Conspiracy Theories

So there's something you just HAVE to get off your chest, and it doesn't fit into any of the above catagories? All spam, rants, and random chatter belongs in here.
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Moon landing hoax

Post by Firestarter » Fri Aug 03, 2018 4:05 pm

Both Hermann Oberth and Wernher von Braun became honorary fellows of the British Interplanetary Society (BIS) in 1949. Both were introduced to the BIS by science writer Arthur C. Clarke (who later became the chairman of BIS).
It looks like the British Interplanetary Society played an important (controlling) role in staging the Apollo moon landings.

Wernher von Braun’s ultimate goal was a manned mission to Mars and developed plans for 160-foot long rocket ships carrying 20 astronauts!
Grumman’s Lunar Module Chief Design Engineer, Thomas Kelly, was 1 of only 2 employees that worked on LM designs that led to the NASA-contract in 1962.

By the early 1950s, Clarke was communicating with Von Braun and Hermann Oberth.
Many Americans became BIS members over the years, including senior NASA figures as Dr. Kurt Debus (Director of the John F. Kennedy Space Center); and Gerald Griffin (Lead Flight Director during Apollo).
The son of Ralph A. Smith (of the BIS) later worked for NASA on the Apollo programme. NASA's primary contractors for Apollo were staffed with BIS members, including Grumman's project manager for the Lunar Module Joseph Gavin Jr.: https://stars-genes-and-quarks.blogspot ... s-and.html
(archived here: http://archive.is/HWED8)


In 1937 the British Interplanetary Society, began working on a science fiction story on a manned moon landing mission. The BIS finished their story in 1939.

It is remarkable how similar this story was to what was sold to the gullible public from 1969 to 1972 by NASA.
Ideally, the launch location would be at a high-altitude not far from the equator.
There was a Central Module and a Lunar Lander. For the lunar landing, special shock-absorbing legs would extend from the base.
The Central Module would use parachutes to land on earth.

The lunar lander was to be a gumdrop-shaped vehicle strongly resemblance NASA’s Lunar Module (11 feet tall and 13.5 feet in diameter).
See the British Lunar Lander pictured on the moon
Image

The rocket ships had windows in addition to “coelostats” that provided a good view of space while the cabin rotated. Arthur C. Clarke contributed to the design of the “coelostat”.
Another major contributor to the design was artist Ralph A. Smith, who made beautiful paintings of the spaceship in flight and on the moon. Smith later designed a space station concept and collaborated with Clarke on the book “The Exploration of the Moon”.

The only big differences I can see between the science fiction story of BIS and Apollo, are:
The BIS design had no onboard computer and used solid-fuelled engines (in 1949 Von Braun played a key role in making the BIS team “switch” to liquid-fuelled engines: https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-union-jack- ... 1262867212
(archived here: http://archive.is/bKC6g)


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/

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

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
(archived here: http://archive.is/FEA3o)


The connections between NASA and Hollywood keep piling up…
In 1941, former Disney animator Lester Novros founded Graphic Films that made propaganda films for industry and government clients like Lockheed, Boeing, the US Air Force and NASA.

Stanley Kubrick saw NASA propaganda film “To The Moon And Beyond” made by Graphic Films. In 1965, Kubrick recruited Graphic Films’ Lester Novros, Con Pederson, and Douglas Trumbull to work on “2001: A Space Odyssey”.

Graphic Films advised Kubrick on special effects. Pederson sent Kubrick a film made by experimental filmmaker John Whitney, Sr., Novros’ long-time friend and colleague. Douglas Trumbull further developed Whitney’s slit-scan technique that was used for the “Stargate” sequence towards the end of 2001.
Pederson wrote to Kubrick about the slit scanning technique that “Its possibilities are limitless”.

Other artist involved in “2001: A Space Odyssey”: illustrators Chesley Bonestell, Roy Carnon, and Richard McKenna; artificial intelligence pioneer Marvin Minsky; IBM industrial designer Eliot Noyes; and effects artist Wally Gentleman (who’d worked on Universe for the National Film Board of Canada): http://scienceandfilm.org/articles/2656 ... ce-odyssey

Douglas Trumbull arrived in Hollywood in the early-60s with a portfolio "all full of science fiction, alien planets, spaceships, things like that". After working in advertising he worked for the small Graphic Films company, who made propaganda films for NASA.
Trumbull made all the artwork for “To The Moon And Beyond”.

