code which supposedly managed the unfathomable complexity of all activities from the Earth to the Moon and back, on a real time operating system (RTOS), with no memory. RTOS did not exist in the 1960s (they started to be built in the late 1980s, 1990s, an example is a point-of-sale, car navigation, or ATM).

There is no end-to-end proof of such complicated procedures being done on the Earth, in testing, with such crude computer systems. How then would such complexities be pulled off, effortlessly, the first time they are attempted in space without a functioning computer system? The probability of this is simply zero.

As already stated, Apollo information and feeds were controlled through an Australian satellite communications centre at Honey Suckle Creek. This feed provided the entire planet with the ‘delayed’ coverage of Apollo. This facility was entirely owned and operated by NASA (minute 4 below). This was the key choke point for NASA and would allow editing and control.

Could NASA have fed pre-made tapes (ie films) into the communications links? Is that why there was a single point of communications control in Australia, which gave NASA enough time to edit and redact if necessary?

Bill Kaysing’s book, ‘We did not go to the Moon’ p. 10

American researcher, engineer and inventor Ralph René describes how each manned Apollo mission was falsified in roughly the same way (René, Ralph; Lucas, Stu, ed. NASA Mooned America! 1994).

“… Each mission was on sequential tapes and programmed into the computer weeks before the lift-off… all that was left was to provide the distraction that is vital to conman and magician alike just before the deception begins. In this case it was the public launching at Cape Canaveral that provided all the flame, fury and flash that any magician could ever ask for. It focused the attention of billions of people around the world on the launch while diverting us from the scam.”

You could record and film the entire event, including the ad hoc jokes and gibes. The entire film is made and simply replayed. Or, you could pre-make the visual effects and add the live voice feeds against the images, based on a script. Hollywood does this every day.

It would not be that difficult to merge pre-made tapes or videos with ‘live’ (editable) feeds of the lift-off, the ‘voyage’, the landing and the return and splash down. You could merge the two rather easily as Kubrick did in 2001 Space Odyssey and create the impression for example, of a lunar landing with real time voice animation. Though complex, this is what movie production studios do every day. The difficulty would be in synching the voices with the pre-made visuals.

And this should be noted. There is no evidence provided by NASA of ‘live video’ feeds of any of the footage shown on TV. They are probably pre-created animated simulations. For example, to verify a landing, all you would need to do is point a camera out the module window as you land. This is never done. NASA relied on the blind trust of the public to believe what they were shown.

Regarding communications, the ‘debunkers’ also cite HAM or hobbyist radio enthusiasts, being able to track the missions to the moon. This never happened as detailed here. Apollo 11’s own material state that the transmission frequency was at 2 Ghz, a frequency not used by HAM operators.

NASA also claims that the signals were cloaked (quote at the beginning of the post). HAM operators could not pick up any Apollo signals. Controlling all communications and signals was essential for NASA of course. Not even the Russians could track the Apollo missions. But this secrecy raises the problem of the lack of independent verification.

The inherent novelty and complexity of communications between space and Earth, as well as the completely different architecture of today’s systems raises many issues and doubts about the 1969 Apollo transmissions. This is an area that is not investigated thoroughly enough. It is unlikely that given the crudity of information systems used in Apollo, that rich live video feeds were sent through space. NASA would need to demonstrate in real time, here on Earth in a laboratory, how that system would have worked.

Processed photographs

For still photographs the astro-actor-nauts used a Hasselblad chest high camera. This was not, contrary to the narrative, some super-extraordinary-specially made, customised device. It was a pretty standard issue. A special Kodak thin emulsion double-perforated 70 mm film was used to capture the images. This permitted 160 pictures in color or 200 on black/white in each loading. It is unclear where and when these negatives were processed and this raises obvious questions.

The original negatives from the Apollo missions are apparently stored in ‘frozen vaults’ at Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston, TX. Master inter-negatives were produced from the originals. This allows editing and digitisation of the photos in later generations of negatives. So say the ‘conspiracy theorists’.

4-1960s technology….

Why hasn’t there been a return journey since 1972 if it was that easy to accomplish with what has to be termed, ‘somewhat primitive technology’ from 60 years ago? Even in the 1980s, technology was far in advance of that which existed in the mid 1960s. Why no progress, no return, no improvements?

NASA maintains it lost the original systems and documentation, stored in 17.000 cannisters and has lost over 200.000 original videos. All telemetry and logs have been ‘lost’. I can read the original diary from Magellan’s 1522 circumnavigation, in which only 11 men survived out of some 230, yet we can’t view the original hardware, software, code, designs and rocket replicas from 50 years ago? (here, minute 7) Make sense if you have something to hide.

Why does NASA say it has lost the ‘capability’ to go back to the moon, which it supposedly did with 1960s technology? Is this just one confused member of NASA getting it wrong?

Where is the original hardware, software, networking, communications design and equipment, code, documents, rockets, designs, telemetry, logs and metrics? Why aren’t they in full public view? Where is the proof of the entire system, end to end and how it worked? You can redact and hide the IP related to ‘security’, or system innovation which you don’t national competitors to access. But there is nothing. This is a formidable issue for the moon-believers.

Today’s smart phones, resting in your pocket, are millions of times faster and more computationally complex than the software running the NASA module and related equipment. Is it reasonable that a ‘dumb’ system navigated a rocket, module, a landing, the orbiting, the deployment and re-joining of the module with the spacecraft, all the while ‘connected’ to systems in Houston?

How did a 1960’s lunar module (LEM) hook up with an orbiting command module thousands of feet above the moon for the return journey? Where was that practiced beforehand? Are we to believe that this complicated manoeuvre was successful without dozens of trials and failures? Why does the actual footage look fake?

There is more on the LEM-homeless shelter below. If you spend time just analysing the LEM you will have all the evidence you need to propose that the entire programme was impossible.

5-Lasers

Laser beams were being bounced off the moon long before the Apollo ‘landings’ and the installation of ‘reflectors’. The lunar surface is formed of small glass beads and reflective metals. No one knows why the moon exists, or how it was formed, nor apparently, even what the actual composition of the soil and rocks are (more below). 1960s technology was certainly able to throw a laser light on the moon and trace its response. The first lasers were bounced off the moon in 1962.

Laser reflectors are the lamest of the debunker claims which they use to ‘prove’ the moon landing.

6-Photos, Lighting and the ‘light side’?

Nothing makes the ‘debunkers’ descend into frenzies of spitting hate and animations of animadiversions more easily than claims of faked photos. But many are and that cannot be denied. Out of 32.000 supposed photographs, only a handful show the Earth from only 3 out of the 6 missions; and even fewer point to an obviously fake-artificial Sun. How is that possible?

Link

First, where did they land? NASA says near the moon’s equator on the light side. The moon takes one month to rotate once (Copernicans cannot explain this in lieu of other planetary rotations). This seems rather convenient. The moon face we see on Earth is therefore the same moon face, it never changes.

Recent Indian probe needs to be added.

The ‘light side’ will have temperatures up to 250F at the equator. The ‘dark side’, -250F. How did the astro-actor-nauts survive such temperatures?

Further, sunlight on the Moon is estimated to be twenty times brighter than it is on Earth at high noon, because the Moon has no dense filtering atmosphere. You would never need artificial lighting and NASA has acknowledged that it did not provide any electrical lights for this very reason. Whey then are artificial lights visible?

