Forum: AVRFreaks.net

Index:

2012.08.26	Neil Armstrong	Moon Landings NASA hoax
2011.02.22	Last Shuttle Launch Feb 24	Moon Landings NASA hoax
2009.07.19	Apollo 11: 40 years since the first step on the moon	Moon Landings NASA hoax

Back to Index

Neil Armstrong

Posted: Aug 26, 2012 - 05:48 AM

Are we talking about this Neil Armstrong?

The short footage above is from a 'post-flight' press conference in 1969, where a reporter (Patrick Moore) made the three members of the Apollo 11 crew looking extremely uncomfortable, by asking them a simple, fundamental question. Were they so uncomfortable with that because they were actually lying on camera?

After all, my (documented) position on the even today impossible manned moon landings, is not a secret:
Part 1: Heroes never die, and the "Shooting Stars",
Part 2: The on-board magic air-conditioning unit, and
Part 3: The Earth-Moon-Earth distance radio communications 2.50 sec minimum delay.

-George

Posted: Aug 26, 2012 - 11:04 PM

Yes, Rob!
I am still in doubt that these events (meaning, the manned moon landings) happened the way our TV sets have told us they did.

And, yes again, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that not one person dares to let the cat out of the bag. Just consider, for example, the vast amounts of the individuals involved in the Manhattan Project (129,000, according to Wikipedia) that were 'persuaded' (meaning, terrorised) to remain silent for the rest of their lives about that project they were involved in.
__________

Alex, It is certain that every side of the US-Soviet race was monitoring the other one. Many people are rightfully asking why did the one side not expose the other one, since both the sides have been keeping lots of skeletons in their closets. Well, the answer is very simple: Because the financiers of both the sides, the real string pullers behind the scenes (those who were financing the US, Hitler and Stalin at the same time during WWII!), were the same "multicultural" stateless people, whose the wet dream has always been, since the seventeenth century they rose in power, what we are now beginning to see taking an ugly form: The so-called, globalization.

Regarding your assertion that it would be easier to send a man to the moon instead of faking it, please tell me what do you think about the Van Allen radiation belts, which are zones of particles charged with energy in the GeV range? For reference purposes, the “soft” X-Ray machines are rated at 10 KeV max. and the “hard” ones at 100 KeV max. energy; you will also need a 180 mm (= 7 inch) thick solid lead walls Faraday Cage protection to survive entering a 500 MeV environment (400 MeV can penetrate 143 mm of lead)... Not to mention the on-board magic air-conditioning unit that could allegedly keep the cabin to a humanly safe temperature of 25°C, while working in an external environment temperature range from -170°C in the Sun's shadow to +125°C under the Sun, without having any visible internal/external huge radiators, and, last but not least, this beast was allegedly powered by batteries (as Alan Bean was caught on film replying unwillingly and in a surprised, wondering and stuttering voice)! Nah...

Now, regarding the fact that nobody can (or, 'bothered to' as you said) go to the moon again, the answer is simple: It is because nobody has ever gone there before. If they had been there, the would have colonised the damn place --but they have not! What about the recent Obama's statement, according to which: "by the year 2020 we may return to the moon [if our technology permits that]..."

The Soviet programme proved its superiority by sending humans and animals in obit, and a robotic device to the Moon before the US did. Additionally, the Soviets also realised that after the height of 500 Km life cannot be sustained anymore, due to the existence of the aforementioned deadly Van Allen belts; and they never tried that again.