Trumbull would continue his career, making special effects for films like The Andromeda Strain, Close Encounters, Blade Runner and Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Trumbull's debut as director was the science fiction movie Silent Running (1972).
At the beginning of the 1980s his career in the movies was somehow derailed.

After that Steven Spielberg asked Trumbull to work on the Back to the Future ride.
Years later Trumbull did the special effects for The Tree of Life (2011): https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/j ... al-effects


The following video (9:07).
Because of the Van Allen radiation belts, space exploration wouldn’t be possible.
It also shows some video footage that looks like NASA “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”.
https://youtu.be/DpPMoIv1lxI

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).
https://youtu.be/3TWiJQhaajA

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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBLmWh ... e=youtu.be

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.
https://youtu.be/H8ZzFemBUJQ

See an example of a covered crosshair.
Image
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

NASA, Hollywood bromance, rocks, mirrors

Post by Firestarter » Sun Aug 05, 2018 5:29 pm

The “bromance” between NASA and Hollywood has continued to this very day.
No government agency is so intertwined with Hollywood as NASA. NASA provides material support for space movies to justify its $19 billion annual budget. NASA also stages PR stunts like interviews with astronauts from space and science experiments from the International Space Station for the kids.
NASA actually negotiates with the movie studios to get more exposure.

Naturally NASA worked on Ron Howard’s Apollo 13 (1995).
NASA’s Boeing KC-135 aircraft, normally used to prepare astronauts for zero gravity, was also used to shoot the weightless scenes with the stars of the movie Tom Hanks, Kevin Bacon, and Bill Paxton.

Hollywood has worked on space movies like: Gravity, Hidden Figures, Passengers, The Space Between Us, and Life. In many of these cases, NASA offered expertise, personnel, and even shooting locations, to bring these propaganda films to life.
Bert Ulrich has worked on dozens of films for NASA, including: The Avengers, Hidden Figures, and Transformers: Dark of the Moon. During the filming of Tomorrowland at the Kennedy Space Center, Ulrich watched the launch of the Mars maven probe with stars in the movie Hugh Laurie and George Clooney. He also hoped to get approval for First Man, with Ryan Gosling as Neil Armstrong.

Not all the films that NASA is involved in feature the official NASA logo.
Space movies that don’t feature enough NASA input, like Gravity, are often ridiculed for their lack of “scientific accuracy”.

NASA’s main mission these days is Mars — President Donald even met Elon Musk to talk about a possible flight.
One of the most prominent film projects was Ron Howard’s National Geographic “documentary” Mars.

NASA also helped on Ridley Scott’s 2015 film The Martian. Jim Green, director of NASA’s Planetary Science Division, was asked to speak with Ridley. Green is the head of a $1.6 billion division that apparently could find nothing better to do than consult a movie director.
According to the state propaganda, the result was one of the most realistic depictions of a mission to Mars ever.
The Martian got 7 Oscar nominations and generated priceless publicity for the space program. After the movie was completed, star of the movie Matt Damon even visited the Jet Propulsion Laboratory facility in California for a press event alongside astronaut Drew Feustel and other NASA employees.

NASA was pleased that Margot Lee Shetterly’s book Hidden Figures was filmed, about 3 African-American mathematicians who helped launch John Glenn: https://www.mensjournal.com/entertainme ... e-w470462/


According to the NASA propaganda, the hundreds of pounds of “moon rocks” brought back are solid evidence that astronauts collected these on the moon.
Supposedly geologists worldwide have confirmed that these rocks were found on the moon. If they examined only a couple of grams, why would we believe that the other hundreds of pounds are of the same material?
They couldn’t verify that these were from the moon by comparing it to the “real thing”, but instead verified if these rocks are from the moon by comparing them to what the official explanation is. It would be very surprising if the common consensus, controlled by the same powers that control NASA, wouldn’t confirm that these rocks are from the moon.