Where are the various experiments confirming that surviving 250 F temps is possible, performed here on Earth in their spacesuits (one assumes that such an obvious threat would be completely understood before travelling to the moon)? None exist. Walk out into the desert with 120F temps in the ridiculous space suit, multiply that by 2 times, and then consider what NASA is trying to sell you. Add in massive radiation.

Where are the actual moon surface temperature readings?

In the photo above of Aldrin, where are the stars? On our atmosphere-layered Earth we have a perfect platform to view stars. But not from the atmosphere-less moon?

There was no possibility NASA could replicate the intricacy of constellations and stars from the surface of the moon. If they attempted this the stars themselves would provide positioning evidence. The most likely reason why stars are not shown, is that the constellations could reveal the precise location, day and time of the observation. In other words the coordinates of the location on Earth. Further, replicating what you don’t know, namely, star locations from the moon, is pragmatically impossible. If this is true, NASA had to eliminate the stars.

The excuse will be ‘the iris or aperture of the camera was calibrated to shut out the brightness of the stars’. Yet the ‘Earth’ and its light emission was not affected? Nor are stars shown when the Earth is displayed (supposedly) from the module itself on its way to the Moon?

No stars are shown for the simple reason that the constellation of these stars would tell us the location of the observer. That is the most rational explanation for why no stars appears but conversely and contradictorily, the Earth and the Sun (completely artificial) appear. How is that possible?

Further:

• Why wasn’t a telescope planted and used on the moon? This would have alleviated the ‘camera aperture’ excuse which is invalid anyway. Are we to believe that no one from the smartest-guys-in-history thought of planting a scope on the moon to view the heavens, the view of which would have been the most awe inspiring moment and epiphany in the lives of the men who landed there?

• Why is the photo above perfectly framed from eye level, when the camera rested on the chest?

• Why in the above photo, is the Earth so small? It is 4 times bigger than the moon and would loom over it (have you ever seen a full summer moon when the moon appears to hover and loom over your location?).

• Why is the flag moving in the above photo? How did the US flag move on an atmosphere-less, windless moon surface? Did Armstrong or Aldrin jerk the pole back and forth? The moon’s surface is not granite, and it would not be hard to insert a flagpole and even if there was motion with or against the pole, the flag should be limp even after giving it a jerk. Later missions corrected this failure and most photos for later missions show a limp flag. Why then the difference with the flag from Apollo 11?

Did the hangar have a fan or fans, to keep the set cool from the various heat emitting, high energy artificial light systems? Isn’t that a more rational explanation for the moving flag?

Wouldn’t the moon, without a heavy water based-atmosphere, be drenched in starlight and wouldn’t it be a perfect platform to view the heavens? Supposedly the astro-actor-nauts landed on the ‘light side’. It does not look like it. How would shadows appear in the background on the ‘light side’?

Why the deep dark shadows on the ‘light side’ of the moon as evidenced in the above photo and in so many others? The moon’s surface is supposedly composed of beads of glass, metal elements and crystals, which allow it reflect the Sun’s radiation, as well as laser beams from Earth. The surface of the moon would never be so dark beneath objects in reality. These shadows must come from artificial lighting on the Earth’s surface. Why are there shadows in all directions?

Given the moon’s surface is reflective, full of glass beads and metals, these dark shadows shown below are simply impossible on the ‘light side’ of the moon, bathed in 250 F temps and sunlight.

The photo below is supposedly of Aldrin and Armstrong on the moon putting up the flag. Both of them. So who took the photo? Or pace debunkers was there a ‘camera’ attached to the outside of the vehicle, put up there one assumes with a very tall ladder (where did the ladder come from?). Or was this camera somehow already attached to the outside of the LEM and activated on landing? Where is this camera?

Why is the Earth in the below photo so much larger than in the photo above? Where are the stars? If the ‘iris’ of the camera is calibrated to shut out ‘star light’ how does it pick up the Earth’s light in such detail? Why is the Earth ‘cut off’, surely the entire planet from this apparent plane of photography would be visible? Is the Earth a fake replica surrounded by a black cutout?

This photo looks completely fabricated.

The Lighting, the sets….

Who is taking this photo and why is the Earth so small ? Why is the Earth cut off? There is nothing to prevent the entire planet from being seen.

It is obvious that the light shown in many of these photographs is electrical, not sunlight. The shadows of the landing are all over the place, due to the many different lighting standards and locations used. Shadows always flow in the same direction, not in different directions. There is no ‘debunking’ that claim.

What is with the photo below, with light and shadows all over the place? What is the orb in the background, an artificial light?

This photo of Aldrin below, is not taken with a chest level camera. The lighting is artificial and all over the place. Note his leg lit up from a light source to his left. There is no chance he was on the ‘light side’. It appears that the photographer was standing on a chair or platform. Did the LEM have a chair or a platform from which to take this photo?

At 250 F on the ‘light side’ of the moon, not only would you be fried, but an emulsion based camera, full of metal and plastic would be quite literally, melted. How did the camera survive the temps and why are so many pictures perfectly framed from eye-level with the camera resting on the chest?

Why is the camera cross hair blocked out by an object? It appears that the objects were added later during the edits.

Where is the Sun if they are on the ‘light side’? Why, when the Sun is shown in only a handful of photos, does it look like a pixiliated interior light? Why is there more than one light source, with transverse beams, casting shadowns in strange directions?

Why does the Sun look nothing like the conical design and radiation intensity of the real Sun, given the moon is supposedly atmosphereless and is pace the 93 million distance dogma from the Earth to the Sun, at the same rough distance from the Sun? The narrative debunking will use the magic words of radiation, ‘vacuum’ and the calibration of the camera.

Why is the foreground so much different than the smooth background? This would be something a movie set would employ. The detail in the foreground is not matched by the background beyond the white dividing line which is often used on movie sets for backdrops which change.

In the Apollo 15 landing there is a wall which can be seen in the top right, painted to look like a lunar backdrop.

In the photo below where is Buzz Aldrin? His visor is reflecting back lighting, wires, a crane, Armstrong and a stage hand. There are also 2 horizons. This can only be a film set.

Why the image of a long haired 1970s hippie in the visor of an Apollo 17 astronaut?

How would an 18-tonne unit not leave a massive imprint on the moon surface?

Below is the Apollo 17 landing when astro-actor Cernan’s visor catches the orb of a light in the studio or hanger where the ‘landing’ is shot.

(photo analysis from a Phd in Physics above)

Why are photos of the Earth centred only on the Pacific? Why none of Asia or North America? Was it just easier to create image-replicas of one Earth location? Why are the images being ‘reimagined’?

Link

NASA admits that they are digitising and ‘touching up’ or completely changing the photographs. Without access to the originals, no one will know what is real and what has been altered. Nothing says ‘Science’ like obfuscation and non-transparency.

These fraudulent photos are, however, not even the most important evidence in questioning the narrative. They do however support the overall assessment that something is wrong with the narrative.

7-The Earth in the window trick

The Earth-in-the-window-trick was central to the storyline that the module was precessing from Earth to the moon. This film, was sent to investigator Bart Sebril by a whistleblower. [Minute 38 here] The actor-nauts perform a simple but ingenious trick to give the appearance of the Earth at distance. Again where are the stars? Or is it the ‘iris of the camera’ calibration excuse again? Or maybe that magic word ‘vacuum’? This shot of the Earth is from inside the capsule.

From inside the Apollo 11 capsule, the view of the ‘Earth’ which was shared around the world. It is 100% fake. Where are the stars for example?

