Moon Hoax Images

“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” – Mark Twain

A16 11446551

EARTH RISING”

The very first photo humans saw of our common home from our closest orbiting planet.

This NASA created shot was impressed upon billions of minds at the time Apollo 8 is said to have taken this photo

And reinforced hundreds, if not millions of times in global media.

Van Gough, Rembrant, et al. would be ashamed of such amateurish art work,

Still, billions believed, and still believe to this day, that this is a real photograph.

*****

What do you really see above in the most famous picture in the World?

Suspend belief for a few moments in your life. What do you just see in the above picture?

Look at the “Blue Marble” as it is called. Incredible detail of the Earth, it’s clouds and even patches of green and brown, incredible details from 238,000 miles away.

A perfect globe, even though it is said to be elliptical due to Moon’s gravitational pull, yet never seen.

The deep blue ocean, which covers 2/3’rds of our Earth, is what we are told makes the sky so blue in our atmosphere. Why doesn’t the ocean blue overwhelm the photo from space void of atmosphere, like we see from NASA photos on other planets?

The Moon’s horizon is level and flat right to left, yet due to the Moon being 1/4 the Earth in size and diameter, curvature should be seen easily across such a panoramic shot that was taken from returning from the dark side  of the Moon.

The picture of Earth is crystal clear, yet the Moon blurred and indistinct. With a high speed camera setting to get the Earth in such detail (the Earth has is spinning at 1,000 mph we are told!)…. the Moon should have detail as well, a you will see below in many, many other shots.

And where are those dang billions and billions of stars, Carl, we all see in space from Earth at night? With no atmosphere on the Moon, and the stark, black background of space, they should be overwhelming every shot, yet nary a one.

The Moon is so reflective of the Sun’s rays, we are told, that it lights up or Earth at night so brightly, from 238,000 miles away, that we can see easily see to walk around at night during a full moon. Yet Moon’s surface is shown to be a dull, dusty , least reflecting colors, brown and gray.

Yet the Astronots were able to have no problems with such a direct, no atmosphere Sun with temperatures varying between + 250 and – 340 degrees.

Thousands of pictures have been released from NASA, so examining the official narrative is relatively straightforward. Interestingly, nearly all pictures of Moon missions were not released until 1991 and after.

Let’s chase some rabbits down the a real NASA hole.

*****

My first words of my impression of being on the surface of the Moon that just came to my mind was “Magnificent desolation.” The magnificence of human beings, humanity, Planet Earth, maturing the technologies, imagination and courage to expand our capabilities beyond the next ocean, to dream about being on the Moon, and then taking advantage of increases in technology and carrying out that dream – achieving that is magnificent testimony to humanity. But it is also desolate – there is no place on earth as desolate as what I was viewing in those first moments on the Lunar Surface.

Because I realized what I was looking at, towards the horizon and in every direction, had not changed in hundreds, thousands of years. Beyond me I could see the moon curving away – no atmosphere, black sky. Cold.

Colder than anyone could experience on Earth when the sun is up- but when the sun is up for 14 days, it gets very, very hot. No sign of life whatsoever.

That is desolate. More desolate than any place on Earth.

~ Buzz Aldrin, Apollo 11 and 2nd man to allegedly walk on the Moon.

Moon temperatures make it Impossible to be on the Moon, much less truck around on Moonbuggies, touch hotter than hell moon rocks and set up sensor equipment.

Yet everything, always worked great, we are told, even though man had never, ever experienced such temperatures on Earth. Radio communications, sensors, mobile devices, coolant systems, batteries, buggies, fuel, etc. no problem.

Due to no atmosphere the temperatures range each day on the sunny side ranged  from a – 387 F degrees to a plus 225 F.  The space suits, just millimeters thick and so flexible they creased, keep cooled, no worries mate, depsite having to carry gallons and gallons of water in their packs to run their inner A/C along with batteries, oxygen and human waste tubes and reservoirs.

(For how space suits were made that supposedly kept them in comfort, (see here)

“The thin atmosphere offers little thermal insulation, so temperatures can drop quickly at night, and rise quickly due to the sun’s radiation during the day.” ..with temps varying from – 225 to + 243 every single day and night”..”The thin atmosphere offers little thermal insulation, so temperatures can drop quickly at night, and rise quickly due to the sun’s radiation during the day. Powerful radiation from sunlight on one side of an object, and shadow on the other will create a large temperature gradient. A “thermal shock” can follow, where different parts of an object thermally expand by different amounts, leading to large potentially failure-inducing strains. The effect of thermal shock is more pronounced in brittle materials such as glass, ceramics or metals below the glass transition temperature (ductile-brittle transition temperature for metals)”.(The Lunar Sourcebook (Heiken, Vaniman, & French, 1991)

 

*****

“One Giant Blunder for Mankind, how NASA lost the moon pictures”,

… read the world news headlines in 2006. Just at the time digital imaging was taking apart the NASA photos, they went lost. (Source)

The missing tapes were among over 700 boxes of magnetic data tapes recorded throughout the Apollo program which have not been found.[14] On August 16, 2006 NASA announced its official search saying, “The original tapes may be at the Goddard Space Flight Center … or at another location within the NASA archiving system“, “NASA engineers are hopeful that when the tapes are found they can use today’s digital technology to provide a version of the moonwalk that is much better quality than what we have today.

At the bottom of this post are the debunker’s replies to many of the pictures many questions asked.

As you scroll down, see how many flaws you can point out and then see how it matches against the pro CGI (Computer Generated Image) specialists)

****

Many more dissections of NASA pictures can be found here.

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

Jack White
Jack White 1927-2012

Photographic specialist Jack White took time from his many commitments to help us investigate further into the Apollo photographic record.

Also, here is an excellent narrative and analysis of NASA photo’s and storyline.

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

 

***

“You gonna believe me or your lying eyes?” (Nasa)

 Apollo 11 live footage as well as all prints have come from NASA. Every single one. Here is a highly degreed professional explaining the obvious, and glaring, errors in the photo’s provided by NASA.  If one phot is faked, then all must be assumed to be faked.