As for the story that these “moon rocks” couldn’t have been collected on earth…
More than 330 meteorites similar to the supposed “moon rocks” have been found on earth.
Image

According to NASA these “lunar meteorites” actually originate from the moon.
They explain that these “lunar meteorites” on earth, with that meteoroids strike the Moon every day (fortunately none of the astronauts in their magical space suits were hit...) that caused some “moon rocks” reach lunar escape velocity of a mere 2.38 km/s (more than 8500 km/h): http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm

I was surprised to learn that the “moon rocks” sold by NASA for “extraordinary evidence” of the “moon landings” were filled with oxygen: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/50- ... moon-rocks


Maybe the most ridiculous of the NASA stories to convince us that their astronauts walked on the moon (and the Soviets landed unmanned rockets), are the mirrors that reflect laser light coming from earth...
According to the state propaganda, Apollo 11, 14 and 15 and 2 Soviet Lunokhod missions placed retroreflectors on the moon.

Let’s see if I can come up with an “easy” experiment to compare this to.
Imagine 2 high mountains (on earth) some 100 km apart.
On mountain 1; a team fires a laser at a 1 cubic centimetre large mirror that is riding on a train on mountain 2 (at a distance of 100 km).
The team on mountain 1 than measures the time it took for the laser light to reflect back, to determine the distance to the mirror.

Now from this “simple” experiment to the moon at a distance of 384.400 km, and a retroreflector of some 0.5 meters square.
That would be much more difficult.

The first problem is actually hitting the retroreflector, even without the laser light diverging by earth’s atmosphere (both going out and coming in).
If you send a laser light the beam is about 6.5 kilometres (4.0 miles) wide at the moon (according to the official story), when it returns, why would you think that the light was reflected by the reflector?
According to the official propaganda only one out of 10^17 photons “aimed” at the reflector, is received back on Earth, even under good conditions. It seems probable that the moon surface would reflect more of the laser light than the 0.5 meter mirror…
They couldn’t even verify that the beam is 6.5 kilometres wide at the moon…

Another problem is getting the retroreflector aligned precisely so it reflects to the exact location on earth…
NASA has made up the following interesting explanation that the retroreflectors (corner-cube prisms) return any light exactly back in the direction from which it came: https://tmurphy.physics.ucsd.edu/apollo/lrrr.html

The problem here is that in the real world “exact” doesn’t exist and there would be an inaccuracy in the direction, making it impossible to detect the light that comes back from the moon (768.800 kilometres round trip).
I haven’t found information on the inaccuracy of the retroreflectors placed on the moon almost 50 years ago. I’ve seen a couple of internet pages about current retroreflectors with an accuracy of 3 arc seconds: https://www.thorlabs.de/newgrouppage9.c ... oup_id=145

NASA supposedly uses these reflectors to more accurately determine the distance to the moon.
Because the moon moves, the NASA “scientists” should have to know the exact distance to the moon, which is of course also inaccurate. Maybe after they could accurately determine its distance (using the reflectors) they could actually perform this experiment successfully...

What about dust on the reflectors?

I’ll not even try to figure out how gravity affects the laser light...

For some reason, in 2009 the wonderful moon mirror project was scrapped: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... er-funding
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Conspiracy Theories

Post by notmartha » Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:08 am

One movie that's not likely to have NASA or Hollyweird approval is "Moonwalkers." It is a French comedy written by a Brit. In it, the US is afraid that they may not be able to beat USSR to the moon, so they seek out to hire Stanley Kubrick to make a fake moon landing film "just in case."

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2718440/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonwalkers_(film)
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Moon landing, Hollywood, Pol Pot

Post by Firestarter » Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:50 pm

I'm sorry. There is "too much" information in this post...

notmartha wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:08 am
One movie that's not likely to have NASA or Hollyweird approval is "Moonwalkers." It is a French comedy written by a Brit. In it, the US is afraid that they may not be able to beat USSR to the moon, so they seek out to hire Stanley Kubrick to make a fake moon landing film "just in case."
I wouldn’t count on that!
Most fake “conspiracy theories” are actually made up by the intelligence community to make finding out the truth more difficult and discrediting (real) whistleblowers.
There are literally thousands of fake stories on Stanley Kubrick being involved in making the Apollo moon video. Most of these stories don’t even expose the many high level NASA liars involved in “2001: A space odyssey”.
At the following link is much more information on Stanley Kubrick (an 8 part story):
Firestarter wrote:
Sun Jul 29, 2018 3:17 pm
In 1949, Arthur C. Clarke helped to make his friend Von Braun an honorary member of the British Interplanetary Society: http://thetruthseekersguide.blogspot.co ... art-3.html

