Moon landing hoax - vacuum, radiation, Hollywood and the Nazis

This is the section for all general discussions.
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:16 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 159 times

Moon landing hoax - vacuum, radiation, Hollywood and the Nazis

Post by Firestarter »

In the first part of this thread I will try to present evidence evidence that no NASA astronuts ever landed on the moon, and in the second part I will show that many of the NASA executives were really experts in movie special effects (instead of scientist that could lead an effort to actually got to the moon).

Maybe this isn't the best way to start this thread, but this was really with what I started my doubts on the Apollo moon landings. While there are many, many conspiracy stories on the moon landings, these are completely original arguments by Firestarter.
When something can't be tested, it can't be used in a (real) space mission (like landing on the moon)...


While landing on the moon is associated with an extremely high risk. For which no appropriate, feasible “testing strategy” could be designed, making a handful of movies on “moon landings” with some special effects wouldn’t be a risk.
I guess that testing of planes is more similar to software testing than the testing that should be done in “rocket science”, but the links I found to come up with a “test strategy” is relevant in this context (at the very least it explains how I look at it).
With the media under complete control there is no chance that the fraud would ever be exposed (is there?).

In (software) testing deciding what to test is decided based on the (estimated) risk.
Risk is assessed by a team of “stakeholders” and based on multiplying (maybe there are better formulas…):
Probability * Severity

Probability is the chance an error would occur after implementation of the software. This is mostly decided on the complexity and the frequency functionality is used.
Severity is the damage a failure would cause. In software development arguably the worst that could happen is that an error brings the whole system down: http://www.methodsandtools.com/archive/ ... .php?id=31


When I relate this to the testing for the Apollo moon landings, the risk is enormous, which means I expect that basically every small detail of the moon landings would be tested with hundreds of test cases.
The complexity of a moon landing is especially large as never before people landed on the moon. There are even many factors about landing on the moon (and the trip) that were (are) simply unknown.

Even more damaging for the credibility of this “event” is that not even the tests that could have been performed (if a moon landing is feasible) on earth were done.
While the descend and ascend couldn’t be tested in vacuum at all, they could have tested with something like a light version of the Lunar Module:
Landing a “lunar module” after a starting speed of 6000 km/h (4 times the top speed of an F-16).
Lifting off a lunar module to reach a speed of 6000 km/h…

In my opinion, the most important problem to overcome in (real) Apollo moon landings, is the problem of gravity without an atmosphere (vacuum).
1) It would be very difficult to land on the moon (without smashing), impossible as they couldn’t test this.
2) Lift-off from the moon could be even more impossible (and again couldn’t be tested).
3) The probe would have to overcome the gravity until it would reach the rocket. Reportedly the rocket was still circling around the moon, so it would also be difficult to connect with the rocket.
This amazing feat never once went wrong: every astronaut in the 6 missions to reach the moon… got safely back to earth.

They also had to overcome the gravitation from the moon (besides the starting speed)...
See how the Lunar Module descends.
Image

The following shows how the Lunar Module had to turn in the last phase of the descend.
Not only was it important to have a low vertical speed when landing. It couldn’t have any horizontal speed at landing (unlike landings on earth that often use wheels).
Image


The following video shows the descend/ascend “testing” of the Lunar Module (engine) done on earth, with the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV, that looks very similar to a modern day drone). They also did flights with LLTVs...
At 12:50 you can see the lift off (notice the acceleration) and also notice the wheels (for the record, it isn´t claimed that the lunar module had wheels)!

San Diego Air and Space Museum Archives
VT 2007 Bell Aerosystems Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) 1964



I’ve been thinking about some “comparable” experiment to the landing on the moon of the lunar module that could be done on earth.
An ice buggy, with no steer or anything to keep it in a certain direction (like sharp irons) or brakes. It has an incredible powerful motor (like the engine of an F-16). The engine is “throttleable” but it can’t be turned in any direction for steering.
Now this ice buggy is going with a speed of 6000 km/h over an ice lake, there is no wind and the shore of the lake is at 10 km. The ice buggy has to use its powerful engine to stop before it crashes on the shore. Please don’t try this yourself!
Image


According to NASA, the lander had 2 large rockets, one for the descent and another for return to the Central Module (circling around the moon at 6000 km/h), and 16 “control engines” with a small thrust.

The lunar module descent engine was the biggest challenge for the Apollo missions. Never before had a throttleable engine been designed for manned spacecraft. The engine also was gimballed so that it could “shoot out” its thrust in the wanted direction.
Because the fuel was so corrosive, the engine couldn’t be tested before launch.