In an attempt to disprove our own additional lighting hypothesis, the authors went to Quantec Image Processing-UK which tested a number of NASA photos from Apollo 11. Founder, David Groves:
PhD – BSc (Hons) Class I/Applied Physics.
PhD in Holographic Computer Measurement.
Chartered Physicist and a Member of the Insitute of Physics.

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

Another photo/image analysis…Image = Imagination

*****

A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images

University Kharkiv by OLEG OLEYNIK, Ph.D.c
Previously of the Department of Physics and Technology
Kharkov State University, Ukraine

 

AS15-87-11953
AS15-87-11793 (NASA Image)

Hadley: A Study in Fakery
by Professor Colin Rourke

******

So who has been behind NASA since it’s inception and creation in 1958 that was put under the Dept. of War, later named the Dept. of Defense…….would you believe NAZI rocketeers and scientists ?!?

 

Wernher von Braun.jpg
Braun at his desk at Marshall Space Flight Center in May 1964, with models of the Saturn rocket family

BornWernher Magnus Maximilian, Freiherr von Braun
March 23, 1912
Wirsitz, Posen Province, Prussia, German Empire
(modern Wyrzysk, Piła County, Poland)

Wernher Magnus Maximilian, Freiherr von Braun (March 23, 1912 – June 16, 1977) was a German and later American aerospace engineer and space architect. He was one of the leading figures in the development of rocket technology in Germany and the United States and is considered one of the “Fathers of Rocket Science“. He was also a member of the Nazi party and the SS, and was suspected of perpetrating war crimes during World War II.

In the late 1940’s through the 1960’s, the United States government brought known Nazi German scientists into the country illegally and quietly through Operations Paperclip (Source). Even the Presidents did not know about this operation until the 1960’s.

Some 3200 scientists were brought over in all an installed in U.S. military and corporate hierarchy. The Vatican provided the passport by establishing “ratlines” as the Nazi’s first journeyed to Argentina and then up to the United States. (Source)

Nazi Werhner Von Bruan was the “wunderkind” rocket builder who designed, built and then launched the deadly V1 and V2 “buzz bombs” that killed tens of thousands of allies in European during WWII.

He was then brought over to the U.S where he started when NASA was founded and ran NASA’s Saturn rocket program for 26 years straight. (Source).

NASA has released nearly ten thousand pictures from space. (source)  Most of the pictures from space exploration and moon landings were released after 1991.

 

****

Matthew Boylan, former NASA operational graphics manager, worked for years creating photo-realistic computer graphics for NASA. Now a vocal Flat-Earther, Boylan claims that NASA’s sole reason for existence is to propagandize the public and promote this false ball-Earth heliocentric worldview. Originally recruited because of his skills and reputation as a hyper-realist multi-media artist, he started doing projects like photoshopping various lighting and atmospheric effects onto images of Earth, the Moon, Jupiter, Europa, etc. Having proved himself, and wanting to promote him to do more classified work, a room of NASA higher-ups during a party, as a type of initiatory-rite, explained to him and a few others in detail the reality of the Geocentric Flat-Earth model and how they have fooled the entire world!

Refusing to be a part of their deception, Boylan cut his ties to NASA, began researching the Flat-Earth for himself, and has recently become a powerful voice on the lecture circuit and the internet exposing NASA and their heliocentric hoax. In his comedic lectures he speaks candidly and eloquently about how simple it is using nothing more than Adobe Photoshop and a video editor to create any and every type of image NASA purports to be “receiving from the Hubble telescope.”

He points out how in most ball-Earth videos lazy NASA graphics workers don’t even bother changing cloud structures in ordinary or time-lapse footage; the same shape, color and condition cloud cover often stays completely unchanged for 24 hour periods and longer! Boylan states unequivocally that every picture and video of the ball-Earth, all the Moon/Mars landings, the existence of orbiting satellites, space stations, and all Hubble images are hoaxed. He even quips anecdotes about how NASA officials and astro-nots privy to the Flat-Earth truth would laugh hysterically at the brain-washed zombie public who unquestioningly believe their televisions.

 

****

REMEMBER, IF ONE PICTURE IS PHOTOSHOPPED, THEY ARE ALL TO BE ASSUMED FALSE AS WELL

 

“ONE MALL STEP FOR MAN; ONE GIANT LEAP FOR MANKIND”

 

 Said to be the first footprint on the Moon by Neil Armstrong.

http://www.salagram.net/moonfootprint.jpg

Note the lack of impression, or depression. The heel and outside shadows prove the boot print is higher than the surface. The Moon’s surface has little atmosphere with no water so how does the shape even occur? ( Think of being on a beach, with water one gets a footprint but absent of water, just a rough outline.)

Yet now and clear impression and depression made into the Moon soil. Huh?
https://i0.wp.com/www.aulis.com/images_allen_bis/023.jpg
the One Footed “From Nowhere to Nowhere” NASA Image.
http://stellar-views.com/images/AS11-40-5880.jpg

Here we have impressions. If an astronot weighing 1/6th the weight on Earth can make that kind of impression, what kind of impression would a lunar landing module onto the surface create? Note how no impression by LM landing or even a spec of dust. hmmm.

Footprints under LM that should not be there

Now look at the shadows in the above NASA official picture. It is a physical impossibility for shadows from one source, the Sun, to go in two different directions. WTF?

Speaking of Shadows, this is the alleged 2nd Man to walk on the Moon, Buzz “Freemason” Aldrin. This photo was said to be taken by Armstrong when he got on the Moon.

Why is Buzz so well lit w/o shadow, even still partially inside LM, when all the rest of the Lunar Module is pitch black due to no atmosphere?

 

 

****

ISSUED FROM NASA

http://stellar-views.com/images/AS11_S-69-39011.jpg

What kind of impact would these 10 thousand pounds of thrust created to slow the LM of a Moon weight 9,000 pound vehicle, with all the batteries, fuel, astronots, etc. would have on a dusty, grainy, no water. gray moon surface?