Speaking of the 1998 CNN public announcement of the Space Shuttle's crew seeing flashes of light with their eyes shut when they reached the 500 Km height above the face of the Earth (they called it, seeing 'Shooting Stars'), I attached a copy of a December 7, 1998 Associated Press article that disappeared from public view. Please rename the attached file extension from *.HTM.TXT to *.HTM and open it. It is obvious that beyond this altitude above the surface of our planet things get very nasty. Why did not one of the '70s multiple Apollo crews never mentioned that? Is this because they did NEVER reach that specific altitude of touching the inner Van Allen belt from the inside, while they allegedly have repeatedly crossed those deadly radiation belts surrounding our planet in order to go to and return from the Moon?
__________

Since Part 1 and Part 2 of my thesis on the impossible manned moon landings above are already cached at these boards, let me also cache a copy of Part 3:

I wrote:

The Earth-Moon-Earth distance radio communications 2.50 sec minimum delay

The Earth-Moon distance is about 385,000 Km from center to center. Subtracting off one moon-radius and one earth-radius, the surface-to-surface distance of those two objects becomes 375,000 Km. Given that the speed of light (which can be expressed as a radio wave of a very specific wavelength range in the electromagnetic spectrum) is not infinite, but only 300,000 Km per second, it is obvious that any radio transmission from the Earth surface will need an amount of time of about 1.25 seconds (= 375,000Km / 300,000Km/s) to reach the Moon surface, since the radio waves travel almost at the speed of light in vacuum.

Alright, you will tell me, so what? Well, transmitting a 'ping' from here, it will be needed 1.25 seconds for it to reach the Moon surface and another 1.25 seconds for us to receive its echo back ('echo' according to the RADIO HAM terminology, or 'reflection' according to EE). So, the time needed by a transmitted 'ping' to reach the Moon surface from here and to return back to our antennas, will be 1.25 sec * 2 = 2.50 seconds!
- This is the fastest reply we can have from the Moon when we send a mere ping towards it.
- This is the absolute minimum time needed for us to receive the echo of a radio signal we transmit to the Moon.
- This SHOULD be the absolute minimum time needed for us to receive a radio response from a transmitter located at the Moon surface, which will send us a 'pong' the very instant it will receive a 'ping' from us.

BUT, what we have on record is this:
1. We transmit: “Columbia, Columbia, this is Houston, AOS, over.”
2. We wait: [1.07 second pause]
3. We receive: “Houston, Columbia…”

Well, if Columbia was really at the Moon (375,000 Km away from us) while the conversation above took place (according to the official NASA records), the pause [2] ought to be 2.50 seconds long, minimum. This is because the pause [2] is the sum of:
a) 1.25 seconds for Houston's message to reach the astronauts,
PLUS
b) The time needed by the astronaut to process the received message plus some additional time for him to form an answer,
PLUS
c) 1.25 sec for the astronaut's response to return back to out antennas.

Checkmate! Because the recorded 1.07 seconds long pause suggests that the astronaut from Columbia was not farther from Houston than 160,500 Km (= 300e+6m/s * 1.07s / 2) != 375,000 Km. Now, IF the Columbia astronaut was NOT on Earth AND he responded in 920 ms time right after he heard the end of the Huston message (since he heeded some time to process the received message and some additional time to mentally form an answer before he begun transmission), Columbia could easily be within the Earth orbit and below the deadly 500 Km altitude barrier (Earth perimeter at 500 Km altitude: 2*π*(6,370+500) = 43,165 Km). If, again, he was not somewhere on Earth, faking poorly the transmissions delay.
So, yes, this is a Checkmate!

Once again, thank you for your most expensive lies, NASA!

-George

Posted: Aug 28, 2012 - 06:51 PM

Quote:

That is edited footage, and therefore any timing depicted is not trustworthy.

Good point. If the footage in question is edited, there can be no trustworthy timing measurements based on it. And we all know that this lying agency has 'lost' the original footage PLUS its backups; because NASA themselves have admitted to vast amounts of data being 'lost' in their own press releases, most critically the original 'slow scan' tapes of the actual Apollo 11 moon landing. Which is being restored by Hollywood from multiple low-Q sources, no less. Talk about the irony...