One of the disinformation agents on the moon landings is TV producer David Percy; a long-time associate of the Royal Photographic Society: http://www.aulis.com/david-percy.htm

The Royal Photographic Society of Great Britain (RPS) is one of the world's oldest photographic societies. It was founded in 1853 and in 1854 received Royal patronage from Queen Victoria and Prince Albert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Pho ... ic_Society

Duchess of Cambridge, Kate Middleton, is a lifetime honorary member of the RPS: https://www.independent.ie/style/celebr ... 37814.html


Not only NASA has been involved with Hollywood, but also the Pentagon and CIA…
An American got information on propaganda movies in which the Pentagon collaborated by means of a FOIA request.
He got a 2014 list with 323 movies and a 2016 file with 410. The 90 added movies were mostly “older” films; some from the 2014 list were excluded.
Both lists aren’t complete. The 2015 film Aloha, is for example missing, but this is referred to in the Air Force’s entertainment liaison office reports.

Following are some of the propaganda movies in which the Pentagon collaborated:
Apollo 13; Armageddon; Batman and Robin; Superman vs Batman; A bridge too far;
Clear and present danger; The hunt for Red October; Patriot games; Sum of all fears;
Empire of the sun; From here to eternity; Godzilla;
Goldfinger; License to kill;
I am legend; Indiana Jones and the last crusade; Jurassic park III;

The killing fields; Karate kid II; The next Karate kid;
The silence of the lambs; Sleepless in Seattle;
Star Trek IV; Star Trek: resurrection; Top Gun;
Transformers; Transformers 2; Transformers 3; Transformers dark of the moon; Transformers: revenge of the fallen;
True lies
: https://www.spyculture.com/updated-comp ... dod-films/

I think this is a good time to respond to the propaganda of “The killing fields” movie with some historic information on what happened in Cambodia…

The US began bombing Cambodia in 1965. In 1969, the US air war against Cambodia escalated as part of Nixon’s policy. From 1965 until 1973, the US Air Force dropped bombs from more than 230,000 sorties on over 113,000 sites.
In 1970, President Richard Nixon and National Security Advisor (and later Secretary of State) Henry Kissinger decided to go for an all-out bombing campaign of Cambodia.
According to the Cambodian genocide scholar, Ben Kiernan, the US bombs killed between 50,000 and 150,000.

As a direct result of the bombing campaign, Khmer Rouge fighters swelled from 10,000 in 1969, to more than 200,000 in 1973.
In April 1975, the Khmer Rouge took control of Cambodia and renamed it Democratic Kampuchea.
In November 1975 — seven months after the Khmer Rouge had taken control of Phnom Penh — Henry Kissinger said to Thailand’s foreign minister that he:
should tell [the KR] that we bear no hostility towards them. We would like them to be independent as a counterweight to North Vietnam.
[You] should also tell the Cambodians that we will be friends with them. They are murderous thugs, but we won’t let that stand in our way. We are prepared to improve relations with them.

At the end of 1978, Vietnam invaded Cambodia and toppled the Khmer Rouge government in early 1979.
An estimated 1.7 million Cambodians (21% of the population) were estimated to have been killed by the Khmer Rouge.

Khmer Rouge forces fled to western Cambodia on the Thai border to begin a guerrilla campaign against the new, Vietnamese-installed Cambodian government.
The US used China to continue the support for the Khmer Rouge in their campaign against the Vietnamese occupation.
The Carter administration supported overt Chinese aid to the Khmer Rouge. National security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski explained that he “encourage[d] the Chinese to support Pol Pot”. The Associated Press estimated that China supplied Khmer Rouge guerrillas with about $100 million of military aid per year throughout the 1980s.

The US refused to call the mass murder by the Khmer Rouge from 1975 to 1979 “genocide” until 1989, when support finally came to an end: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/04/khme ... ed-states/
(archived here: http://archive.is/DikSr)

The killing fields” was nominated for 7 Oscars and won 3, while Henry Kissinger won the Nobel Prize for orchestrating the “peace”…


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.