AS11-40-5963

*****

The presence of astronauts’ boot prints in the lunar dust under the LM and in the neighbourhood is far more than strange. The exhaust speed relative to the descending LM reached almost 3000 m/s, so all the dust within many meters had to be blown away. Given the distance that the exhaust plume would have spread in the absence of an atmosphere, such a situation is only possible if the engine was shut off at a height of several hundred meters during the landing, raising legitimate concern for the lives and safety of the astronauts.

Breathtaking.

But reading the transcript of the radio communications between the LM and Mission Control relieves anxiety and allows us to breathe more easily. In the radio communications the astronauts wisely reported the engine picking up a little dust, which partly obstructed the line of view up to completion of descent manoeuvring. So, well done! They didn’t cut the engines off. But there was no time to exhale with relief.  Nevertheless, the very tricky question about the source of the dust under the LM still remains.

The dust couldn’t settle, because in the absence of air it doesn’t settle, but scatters or flies away into space, as on the surface of the Moon the escape velocity is just 1700 m/s. It remains to assume the unbelievable: that the Moon has an unknown physical law, in which the particles of lunar dust have some unthinkable property to be attracted to the place from which they were blown away. Then, even more surprising, there’s no dust in its rightful place on the landing pads which remained pristine – clearly seen in the second picture. In addition to the ever-evolving model of the world, we will have to put forward another hypothesis: particles of lunar dust do not settle at all on physical objects of alien origin. Such is Occam’s Razor.

****

WHERE DID THE STARS GO IN ALL NASA PICTURES?

(NOT A PIC FROM NASA)

the view from the Moon is not filtered through an atmosphere, so the stars have many times the luminosity as here on Earth. Even if a camera is stopped down to filter for direct sun, the blackness of space would still show the billions and billions of stars in space due to the lack of atmsphere, yet some astronots saw brilliant, amazing stars, and others saw None. hmmm

Twinkle twinkle little star….where the hell did you go billions and billions of little stars…” (NASA Image)

Simply, NASA could not CGI in stars because any amateur astronomer would immediately know, by the placement of stars in the sky, if the photo was real or made up.

*****

REPORTER I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect. And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?
ARMSTRONG We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don’t recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

Neil Armstrong is credited as the astronaut with the greatest interest in observing the heavens. He had flown jet fighters at 40,000 feet to observe the clarity of the universe at that rarefied altitude. Yet he man could not see billions of stars from the Moon surface even though their was no atmosphere to opaque the stars?

Wait Found ’em, just took a couple decades

www.nasa.gov 4288 × 2844  Search by image

Space shuttle Atlantis while still docked with the International Space Station

*****

“Outside my window I can see stars – and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon’s presence is defined solely by the absence of stars”.  Michael Collins, coming around from the Dark Side of the Moon in Apollo Command Module.

*****

And M.I.T. Doctorate, Buzz Aldrin had same problem finding billions of stars

I slowly allowed my eyes to drink in the unusual majesty of the moon. In its starkness and monochromatic hues, it was indeed beautiful. But it was a different sort of beauty than I had ever before seen. Magnificent, I thought, then said: “Magnificent desolation.”

It was a spontaneous utterance, an oxymoron that would take on ever-deeper dimensions of meaning in describing this strange, new environment. THEN, for the first time since stepping on the surface, I looked upward, above the LM.

It was not an easy thing to do in a pressurised suit, inflated as stiff as a football, with a gold sun visor jutting out from my helmet. But I managed to direct my view homeward, and there in the black, starless sky I could see our planet, no bigger than my thumb. (from autobiography, “Magnificent Desolation”)

****

“Wait Found ’em again!  It just took us a decade to capture the billions and billions of stars on our cameras.”

Starry Night; The space shuttle Endeavour—payload bay doors ajar—rushes past Earth while docked to the International Space Station on May 28, 2011.  Photograph courtesy NASA

*****

What Astronots should of seen and filmed while on the Moon.

*****

“Houston, it’s been a real change for us. Now we are able to see the stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. The sky is filled with stars, just like the nights out in Earth”   1st Man on the Moon ~ Neil Armstrong  (Rene, R. NASA Mooned America!, 1994)

*****

Dr Mitchell expounded to the large audience about how his life had been transformed by the voyage to the Moon on Apollo 14. Edgar explained that as the vehicle revolved to allow solar cooling: he was astounded by the alternating view of the Sun, the Earth and above all the incredible ‘heavenly’ view of the stars.

Dr Mitchell explained that the stars were ‘magnificent’, and described them as being ‘ten times brighter’ than when observed from Earth.  In fact he credited this vista with changing his life, as the euphoric effect led him to engage in the pursuit of, among other things, Eastern philosophic studies.

On 21 February 1969 Neil Armstrong visited, for the last time, the Moorhead Planetarium where he had trained eleven times previously, for a total of twenty days. This was for the purpose of perfecting his star navigation and observation techniques.  I described Armstrong as being a ‘dedicated astronomer’ to Dr Mitchell.

‘No he wasn’t!’ was his abrupt and venomous reply. The sixth Moon trekker and holder of an MIT doctorate in astronautics glowered at me, and mystifyingly refuted my historically-corroborated reference.  Determined not to give up, I repeated clearly, ‘Mr Armstrong stated that he couldn’t see stars!’.

This time Mitchell’s reply stunned the large audience – many whom were filming this exchange. ‘He [Neil Armstrong] didn’t know what he was talking about!’, Dr Mitchell exclaimed sharply.  Immediately I received a number of nodded acknowledgments from fellow audience members who obviously were taken aback by this vociferously dogmatic critique of Neil Armstrong’s historical testament.

Many of the audience would have been aware of Armstrong’s interview with Patrick Moore on the BBC’s The Sky at Night in 1970 in which he stated: ‘The sky is a deep black when viewed from the Moon as it is when viewed from Cislunar space (the space between the Earth and the Moon).