Now, regarding my other arguments:
1. About crossing repeatedly the deadly Van Allen radiation belts (and the revoked "Shooting Stars" 1998 press release), and
2. About the on-board magic air-conditioning unit that could allegedly keep the capsule's temperature in life-sustaining levels, while it was running on batteries(!) for days, in a harsh environment of -170°C .. +125°C, and without having any visible radiators,
... how can these nasty little details be explained away?

I guess they cannot because it is impossible; so every single object that does remain is held up reverently for the faithful to adore. It is funny how this pattern strongly reminds the ways of the manipulating and murdering institutions, called 'religions'...

I am not disputing that NASA burnt through gazillions designing and firing ballistic objects up into the sky in the name of Apollo. I'm just not convinced that anyone genuinely landed/walked/drove/took pictures on the actual lunar surface. If they did, they would have colonised the place long ago; but they have not.
__________

Regarding Neil Armstrong, I can't help feeling sorry for the old rogue. For the last four decades, he and his family have had a miserable life living a massive lie since 1969. I bet NASA came to regret choosing Armstrong; very poor psychological profiling on the part of the Agency. He was always a piss-poor choice for an astro-naught. A man just not cut-out for a life of deception. Hence his retreat into a life of virtual recluse, with the only sweetener being the very comfortable NASA pension.

Does anyone remember the 25th anniversary speech of Neil Armstrong? I find it to be strangely remarkable, since he tried to let the cat out of the bag with his famous phrase:
"There are great ideas undiscovered. Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers."
Unless he was deliberately fueling UFO conspiracies as part of some PSYOP programme, the poor sod seemed to be doing what he could, there, to tell something without spelling it out. There was no way those words to mean anything else than what any sane person thinks they mean. Removing 'layers that protect the truth' had nothing to do with test-pilots going into space to test-run technologies and make a show of it.

Also remarkable were his words for the 30th anniversary, where he 'explained' why he 'said those words' about the small step and giant leap (dumb question, clearly, considering that everything in those missions, true or false, was certainly scripted and thus not ascribable to him). At 0:55 mark, explaining the 'giant leap' part:
"More than a third of Americans had been working for a decade to make this happen, and it had been a lifelong dream, so... it was a big step for all those people."
Aside of the 'third of Americans' strange reference, it is even too transparent what Armstrong was telling us here, without telling it: The 'leap' was relevant only for those who had worked at the project (not mankind). They were the ones seeing their hopes, to con and fool humanity into believing this lie, fulfilled and accomplished. Pretty astounding, revealing words, if you ask me.

Interestingly, the same absurd interpretation for those words was given by Armstrong in this video. See around mark 0:35:
"I thought about all those 400 thousand people that had given me the opportunity to make that step and I thought... it's gonna be a big something for all these... and even others who weren't involved in the project."
He confirms here that the 'giant leap' was definitely not for mankind. Mankind does not enter into it.

Also, take note of this video: Neil Armstrong Won't Swear On The Bible, where Armstrong was approached by an obnoxious thug, let's call him an 'Apollo truther,' pretending to do work for the cause by yelling at and harassing people. This to me is clearly an agent of some sort (for his ability to actually get so close to his targeted characters), going around with a bible looking for astronauts to swear on it. Armstrong would eventually tell him that he 'did not deserve' an answer. But one could speculate that Armstrong here must understand very well that sending a thug of this sort so close to him is a veiled threat, that if he kept trying to speak out on the issue worse things could happen, to his public persona as much as to his personal or family safety...

Naturally, this was not to say that Armstrong was not a long-standing liar. He obviously was, and greatly responsible for it. But, maybe he had the naivety to think he could get out of it at some point. Who knows...
The fact is that we will never know, because Neil Armstrong is no longer alive to tell.

Finally, I would like to think it all happened exactly as we have been told it did; but life and experience tend to dictate otherwise in this regard. As such, I retain a healthy level of skepticism.

-George

Back to Index

Last Shuttle Launch Feb 24

Posted: Feb 24, 2011 - 05:25 PM

Hi Jeckson,

Quote:

And why we didn't landed on moon again?
You are right! There are lots of unanswered questions about the alleged manned moon landings...