How: The astronauts simply placed a transparent colour photograph (transparency) of the circular Earth, some twelve inches so in width, in front of the circular window. This transparent photo was perfectly backlit by the reflecting earthshine, like a colour x-ray on top of a projecting light box.

The Apollo 11 crew then very carefully inserted a black crescent shaped piece of material on top of their one-foot transparency of the Earth to make it look like it was the dividing “terminator line” between night and day.

With the camera at the back of the spacecraft filming this, and with the interior of the spacecraft completely dark, it looked as if the Earth was floating in space at some great distance away, when it was really just a transparency of the circular Earth in front of the brightly backlit circular window from Earth’s orbit!

This is very clever.

However one of the actor-nauts got in the way of the camera sitting at the back of the module…

And why the work light? This is shot from inside the capsule.

Someone adjusting the insert….you know ‘The Science’.

They are in low Earth orbit because a few seconds later……the module is filled with light.

By itself, the ‘window trick’ proves a fraud. Debunkers have a hard time with this one. They resort to the usual trope about a ‘training film’ or that this original footage is fake. (above process in its entirety also viewable here at minute 28:15)

8-Radiation

Why does NASA say that it can’t penetrate the Van Allen radiation belt today? The outer layer of the Van Allen radiation belts has an electron-plasma voltage, impacted and filled by the Sun’s radiation, which might be as high as 10 million volts. This equates to a radiation load beyond our calculation….does anyone believe that you are zooming and zipping through such radiation?

This charge is lethal unless you are covered by feet of lead. There is no chance of coating a module in feet of lead because it would be far to heavy as a payload for even the largest of rockets to carry into the uppper atmosphere and it would never escape at the necessary velocity past low Earth orbit. It is even unlikely you could lift such a weight off the ground without blowing up the launch pad.

The outer areas of the Van Allen radiation belt contain so much voltage it would fry a human and any equipment in a module ‘protected’ by 1.5 inch aluminium.

How would anyone survive the radiation within the Van Allen belts, some 37.000 miles deep, in a 1.5-inch aluminium tin can, with no suit-radiation protection? The capsule would need feet of lead coating to prevent death.

In 1991, the Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite (CRRES) detected an enormous influx of electrons with energies between 15MeV (mega electron volt) and 50MeV, due to a solar flare. This shocked astro-physicists. They now know these solar flares are regular occurrences. Supposedly Apollo 10 was allowed to launch just days after a big solar flare on May 13, 1969, which caused the Northern Lights to be seen in New York, Illinois and Connecticut. This is simply impossible to believe.

1 MeV of energy is approximately 0.87 times the speed of light (at the electron level). So here we have particles moving near the speed of light and radiating massive collective energy.

There are 3 known Van Allen radiation belts, yet in the 1960s only 2 were proposed by NASA. If you went through these belts to the moon, would you not have taken measurements, readings and known that there are 3 layers to pass through? Where is the original telemetry?

In the above image spacecraft must travel some 6.72R_e (26,634m) before the inner belt is cleared (the new third belt region has been added to the inner belt region) and to 12R_e (47,583m) before the outer belt is cleared. In either case, if 9.4 through to 12R_e is considered to be the end of the Earth’s radiation belts, it is not the end of the radiation environment. Radiation would be prevalent during the entire journey and on the moon’s surface. There are also issues with the above narrative if we look at speeds, G forces and acceleration (more below).

NASA admits we have never left low-earth orbit.

In 1997 a Challenger spacecraft, at a range of just 400 miles in space, record massive amounts of radiation, in a zone supposedly some 200-600 miles from the actual beginning of the radiation belts. There was no way it could go any further even if it wanted to (it was designed to go about 400 miles or so into space not any further). Why don’t we have similar telemetry readings from Apollo 11?

Solar and cosmic flares are common, yet there is no mention during 4 years, from 1969-1972, of the Apollo missions registering these common events, nor of their take offs or re-entry being affected by the same? This is simply not credible.

The melting point of glass, aluminum, nickel and stainless steel is far less than the 2000 C temperatures found in the Troposphere and Exosphere. This means that the Apollo capsules would have disintegrated when heading into the upper atmosphere. Or, they would have to be coated in layers of lead making the flight impossible. Or, NASA created a unique and innovative ‘ablative shield’ (resin) for the exit, which it has never shown or publically prototyped.

Question: Where were these ‘ablative shields’ tested before the Apollo mission? Where are the results from the tests?

In December of 2014, NASA sent its new Orion spacecraft, un-manned, directly into the Van Allen radiation belts and then promptly returned it to Earth for study. According to NASA, the purpose of the Orion mission was “to test the instruments.” Two Geiger counters were on board, used to measure the radiation inside the belts, which have to be passed through to reach the Moon. Didn’t NASA already have these measurements fifty years ago from the Apollo missions?

Further, how could someone stand on the atmosphere-less radiation-rich moon surface and survive? The radiation on the moon is estimated to be 1000x stronger than it is on Earth; and as the Nazi von Braun stated, you would need to either dig a deep hole or find a cave to survive. Where are the original geiger counter readings from the moon landings?

Before having a walk to stretch your legs on the moon wouldn’t a normal person very carefully take radiation readings to see if the surface is safe? Yet not once in the ‘landing’ videos, nor in the landing protocols as communicated during the ‘landing process’, is there any mention of radiation testing! It is precisely the first thing you would do on landing.

As this astrophysicist wrote, you would not survive on the moon for any length of time unless you were in a bunker, covered by 6 feet of soil.

Supposedly the astro-actor-nauts were out collecting material, digging trenches, riding in jeeps and doing various experiments. But remarkably no temperature or geiger count readings. Yet not a single one of them came back ill, or suffering from the effects of radiation which is 1000x stronger on the moon, than it is on Earth. This is impossible to believe. The law of probability tells us that many of these men would have died or contracted various illnesses including cancer.

The trajectory

The narrative proclaims that the Apollo modules avoided the Van Allen radiation zones. This is impossible given they surround the Earth. It is also impossible given where the latitude of the launch pads and their flight plans and where the moon actually was located in July 1969. Below is from Aldrin’s notes on the flight path. The moon is in the upper right. Even using his own sketches, there is no avoiding the 3 layers of the radiation belts.

In July 1969, an observer on Earth would see the Sun traversing the constellation of Cancer until July 23rd, when it moved into Leo the constellation, not the orbit. The Earth was therefore located opposite the Sun, in the constellation of Capricorn, and the angle formed with the line to the Moon at LOI (lunar orbit insertion) is of some 31°. This means that the Moon was actually lying below the ecliptic at the time of the Apollo 11 LOI, not as it is presented above. So we know that any claims of a path through ‘radiation belts’ is simply false. It does not comport with actual astronomy nor the reality of the radiation belts and their location.

Radiation belts and speed

NASA states that Apollo 11 took 100 hours to reach the moon. 100 hours is 4 days. Let’s say they took 3 days to get there and orbited around the moon some 10 times as NASA claims. The moon is ~238.000 miles away. This means an average speed of 238.000 miles / 70-100 hours or between 2-3.000 miles per hour on average. Yet the Van Allen radiation belts are 30-40.000 miles deep and at this speed it would take 10-15 hours to pass through them unless they were going at speeds that no human has been recorded withstanding.

But…NASA says the Apollo modules using Saturn V rockets, sped through the upper atmophere and the Van Allen radiation belts in 1 hour, at speeds of roughly 24-40.000 mph? Yet nowhere is there any evidence, from tapes, or logs, that any of the Apollo craft ever came close to this speed. Only NASA makes that claim but says the evidence is lost or maybe hidden.