There was also the huge problem of cooling the combustion chamber for which supposedly radiation cooling was used (sounds very science fiction!): https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hist ... ch6-5.html


The Lunar Module "started" the descend at 102:33:05.01; Altitude: 10.3 km; speed 6106 km/h.
The Lunar Module landed at 102:45:41.40.
In 12 1/2 minutes it supposedly went from a speed of 6106 km/h to (almost) 0; most of the speed was only lost in the final stages of the descend: https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo ... _Phase.htm


Following is an interesting interview with some important NASA actors.

How did they prevent the rocket ship from burning up in the sun light?
Chris Kraft, director of flight operations, Mission Control: On the way to the moon, you might say, "Well, that could be a pretty boring time." But that's not true. There were times when you had to do things with the fuel cells, when you had to get rid of the water in the system. You're making sure the thermal operation of the spacecraft is being done well. On Apollo it was called barbecue mode.
Hugh Blair-Smith, software engineer for the Apollo guidance computer, MIT Instrumentation Laboratory: For the long three days from the Earth to the moon they had to keep the spacecraft rotating just like a pig on a spit so the sun wouldn't be concentrated on any one side.
.
The Lunar Module (engine) couldn’t be tested at all in vacuum. They didn’t even perform the tests that could have been done. The on-board computer couldn’t even handle the tasks it had to do.
Steve Bales, guidance officer (GUIDO), White Team, Mission Control: When we came in that morning, the lunar module was dead. We had to power it up, get the thing aligned and checked out. In the simulations, that's where we'd always had the biggest difficulty, really. We had never completed without some major problem--and I don't know if we ever completed successfully in training--what we called a power-up and initialization of everything, and then gone ahead and done a landing.
Joe Gavin, director, Lunar Module Program, Grumman Aerospace Corporation: The whole thing was tense, because we were basically aircraft designers. In the aircraft business you always flight tested something before you delivered it. In the case of the lunar module, you couldn't flight test it. Every launch was a brand-new vehicle.
Doug Ward, NASA public affairs officer: The computer was simply saying, "Hey, I've got more than I can handle, but I'm gonna do the important things, so don't worry about it."

Neil Armstrong: The powered descent was the most challenging segment of the flight. The systems were heavily loaded, the margins were slim, and this would be the first time that the entire descent strategy would be fully tested. A decade earlier, while I was flying in the X-15 program, we learned, surprisingly, that all the pilots, while flying the X-15, had heart rates between 145 and 185. It reflected the mental intensity appropriate for a challenging situation. The Apollo data seemed to correlate well with our prior experience.
Joe Gavin, director, Lunar Module Program, Grumman Aerospace: The lunar module had the first really throttle-able descent engine. When it first fired, it had to operate at about 10,000 pounds of thrust. But as they approached the lunar surface, the vehicle became much lighter, having burned up a lot of fuel, and they had to get the thrust down to maybe 2000 pounds. So it was quite a development to get a rocket engine that would not only do this, but would operate smoothly in either range.
Gavin: In an airplane you usually have, oh, at least an hour's extra fuel in case the airport is closed where you're going. But in the case of the lunar module, we had about 120 seconds of margin.
.
Nobody had ever been on the moon. There was no way of knowing that, even if landing was possible, the module wouldn’t sink or the surface otherwise wouldn’t be lethal to the astronauts.
Gavin: When we started all this, we didn't know what the surface of the moon was like. We went ahead with a very conservative landing gear design because there never had been a rocket-propelled vertical-landing machine.
Bruce McCandless, astronaut (CapCom), Green Team, Mission Control: It was a relief that the dust on the lunar surface was actually only half an inch deep.
Don Beattie, program manager, Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments: Another [concern] was that the dust would be pyrophoric--that when they opened the cabin of the lunar module, oxygen would react with dust and explode. There was no way we could be sure until the guys opened up the door and the oxygen flowed out.
.
The lift off of the lunar module also wasn’t tested. The Apollo 17 lift off violates the laws of physics as the Lunar Module doesn’t slowly accelerate.
Gavin: In my mind, the riskiest unknown in the whole mission was the takeoff. When the astronaut pressed the button, a whole bunch of things had to happen. The explosive bolts connecting the two stages had to fire. And then the ascent engine had to be ignited to lift the ascent stage off. And somehow as it left the descent stage, the exhaust from the ascent engine had to go somewhere.
Buzz Aldrin: It was not a gradual liftoff. It was a sudden departure--but without any of the forces that go along with rapid acceleration. Looking out the window, everything was getting smaller so fast that [we didn't really notice] the craft going through a gradual pitch forward.
.
Because much of the Moon landings couldn’t be tested if I had been the Test Manager, I would have advised against landing on the moon.
Alan Kehlet, Apollo chief project engineer, North American Rockwell: Some guy ran an analysis of all the critical events that had to take place and came to the conclusion we didn't have enough reliability, that it would never work. But we discarded it.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/ ... apollo-11/
The Order of the Garter rules the world: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewto ... 5549#p5549
garrettabc
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:06 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Moon landing hoax - vacuum, radiation, Hollywood and the Nazis