[500 words rant]

For example, how do certain people (the astronauts) are still alive today, despite the fact that 40 years ago they were repeatedly entering and navigating through the Van Allen belts, those highly deadly radiation zones we do have surrounding our planet?

Another impossibility is the air-conditioning units the astronauts supposedly had on board: Those magic air-conditioning units were allegedly able to work in an 125°C environment and to keep the capsule's temperature in a humanly safe level of 80°F (26°C) for the whole 10-days expedition duration, while the ambient temperature in space would vary from +260°F (+125°C) under direct sunlight to -280°F (-173°C) in the shadow... Are there in existence, even today, any portable air-conditioning units able to achieve and sustain for days a temperature difference of 100°C? That is, simply, impossible!

And if there were such magic devices, could they be powered by batteries? NASA claims that the LEM's batteries were 7 pieces of Ag-Zn chemistry, weighting 350kg. Not having their specific electrical characteristics in hand, it can be assumed that they were primary cells of about 100Wh/kg, and it can be estimated that 350kg of those batteries could form an energy cell of about 35KWh in total; which, assuming an energy conversion efficiency of 80%, they could power my room’s air-conditioning unit (12KBTU, 230VAC/8.0A) for up to 52 hours, which is 2 days and 4 hours, which, in turn, is less than 1/5 of the whole trip duration...
I am not implying that they had my own device on board; I just use it as a parallel example, since these are the amounts of energy required today to transfer 12KBTU of heat out of the room, in a way more friendly environment than the atmosphereless, overheated space. By the way, could anyone find any official pictures of the huge external radiators these magic devices should have?

But, the problem is that the very same batteries would also have to power all the other subsystems of the vehicle, like the cabin pressure, illumination and ventilation systems, the water and oxygen pumps and valves, the communications equipment, the trip computer, etc. So, if the air-conditioning unit drained the batteries in the middle of the trip, the crew would probably die from asphyxiation before the cabin was heated up to the 250°F of the ambient temperature... And, as far as I know, there were no hangars with spare batteries or chargers available in open space, in order to "fill them up, do the windshield and go"! :P

Why, really, 20 years after those "successful" expeditions of ‘69 did it take the same agency (NASA) seven long and costly years to put a mere space telescope (the Hubble) into lower earth orbit, using a new, more expensive, less efficient and of high failure rate launching vehicle (the Space Shuttle instead of the "trusted" Saturn V)? Did they not already have the technology and the equipment needed to be safely sending humans to the Moon and bringing them back alive and well, since their first attempt(!) in '69 and during the whole decade following?

[/500 words rant]

Jeckson, since you seem to retain a healthy level of skepticism on this subject, I believe that you will really enjoy a piece I wrote a couple of years ago about the thoughts I have formed regarding this successful feat we could never repeat; despite the most advanced technology and knowledge we have developed and acquired since then...

And, yes, I will second your question: Why did we not return to the moon, with the cutting edge of today's technology, especially since we were able to be safely visiting the moon for fun during the '70s with the ancient, comparatively, technology of that era? Surely, it must not be a matter of financial cost; particularly after considering the cost of all those lesser importance experiments in the name of "security" or the overwhelming cost of all those wars they (those private corporations, like NASA itself) have been instigating and profiting from since then...

But, again, everyone can believe in anything they wish; even in the most absurd myths, like the Abrahamic delusions...
Although, in the end of the day, everything comes down to a choice between Rationality and Dogmatism --and there is no middle ground in between...

-George

Back to Index

Apollo 11: 40 years since the first step on the moon

Posted: Jul 24, 2009 - 04:49 AM

He-he! I can remember myself watching this specific TV broadcast along with my parents on our brand new '68 model 24" B/W Philco Ford TV set when I was a little boy. But I could not share their excitement because I thought that what we were watching was not that important. Actually, I used to watch a few television series, like the "Lost in Space" with the Robinsons and the Robot, the "Combat!" with Sgt. Saunders and Lt. Hanley (that could not die in battle!) and other ones, so, I thought that walking on the Moon was not such a big deal because I assumed that it had already been done, since people (meaning, the Robinsons) had traveled much further in space!