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/
(archived here: http://archive.is/ajLcS)


I’ve found an interesting interview with some important NASA actors.
Before I link to the interview, first I present some information on the descend of the Lunar Module (that couldn’t be tested).

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

They also had to overcome the gravitation from the moon...
See how the Lunar Module descended.
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


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: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hist ... ch6-5.html


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:
1) Descending with a starting speed of 6000 km/h.
2) Lift off and then reaching a speed 6000 km/h.

Even more damaging than testing that couldn’t be done is the fact that they didn’t even test the things that could have been tested on earth!
I’ve pushed the NASA troll on Davidicke.com for a video of the descend/ascend “tests” of the Lunar Module (engine).
It came up with the following video of 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) - EDIT "new" video!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2ejvFX7Q20


Following is the interview...

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 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
Last edited by Firestarter on Mon Jul 29, 2019 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

NASA trolls; Mars; Testing; Doors; Lunar dust

Post by Firestarter » Sat Oct 06, 2018 9:07 am

I’ve searched the internet for information on “NASA BOTs”, “NASA astroturfers” and “NASA trolls”...
I didn’t find a single story!

Obviously people like me that are disgusted with the blatant “ad hominem” attacks by clueless “debunkers” don’t have the right to speak.
To add injury to insult, according to the stories on the internet the trolls that work for NASA actually deserves “some credit” for “fighting trolls on the internet”.

I found 3 stories, about the wonderful NASA that with its billion dollar budget harasses anybody that doesn’t agree (spreads “misinformation”) with the official story.

The following story on “climate change” was the most interesting of these 3...
After Bill Nye “The Science Guy”, a popular “scientist” and media personality in the US, posted on Facebook about climate change deniers, things turned ugly. He and the concept of climate change were attacked. And then NASA started responding in defence of “climate change”...

One of the “climate deniers over rising global temperatures” got warned to not “misrepresent” NASA: https://qz.com/662872/do-not-misreprese ... -facebook/

It seems we can expect more of this online “trolling” by the US government.
At the end of February, the US State Department announced that it gets $40 million from the Pentagon for the new internet troll farm “Global Engagement Center”: https://news.antiwar.com/2018/02/26/sta ... roll-farm/


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


I’ve repeatedly called lack of testing an argument against the Apollo moon landings. I think this is a good time to explain a little on “testing”...
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).

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.

When I learn that not even the tests that could have been performed (if a moon landing is feasible) on earth were done, like:
Landing a “lunar module” with 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…
I can only conclude that the whole Apollo project was a fraud.

While landing on the moon is associated with an extremely high risk. For which I don’t think an appropriate, feasible “testing strategy” could be figured out, making a handful of movies on “moon landings” with some special effects wouldn’t be a risk.
With the media under complete control there is no chance that the fraud would ever be exposed (is there?).


One of the many problems in a (real) lunar mission would be to get in and out of the lunar module. There would be problems that are comparable to being sucked out of plane by the difference in pressure (but the other way around). The way to solve this would be to depressurise (the inside of) the lunar module before exiting.

To make the door (hatch) better at keeping the vacuum “out” it would open to the inside of the module. This would make it much more difficult to get out of the lunar module.
See the hatch of the 13 Lunar Module turning to the inside.
Image

The hatch was only 32 inches square wide and high. The height would be an even bigger problem than the width (especially with the backpack).
There should have been major concerns that those magical suits would tear getting in and out of the module.
There would (again) be the major problem of testing, because the space suits (on earth) weigh something like 200 pounds.

NASA made instruction manuals for just about any part of the mission but not for getting in and out of the Lunar Module. Not even on how to depressurise the lunar module before exiting and repressurising it after getting back from an excursion on the moon surface.