Post by garrettabc »

I have a truther friend that showed me a bunch of evidence that the moon landing was fake including pictures of the wooden rocket capsules being erected, the hand painted moon pictures done by a team of artist which included Bob Ross, the aluminum foil space suits, etc.
Dianthus
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:53 pm
Location: Belgium
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 40 times
Contact:

Re: Moon landing hoax - vacuum, radiation, Hollywood and the Nazis

Post by Dianthus »






A good one on UFO's

Theoria Apophasis
🤓 ANTI-GRAVITY: TWO TYPES Only 🤔



And a nice one what can be done...

BlackBaronAviation
ETOC 2013 Gernot Bruckmann Freestyle Final
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:16 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 159 times

Re: Moon landing hoax - vacuum, radiation, Hollywood and the Nazis

Post by Firestarter »

This post is about the 14 part essay on the moon landing hoax, by the late Dave McGowan - "Wagging the Moondoggie": http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-1/

McGowan makes a strong case that the moon landing where not much different than a Hollywood movie. Anybody with half a brain could see that this would be much easier, cheaper and safer.
McGowan also takes aim at the (lying) “debunkers” that harass anybody that tries to expose NASA for the fraud it is.
Following are some highlights from the “Moondoggie” articles...


Strangely in the overhead pictures, the alleged lunar modules are the only things casting long shadows on the moon...
Image

NASA once contemplated using “force fields” to repel the radiation, an interesting idea (for a science fiction movie), but certainly not available to NASA in the 1960s. The lunar modules didn’t have any type of physical shielding…

See the image below of one of the landing pods of the 33,000 pounds Apollo 11 lunar module, that left no craters nor sink into the surface…
Image

Several pictures show unequivocally that more than one light source was used. See for example the following famous picture of the Apollo 11 movie.
The surface of the moon is unevenly lit.
Notice the lack of shadow on Buzz Aldrin’s spacesuit (that should be in the shadow). Because on the moon there is no atmosphere shadows would be much darker.
Notice that Buzz’s spacesuit isn’t pressurised.
Image

In the final photo, the lunar module suddenly appears much closer to the “mountains”.
It’s also strange that the mountains in the background look very similar to the second photo. Notice the tracks: http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-4/
(http://archive.is/WLqXx)


See a NASA image of the moon rover folded up (to save space in the lunar module) and ready to go.
Image

The following picture shows a Soviet Lunokhod rover that was supposedly used in the late 1960s and 1970s and had an “ingenious method” to generate enough power to operate for up to 11 months.
Image

The very smart NASA “scientists” made up a story including astronauts landing on the moon. The Soviets came up with another story about dropping their own “rover” to “research” the moon. Maybe this could be considered “easier”, as they wouldn't need a story on lifting off from the moon and flying back to earth.
They would need some heavy duty computers to be able to perform this feat. Back in the 1960s and 1970s computers weren’t what they are now. See for example the specifications for the 2012 iPhone 5 compared to the 1969 Apollo “guidance computer”: http://ibb.co/cCQQnH


Apollo 13
On 13 April 1970, Apollo 13’s command and service modules were made powerless by an explosion that seriously damaged the exterior of the craft while cruising some 200,000 miles from home. The oxygen tank explosion was strangely not powerful enough to alter the course of the ship.
The 3-man crew retreated to the 2-man lunar module. How could they find enough room in that tight module? The lunar module’s descent engine was used to “slingshot” the module around the moon and successfully back to Earth again!


Part 8 ends with the following conclusion:
As we already know, their cockiness was entirely justified since that aluminum foil capsule provided all the protection the astronauts needed to get home safely. No fewer than eight lunar modules allegedly made the hazardous voyage to the Moon, and all of them arrived in immaculate condition. The Apollo 13 lunar module was exposed throughout virtually the entire mission – all the way to the Moon and all the way back. In all, the eight LEMS allegedly logged some 2,000,000 miles of unprotected space flight and not one of them suffered so much as a scratch. That, my friends, is 1960’s technology at its finest.
.
I’ve spent some time thinking about these magical engines in the lunar module used to make a soft landing and lift off from the moon.
Dave McGowan shares my idea that this is a major impossibility in the official story: http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moondoggie-8/
(http://archive.is/LlGL6)


I won’t limit myself to McGowan’s arguments though...