But I could not understand why my parents and our friends were so enthusiastic making long conversations about the moon and the feats of our astronauts and cosmonauts. And I saw them smiling when I told them that the Robinsons must had done such trips in space before Armstrong! Then came the shock for me, when I learned in the sensitive age of five that the TV and the Cinema were not always telling people the truth...

A few years later there was another TV show I really loved so much to watch, I was trying not to miss a single episode of: It was "The Six Million Dollar Man", with the biggest hero of my childhood, Steve Austin, Col., USAF, the unbeatable Bionic Man that there were no opponents able to defeat him; he could even repair himself and, of course, in the end of the story he was always getting the girl!

Showing already an inclination towards the electronics technology (meaning, since I was taking everything apart, my parents were happy to provide me with books, tools, kits, components, etc.), I could easily deduce that this televised bionic man was impossible to be true! This was the era of the photomultipliers, the OC44s, the AD142s and the newer BY127s and 2N3055s: They could not handle that much power! Owning a Meccano I could also see the impossible complexity and strength of the electromechanical prosthetics. Another proof I had for this impossibility was the easiness Austin was taking trips to the moon with, like going for a walk in the park: This was too much for me to swallow!

I was starting to see that when you had established a certain myth (Austin being bionic) you could very easily sell your audience another myth (his effortless trips to the Moon, since they were already documented) to support each other, because, myths need vasts amounts of support to survive. Support and frenetic repetition. And, what better support is there for a myth, other that another myth to go along with? (Rhythm was not intentional, I promise! :P This, I could not do or repeat even if I tried it in my own native language... Beginner's luck, I guess!)

So, this little guy started using his brain in a rather unusual manner for his age, searching for the not so obvious bits of the argument; and he liked it because he enjoyed trying to read between the lines. Of course, when the germanium OC's and AD's had finally found their place in the museum in the next decade, then came the real thing, "The Terminator" to scare the living //// out of everyone!
Everyone? Well, not exactly everyone... :8

This guy was already demystifying the ways Hollywood has always been using to plant absurdities on the minds of the well-meaning but gullible also people. But, though he had a strange gut-feeling about the manned moon-landings of '69, he had no reasons to disbelieve this impressive feat of NASA, even though he perceived the early abandonment of the manned expeditions of the Soviets as a move or a strategy of a very specific telling; especially after the Soviets had proved their supremacy on space pioneering. Though they also seemed to have their own share of skeletons in their closet, they had a long experience in carrying equipment, animals and human beings in space. The S.U. launched:
- the first orbiting satellite, "Sputnik", in '57;
- the first orbiting animal, "Laika", in the same year, whose quick death from the radiation of the higher ionospheric layers taught them to keep the manned flights below the altitude of 500 Km;
- the first orbiting man in '61, Vladimir Ilyushin and, weeks after his hard-landing in China, that disqualified him from getting the title of the first human in space that returned successfully back, the famous Yuri Gagarin;
- the first robotic probe to the Moon in '69, one month before the Apollo launching.
Could this Soviet robotic probe launching be the catalyst that pushed NASA to accelerate things? Because, NASA's timing was not the best they could choose to make the big step (see the sunspot cycle's peak activity, later on this message; except, of course, if this phenomenon was not a real issue to NASA...).

_________________
At this point I will have to stress that, I do not advocate that we have or we have not "walked on the Moon". I just don't know... Personally, I want to believe that we have; As I would also like to believe that we had the knowledge and the means needed to create Steve Austins, but I think that everyone will agree with me that we didn't and we still don't. (By the term "we" I mean "we, the human kind"; not "we, the Americans/Russians/Greeks/etc." or "we, the Christians/Jews/Hindus/etc.".)