The Earth is the only visible object other than the Sun that can be seen – although there have been some reports of seeing planets. ‘I myself did not see planets from the surface, but I suspect they may be visible.’  Cislunar space was described by Edgar Mitchell as the place where the stars were ‘ten times brighter than if viewed from the Earth’.

Edgar Mitchell, Astronot, Sixth Man to allegedly walk on the moon. Apollo 14 (source)

*****

“Vostok II plunged with a rush into the inky blackness of the planet’s shadow, and as my eyes quickly adapted to the change I stared in wonder at the huge stars that glittered like diamonds”.  ~ Ghermin Titov, Cosmonot who orbited Earth 17 times.

 

*****

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-44-6642.jpg

Kathryn C. Thornton, Space Shuttle astronaut has orbited the Earth 256 times and travelled over six million miles. She logged a total of over 40 days in Cislunar space. In October 2011, I asked Kathryn if she could describe the stars from her four shuttle voyages. She stated that they were ‘brighter than if viewed from the Earth’ and, surprisingly, confirmed that she had never used a telescope or binoculars to aid her view of the stars from the shuttle windows. (Source)

*****

No Stars even in space?  Also note this pic against “Blue Marble” pic at top. The Earth is 4X larger than the Moon, we are told by NASA.  Think how big the Moon is at night when on our horizon. It should fill the screenshot here, yet is a tiny pea in the far distance. hmmm.

 

 *****

The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.

This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don’t appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid, however they fail to recognize the difference between “seeing” stars and “photographing” stars. The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts’ activities on the surface of the Moon.

Bill Kaysing claims that NASA has perpetrated the lie that stars cannot be seen in space to validate the lack of stars in the Apollo photos. This assertion is utterly ridiculous; in fact, NASA has released many photos in which stars are visible. Common among these are long-exposure nighttime photographs of aurora taken by space shuttle astronauts. This example [see photo] is a four-second exposure taken from the flight deck of the shuttle Endeavour.

(note the Endervour is on Earth w/ light pollution and under earths atmosphere )

*****

 

Remember, every single one of these pictures come directly from NASA Image

Did they use midgets on this moon walk?  (remember, every single of these photos is provided from NASA Image)

http://stellar-views.com/images/AS11-40-5902_v2.jpg

NASA has done something very odd, by the way, with the lunar module that it has on display for museum visitors to marvel at: it has staffed it with miniature astronauts wearing miniature space suits (the module may also be scaled slightly larger than the ‘real’ modules that allegedly landed on the Moon).  Did they pick up the ones they sent to the Moon at a used car lot?

******

in this official NASA Image we see the toys along with the Lunar Module.  Looks like the gold foil was just pealed back to expose the GO USA logo.  Also note the Moon Buggie which somehow fit inside the LM as well all the antenna’s, measurement devices, etc. that had to be installed one unloaded from LM in 200 F + temps.  (Note communication antenna on backpack)

Close up of LEM.  (NASA Image)

Gold tape, heavy crepe paper and gold foil.. Unflipping Real!

*****

Three Men on the Moon???

 

This is one of the most famous of all Moon astronot pictures. Apollo missions had three onboard. One stayed with the command module while two others allegedly went to the Moon surface. Look in the helmet reflection.

1) If the Sun was so strong, and coming from his left, the visors curve side towards the Sun would be glared.

2) The shading should be much darker on the right side of his suit. Look how bright the light is.

3) Yes, THREE, not two astronots in this photo. One, the photographer, two the guy in the visor background and three, astronot Buzz Aldrin. (look at the angle of the picture taken from photographer)

4) No stars in the background, yet no light pollution like on Earth to obfuscate the stars.

****

Where’d  Your Antenna go Buzz????

This picture is the best though! Look in HIS helmet and if you didn’t see two astronauts on the last photo, you will now. There’s the 2 men you see in the helmet + the one being photographed. That = 3 men on the moon at once. Also, note other secondary light coming from upper left.

Also note the standard issue Hasselbad camera chest mounted, yet they got such great pics, and the heat of the moon never caused it to malfunction. hmmm

*****

Arthur C. Clarke referred to Apollo 11 as a “Hole in History”.

Here is a study by analyst Jack White. He has studied this moon landing hoax more than anyone. Here, he puts it to the math test to show the impossibility of what NASA is asking us to believe. I visited several official NASA websites to find HOW MANY PHOTOS WERE TAKEN on the surface of the Moon. Amazingly, NASA AVOIDS THIS SUBJECT almost entirely. Two days of searching documents and text were fruitless. But Lunar Surface Journal, one of the sites, lists every photo with its file number. So I undertook to make an actual count of every photo taken by astronauts DURING EXTRA-VEHICULAR ACTIVITY (EVA), the time spent on the surface out of the LEM.

Here is my actual count of EVA photos of the six missions:

Apollo 11……….. 121 Apollo 12……….. 504 Apollo 14……….. 374 Apollo 15……….1021 Apollo 16……….1765 Apollo 17……….1986

So 12 astronauts while on the Moon’s surface took a TOTAL of 5771 exposures.

That seemed excessively large to me, considering that their TIME on the lunar surface was limited, and the astronauts had MANY OTHER TASKS OTHER THAN PHOTOGRAPHY. So I returned to the Lunar Surface Journal to find how much TIME was available to do all the scientific tasks AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHY. Unlike the number of photos, this information is readily available:

Apollo 11……..1 EVA …..2 hours, 31 minutes……(151 minutes) Apollo 12……..2 EVAs…..7 hours, 50 minutes……(470 minutes) Apollo 14……..2 EVAs…..9 hours, 25 minutes……(565 minutes) Apollo 15……..3 EVAs…18 hours, 30 minutes….(1110 minutes) Apollo 16……..3 EVAs…20 hours, 14 minutes….(1214 minutes) Apollo 17……..3 EVAs…22 hours, 04 minutes….(1324 minutes)

Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes. Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.