1 – No testing possible
Because it’s impossible to make a large vacuum testing site, the lunar engines couldn’t effectively be tested at all (besides “simulation” exercises). Because the engines couldn’t be tested, they couldn’t be designed. It’s that simple!
Because the fuel and oxidizer were so corrosive the engines could only be used once, so they needed an engine for the descend AND for the ascend, and they couldn’t test-fire the engine prior to flight.

2 – No possibility to get enough thrust in vacuum
In vacuum the only way to slow down (or accelerate) a space ship is by “shooting” out objects. Just imagine throwing down rocks to slow down after jumping from a skyscraper. You could also try to shoot a machine gun at the ground to go “flying like an eagle”...
You probably know that this is preposterous, but this would be a feasible method to make a relatively minor change (correction) in the direction of the space ship.

To use this for the amount of power needed to descend to and ascend from the moon is impossible. Completely impossible amongst others because they would have to carry all of the mass needed to “shoot” the amount of power needed.
In “rocket science” the only feasible solutions are lightweight...

According to Newton’s Action = Reaction law the “thrust” would come from “shooting” the exhausted gasses from the combustion chamber in a certain direction.
The following image shows that in vacuum the lunar module engines could at best work at a very low efficiency because in vacuum you can’t “shoot” out the air in 1 direction because it will automatically spread out in different directions (free expansion).

If a nozzle couldn’t "exhausts" in only one direction in very low pressure, this would be even worse in vacuum. This shows that the "rocket engines" in vacuum couldn't work efficiently...
The following picture is based on a picture from the following Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_engine_nozzle
Image

3 – Engine burning in closed compartment
The only way to have an ignition where there is no oxygen is to provide it. But because there’s vacuum, the oxygen would immediately disappear in thin air (quite literally). So they could only make the engine fire in a closed off compartment.
Here’s a NASA picture of the lunar engine.
Image

This leads to the following impossibilities.
The engine would get very hot (much hotter than boiling water). Cooling down wouldn’t be possible.
Even “more impossible” is how to somehow transfer the massive amount of energy needed (to “shoot down” the needed mass that couldn’t be carried along in the lunar module) from the closed off engine to the outside.
As there is no fire outside the (closed off) engine this wouldn’t even look like the burning fire we would see in the lift off from the moon Apollo movies.

4 – The spinning lunar module
Descending to the moon would need an engine that could stop the very fast movement of the module in front of the movement.
Image

Even if they could build an engine with the huge power to make a “soft landing” on the moon possible, there is nothing designed that would prevent the rocket from spinning. In vacuum that would be an even bigger problem than in earth’s atmosphere.

5 - 100% success rate
This amazing feat never once went wrong: every astronaut to reach the moon… got safely back to earth.
This is statistically impossible.

6 – Design story
What I was looking for was a science fiction story on the design of the lunar module that would explain the amazing discoveries by a group of genius “rocket scientists” by accident.
The official story reads like they were designing a new version of an engine of proven technology.

NASA asked several money laundering arms companies to come up with a “plausible” story of designing (parts of) the engine.
The descend engine was especially impossible to design as they would need a “throttleable engine ... new to manned spacecraft” and “Very little advanced research had been done in variable-thrust rocket engines”.
And this couldn’t be tested!

Even though there was no way of real-life testing and this was completely new, NASA later said that they could have chosen both companies - STL and Rocketdyne – as both of their stories were “plausible” enough to sell to the gullible public.


Here’s a link to information from the “independent” Wikipedia on the Lunar Module Engine for the lift off and reconnection with the main module: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascent_ ... ion_System

Here’s a story from the “reliable” NASA: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hist ... ch6-5.html
(http://archive.is/QuQS)
The Order of the Garter rules the world: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewto ... 5549#p5549
garrettabc
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 2:06 am
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 31 times

Re: Moon landing hoax - vacuum, radiation, Hollywood and the Nazis

Post by garrettabc »

Whoa! Firestarter, information overload.

The toy plane was very cool, I never seen that halftime show performance before. I get it, it demonstrates how it’s possible and how we already have the tech to make a flying machine make all of those classic UFO maneuvers.
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:16 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 159 times

Re: Moon landing hoax - vacuum, radiation, Hollywood and the Nazis

Post by Firestarter »

The most important “evidence” to convince gullible fools that American astronuts the "eagle has landed" was the video that was broadcast all over the world. The quality of the moon landing videos is so poor that the fidelity of some science fiction movies of the 1920s is better!
While we get told that this is because they had to send the footage all the way from the moon to earth. As impressive as this is (and couldn't be tested) there was no reason at all to not make a tape on the moon of much higher quality and bring that back to earth...