Isn’t it more likely that the Apollo claims of going 24-40.000 mph through the radiation belts, with the command module riding on top of barely tested Saturn rockets, never happened? (more on the rockets below)

Why are ‘we’ still stuck at 250 miles?

Why is the Space station just 200-250 miles from the Earth? Why did the current NASA Orion program which is attempting to go to the moon, agree that a spacecraft cannot go past 3600 miles (minute 3:45 in this link) due to radiation? NASA refuses to release geiger counter information on radiation levels from the Van Allen belts citing the information as ‘sensitive’. You would need to pass through and back, using massive lead shields which the Apollo 11 did not have. Is the Space Station at ~200 miles because beyond say 400 miles, the radiation is so intense, nothing will survive?

9-Suits, Moon Surface, Getting Fried

How would anyone survive in a capsule on the way to, or back from the moon, in temperatures ranging from 0 to ~2500 C? How would you survive on the moon surface itself given the massive swing in temperatures from +250 F to -250 F?

Real world experiment. Put on one of these rather ridiculous suits. Go out into the desert where it is only 120-140F. Imagine a doubling of that temperature. Now perform the activities that they supposedly enacted on the lunar surface.

Would this suit actually protect anyone from 250F temps? Could you perform their purported activities in such a suit, in such temperatures?

Can we the sheeple, see all the evidence, testing and real world simulations in a desert of the actor-astro-nauts doing precisely what is asked above including taking pictures with the camera strapped to their chest?

The spacesuits were extraordinarily cumbersome, offered no radiation protection and could not be put on in ‘5 minutes’ in a cramped lunar module. Yet the astronauts seem to change clothes more often than a highstepper on a catwalk, all within a cramped module the same size as my mercedes. My personal favorite is the pocket for the sunglasses. Raybans one would expect. It all looks very science-y.

The Moon’s surface is at least 20 times brighter than the Earth’s….so what kind of sunglasses were produced to stop the ‘glare’?

How would these suits (and sunglasses) protect a human on the moon’s surface, where radiation is 1000 times the level it is on Earth? Wouldn’t you be fried? Or, is the radiation level not as high as estimated and if so, what were the actual radiation readings during these landings?

• Question: Where were the suits tested for radiation protection and where are the results of those tests?

• Question: Where were the sunglasses tested?

• Question: How would complex equipment, including an emulsion camera, survive any of the assumed extreme radiation or temperature swings?

The spacesuits are a problem for the narrative.

10-Saturn V Rockets

There are many issues with the rockets. An obvious one is that Apollo rocket designer’s original statement that it was mathematically impossible to fly to the Moon in a single rocket. NASA needed three rockets and each rocket would have to weigh three hundred and twenty times more than the Apollo rocket did. This is what the Nazi von Braun meant when he said that the Saturn V rockets would need to be the size of the Empire State building.

The Saturn V weighed just two thousand five hundred tons. The actual tonnage needed to go to the moon, pace the Nazi von Braun and any analysis of getting there and back, is more in the order of eight hundred thousand tons, or a difference of thirty-two thousand percent. You would blow up the launch pad and a large part of Florida if you attemtped to get such a payload off the ground.

Given this reality, how then did the Saturn V rockets have enough fuel to power a 500.000-mile journey? Why was the Saturn V rocket – the finest ever made supposedly – scrapped after 1973? Where is the logic in spending billions and then throwing it away?

Also, the rockets and their purported speeds and acclerations, present an almost insurmountable problem for the narrative.

If the Saturn V rockets could achieve 24.000 mph speed why were there so many issues with them before 1969? Why did Apollo 7 in 1968, use the Saturn 1B rocket and not Saturn V? NASA records 2 very short test flights for the Saturn V in 1967 and 1968. Yet just 12 months later we are to believe that the Saturn V used for Apollo 8’s test journey was fully built, tested and quality assured? Since when in history has that happened on a big project without issues and failures? The first time the Saturn V is used to ‘go to the moon’ it works flawlessly? Is that real life? Or was the Apollo 8 a fake, the pilot program for the film and audio making?

11-G Force and your head exploding

Nowhere is there any evidence that a human can withstand acceleration up to 24.000 mph in such a short period of time. To exit the earth’s gravity and atmosphere you would need to be travelling at least at the rate of 24.000 mph by the time you hit 1.000 miles in space. NASA’s own ‘logs’ say that Apollo 7 (the first to orbit the moon), exited the Earth’s atmosphere after 2.5 hours from initital lift-off. After this, it took 3 days to make it to the moon. This makes no sense.

Apollo 7, 2.5 hours after lift off, is given permission to exit the atmosphere, using the Trans-Lunar-Insertion, or the 3rd phase of firing rockets (so 2 rockets were already used by this time). This means that the Apollo craft were no further than 400-700 miles above the Earth, or about to enter the Van Allen Radiation belt. Pace NASA itself, the Apollo craft flew through the Van Allen radiation belts at 24.000 mph.

These belts start at roughly 600-1.000 miles up. This means that in 2.5 hours from lift-off the Apollo craft would be no more than 300 to 750 miles up or travelling at roughly 250-300 miles per hour. They would need a vast acceleration over say the remaining 300-500 miles to the Van Allen radiation belts, ramping up very quickly to 24.000 mph. 24.000 mph is 400 miles per minute. Within 1-2 minutes they would enter the radiation belts accelerating at, or be very near to, 24.000 mph. The G force to do this is over 20. This would kill you.

Humans cannot survive for an extended period of time, without injury much beyond 6G. To accelerate from 0 mph to 24.000 mph, in 2 minutes, which is what NASA tells us, the G force is 20. Any G force above 6, experienced for more than a few seconds will injure and kill. Supposedly astronauts experienced around 3G. How then did they escape the Earth’s atmosphere at only 3G? Or, where are the logs and metrics on how they survived the 20G for 1 hour, which is the time it took according to NASA, to pass through the Van Allen radiation belts?

12-No errors with rockets or new tech

We are to believe that Apollo 7, 8 and 10, all of which supposedly circumnavigated the moon, did so with no errors, no issues, on the first try? Not even a monkey or dog as a pilot project to test the launch of a vehicle into space at 24.000 mph?

As well Apollo 9 circumnavigated the Earth’s atmosphere, with no errors or issues on the first try? Supposedly Apollo 9, testing the ‘lunar module’ (doing what tests exactly no one knows), performed 151 orbits around the Earth, traveling 4,214,543 miles in 10 days. This is a mean speed of 17.560 miles per hour. The furthest distance from the Earth was 300 miles. Yet a short while later Apollo 11 is landing on the moon?

According to their flight plan, Apollo 9 achieved ‘Earth Orbit Insertion’ or their 300 mile height within 11 minutes of take-off. This means that in 11 minutes they travelled 300 miles up, or again, with a speed of 17.560 miles per hour, which they apparently kept up (notwithstanding many questions about rockets, fuel and propulsion) for 10 days at roughly G Force 20? You would not surive this in real life.

Why do videos from Apollo 10 and its supposed circumnavigation of the moon (without error, without incidence), look like fraud with reflections in photos and videos proving that the filming was on Earth? Was the filming for Apollo 10 a test run for the filming of the Apollo 11 ‘landing’?

13-The Landings

Why no noise on landing? Supposedly the moon’s atmosophere is 17% of that of the Earth, surely some noise would be heard? Even if you turned off the engines ‘10 feet above the ground’ which is the standard NASA refrain, you would still be close to the surface and the 1/6 atmosphere of the moon must pick up something.