According to Apollo 15 astronaut they did training with the space suit and backpack in 1/6 gravity on earth (g). They could have only done that in a dropping plane, but NOT in vacuum and radiation comparable to that on the moon.
Maybe they could have put a model of a Lunar Module including hatch in the plane though:
I'm wondering if we ever did any ingress training at one-sixth g. I don't think we did[1]. I was just surprised that I had such difficulty [with LM egress and ingress on the moon], because I'd done a lot of practice in one g with the backpack on because, originally, in the LTA-8 tests -- for the thermal vacuum chamber -- they were going to use the PLSS under one-g conditions. You know, climb the ladder and go through the hatch, just like we do on the Moon. I'd done that several times and had no difficulty.
http://www.clavius.org/lmdoors.html
(archived here: http://archive.is/JAS03)


Another huge problem would be the lunar dust that would pile up in the lunar module every time the astronauts returned from an excursion on the moon surface. They could try to clean that with water, but that wouldn’t be very effective (I have experienced several holidays in a house on the beach covered with sand).
According to NASA this lunar dust has serious adverse health effects.
On later missions they reportedly brought a vacuum cleaner...

The Apollo 11 crew members reported: "Particles covered everything and a stain remained even after our best attempts to brush it off;
[d]istinct pungent odor like gunpowder [was] noted when helmet [was] removed
".

During Apollo 12, the crew members noted several issues on dust in the lunar and central module: "Both LM and CM contaminated with lunar dust;
[LM] was filthy dirty and had so much dust that when I took my helmet off, I was almost blinded. Junk immediately got into my eyes;
[t]he whole thing was just a cloud of fine dust floating around in there.

On the way back in the CM the system could not handle the dust, so it was continuously spread inside the spacecraft by the system;
[w]e chose to remain in the suit loop as much as possible because of the dust and debris floating around;
[t]o keep our eyes from burning and our noses from inhaling these small particles, we left our helmet sitting on top of our heads
": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_h ... t_exposure
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Moon landing hoax

Post by Firestarter » Mon Nov 19, 2018 5:56 pm

What if I show you hard evidence that NASA actually had a studio built to film the descend to and ascend from the moon?
Donald Hewes oversaw operations/filming for the “simulation”.

James Hansen writes:
To make the simulated landings more authentic, Hewes and his men filled the base of the huge eight legged, red and white structure with dirt and modelled it to resemble the moon's surface. They erected floodlights at the proper angles to simulate lunar light and installed a black screen at the far end of the gantry to mimic the airless lunar "sky." Hewes personally climbed into the fake craters with cans of everyday black enamel to spray them so that the astronauts could experience the shadows that they would see during the actual moon landing.

From A.W. Vigil – Piloted Space Flight Simulation at Langley Research Center:
Ground based simulators are not very satisfactory for studying the problems associated with the final phases of landing. This is due primarily to the fact that the visual scene cannot be simulated with sufficient realism. For this reason it is preferable to go to some sort of flight test simulator which can provide real life visual cues. One research facility designed to study the final phases of lunar landing is in operation at Langley.
(...)
The facility is an overhead crane structure about 250 feet tall and 400 feet long. The crane system supports five sixths of the vehicle's weight through servo driven vertical cables. The remaining one sixth of the vehicle weight pulls the vehicle downward simulating the lunar gravitational force. During actual flights the overhead crane system is slaved to keep the cable near vertical at all times. A gimbal system on the vehicle permits angular freedom for pitch, roll, and yaw. The facility is capable of testing vehicles up to 20,000 pounds.

See the following huge white ball, with a trolley on the left (on which a camera was mounted). This was before the NASA science fiction artists converted the sphere to an authentic looking Moon with craters.
Image

Here you can see an artist using plaster to transform the huge ball into a model of the Moon.
Image

After the model of the moon was finished they filmed the rotating sphere.
The following picture shows the sphere after modelling work. Remove the seat and guy sitting on it and it looks like the (real) moon.
Image
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/inde ... opic=455.0
(archived here: http://archive.is/Usnu0)


Such a simulation couldn’t really be used instead of proper testing or training, but it could be used as preparation for making an even more realistic movie that would be sold to the world as the “real” thing.