The Apollo 11 video shows Buzz Aldrin turning transparent as he descends from the “lunar module”. Notice the black line that indicates the horizon (?!) through the astronaut.
To make it more interesting for the viewers at home, Buzz jumps up and down the ladder again.
At about 1:00 in the clip, a silhouette emerges out of nowhere behind Buzz's back. That can’t be Neil Armstrong, without his space suit, could it?
Image

Image

Also see from 0:54 in the video - The astronaut walks in front of the pole, but we can still see the pole through him (why doesn't he leave a trail?)...

172HoursontheMoon
Buzz Aldrin steps onto the Moon (Apollo 11)



Arguably the most important “evidence” of Armstrong and Aldrin doing their “One small step for man...” was destroyed to “save money”...

In 2009, NASA admitted that the original tapes of the first, Apollo 11, moon landing were probably erased. NASA engineer Richard Nafzger stated that these historic tapes were erased and reused to help save money during the 1970s and 1980s.
These tapes were reportedly of a much better quality than the fuzzy video that was shown on telescreens all over the world: https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/06/ ... ost-tapes/


Just like any other movie, Hollywood assisted NASA in “digitally remastering” the original footage of the first, Apollo 11, moon landing to improve the images …
The digital restoration was carried out by the Burbank, California firm Lowry Digital, that has also “remastered” 400 (other) films, including the first Star Wars trilogy.

According to NASA engineer Richard Nafzger:
There is nothing being created or manufactured here. We are restoring and extracting data from the video.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scienc ... style.html
(http://archive.is/FEA3o)


Maybe the most important argument that space exploration is impossible, are the Van Allen radiation belts. NASA even “admits” that we never went to the moon.
These NASA spokespersons (of course) don’t admit that “we” never went to the moon. They sort of say that it would be more difficult to go to the moon in 2018 than almost 50 years earlier, because “we don’t have that technology anymore”.
How gullible do people have to be to believe BS like that (running time 9:07)?

Better Mankind
NASA ADMITS WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON



Then the following video of the Apollo 17 moon landing …
0:18 – 0:33 - The astronauts are wearing a spacesuit (including oxygen tank) that would hamper their movement. He is jumping up and down like some buffoon, knowing that a tiny hole in the suite would mean instant death!
This doesn’t look like a scientific mission exploring the moon, but more like bad actors trying to make it interesting to watch at home.
0:34 – 0:44 - lift off of the probe. There is some kind of red “ignition” at 2:05-2:06 in the video. And some animated parts, rocks blown away, but no crater.
The lift off is immediate, without a slowly increasing speed (before) lift off.

NASA2007
Apollo17 Last men on the moon; Lunar Lift Off Dec. 14, 1972



Here is the "Moon Rover" in the middle of a moon landscape. How did it get there without the wheels leaving a trail?
Image

See a close-up.
Image

For comparison I looked at the previous video when the astronaut jumps up and down like a buffoon.
I’m not saying that the following are convincing footsteps on the moon, but they showed after the astronaut had jumped up and down at that spot (so you would expect that the Rover would leave a trail)...
Image

NTD
Neil Armstrong - First Moon Landing 1969



See the following video from the Apollo 17 hoax.
General observations on this video:
- Most of the video looks like it’s played in slow motion.
- There is no reason to believe that this was one continuous “take”.

In my opinion the most damaging in this video is...
From 0:43-0:45 - First the leg of the astronaut, who is behind the flag, goes through the pole. Then the backpack goes through the flagpole and flag…
Image

The astronauts should be conducting scientific experiments and would be on a tight schedule (maybe the most expensive “experiments” ever). I would expect them to “act” differently.

Diego Trystero
NASA - Apollo17 - Flag and pictures (antennas, not wires)



The following 2 photos are found in the book "Carrying the Fire" by Astronaut Michael Collins.
Photo 1 shows astronaut Michael Collins practicing for zero gravity inside an airplane.
Photo 2 shows the reverse (photoshopped) image of photo 1, Collins supposedly out on a spacewalk from the Gemini 10 capsule (NASA picture #66-40127).
Image
The Order of the Garter rules the world: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewto ... 5549#p5549
Dianthus
Posts: 118
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:53 pm
Location: Belgium
Has thanked: 22 times
Been thanked: 40 times
Contact:

Re: Moon landing hoax - vacuum, radiation, Hollywood and the Nazis

Post by Dianthus »

Exclusive Knowledge
BUZZ ALDRIN WE DIDN'T GO TO MOON / ΜΠΑΖ ΟΛΝΤΡΙΝ ΔΕΝ ΠΗΓΑΜΕ ΣΤΟ ΦΕΓΓΑΡΙ



User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:16 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 159 times

Re: Moon landing hoax - vacuum, radiation, Hollywood and the Nazis

Post by Firestarter »

I haven’t found much good information on the supposed moon landing, whether it’s the mainstream propaganda or alternative “conspiracy theories”.
The following book on the Apollo moon hoax by the late Ralph Rene (1933-2008) is quite good (the best story I’ve found so far). Rene has tried to sell himself as a self-educated physicist but of course doesn’t understand physics to the full (in as far as that is even possible). The most important point he makes in my opinion, is that the radiation coming from the sun, travelling to the moon in outer space and on the sunny side of the moon, alone would make the moon landing story impossible.