Why no crater from a massive 18 tonne machine touching down with its huge engine facing the surface? The excuse is that Armstrong turned off the engine just before touching down. Yet no hole, no dust, no debris, no noise. Any re-enactment of an 18 tonne LEM or similar machine, trying to land, even after turning off the engine, has resulted in a great storm of debris being kicked up, a large hole forming, and often the LEM falling over on landing.

The lunar landing module looks like a homeless shelter held together by tape. Thin, with a huge engine and a pilot seat bolted on top. It is navigated by tilting the machine, much as you would with a power-glider or a human navigable drone. Just a year before Apollo 11, Armstrong crashed the LEM. Yet, on the moon, there were no issues with the LEM, which is an entirely new way to fly.

The Apollo 11 landing itself is so poorly staged, so obviously filmed, it is painful to watch. Just before touchdown Armstrong says ‘engine off’, but there is no engine noise in the background (atmosphere is 17% that of Earth, so it must carry some noise). No noise whatsoever, even though the 18 tonne LEM is supposedly propelled by a massive 10 thousand pound thruster engine sited right underneath the actor-nauts. (min 1:57 below). The landing is cartoonish with a ‘camera’ supposedly next to the massive engine.

You can look the landing footage. It is not real.

Watch the sequence again and listen to the conversations going on.

• At various points the crewmen give their altitude: twenty-one thousand feet, forty-two hundred feet, three thousand feet, fourteen hundred feet...then they're down.

• If you concentrate on the Moon's surface, it's hard to figure out what's going on; the Moon doesn't seem to change or really get any closer.

• At no time do its craters or rocks seem to be more than an inch or so deep or high. The surface doesn't get any more detailed, nor its features any larger or more three-dimensional.

• It looks pretty much the same from four thousand feet as it does from three feet. Features that should have been great rocks or craters when seen from a great height turn out to be tiny pebbles or depressions beneath the Lunar Module as it lands.

• The perspective is just all wrong. If you run the sequence through at double speed you'll see exactly how the effect of descent is achieved; by the camera lens simply zooming in.

• This is classic Kubrick - a front end camera angle, which can be sped up to give the impression of a ‘landing’. Brilliant.

Wikileaks has uploaded videos of faked moon landings with the astronauts as the key actors.

There are claims that a coca cola bottle and an army flask are part of the foreground in the original Apollo 11 landing (here) (the author is sceptical of these claims).

Why do the backdrops for the 6 landings look the same even though the locations, according to the map given earlier in the post are not the same? The same hills, the same features, the same rocks, though apparently the locations are different. The usual excuse is that there is ‘no atmosphere’ so this is just an ‘optical illusion’.

The narrative says that the original landing markers and most debris is covered now by moon dust, yet somehow they claim that the original boot prints are still visible (minute 6:42 vs 10:20) ? Neither claim can be verified.

Were the landings noisy or quiet (cue the ‘vacuum’ excuse)? The astro-actor-nauts became confused and could not remember.

(Sebril) “It was in Cernan’s interview, filmed at his home, that he stated that the descent engine to the Moon was “very loud”, all the while forgetful that Apollo 12’s Alan Bean had said that he could not hear the descent engine at all “because of the vacuum of space” (their repeated catch-all excuse for unexplainable inconsistencies).

Furthermore, during Cernan’s alleged “loud engine” decent, as he transmitted conversations of what he was supposedly doing while he was allegedly landing on the Moon, he forgot that no sound at all was actually heard in the background.” (links to Sebril’s information below, at the end)

Debunkers maintain that Sebril is mentally febrile, a liar and edits his recorded tapes. In reality he was a NASA fanatic, wanted to be an astronaut and has spent his life making and producing films. So he would know about ‘film fraud’.

14-Lunar module - the homeless shelter

A long list of 25 issues with the lunar module (LM) is given here. Too many to relist. By themselves these obvious and glaring problems reveal the Apollo landings to be problematic. A simple example: NASA still has not built a vertically ascending-descending and landing rocket – some 50 years after the supposed Apollo missions.

For example - how did the very basic onboard LEM (lunar module) computer, calculating in real-time, and communicating exchanges with Earthbound computers, manage the precise rendezvous with the command module miles above the lunar surface?

The LEM started at zero miles per hour as it supposedly launched from the lunar surface, and then allegedly synchronized itself perfectly with the height and speed of the orbiting command module, which was supposed to be traveling at 3000 mph around the Moon. This was accomplished without missing each other even by a fraction of a second, which would have had fatal consequences for the crew in the returning Moon lander.

Question: Where on planet Earth was such a feat practiced and confirmed? There is no evidence provided by NASA that this monumentally skillful and calibrated reconnection between the LEM and orbiting command module was ever practiced before the moon landings. It is impossible to believe that such a complex feat worked on the first attempt or with the limited computing power that was available within the LEM and command module.

How did the reverse process work from the command module, releasing the LEM which supposedly landed on the moon. Wouldn’t you need to practice this descent hundreds of times? No documentation or pilot project proof of this exists nor can be shown even under FOIA.

15-Re-entry

How did they re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere at 24.000 mph without rockets? (or brakes, or computer systems ?) The temperature on re-entry is some 5000 F at 24.000 mph? How would anyone survive that? How would the metal and plastic of the module survive that?

NASA claims that the little 1.5 inch thick aluminium can was coated with ‘ablative heat shields’, and that the Earth’s atmosphere acted as a brake. Ablative material would be a layer of plastic resin, which is heated to a gas which carried the heat away from command module interior.

The capsule would have re-entered with the ablative heat shield facing forward. The descent capsule had reaction control engines. These were low-thrust engines and they operated in pulsed mode. Neither the ablative resin, nor reaction engines are capable of leaving a contrail as NASA and the media claim (they used the contrail misinformation to confirm sightings by a trans-pacific jetliner which just ‘happened to be in the area’, of the capsule descending from the upper atmosphere). It has never been demonstrated how these would slow a descent or provide a capability to manage a fast descending module. Rockets are never mentioned for the return journey or re-entry.

How did the astro-actor-nauts survive the temperature of re-entry and a ‘splash down’. Where is the pre-flight testing of the ablative shields for Apollo 11 and where is that testing documentation?

Further where did they store the 3 huge parachutes in the small module? They appear right on time out of nowhere. How were they attached to the outside of the module? Again, where was this tested and where is the visual and process proof of that testing?

Another explanation exists which seems far simpler.

Maybe the capsule was dropped by a US military plane just below the altitude flown by jet airliners and the 3 huge parachutes were external attachments clipped onto the capsule before it is dropped? In fact passengers and pilots flying from Tokyo to San Francisco flight (near the bottom of the link), along a route following the Jet Stream that flows close to Hawaii where Apollo 15 was scheduled to land, supposedly saw the capsule dropped by a US military plane. This may or may not be true (the author is sceptical). The Russians have also stated that the Apollo capsules were dropped (Soyuz TMA-21 Spacecraft Re-entry and Descent Module Landing in Russian).

How did any of the Apollo capsules splash down, without computers, without rockets, without brakes or a controlling mechanism, into a previously mapped and identified splash down area? What is the chance of that happening when you are travelling at thousands of miles an hour and hurtling towards the globe without any controls? Were they steering the module into the Pacific ocean somehow? There is no description of how this was possible.

Why was no one injured, sick, radiated, or suffering from something? Why did they look so happy, well rested, not even space-lagged? Were they resting for some hours somewhere near Hawaii before being dropped by a C-35 military plane?