Hmmmmm. That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon, REGARDLESS OF OTHER ACTIVITIES. (That requires the taking of ONE PHOTO EVERY 50 SECONDS!) Let’s look at those other activities to see how much time should be deducted from available photo time:

Apollo 11….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment, operate the TV camera (360 degree pan), establish contact with Earth (including ceremonial talk with President Nixon), unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, find/document/collect 47.7 pounds of lunar rock samples, walk to various locations, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 12….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment (spend time trying to fix faulty TV camera), establish contact with Earth, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations, inspect the unmanned Surveyor 3 which had landed on the Moon in April 1967 and retrieve Surveyor parts. Deploy ALSEP package. Find/document/collect 75.7 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 14….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack and assemble hand cart to transport rocks, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations. Find/document/collect 94.4 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 15….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 17 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions). Find/document/collect 169 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph.)

 

Apollo 16….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 16 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions, including new ultraviolet camera, operate the UV camera). Find/document/collect 208.3 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph.)

Apollo 17….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 30.5 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages. Find/document/collect 243.1 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph.)

Let’s arbitrarily calculate a MINIMUM time for these tasks and subtract from available photo time:

Apollo 11…subtract 2 hours (120 mins), leaving 031 mins for taking photos Apollo 12…subtract 4 hours (240 mins), leaving 230 mins for taking photos Apollo 14…subtract 3 hours (180 mins), leaving 385 mins for taking photos Apollo 15…subtract 6 hours (360 mins), leaving 750 mins for taking photos Apollo 16…subtract 6 hours (360 mins), leaving 854 mins for taking photos Apollo 17…subtract 8 hours (480 mins), leaving 844 mins for taking photos

So do the math:

Apollo 11…..121 photos in 031 minutes……..3.90 photos per minute Apollo 12…..504 photos in 230 minutes……..2.19 photos per minute Apollo 14…..374 photos in 385 minutes……..0.97 photos per minute Apollo 15…1021 photos in 750 minutes……..1.36 photos per minute Apollo 16…1765 photos in 854 minutes …….2.06 photos per minute Apollo 17…1986 photos in 844 minutes …….2.35 photos per minute

Or, to put it more simply:

Apollo 11……..one photo every 15 seconds Apollo 12……..one photo every 27 seconds Apollo 14……..one photo every 62 seconds Apollo 15……..one photo every 44 seconds Apollo 16……..one photo every 29 seconds Apollo 17……..one photo every 26 seconds

So you decide. Given all the facts, was it possible to take that many photos in so short a time?

Any professional photographer will tell you it cannot be done. Virtually every photo was a different scene or in a different place, requiring travel. As much as 30 miles travel was required to reach some of the photo sites. Extra care had to be taken shooting some stereo pairs and panoramas. Each picture was taken without a viewfinder, using manual camera settings, with no automatic metering, while wearing a bulky spacesuit and stiff clumsy gloves.

The agency wants the world to believe that 5771 photographs were taken in 4834 minutes!

http://one-vibration.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2127676%3ABlogPost%3A700730&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_post#.VPjVTuGYQ4K

 

*****

Antenna?

This next picture is also a well know photograph called “Man on the Moon”. This picture is very mind boggling to me. In area (B), there is a shadow being cast over the astronauts space suit. Again, if the sun is the only light source and if there is no atmosphere on the moon, the shadow should be MUCH darker.

In the background labeled (C), you can plainly see that the farther back you look it fades darker and darker until finally it’s black. This happens on the Earth due to our atmospheric geography, but the moon has no atmosphere which means the horizon should not be faded but should be very sharp, distinct and crystal clear. Letter (D) shows something floating just above the moon’s surface

****

 

(Steven wasn’t the best of class early on but got a lot better at editing and CGI later in his career.)

*****

The official story told/sold in real time to billions in absolute awe and amazement in 1969.

First Moon Landing 1969

The video of the very first moon landing of the apollo 11 mission on July 21, 1969! Neil Armstrong was the first man to set foot on the moon with his now legenday words “One small step for man, a giant leap for mankind.”

The video feeds all came from three NASA owned satellites and beamed into the NASA control room in Houston. All TV stations were required to use the one NASA feed which increased the grainy, fuzzy picture. It was broadcast live and fed around the world. The world was in complete awe and amazement.

” While still on the steps, Armstrong deployed the Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly from the side of the Lunar Module. This housed, amongst other things, the TV camera. This meant that upward of 600 million people on Earth could watch the live feed.”

Who Shot the Picture?

This picture is from Wiki. It is included as the first step on the moon in his bio.  Note the the Sun locations versus the above video. Completely different. Where are any stars? Look how dark the machines shadows are, but Mr. Armstrong is defined.

A low-quality photo of a television monitor showing Armstrong on the lunar module's ladder

Who took the picture? NASA says they had a swing arm from the LEM, that’s some long arm.

Did they send and advance photo shoot team to ready for the historic, never happened before photo op? Pretty cool also that sun was just low enough, to make such dark shadows, except for Mr. Armstrong.  And the slope of that Moon! Did he fall backwards and fall down on his first step? Now that would be a conspiracy, wouldn’t it?

****

The previous picture is of Armstrong touching the Moon taken from the alleged swing arm camera he lowered down to take the famous shot. How come we can’t see the camera in any pictures such as this? This was taken by Armstrong and shows Buzz Aldrin climbing out and getting ready to climb down the ladder. Where’s the camera that just a minute or two prior, videoed Neil making his decent?  Also, from previous shots we know Buzz is in the shadows, yet the first moon photo shows the Sun on the opposite side.

 

*****

Maybe there were astro alien midgets on the Moon. At what level was the person who had to take this shot?   note how shadow at waist on astronot does not jive with shadow on flag or on arm.  no stars. flag is waving on no wind moon?  how close were the midgets to take this shot?

****

Image

A photographer simply added light to the NASA photo and got strange background images.

An observation on the above study by Peter Sault:

The angular size of the Moon viewed from the Earth is about half of one degree. Since the diameter of the Earth is about four times that of the Moon, the Earth viewed from the Moon should appear to be 4X as wide as the Moon viewed from Earth, or 2 degrees.

As it is, the pasted Earth appears to be about one-half the diameter of the Moon from Earth.