Radiation
One of the important problems in the moon landings are the Van Allen radiation belts: energetic charged particles circling earth and held in place by earth's magnetic field.
The following Youtube video shows that even in 2018, the Van Allen belts are considered a serious problem in staging a new moon landing. I wouldn’t say that NASA “admits” that the Van Allen belts would have prevented the Apollo moon landings though.

Hallelujah Girl
Nasa admits humans can't pass through the dangerous Van Allen Belts


If theoretically the rocket could get passed the Van Allen belts the radiation problems do not end. The Van Allen belts and our atmosphere effectively protect us on earth from radiation.
According to the “reputable” NASA:
In the late 1940s, sounding rocket experiments showed that the Sun is, in fact, a very strong X-ray emitter. Astronomers were surprised! What's going on?

The X-rays we detect from the Sun do not come from the Sun's surface, but from the solar corona, which is the upper layer of the Sun's atmosphere. Only very hot gases can emit X-rays, and the corona, at millions of degrees, is hot enough to emit X-rays, while the much cooler surface of the Sun is not. Thus, the Sun's atmosphere is an excellent source of X-rays.
https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/objects/sun2.html

The problems with radiation also apply to the voyage to the moon…
There are ways to block radiation, but these (metals) add a lot of weight, which makes them impossible to use in rocket “science” (but in rocket “science fiction” radiation won’t be a real problem).

A large solar flare emits massive amounts of radiation and if any would happen during the moon missions, including the voyage, this could be fatal. These solar flares cannot be predicted...
In 1963, Soviet rocket “scientists” told the British astronomer Bernard Lovell that they "could see no immediate way of protecting cosmonauts from the lethal effects of solar radiation". Had the Soviets never heard of science fiction writer H.G. Wells (a member of the Round Table)?

The table below shows the monthly amount of solar flares from 1967 to 1973. From 1969 to 1972, when the moon landings were staged, there were 18.5 flares a “day” (24 hours) on average. This is even worse than the Van Allen belts.
The astronauts would have gotten more than 100 solar flares per trip on average. If one flare wouldn’t kill you: 100 surely would…
Image


Heat on the moon
Most people imagine that it’s very cold on the moon. The following picture shows the surface temperature on the moon according to the “reliable” NASA.
Image

Surface temperatures on the moon range from about 120 degrees above zero Celsius in the sun at lunar midday, to precisely 273 degrees below zero in the lunar night.
The moon landings were staged at the part of the moon in the full sun: hotter than the hottest desert in the burning sun or a car that has been standing in the burning sun (hotter than boiling water). This doesn’t only apply to the time on the moon, but even to the 3-day-trip in the rocket from and to the moon…
Touching objects on the moon, like rocks, would burn your hands because of the heat (unless of course you have magical gloves).

Because of vacuum, it is very difficult to get rid of the heat as there is absolutely nothing to give the heat to – no cooling wind. Theoretically opening a window while moving fast wouldn’t even get rid of the heat.
The only way I know of to get rid of heat in vacuum is by radiation. Getting rid of heat by radiation can be calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law: how much heat an object can get rid of through radiation is dependent on its temperature. Under “normal” circumstances this would be a slow process (especially for the type of reflective material they would use to block radiation), not enough to cool down the additional heat that continues to come from the sun.
I guess that NASA has made up a great story on “radiation cooling” – not only for the “normal” cooling of the rocket, but also for the magical engine that could generate enough power to stop the lunar module from crashing and lifting off the moon…


Magical space suits
How these elegant space suits would be able to prevent those poor astronauts from boiling in their skin because of the heat is beyond my comprehension. Another big problem (arguably even bigger) would be the vacuum.
There was reportedly a crotch-to-shoulder zipper across the suit. In science labs, where they use vacuum compartments to conduct experiments, they don’t use zippers. Maybe because zippers have many small holes...
Going to the toilet would be impossible. I haven’t heard stories on how these courageous astronauts wore diapers yet (although maybe at the age they are now)…

Of course these flexible suits looked great for the cameras! I would expect that, because of the difference in pressure inside the suit compared to the vacuum outside, the space suit would blow up like a balloon. This could cause a fatal puncture in the suit…
This ballooning effect is missing from the moon videos and photos.
Collins has explained how this ballooning was overcome:
Instead of having a simple restraining net, it controlled the shape of its inflated bladder by a complex array of bellows, stiff fabric, inflexible tubes, and sliding cables.
I would expect that the gloves in particular would be impossible to design. How could they make vacuum-proof gloves and prevent the balloon-effect?