Picked up by the USS Hornet. Rested, happy, alert.

16-Hippity Hoppity

Why the ridiculous bunny hopping on the moon’s surface? The force of gravity is 1/6 of that of the Earth (or is it?). In reality they would be bounding, not hopping. It looks simply like a double-speed video of someone jumping up and down on Earth, or attempting to run while hopping. It is painful to watch. Image below is astronaut John Young you will notice a wire right in the middle of his pack, at the top, which pulls him up. Also here at minute 17:30 there is a menage of actor-nauts pulled by wires, some falling over. All of these occurring on ‘the moon’.

Apollo 17 astro-actor-naut Schmitt, supposedly on the moon, is falling down, getting caught up in the wires and unable to find his balance. This is an obvious fake yet we are to believe he is on the lunar surface.

17-Sand buggies?

Why the jeeps? NASA today claims to be building EVs for moon surface travel. Didn’t they already invent this? There is no oxygen on the moon, so combustion engines don’t work. How were they powered? Were they fuelled or charged before the flight? If battery powered, where are the battery designs and replicas, and what was the longevity of a charge? If they were charged from the LEM how is that possible given the limited energy capacity of the LEM?

How did they get the jeeps to the moon? NASA maintains they folded up like armchairs and weighed 462 pounds….does the below image of a rover look like an armchair weighing 500 pounds? Limited module capacity would never allow the weight of a jeep to be added. Apparently 3 of them are still on the moon though no one has provided proof they can be seen. Can we buy a folding up jeep if it was so easy to manufacture in the 1960s?

18-Rocks of Ages

NASA claims it collected 800 pounds of moon rocks. Yet these are all behind closed doors and not allowed to be studied or viewed especially by ‘deniers’. Maybe 50 ‘scientists’ have looked at these rocks. Why is this?

Why did von Braun and an entourage go to Antarctica in 1966 or 1967?

What were they looking for? Perhaps meteorites or space debris? NASA claims it was a bonding exercise for von Braun and his Nazi’s to work out differences with some of the other highly paid management. Who actually goes to Antarctica before a moon launch to vacation and bond?

The samples they brought back from Antarctica (or the moon as they claim) contain water. Remember that one of the main claims from the moon-landing-believers was that the 800 pounds of ‘rock and dirt’ samples brought back by the actor-nauts in their cramped, small module, were devoid of water. This ‘confirmed’ that they were lunar material. Except they now admit the samples do contain water, oxidation, as well as radiation. So they prove nothing. Many of these ‘moon rocks’ are similar to basalt on Earth (based on isotopes of oxygen from the rocks).

The most likely explanation is that these extraterrestrial rocks were picked up in Antarctica which explains the radiation, the water and the composition.

In 2006 the EU Space agency crashed a probe (Smart 1) into the moon on purpose to analyse its contents. A 10 metre hole was formed on impact. The resulting analysis showed that this material was different than the ‘rocks’ brought home by the Americans. (minute 7 here).

NASA’s fatal error is that they did not expect the ESA or another partner agency, dependent on NASA, to dig up minerals and elements and compare them to the Antarctica samples. So we know that the original material brought back from Apollo 11 is likely fraudulent. Why then the rock fraud?

Why are some ‘moon’ rocks actually petrified pieces of wood?

19-Nixon and Communications

Why do we need cell towers every few miles to emit 4G or 5G radio signals, yet, with no latency, computers in Houston can immediately communicate with a floating spacecraft travelling at 3000 miles per hour, from 1.000 to 238.000 miles away?

If the speed of light is 186.000 miles per second, how did Richard Nixon call the astronauts on the moon with little to no latency using a rotary analogue phone (the magic green landline phone)? Or is the speed of light wrong? How did the landline connect to a cell tower somewhere and transmit the sounds to the moon? How does a landline connect to a wireless receiver on the moon? It would take 1.5 seconds for the voice signal to reach the moon and 1.5 seconds or more to be sent back, including a time to think and reply. NASA later edited the original tapes to add latency. There is no latency in the original. Or is the speed of light wrong (it is of course, but latency would still exist in voice comms)?

Why is there a photo of the Earth taken from the moon on the wall at the White House which looks suspiciously like later photos made public after the ‘landings’. The landings had yet to happen, so how was this ‘photo’ created? This is shown when Nixon uses his rotary phone to dial the astronauts on the moon (minute 2:07 below in official footage, you will see the picture of the Earth from the moon on the wall). Is this a fraud, inserted into the video by ‘deniers’? Very clever if so. But in general the whole charade is suspicious. There is no latency and a very clear call, with no white noise or disruption over 238.000 miles.

20-Just coincidences (or murders)

Gus Grissom and his crew of Apollo 1 were incinerated in the cockpit on January 27th 1967, some 2 weeks after Grissom went public with his statement that there was no way the craft was going to the moon. He had affixed a lemon, taken from a tree in his garden, to the module’s door. Grisson publicly said that the module on the landing pad could not communicate with the building ‘next door’ (control centre). Grissom was adamant that Apollo was ‘a decade away’ from going into space.

Soon after he was dead. His wife has publicly stated that on the day of his murder or death, FBI agents invested their house, and took all papers, documents and Grissom’s typewriter, and said nothing to her about the reason for the search, nor his death which had occurred before they had illegally entered the premises. If true this is resounding evidence he was murdered.

The family still has a lawsuit against NASA demanding inter-alia that the capsule, now stored in New Jersey, be opened for independent forensic analysis. NASA claims that Grissom’s death was just an accident, and in less than a year all the ‘problems’ were fixed allowing for continued testing by Armstrong and his crew.

The true believers cannot accept the possibility that the US government or its agency NASA would murder a heretic to protect their own vested interests, money and power. Back to the blind (and extremely dangerous) belief in the efficacy and honesty of government.

Then we have Thomas Baron. Baron was the Quality Assurance and Safety Manager for North American Aviation, which was contracted to build the command module. By early 1967, at the same time that Grissom was airing his concerns, Baron had compiled a 500 page report on the impossiblity of going to moon. His report focused mainly on issues with the command module.

The problems just with one aspect of the mission were legion and overwhelming. He used this very detailed analytical report in a testimony to congress, claiming that Apollo had no chance in going to the moon. Baron had also discussed his report with the press.

One week after his testimony, on April 27th 1967, he and his young family were dead. This report, which has since disappeared in its totality, detailed the manifest issues in quality, engineering, communications, the organisation, cooperation and in key components such as the ablative heat shields. Yet we are to believe that within 2 years, all such issues were fixed for Apollo 11.

True believers mendaciously state that Baron’s very detailed observations are ‘second hand opinions’. They have never bothered to read the summary of 59 pages archived here.

Baron’s analysis is specific and first hand. He cross references his claims and uses specific hands on examples, test cases, test scenarios and testing protocol procedures to illustrate the issues - exactly what one expects from a QA manager. He is anything but a ‘crank’, or ‘unprofessional’. Personally the author has rarely seen in myriad projects in science or technology, such detailed test reporting.

True believers ascribe Baron’s death (murder) to an ‘accident’ and a ‘coincidence’. NASA and the media smeared and still smear Baron as mentally unstable, unprofessional, uneducated, a probable alcoholic, a discontented employee, a violent husband and father, and a crank and troublemaker. This is reminiscent of their ad hominem attacks and slander against the heretics of the Covidian plandemic.