Additionally, by this message I do not mean any disrespect to all those individuals that have worked or been hired to work on this NASA project, since, me working, for example, on the LEM comms module does not actually prove that a manned LEM with the device I was working on landed on the moon; it only proves that I worked on a comms module which I had been told where and what it would be used for -I could even have had this piece of information in order to spread it sometime afterwards to support my own work or status and, laterally and inevitably support the bigger project as well... Even my NASA paycheck for my work on the LEM comms module could be anything but a proof that a manned LEM with or without my module landed on the moon.

As for NASA being a military branch or extension, so the internet is! Deception is part of the human culture; for example, how many of you have even heard of the inflatable tanks of WWII of the Operation Fortitude (more pictures)?

Again, I am just going to express a few thoughts that inevitably crossed my mind after having watched a few documentaries that question the authenticity of some publicly released reports of NASA, which is a private corporate entity just like the FED and so many other ones, and whose ethics and goals is a subject beyond the scope of this message.

Since I have no interest in proving any agency right or wrong in this message, my questioning has a rhetoric character, meaning that it is just an expression, an enigmatic one, purely intended to provoke thinking, and it does not need to be answered. Because, if you think about it, there is no truth or lies; there is no good or bad; there is no black or white. All these previous schemes are bipolar traps! What there is, is perception. Or, to be more precise, there are degrees or levels of perception. But, alas, this is matter of another subject, too!
__________________
So, welcome and enjoy the ride!

Observing the technology advancements and activities of the last 30 years, I am afraid that we are yet unable to send a manned mission to the moon, even using our latest knowledge and technology: Too many obstacles; even though "we did it" 40 years ago, using OC44s, AD142s, valves and lead-acid & early NiCd batteries! Even though we did it successfully on the first occasion; even though we did it six times; even if it was six times in a raw... And, twenty years later we were almost unable to put a mere space telescope into low Earth orbit...
Nah... I think that we have probably been taken for a (yet another) ride... After all, it is becoming widely accepted as an indisputable fact that, all the Mass Media are doing (which are private corporate entities themselves, too) is manipulating the truth to push the agendas of their shareholders/owners.
Please, enjoy a 1991 CNN's "live" report!

I am not going to appeal to various lengthy attempts to dispute the authenticity of the official record of that one giant leap for mankind. I will merely express some of the questions that crossed my mind right after watching a few documentaries I have collected through the years from the Internet, that include official footage. Some of them are still available out there.
Search video.google, or elsewhere, for the following titles:
a. "Was it only a Paper Moon" by James Collier, 1997
b. "A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon" by Bart Sibrel, 2001
c. "What happened on the Moon", 2000 (in two parts)

- The Van Allen radiation belts (two according to Wikipedia, three according to NASA), with maximum particle energy in the GeV range, can be not lethal for us to navigate through them if we are protected by a 15cm (6 in) thick solid lead shielding, good enough for our protection of particles charged with the energy amount of 450 MeV. But, what about using for shielding the extremely thin walls of the Apollo crafts, that were made as thin and light as possible (using a 3mm (<1/8 in) thick light aluminum shell), since even today we are unable to put that much lead shielding into orbit?
Additionally, the astronauts were totally unprotected from the highly lethal sun flares (while being outside the protection layer of our planet), which in '69 and '70 were on their peak activity of the eleven years sunspot cycle. Are these astronauts still alive today because they were blessed, or what? It also sounds like NASA was playing dice with the lives of their astronauts.
It is also strange that though these vast amounts of radiation killed a lot of Soviet cosmonauts and animals that were sent and exposed to these lethal zones, all the U.S. astronauts and their photographic films were left completely unharmed. The tiny in comparison amounts of the Chernobyl reactor meltdown released radiation, has killed a few hundred thousands people up to this day (officially the victims were merely 31 and raised to 56 in 2005, but some speak of almost half a million casualties in total, out of a population of 2 million people that were within the blast range). The radiation also imprinted a heavy fog (a random particle cloud) to the films were used to photograph the contaminated area during the first days of the incident.