Apollo 13
While the “normal” Apollo missions were clearly impossible, the Apollo 13 was even more laughable.
Because the main rocket ship was having problems, they took the Lunar Module instead and got safely back to earth…
If this would be possible, they wouldn’t even have needed 2 different space ships (the main ship and the module) in the first place!


More strange shadows
Just look at the shadows of Armstrong (on the left) and Aldrin (with their magical gloves!).
Their shadows aren’t parallel, which is only a minor discrepancy compared to the huge difference in length of their shadows. Neil and Buzz are of a comparable length (Buzz a little longer), but Buzz's shadow is almost 1.5 times as long as Neil’s!
Image


Ralph Rene - "NASA Mooned America" (1994): http://krishna.org/wp-content/uploads/2 ... merica.pdf
(http://web.archive.org/web/202012231155 ... merica.pdf)
The Order of the Garter rules the world: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewto ... 5549#p5549
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:16 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 159 times

Re: Moon landing hoax - vacuum, radiation, Hollywood and the Nazis

Post by Firestarter »

Another huge fail in the official science fiction story on the moon landing, is radiation. NASA hasn´t even tried to give a plausible explanations for how this was coped with.
There´s the Van Allen radiation belts for which NASA has almost admitted that a human mission can´t pass it and the huge temperature in space before reaching the moon and on the moon in the sunlight.


In 1958, Professor James van Allen discovered a huge amount of radiation surrounding the earth. Van Allen asked the US military to send a Geiger counter into space to measure the intensity of the radiation.
The Geiger counter confirmed that the region above the earth was cooking with deadly radiation. The Van Allen radiation belts (as they were later called) appeared to surround the entire earth; it starts 400 miles and extends out some 65,000 miles above the earth’s surface.
There was an inner belt and an outer radiation belt. The inner belt went from 40 degrees north and south of the Equator and was basically a doughnut surrounding the earth. The outer belt was separated from the inner belt by an area of lesser radiation. Many years later a third radiation belt “the storage ring” between the inner and outer belt was discovered.
Scientific experiments conducted by Van Allen and the military showed that both belts separately were deadly to humans without additional shielding. Van Allen stated that even if you raced quickly through the radiation belts, you would still need additional shielding.

In 1959, Van Allen delivered his conclusion in a speech to the Academy of Science “All manned space flight attempts must steer clear of these two belts of radiation until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed”.
According to Van Allen the space ship’s exterior made of aluminium could not protect the astronauts against the deadly radiation.

The National Committee on Radiation Protection (NCRP) and the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) had established “permissible doses” of radiation at levels that were consistent with living on earth. This would require additional shielding of lead or another substance and would add weight, making the astronauts on the moon impossible.
In order to go through Van Allen’s belt, in 1965 NASA simply requested that the regulatory groups “modify” the standards for space flight (allowing the astronauts to receive much more radiation).
Then NASA could announce that a simple aluminium skin on the command module was enough to protect astronauts from the allowable doses of radiation.

Years later Van Allen explained that he still “stands by” his conclusions of 1959-1961. But Van Allen also “stands by” NASA’s point of view that even aluminium, without extra shielding, was enough to protect the astronauts from the radiation he called deadly.
Van Allen labelled his original findings merely “popular science” and “a sloppy statement”: https://alixus.wordpress.com/the-van-allen-enigma/
(http://archive.is/ajLcS)


Because there is no atmosphere the effects (of the heat) of the sun are much larger than on earth. Vacuum is an almost perfect insulator, which means that those poor astronuts couldn´t get rid of the heat from the sunlight.
On earth when the sun is at a low angle (for example in the morning), the intensity of the sunlight falling on earth becomes much less because the sunlight travels a longer distance through the atmosphere. The atmosphere “dims” the sunlight that warms the atmosphere.

There is another effect of the angle at which the sun shines on the moon that is explained in the following picture.
When the sun shines at an angle of 60 degrees from shining “straight down”; the sun becomes 50% less intense as the same (amount of) sunlight heats an area twice as large…
Image

Following through on this “effect”, the part of a hill in the sunlight on the moon would heat up much faster than the surrounding ground area. The “dark side” of a hill would hardly heat up at all in the early “morning” of the lunar day.
The Apollo moon “movies” were mostly staged on the “sunny” side of hills on the moon, where the heat, during the lunar “morning”, would be even more intense.