If you’re thinking I’m making all of this up; see the article from the “mainstream” Daily Mail about the simulation: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... efore.html


One of the first “books” claiming that the Moon landings were faked was written by Bill Kaysing.
In the following video, Kaysing tells “how easy” it must have been to use the previous studio to fake the descend of the lunar module. Directly after the clip that concludes with “the eagle has landed”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BSRJ0R6xYo


Or watch the movie “Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D” (2005); co-written, produced and directed by Mark Cowen, and co-written, produced and starring Tom Hanks (who also starred in Apollo 13).
This looks like the real thing to me but with a much better fidelity...
Image

For this film they used Green screen special effects, with the hills in the background added later. This technology was already available in the 1960s.
Image

They didn’t need trillions to make it, but only $3 million. The movie made more than $40 million at the box office…
See a clip from “Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D” – EDIT video was deleted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93DxZ_NmZB8


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
Last edited by Firestarter on Mon Aug 12, 2019 4:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Moon rocks from earth

Post by Firestarter » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:43 pm

The differences in supposed moon rocks and rocks found on our earth are only slight. They’re so very slight that one could argue that the supposed moon rocks were never found on the moon but found right here on earth...

Last month it was reported that Jeremy Bellucci analysed a rock that the Apollo 14 astronuts in 1971 brought back from the moon. Bellucci and his team found out that it´s highly unlikely that the rock was indeed formed on the moon, but that it makes perfect sense that it instead formed on Earth.
What makes this discovery even more amazing, is that it has been dated older, 4.011 billion years old, than any rock that has ever been found and analysed on earth...

Even if it would be possible for a rock on earth to be ejected from the earth with an escape velocity of 40,270 km/h and landing on the moon, which is even more difficult to believe than rocks reaching an escape velocity of 8500 km/h from the moon, it would still seem impossible, statistically speaking, that an earth rock found on the moon would be older than any rock discovered on earth: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... 4-zircons/
(archived here: http://web.archive.org/web/201902050603 ... 4-zircons/)


This isn´t the first time that it was discovered that a supposed moon rock, was actually an earth rock...

In August 2009, it was found out that a moon rock given to former Dutch prime minister Willem Drees by the Apollo 11 astronauts in 1969 was nothing more than petrified wood.
After Drees died in 1988, the rock was donated to the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam and put on display: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/scienc ... -fake.html
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Project Blue Beam

Post by Firestarter » Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:31 pm

I try only to post on conspiracy “facts”, but couldn´t pass Project Blue Beam without posting about it...
Please note that I DO NOT agree with all of the “information” in this post!


The Canadian Serge Monast is probably the best-known “conspiracy theorist” on Blue Beam. Unfortunately his book isn´t freely viewable, so I have to do with stories by others...
According to Wikipedia, Monast has been an important influence on Texe Marrs (that Notmartha has suggested me to read).

The NASA Blue Beam Project plan involves a gigantic “space-light-show” with three-dimensional optical holograms and sounds and laser projections to make us all bow down to “god’s voice”.
Then through deliberately staged events they will introduce the world´s “messiah”, Maitreya, to implement the new one world religion.

They´ll also develop voice-to-skull and vision-to-skull technology to send images and “god’s voice” directly into our brain.
This actually contradicts the “space-light-show”, because with this type of technology they wouldn´t even need that...

Then they will stage the “alien invasion hoax”, so that all humans will bow down to the New World Order.

The first director of NASA, Wernher von Braun, beginning in 1974 warned Carol Rosin, who was the corporate manager of Aerospace Company and Fairchild Industries about the “hoaxed alien invasion” that would be staged after the Middle East war to-come: http://falsificationofhistory.co.uk/spi ... -bluebeam/
(archived here: http://archive.is/IIWrh)

See Carol Rosin standing next to Wernher von Braun.
Image

Here´s a video with Rosin telling about what Von Braun had told her in the 1970s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WruCxsh8mfw


Here´s a transcript of a talk by Carl Rosin (from the previous video?).
When I was a Corporate Manager of Fairchild Industries from 1974 through 1977, I met the late Dr. Wernher Von Braun. We first met in early 1974. At that time, Von Braun was dying of cancer but he assured me that he would live a few more years to tell me about the game that was being played- that game being the effort to weaponize space, to control the Earth from space and space itself. Von Braun had a history of working with weapons systems. He had escaped from Germany to come to this country and had become a Vice President of Fairchild Industries when I met him. Von Braun’s purpose during the last years of his life, his dying years, was to educate the public and decision-makers about why space-based weapons are dumb, dangerous, destabilizing, too costly, unnecessary, unworkable, and an undesirable idea, and about the alternatives that are available.
(...)
Then, after the Russian threat passed (with the "fall of Communism"), terrorists would be identified as the next threat, and that was soon to follow. Throughout the media for the next decade, we heard a lot about terrorism. Then we were going to identify third-world country “crazies.” We now call them Nations of Concern. But he said that would be the third enemy against whom we would build space-based weapons.