- Why, back in 1998, Space Shuttle's crew, being protected by modern and stronger radiation shielding than the Apollo crews were 30 years ago, reported "seeing flashes of light with their eyes shut", described as shooting stars, while flying to an altitude of 560 km (350 mi), one of its highest altitudes ever? The CNN reported in public: "The radiation belt surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for space-walking astronauts than previously believed. The phenomena, known as the Van Allen belts, spawn killer electrons when the Earth's magnetic field changes. These electrons could have an important effect not only on satellites, which has happened in the past, but could also affect the astronauts by creating large doses of radiation that could influence their health."
Maybe, because Shuttle's crew latest-technology radiation shielding was proven to be insufficient to protect them, even from safely touching the inner Van Allen belt from inside? What would happen to them if they actually entered this low-radiation inner belt? What about them entering the high-radiation outer belt?

- Why has the Moon sky always been reported to be black and starless from up there? No stars can be seen, even in the pictures containing the glowing Earth! Were they afraid of any possible later conflicts of their "lunar starry skies" with planetarium simulations, or it was too complicated for the pictures to have stars that any amateur astronomer could identify and prove as false?
Did they add starry skies to the moon in their latest anniversary cartoon simulations, which replace their conveniently "lost archives" footage, to prevent any further annoying questions?
Here is a short footage from a post-flight press conference in 1969, where reporter Patrick Moore asked the Apollo 11 crew: "When you looked up to the sky, could you actually see the stars and the solar corona, in spite of the glare?" Neil Armstrong answered: "We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the moon by eye, without looking through the optics... Ah... I don't recall... during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona... what... what stars we could see." Michael Collins added, while looking and talking at Armstrong and not at the reporter(s): "I don't remember seeing any..."

- Why all those inconsistencies of the non-parallel shadows of the various objects on the moon? Why these large variations of the proportional lengths of the neighboring shadows (shadow length = x1..x3 of an object after been moved a few meters)? Were there multiple light sources? Have we been shown superimposed, doctored images? Why do people and objects been photographed under thick black shadows are so luminous in a flat, atmosphere-free environment? Sun alone cannot do that.
What caused some of the outlandish reflections on the astronauts' helmet curvy visors (i.e., Sun's reflection covers more than the 3/4 of the total curvy surface of the helmet visors!)?
(I am not even touching the entertaining footage showing unattended waving flags in the Moon's breeze, or before the presence of an innocent, near-by happily hopping astronaut!)

- Why did the designer(s) of the LEM never got a Nobel for their achievement, since the Nobel Prizes have become so cheap that every war criminal of the twentieth century has got one? Maybe because they would be forced to release the LEM's documentation?

- Why NASA destroyed the documentation of the LEM and the ROVER? Maybe because the latter ones would instantly be proved unable to fly/ driven/ fit one within the other?

- Why is it able leaving footprints while walking on the dirt of the moon, but after the LEM landing there could not be found any blast crater created right under the LEM's thruster engine, nor any amount of dirt blown away or melted by the thruster's exhaust temperatures (while a smaller fraction of those temperatures reportedly brought magically down two 110-stories high steel skyscrapers down here on Earth, in 2001)? Why cannot any amount of dirt or dust be found settled down on the perfectly clean LEM's landing foot-pads right after its landing, despite the vast amounts of the undisturbed dirt available everywhere around there, ready to capture any footprints?

- Where was this huge cloud of thick red smoke & dirt mess during the LEM landing on, and departing from the moon? Why the astronauts were free to clearly watch their landing and taking off through their windows, like as if the LEM did not have any thrust engines at all?
Various pictures show that when ignited, the hypergolic fuel of the LEM's rockets leave a mountain of dark red opaque gas smoke. Why is there no sign of that visible gas anywhere on the moon footage?