The astronauts (in their “magical” space suits) stand or walk (vertically) on the moon. Because of this same “effect”, during the lunar “morning” they would (theoretically) heat up even faster than when the sun would be shining straight down (a couple of earth days later)…
The lunar module would also receive relatively more sunlight during the lunar “morning” than the surrounding surface.
The rocket ship travelling towards the moon (and back) would also be in the full burning sunlight…


The following 2 images come from an interesting article on the amounts of “soft” X-ray radiation the astronauts were exposed to on their trip to the moon. This includes “high energy” X-rays of an intensity of > 10 ^ -4 W/m2: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996CoSka..26...98A

Image

For what it’s worth: according to NASA the T in the following table indicates the total intensity of the flares in July 1969 (left side of the table; the right side is June/July 1970).
Image


In the following pictures once again the part of the astronut in the shadow looks in the light…
Image


See the following photo (2:24) from the documentary "IN HIS OWN WORDS: BUZZ ALDRIN 40 YEARS LATER".
youtube.com/watch?v=1j9Fo7XayCg

The flag and pole are the only things in colour.
Notice the flag waving in the wind (archived image was deleted: http://web.archive.org/save/_embed/http ... shadow.jpg)…
Image

See the blow up of the bottom of the flag pole.
The pole has NO shadow.
The bottom of the pole is perfectly straight, looks like it’s floating instead of inserted into the lunar surface ((archived image was deleted: http://web.archive.org/save/_embed/http ... 20base.jpg).
Image


Following is the $350 million Apollo 16 Lunar Module in action (over $25 billion corrected for inflation)...
Pay special attention to the buckled thermal panels!
Image

Here’s the Apollo 16 Lunar Module supposedly after it had landed on the moon. See all the gold foil, with some black fabric draped sort of around at some spots. The top looks like cardboard with holes in between!
This should be robust enough to protect the astronuts from the vacuum, the radiation and could withstand the landing (without wheels!).
Image
The Order of the Garter rules the world: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewto ... 5549#p5549
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 524
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2020 2:16 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 159 times

Re: Moon landing hoax - vacuum, radiation, Hollywood and the Nazis

Post by Firestarter »

NASA in 1962 first successfully bounced a laser beam from the moon and received it back on earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Las ... experiment

In the following 7 years they could have used laser light reflected from the moon to make maps with the location of “flat” areas on the surface of the moon.
As a result the retroreflector experiments would have been completely useless, wasting valuable time, money and space and mass on the rocket to the moon…

I’ve done a “simple” calculation.
When the laser light beam reaches the moon surface it reportedly has a diameter of about 6.5 kilometres. That’s more than 33 million square meter. The reflector is only 0.5 meter square.
If I divide the size of the reflector with the area of the beam on the moon that’s 1.5 10^-8.
If only 1 out of 10^17 photons “aimed” at the reflector, is received back on Earth, only 1 in 1.5 billion of photons that (supposedly) hit the reflector are received back on earth.


Maybe one day they could send astronauts to the moon to “prove” once and for all that almost 50 years ago American astronauts placed the flag of stripes and corruption on the moon?

On 25 May 1961, President John F. Kennedy made his famous speech to Congress:
I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.
I took a mere 8 years before the Apollo 11 moon landing was staged…

In May 1989, President George Bush Sr, made a similar announcement calling for a permanent camp on the moon and going to Mars.

In 2004, President George W. Bush called for starting a program going “back” to the moon by 2015 (still not staged)...
President Bush Jr. also said that soon after that the Moon should become "a launching point to missions beyond" (including the “red planet” Mars): https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/14/poli ... ation.html


Master showman Donald Trump seems to understand the true nature of propaganda and on 24 April 2017 promised a trip to Mars “during my first term or, at worst, during my second term” (so in 4 years...).
There are also plans for an unmanned mission to the moon before the end of 2018: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04 ... first-term


In the following video by Marcus Allen (7:54).
In one picture of the moon there are some identical duplicate sections.
In a 15-picture compiled panoramic view of the moon the Lunar Module can’t be seen.
The lens flare in some pictures weren’t possible with the type of cameras that were (supposedly) used.
Astronaut’s back in shadow shouldn’t show details (it should look black).


The previous video also features information on NASA employee Donna Tietze Hare, who said that a NASA employee airbrushed official pictures of the moon.
Hare believes that they were editing pictures to cover-up “evidence” of UFOs (this doesn't help her credibility). She also tells that people disappeared because they looked at UFO pictures.



In the following video (7:33).
The lighting in the moon pictures is a major flaw – for example the parts of the astronauts that are (or should be) in the shadows.
Two locations on 2 days look identical, but are miles apart, according to NASA.
A couple of covered crosshairs can be seen.


See an example of a covered crosshair.
Image
The Order of the Garter rules the world: https://www.lawfulpath.com/forum/viewto ... 5549#p5549
Post Reply