***

Checking Orbell’s information on Armstrong’s astronomical training I found the following on page 238:

The Apollo flights with their improved computer capabilities required  crew members to have a “good visual representation” to perform sextant sightings and navigational computations involving all thirty-six stars being used as the basis for NASA’s celestial navigational system.

 

*****

One of the most famous pictures ingrained in all minds of the world. Buzz Aldrin saluting the U.S. flag as U.S. claims the Moon for its own…is the official narrative.

Note: No stars. Flat landscape. Flag is waving but there isn’t wind of the Moon, NASA says. Look at the Flag and the shadow of the pole it DOESN’T make.

Sun is coming low (long shadows) and directly at the flag yet no shadow.  Also not how the background is always very poorly defined in NASA pictures.

With Flag Shadow now. Firm flag. Background dull and flat. U.S. flag can easily be seen on the dark side of the LEM. No stars.  Set looks like on a sandy beach and background is non descriptive even though v. high speed film had to be used, which would have large depth of field exposure.

 

https://iamtymaximus.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/14impossiblelighting.jpg

 

****

Water for cooling the cabin, oxygen for air and fuel to launch back into space all had to be included in the tiny lower base that stayed on the moon.

The No Ignition, No Dust Rapid LEM Takeoff from Moon

First, how did this thing fly???.  There is no external output of energy. No flame, no blast from the exhaust nozzle. Look again at the above picture of how friggin’ big that thing was. Yet no visual from official sources. And never, ever a glimmer of a star in the blackness of outer space with no light pollution.

****

 

Apollo earth composite revealed 2

 

****

The Layered Cross-hairs

Sibrel Crosshair

The cameras used by astronauts during the moon landings had a multitude of cross-hairs to aid with scaling and direction. These are imprinted over the top of all photographs. Some of the images, however, clearly show the cross-hairs behind objects in the scene, implying that photographs may have been edited or doctored after being taken. The photograph shown above is not an isolated occurrence. Many objects are shown to be in front of the cross-hairs, including the American flag in one picture and the lunar rover in another.

 

****

“Outside my window I can see stars – and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon’s presence is defined solely by the absence of stars”.  Michael Collins, coming around from the Dark Side of the Moon.

 

Stage light reflection from studio camera. look at tiny window that Neil and Buzz used to steer over a crater onto moon landing!

 

****

The Unexplained Object

Moon Stuff012

After photographs of the moon landings were released, theorists were quick to notice a mysterious object (shown above) in the reflection of an astronaut’s helmet from the Apollo 12 mission. The object appears to be hanging from a rope or wire and has no reason to be there at all, leading some to suggest it is an overhead spotlight typically found in film studios.

The resemblance is questionable, given the poor quality of the photograph, but the mystery remains as to why something is being suspended in mid-air (or rather lack of air) on the moon. The lunar module in other photos appears to have no extension from it that matches the photo, so the object still remains totally unexplained.

 

 

****

Multiple Light Sources
 Moonlightingdiscrepancy1

 

On the moon there is only one strong light source: the Sun. So it’s fair to suggest that all shadows should run parallel to one another. But this was not the case during the moon landing: videos and photographs clearly show that shadows fall in different directions.

****

Check out the cable wires running down the right side  of this picture
Cable wire along lower left of picture. No stars. horizontal plane. No Flag shadow. Flag is crumpled.

 

****

All Photos presented are from Official NASA sources.

If one photo is a lie. they all must be considered fakes.

https://i1.wp.com/www.aulis.com/images_allen_bis/064.jpg

Magically, this moon buggy creates no tire tracks. (NASA Image)

https://i2.wp.com/www.nasa.gov/images/content/337381main_apollo_image_17_1024-768.jpg

The Moonbuggy leaves depressions even though the Moon has not moisture to create impressions.

Image

 

Image

No stars. You can also see the line where the foreground and flat background where seemed.  Maybe DARPA’s photoshopping wasn’t that as developed.  Yet there must of been great pressure on these guys to get out the thousands and thousands of photos said to have been taken.  Another mystery is how the astronots had the time to take so thousands of photos when most moon walks were under and hour.

 

Moon buggies were used on Apollo 15-17. Impossible for any vehicle to make a straight right angle turn. Also look at shadows on measurement device and rocks. They clearly are going in different directions.

 

*****

“anyone seen my communication antenna?  I had it a minute ago. Geez…”

How did this machine get there?, depth focus dissapates too quickly. look at extendo sampler arm..

no stars. no moon buggy or tracks.

****

Image

****

The Duplicate Backdrop

Aulishite-1
The two photos from the Apollo 15 mission shown above clearly have identical backdrops, despite being officially listed by NASA as having been taken miles apart. One photo even shows the lunar module. When all photographs were taken the module had already landed, so how can it possibly be there for one photo and disappear in another? Well, if you’re a hardcore conspiracy theorist, it may seem viable that NASA simply used the same backdrop when filming different scenes of their moon landing videos.

NASA has suggested that since the moon is much smaller than Earth, horizons can appear significantly closer to the human eye. Despite this, to say that the two hills visible in the photographs are miles apart is incontrovertibly false.

****

Below is a NASA-approved image of the rover folded up and ready to pack into its assigned equipment bay, along with a photo of the folded rover allegedly stowed away on a LEM that has clearly seen better days. And here is a brief video clip of the deployment of the folded rover being demonstrated, presumably at the manufacturing plant.

As can be clearly seen, particularly in the video clip, the rover, as initially deployed, was far from complete. It seems to be missing such things as a floor pan, and seats, and cameras, and antennae, and battery packs, and various other components – which raises a few questions, such as where were all the other rover parts stowed? How many empty equipment bays were available to accommodate all the various rover components? And how long exactly did it take the astronauts, given the limitations imposed by their suits and gloves, to deploy and fully assemble a Moon buggy?