- Why was the deafening roar of LEM's rocket engine not even heard (while astronauts' voices were calm, clear and loud), and the rocket engine's strong vibrations were totally absent during the filming of the landing and taking-off? On the other hand, there are records of the extreme vibration and the loud sound of the Shuttle thrusters, that were toys compared to the big LEM rocket engine, which was just inches below the feet of the astronauts.
Why was that complete apathy on the astronauts' voices during the landing of the LEM on the Moon? Was the LEM landing so boringly easy to be done on the Moon, despite the fact that there was not even one successful training test-landing of the LEM on the Earth (a LEM exploded on film during a test-landing that nearly cost Armstrong's life)?

- Why was Alan Bean caught on video replying unwillingly and in a surprised, wondering and stuttering voice: "[small pause] ...Batteries?" in the direct question: "What was the power source of the LEM air-conditioning units?"? Those "water-assisted" magic units were said to be able to achieve and sustain a temperature difference of (250-77)°F! Wow! How much time could LEM's magic batteries (or its magic water supply) last under such a constant load of, say, 250°F by a few hours? Where were the (huge) radiators located on the LEM and on the life-supporting backpacks? Why there was not even one water/steam ejection/leak caught on film or in the footage?

- Why in the Apollo 13 mission official footage, when the astronauts were transferred to the LEM, both its left and right triangular windows were filled with a vivid blue light, just like a window looks like here on Earth during a cloudless sunny day, instead of the black of the deep space they were supposedly were at?

- Though Saturn V was said to be such a good launching vehicle (that had been extensively tested and was trusted with all the Apollo missions), it had to be replaced by the Space Shuttle which weighted as much as 75% as the Saturn V did but it could only put 15% of the weight Saturn V could put into orbit, and its launching costs were three times as much as these of Saturn V. So, the newer and very expensive to develop Shuttle was in every way insufficient and inferior to the older, obsolete but trusted Saturn V.
Of course, if Saturn V had worked as said it did, would it be logical to be replaced by such an inferior and expensive vehicle as the Shuttle?

Summarizing, during Project Apollo, from the 7 complex manned crafts launched, 6 have been said that landed on the moon and returned successfully back: An 86% success rate in the first attempt, with the automation technology practically absent as we know it today. Since Project Apollo, there were 25 simpler in comparison unmanned crafts launched for missions and only 7 of them have been said to be successful: A mere 28% success rate, even using a way more advanced technology, knowledge and materials.
Was Project Apollo also blessed along with its astronauts that entered the lethal radiation fields on demand without having to pay the price even today, 40 years later, despite the Chernobyl death toll of a quarter of its initial population merely 23 years after the incident?

"Combat!" and "The Six Million Dollar Man" TV shows taught me early in my life that heroes never die; at least not in the fictional TV shows, because, as life taught me later, in real life everyone dies unexpectedly -especially those who live on the edge.
Was "Project Apollo" also another one of those fictional TV shows, since its heroes are still alive even though they were messing with all these lethal radiation fields along with the sun flares previously mentioned, repeatedly?

So, what exactly was that Project Apollo with the incalculable cost to the U.S. taxpayers? Is there any plausibility in some people's assertions that this very project was designed, among other things probably, to be financing an illegal atomic facility in a foreign country, for free, using American tax-money?

Finally, why are there so many absurdities and impossibilities in the whole story? Are the more blatant of the inconsistencies some kind of whistle-blowing? Modern history has already recorded such examples if behavior.
And the six million dollar question, now: Why is the archived material of this ultimate human achievement activity no longer available? According to NASA it has been entirely lost along with its backups (Yeah! Compile that!) since 2005. Is this because the mainstream personal computers of that time had enough power to tear this material apart for those looking for any possible evidence of NASA foul play?

Sorry for the long post,
-George

Back to Index