21-Armstrong and Monastic life

Armstrong disappeared after the landing. He quit NASA. He hid in deep dark rural Ohio. He gave 2 short press conferences. His last speech makes no mention of the moon and cryptically refers to peeling back layers of obstacles to actually get to the moon. I thought you went there Neil? What layers impede space travel Neil?

No books, no political campaigns, no higher office, no running of NASA or its training program. No top gun training, no grinning handshakes with Bishop Tom Cruise, no movie appearances, no stardom, nothing. Was the man and his family threatened to keep silence and to always remain very, very quiet?

How did Armstrong become so wealthy, when he never worked after 1970, never sat on a board or started a business, and there is no public record of his working anywhere? When he died in 2012 his estate and his alone, was worth some $15 million. Was he paid to keep quiet? Or was he ‘just a good investor’?

22-Debunking the debunking, did they go to the moon?

The material is from NASA and the narrative. The NASA-government-debunking-military-complex can’t ‘debunk’ themselves. You can take the LEM, the Saturn V rockets, the landing, the journey, the exit and entry, the window trick, the rocks, the radiation, the lost original data, the likely murders, or any single aspect of the Apollo programme and it simply does not hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Something smells rotten….

If the Americans did land on the moon, there are a lot of unanswered questions. The material in this post is but a tithe of what has and can be presented. When you look at all the areas of the Apollo program, there are so many issues, something is wrong.

Either the Americans did land on the lunar surface and the inconsistencies exist for reasons of national security or other obscure rationales. Or, they didn’t land on the moon and the entire program was a hoax framed in the context of the Cold War, money, greed, control, power and prestige.

Back to source data.

Shouldn’t the proof in original material, original footage, original technology, original designs, original logs and telemetry be so obvious and overwhelming that no person using common sense could object?

The originals are lost. Or so we are told.

What you believe will go back to your philosophical and world-views as given at the beginning of this post.

Critical thinkers do wonder….

1. Is it credible that NASA lost all of the original documents, hardware designs, software, software designs, telemetry, geiger count readings, travel logs and project information? Or more likely:

   • Such original documentation and artifacts never existed,

   • Or will never be released given the information that they contain does not support the narrative.

2. Shouldn’t manned missions to the moon and beyond, using our somewhat sophisticated technology be a normal occurrence some 50 years after supposedly playing golf on the Moon?

3. Systems:

   1. Why are almost all the original TV feeds erased?

   2. Why is there no end to end design and detailed description of the communications architecture including the LEM, the transponder and the satellite receiving stations on Earth?

   3. Where is the original LEM and Command module programming code?

   4. Where is the power systems architecture, including batteries, which were sufficient (apparently) to power the modules, its equipment and image transmissions?

   5. Where is the proof that a RTOS (Real Time OS) sitting in crude computer hardware, with no memory or Ghz capacity was built in the late 1960s?

   6. How was ‘rich data’ sent back to Earth with limited networking capacity and next to none-existent memory in very primitive computer systems, with constrained battery-power?

   7. Where is the independent verification of how the network functioned, end to end, including the transmission of videos ?

   8. Why the single choke point of information control in Australia? Why not a distributed system of signal and visual transmission? What did they need to control?

   9. Why no independent verification of how the comms worked, or the signals sent by the Apollo spacecraft? If the flight was for the ‘benefit of mankind’, why cloak the signals?

   10. Nixon’s magic green phone, instant communications and the photo on his wall?

   11. Where were the lunar surface photos processed and how often have they been edited and digitised?

4. Death and injury:

   1. What is the probability that none of these men died, contracted cancer from radiation, or were not ill in any noticeable way, after a voyage through unbelievable levels of radiation?

   2. How would anyone or anything survive the massive temps in leaving or re-entering the Earth’s atmosphere? Where is the original proofs or simulated tests of this being possible?

5. Readings:

   1. Where are the original geiger count readings from the entire journey and where are the Van Allen belt radiation readings from 2014?

   2. Where are the temperature readings (originals), from the ‘light side of the moon’?

6. Silly suits:

   1. Where are the original tests and results of spacesuits withstanding massive amounts of radiation and 250F temperatures?

   2. Who made and tested the sunglasses for 250F temperatures and radiation at 1000x the level we have on Earth?

   3. How did the astro-actor-nauts change their clothes so often, including their cumbersome suits?

7. Rockets:

   1. What about the myriad issues, including size and quality of the Saturn V rockets?

   2. The Saturn V weighed 2.500 tonnes, yet NASA and the Nazi von Braun estimated a size of 800.000 tonnes would be needed (the Empire State building analogy). How did the Saturn V get them to the moon and back?

   3. Why was the Saturn programme scrapped in 1973?

   4. Why did the Russians find a floating command module, in the Bay of Biscay, just days after Apollo 13 supposedly lifted off? Was there a rocket and lift-off failure just after the launch of Apollo 13 in low orbit? If so where were the astro-actor-nauts? They did not die, so where were they?

   5. How would anyone survive the G Force of the purported acceleration and speeds inferred by NASA?

   6. Where is the proof that Apollo speed through the Van Allen radiation belts at 40.000 miles per hour? Where is the testing or simulation of that speed and its impact on humans including G Force impact?

8. Radiation:

   1. Why would Apollo 10 be cleared for its moon circumnavigation, just days after a massive solar flare eruption? (unless it never left low Earth orbit)

   2. Solar and cosmic flares are common, yet there is no mention during 4 years, from 1969-1972, of the Apollo missions registering these common events, nor of their take offs or re-entry being affected by the same? We know that cosmic and solar flares occurred quite regularly during this period.

   3. Why the lies about the trajectory through the Van Allen radiation belt and the location of the moon in relation to the Earth, during July 1969?

   4. Where were the ‘ablative shields’ of resin tested for radiation, exit and re-entry?

   5. Where were the suits tested for radiation levels of 1000x greater than found on Earth?

   6. What is the exact MeV of the Van Allen radiation belts if NASA has punched through these so many times?

   7. What are the exact geiger count readings from the moon’s surface?

9. Rocks:

   1. Why don’t the Apollo 11 rock samples match the Smart-1 probe analysis?

   2. Why do ‘moon rocks’ contain evidence of oxidation and water?

   3. Why did the Nazi von Braun and his disciples trek to Anarctica in 1966/67?

10. Why the ‘Earth in a window trick’?

11. Landings:

    1. Why are the landings, especially Apollo 11, so obviously faked?

    2. Why does the landing look like a double time edit of a front-end camera sequence on a set?

    3. Why the film sets in hangars? Why do the landings look suspiciously like the sets that the Nazi von Braun and others were strutting around on? Training?

    4. Why would the first mission to the Moon, carry just one camera?

    5. Why no noise on landing if the atmosphere is 17% of that of Earth? (cue the ‘vacuum’ excuse)

    6. Where is the analysis of the moon’s atmosphere?

    7. Why no debris, dust or holes created by an 18 tonne machine, riding on a 10.000 pound rocket thruster?

    8. Why is the landing disturbance free, with no shaking or movement of the lunar module, no voice modulations, in a homeless shelter powered by a 10.000 pound rocket, on top of which sat the astro-actor-nauts?

    9. Why no protocols or renditions of geiger count readings in any of the transmissions?

12. Lunar Module:

    1. How would a homeless shelter called a LEM perform complex manoeuvres without a functioning computer system?

    2. Why are the 25 or so LEM issues unresolved and unanswered?

    3. Were are the simulations and testing proving that the LEM could reflect and deflect the radiation levels on the moon?

13. Why are there so many problems with the videos and photos that the debunkers cannot explain no matter how angry and violent they become?