GM’s crafty R&D team, led by project manager Sam Romano and chief engineer Ferenc Pavlics, supposedly came up with the innovative folding rover concept in less than a month, and, in July of 1969, as Armstrong and Aldrin were allegedly taking man’s first steps on the Moon, GM was awarded the contract to design and build the rovers. GM quickly teamed with Boeing and got to work, with two significant challenges to overcome – the rover must fit into the assigned bay, and the total weight was to be kept to a maximum of 400 pounds. Also, the team had to move from concept drawings to mission-ready rover in just 17 months.

As with all other aspects of the Apollo program, those lofty goals proved surprisingly easy to achieve. By early 1971, GM and Boeing had already delivered their first mission-ready rover to NASA for final testing and approval. On July 31, 1971, just two years after the contract had been awarded, what remains to this day the only manned vehicle to allegedly land on an extraterrestrial body began kicking up Moon dust.

The finished product looked not unlike an Earth-based dune buggy, albeit with the unique ability to neatly fold away. The vehicle featured simultaneous front and rear steering and steel-mesh tires mounted on wheels that were each driven by their own separate motors. Power was supposedly provided by an array of batteries mounted on the front end of the rover.

 

 

Whole lot of instruments to be working so well in so much hear and sun intensity.

(Just think how long it would take to unpack and assemble this in 150 degree temps in big bulky space suits,)
Weight and payload
The Lunar Roving Vehicle had a weight of 463 lbs and was designed to hold a payload of an additional 1,080 lbs on the lunar surface. The frame was 10 feet long with a wheelbase of 7.5 feet. The maximum height was 3.75 feet. The frame was made of aluminum alloy 2219 tubing welded assemblies and consisted of a 3 part chassis which was hinged in the center so it could be folded up and hung in the Lunar Module quad 1 bay. It had two side-by-side foldable seats made of tubular aluminum with nylon webbing and aluminum floor panels. An armrest was mounted between the seats, and each seat had adjustable footrests and a velcro seatbelt. A large mesh dish antenna was mounted on a mast on the front center of the rover. The suspension consisted of a double horizontal wishbone with upper and lower torsion bars and a damper unit between the chassis and upper wishbone. Fully loaded the LRV had a ground clearance of 14 inches.

“Deployment of the LRV from the LM quad 1 by the astronauts was achieved with a system of pulleys and braked reels using ropes and cloth tapes. The rover was folded and stored in quad 1 with the underside of the chassis facing out. One astronaut would climb the egress ladder on the LM and release the rover, which would then be slowly tilted out by the second astronaut on the ground through the use of reels and tapes. As the rover was let down from the bay most of the deployment was automatic. The rear wheels folded out and locked in place and when they touched the ground the front of the rover could be unfolded, the wheels deployed, and the entire frame let down to the surface by pulleys.

The rover components locked into place upon opening. Cabling, pins and tripods would then be removed and the seats and footrests raised. After switching on all the electronics the vehicle was ready to back away from the LM.”



https://i0.wp.com/www.aulis.com/jackimages/17roverchanges.jpg

 

************************************

You made it down this far, so enjoy some humor ….

Ha Ha Ha Ha….Ha

CGI animators having a little break from their reality.

BEANS!

 

***

 

Sources:

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=59&start=60

http://listverse.com/2012/12/28/10-reasons-the-moon-landings-could-be-a-hoax/

 

***

The Apollo astronauts used what was, at the time, a special transparency film produced by Eastman Kodak under a NASA contract. The photosensitive emulsions layers where placed on an ESTAR polyester film base, which had previously been used primarily for motion picture film. The melting point of Estar is 490° F, although some shrinkage and distortion can occur at around 200° F. Fortunately the film was never exposed to this kind of temperature. The cameras were protected inside a special case designed to keep them cool. The situation on the airless Moon is much different than in your oven, for instance. Without convection or conduction, the only method of heat transfer is radiation. Radiative heat can be effectively directed away from an object by wrapping it in a material with a reflective surface, usually simply a white material. The camera casings, as well as most of the astronauts’ clothing, were indeed white.

The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.

This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don’t appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid, however they fail to recognize the difference between “seeing” stars and “photographing” stars. The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts’ activities on the surface of the Moon.

 

Da Bunkers blogroll

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

http://www.clavius.org/

DID WE LAND ON THE MOON?A Debunking of the Moon Hoax Theory

 

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

On February 15, 2001 the FOX television network aired a program titled Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On The Moon? This program showed alleged evidence that NASA faked the moon landings. This hoax theory has been around for several years, but this is the first time it has been presented to such a wide audience. Since this Website, Rocket and Space Technology, is dedicated to the men and women who brought the moon landings to fruition, I feel the time is right for me to speak out on this topic.

This TV program capitalizes on America’s fixation with government conspiracies by sensationalizing the notion that NASA perpetrated a multi-billion dollar hoax on the world. In my opinion, the FOX network acted irresponsibly by airing this program. What they produced is a TV show filled with sloppy research, scientific inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. To support such an absurd theory and to cast doubt in the minds of the American public is an insult to the courage of the astronauts and the brilliance of the engineers who worked to achieve mankind’s greatest technological feat. FOX is apparently only concerned with ratings while exhibiting total disregard for the integrity of America’s true heroes.

Some of the most prominent advocates of the hoax theory are Bill Kaysing, author of We Never Went To The Moon, Ralph Rene, author of NASA Mooned America, David Percy and Mary Bennett, co-authors of Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle Blowers and, more recently, Bart Sibrel, producer of A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon. These people, and other hoax advocates, usually point to alleged anomalies in the Apollo photo and video record as evidence of their claims. The FOX program featured many of these claims while providing very little refuting evidence or testimony. Below are my comments refuting both the evidence presented in the TV program and many other common hoax allegations. I invite you to draw your own conclusions, but I suspect you will find the facts speak for themselves.

The likelihood of success was calculated to be so small that it is inconceivable the moon landings could have actually taken place.

Bill Kaysing has claimed that the chance of a successful landing on the moon was calculated to be 0.0017% (1 in 60,000). The source of this information appears to be a report prepared by the Rocketdyne company in the late 1950s. This assessment was, of course, based on understanding and technology existing at the time of the report. As tremendous resources were poured into the problem over the next decade, the reliability studies improved dramatically.