The next enemy was asteroids. Now, at this point he kind of chuckled the first time he said it. Asteroids- against asteroids we are going to build space-based weapons. And the funniest one of all was what he called aliens, extraterrestrials. That would be the final scare. And over and over and over during the four years that I knew him and was giving speeches for him, he would bring up that last card. “And remember Carol, the last card is the alien card. We are going to have to build space-based weapons against aliens and all of it is a lie.”
(...)
There is no doubt in my mind that Wernher Von Braun knew about the extraterrestrial issue. He explained to me the reasons why weapons were going to be put into space, the enemies against whom we were going to build these weapons, and that all of that was a lie. He mentioned that extraterrestrials were going to be identified as the final enemy against whom we were going to build space-based weapon systems back in 1974. The way he said it to me, there was no doubt in my mind that he knew something that he was too afraid to talk about.
(...)
I believe that this entire space-based weapons game is initiated right here in the United States of America. What I hope for is that with this information that is being disclosed, the new administration will to do what is right. That is to transform the war game into a space game so that we use the technologies that are available not just as spin-offs of war technology, but as direct technological applications to build a cooperative space system that will benefit the entire world and that will allow us to communicate with the extraterrestrial cultures that are obviously "out there."
(...)
As part of the "war game" in the Gulf, we in the public were told that the United States was successful in shooting down Russian Scud Missiles. We were rationalizing new budgets based on that success. In fact, we found out later, after the budgets were approved for the next phase of weapons, that it was a lie.
We did not have successful shoot-downs the way we were told. It was all a lie, just to get more money put in the budget to make more weapons. I was one of the first people to go independently to Russia when I heard that they had “killer satellites.”
https://ufology.fandom.com/wiki/Carol_Rosin
(archived here: http://web.archive.org/web/201906070202 ... arol_Rosin)

notmartha wrote:
Thu Jul 19, 2018 7:58 pm
While looking for something else, I came across this by William Cooper. He explains, in detail, why the moom landing couldn't have happened the way they say it did, if it all.

http://www.hourofthetime.com/majestyt.htm
It reminds me of William Cooper, who was ridiculed for warning all of us for the alien invasion.
Within MAJESTYTWELVE is Operation Majority, which involves an extraterrestrial threat to convince us we need a world government. In the 1990s, Cooper finally found out that there is no real extraterrestrial threat, but that this is disinformation for the purpose of "psychological warfare".
See the following declassified CIA document.
Image
(archived here: http://archive.is/qkm8X)


In the following video, William Cooper tells that they convinced him of the fake ET invasion through “official government documents” on Operation Majority, which included Project Redlight.
Cooper found out that the hoax ET threath has been plan since 1917.

The video also features Paul Hellyer, former Canadian Minister for Defense, member of the Canadian Privy Council, who in September 2005 tells about aliens, including the joke:
I would like to see what (alien) technology there might be that could eliminate the burning of fossil fuels within a generation...that could be a way to save our planet...We need to persuade governments to come clean on what they know. Some of us suspect they know quite a lot, and it might be enough to save our planet if applied quickly enough.
US Congress once voted on the “Homeland Terrorism preparedness” bill, to “prepare” for an attack by “classified”, of “enormous size and otherworldy strenght”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEebVsIae6c


The “Homeland Terrorism preparedness” bill is FAKE (note the Onion logo at the bottom right replacing “C”-SPAN), but the Paul Hellyer clip is “REAL”: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/kill-bill/
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Moon landing hoax

Post by Firestarter » Sun Jul 21, 2019 1:26 pm

Today, it’s been 50 years ago that “One small step for man, one giant hoax for mankind” was staged...

On 25 September 1969, about 2 months after those wonderful shots of Aldrin and Armstrong walking on the moon were broadcast “live” all over the world, Wernher von Braun was photographed on a mockup of Tranquility Base, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin’s landing site (to me it looks as convincing as what was sold to the world as the “real thing”): http://web.archive.org/web/201306030633 ... -the-moon/
Image
Post Reply