    1. Why the fluttering flag in the Apollo 11 moon landing photos? (large fans cooling the set?)

    2. Why is the Earth the wrong size in so many photos?

    3. Where is the Sun, and why are there so few photos of the Sun, and those that do exist are showing what is obviously an artificial light?

    4. Why are there 2 horizons in many of the visor photos?

    5. Why no stars whatsoever? Not even a faint glow.

    6. How were the eye-level, often perfectly framed, photos with chest cameras, bulky gloves, on a 250F surface, drenched in sunlight taken?

    7. Who took the photo of Aldrin and Armstrong hoisting the flag? (they only took one camera and the angle and height make the claim of a LEM camera impossible)

    8. Why the wires and ridiculous fake bunny hoppy scenes? Why are some actor-nauts getting caught in wires?

    9. Why is artificial lighting apparent in the photos when NASA says that there was no capacity to carry lighting to the Moon?

    10. How do you explain the shadows and weird contrasts between light and dark, on the ‘light side of the moon’, suffused with sunlight and 250F temperatures?

14. How did they get the jeeps and golf clubs to the moon in a small-cramped, limited capacity module? They couldn’t afford the payload weight of a 2nd camera, yet they packed in very large jeeps. Where are the designs of the 500 pound ‘folding up’ jeeps?

15. Re-entry:

    1. How would you survive exit or re-entry from the exo-sphere, and the splash down without a computer or fine-grain controls so precisely within a small zone?

    2. How did they control the module to splash down exactly where they wanted near Hawaii, travelling at insane speeds with no controls or computers?

    3. How did the parachutes actually function and work, and how were they stored in such a tiny module and how did they get attached to the outside of the module?

16. Murder they hide?

    1. What really happened to Grissom, his crew and Thomas Baron?

    2. Why does Baron’s detailed analysis prove that the command module had little to no chance at exiting the Earth’s atmosphere (April 1967 vs the July 1969 ‘mission’)?

    3. Why were other blowers of whistlers threatened and in some cases physically attacked?

17. Hollyweird:

    1. Why was Kubrick involved?

    2. Why are there so many images of artificial sets, landing zones, moon globes and simulations of the moon’s surface, all resembling something Hollywood would build?

18. Actornauts?

    1. Why did Armstrong disappear after his seminal journey (along with almost all the astro-actor-nauts after their voyages of discovery)?

    2. Were the actor-nauts paid and threatened to remain quiet? Given human egos and narcissism, are we to believe that none of these super-heroes desired further fame and adulation through politics, running NASA or going on the lecture circuit?

    3. Why does Aldrin, admittedly a functioning alcholic, publicly state that the moon landing never happened? Was he just inebriated, a joker, or just confused (the old man argument)?

19. Why hasn’t another country even come close to solving the man-to-the-moon riddle, especially the demonised Russians, whose space program in every respect, was far in advance of the US’ in the 1960s and might still be superior today?

20. Why haven’t Chinese or Russian moon probes or lunar telescopic analysis confirmed the American moon landings, and the supposed enormous detritus of jeeps, equipment, flags, containers, golf clubs, food packages and garbage?

    1. If such huge amounts of detritus exist, simply show it.

There is nothing anti-science, flat-earthing, nor ignorant in asking the above. They are good questions.

Is NASA really that smart? The author does not think so.

Or, is the NASA-Hollywood-military-film-complex that good? This is more likely.

The special skill sets that Americans possess, their ‘competitive advantages’, have always been in marketing, communications, software, film and media. Are these what made the Apollo programme appear real?

Should we believe anything that NASA produces? Or is all NASA imagery, digital forgeries and fakery? Many believe just that.

23-Patterns?

In some ways Corona was a copy of the moon landings and the use of the US controlled-media to convince a population of the ‘truth’ and cement its faith in the ‘science’ and to unquestioningly obey and follow what the government says.

Didn’t the moon landings turn the masses into believers of ‘science’ and the omnipotence of the US government-military-space complex who ‘won’ the technology ‘race’ in the ‘Cold War’?

Is not the Scientism so demonically present in our own age, made obvious by the Corona coup, simply following the template set up by NASA and the US Government in the 1960s, namely;

Control TV, control the narrative, control the communications, control online systems, control the imagery, write the books, publish endless studies, control the media.

Isn’t this what Bill Gates and Agenda 201 spent their time discussing in October 2019, one month before the Corona coup was set in motion? How to control the media and narrative? Or pace ‘the debunkers’, were Gates et al. just hard-working guys, discussing how to employ scientific salvation to save humanity from the dreaded ‘virus’ which did not exist at the time of their meeting?

24-Bottom Line

We are told ad nauseum, that landing on the moon was so easy with 1960s technology. Most people seem to possess a deeply held religious belief that the Apollo landings happened. Maybe they are right. If the evidence is so obvious, however, you wouldn’t need to pay the media and teams of ‘debunkers’ to defend the narrative and you would not use violence against those who ask some very good questions. You certainly would not allow the ‘original’ documents to be lost or hidden away.

Many objective people who look at the evidence are not so sure that the narrative makes any sense. As this post outlines there are innumerable problems, issues, inconsistencies and outright frauds that have never been explained. Maybe, pace William of Ockham, in the context of Cold War politics, national prestige, profits and information control, it could be suggested that it was easier and safer to just make a film.

Maybe space travel is indeed impossible. It certainly is beyond Mars. It would take 16 years for example, to travel to Neptune and you would never come back. In the great view and sweep of existence, space exploration is mostly irrelevant, propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding. It is the author’s opinion that space travel is a corrupted political enterprise, a waste of time and money, and is in the main, just another money-laundering project.

Mathematician David Berlinski in ‘Science after Babel’,

“Enrico Fermi, contemplating the possibility of life beyond the Earth, asked a simple, pointed, and devastating question: So where are they (alien life) ? No one knows; no one has ever detected the slightest suggestion of life beyond Earth…..Either Earth is unique, after all, or life must be quite common in the cosmos. It is not common at all. Earth must, therefore, be unique. If this is so, why is it so?”

You decide if NASA landed men on the Moon who played golf and rode around in jeeps. You decide if going to Mars is sensible or possible. If you do believe in the Moon landings or that Mars is ‘our destiny’, that belief largely emanates from your world-view and philosophical disposition, not ‘science’.

We are never going to travel to Mars. It appears that we can’t even get to the Moon - except on film. In reality isn’t ‘space travel’ about money, graft, corruption, power and posturing? $cientism.

All hail.

======

Section 25: Videos

Italian film-maker Mazzucco and his excellent analysis. It is long, but worth a view.

Sebril and his search for answers

Bart Sebril, one-time moon landing acolyte, who as a boy wanted to be an astronaut, turned to movie production and has produced some films on the moon landing hoax, including the must see ‘A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon’. His books are also worth reading, and his website shows highlights of issues with the moon landing. He was targeted, kidnapped and drugged by the US government, probably the CIA.

Sebril was followed, assaulted, threatened and beaten. Why would that happen if Sebril, playing Galileo, was only interested in finding scientific evidence for the moon landings? Wouldn’t the authorities, happily, gleefully and honestly work with him and overwhelm him with proof? Why the vitriol, lack of cooperation, violence, attempted murder, and hate if the ‘evidence’ is so obvious? Debunkers can’t debunk establishment violence.

'Dark Moon. Apollo and the Whistle-blowers'. Mary Bennett, David Percy. 1999. Aulis publishing.