During the mid-1960s the Apollo Support Department of the General Electric Company in Florida conducted extensive mission reliability studies for NASA. These studies were based on very elaborate reliability models of all of the systems. A reliability profile over the course of a mission was generated by computer simulation, and a large number of such simulations were carried out for different scenarios. Based on those studies, the probability of landing on the moon and returning safely to earth never dropped below 90%.

Every Apollo mission before number 11 was plagued by about 20,000 defects apiece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn’t one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions.

This is the claim of hoax advocate Ralph Rene. Although I am unfamiliar with the source of this information, Mr. Rene’s assertion is clear; the early missions had so many insurmountable problems that NASA decided to abandon the moon landings and fake it. Even if the data is accurate, there is a big difference between a “defect” and a “major technical problem”. None of the Apollo missions, with the exception of number 13, experienced a major technical problem that prohibited the crews from successfully completing their missions. Also, the early Apollo flights were test missions designed specifically to shake out bugs in the hardware and procedures. Finally, the moon landings were far from flawless. There were numerous technical problems but, thanks to the skill of the flight controllers, engineers and astronauts, the problems were either corrected or circumvented such that the crews were able to complete their missions with amazing success.

The poor video quality of the first moon landings was a deliberate ploy so nobody could properly examine it. ……………

…………

One would logically assume, by the way, that the LEMs would have been kept safely tucked away within the mother ship until lunar orbit was achieved. But according to NASA, that’s not the case. The official legend holds that the lunar modules were deployed shortly after leaving Earth orbit, about three hours after blasting off, and that they then docked in a nose-to-nose configuration with the command and service modules while both spacecraft were flying through the vacuum of space at either 17,000 or 25,000 miles per hour, depending on the source.

 

 

In other words, for virtually the entire 234,000-mile journey from the Earth to the Moon, that flimsily constructed lunar module essentially served as the front bumper of the mother ship. Other than to allow for the creation of the “little engine that could” fable surrounding Apollo 13, which holds that the conjoined spaceships flipped over and the front bumper became the engine, it makes little sense why that would have been done. Not only would it have exposed the fragile lunar modules to the hazards of a lengthy space flight, it would also have required a docking maneuver in outer space (one that seems to go unmentioned in the majority of the Apollo literature).

 

Amazingly enough, not only were the lunar modules capable of making soft manned landings on the Moon, and of blasting off from the surface of the Moon, and of rendezvousing and docking with the mother ship while in lunar orbit, but they were also capable of docking with the mother ship while cruising from the Earth to the Moon! By my count, those spunky little modules had to dock no fewer than seventeen times during the various Apollo missions, and they performed perfectly every time (twice in Earth orbit on the Apollo 9 mission, and twice on each of the Apollo 10-17 missions, except for Apollo 13, which did not complete the second docking maneuver).

 

Let’s pause here for a brief moment to reflect on the alleged plight of the unlucky Apollo 13 crew. There were no seats in the LEM as it had been decided that they would just add unnecessary weight. And there is just barely room for two guys in the space allegedly being occupied by three. All three, had this have been a real life-and-death situation, would have been wearing bulky spacesuits, boots, gloves and helmets. Somehow, they had to coexist for four days. During that time, all that would have separated them from the extreme hazards of ou

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 1960s technology at its finest.

 

******

68 thoughts on “Moon Hoax Images

  1. mizael July 24, 2015 at 9:37 pm Reply

    Im glad I read it all! thanks for opening my mind!

    Like

    • jwlpeace July 25, 2015 at 5:08 pm Reply

      thank you for the acknowledgement…pass it on.

      Like

  2. Dr. Eowyn July 29, 2015 at 6:35 pm Reply

    Fascinating and very thorough analysis. I find the absence of stars, inconsistent shadows, and the lack of moonbuggy track prints (vs. astronuats’ footprints) to be especially compelling.

    Questions:

    1. Have you looked into the Russian (formerly Soviet) and Chinese space programs? China claims they made unmanned landings on the Moon in 1976 and 2013, and plans to send man to the Moon by 2025. Assuming the Chinese took pics during those unmanned landings, have you seen them?

    2. If the U.S. moon landings are fake, why didn’t the Soviet Union and now China expose the fakery?

    3. Has anyone asked astronaut Michael Collins what he meant by “Outside my window I can see stars – and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon’s presence is defined solely by the absence of stars”.

    Thank you!

    Like

    • pekka virtanen February 14, 2016 at 4:57 pm Reply

      2. If the U.S. moon landings are fake, why didn’t the Soviet Union and now China expose the fakery?
      They fake too and nasa know it (they all know).
      We have to wait orion results, if new thick shield is good then they go on, if not then orion program stops?

      Like

  3. Dr. Eowyn July 29, 2015 at 10:07 pm Reply

    What about the moon rocks brought back by the Apollo missions? Have they been analyzed independent of NASA?

    Like

  4. Negdog September 10, 2015 at 3:11 am Reply

    Awesome write up!

    Like

  5. TONY PEART November 29, 2015 at 9:21 am Reply

    Congratulations on an excellent article and web site. For 10 years I have been studying landscape geomancy …time to look again….keep up the good work!….tony(templarmechanics)

    Like

  6. John January 4, 2016 at 12:27 pm Reply

    Did you cite Dave McGowen? Looks like you pulled from many other sites like “Wagging the Moondoggie”

    Like

    • jwlpeace January 4, 2016 at 3:52 pm Reply

      If I did not, I will. Did you read he just passed of cancer, likely “suicided” for his fine work?

      Like

  7. Jack2500 January 21, 2016 at 3:32 pm Reply

    The flag has a stick threaded through the top. I guess to keep supposed gravity from pulling it down. Also, how did they make it through the Van Allen belts?

    Like

  8. pekka virtanen February 14, 2016 at 4:45 pm Reply

    rear mudguard lower parts dirty, its not possible in vacuum.This is only pic. where it is dirty?
    ( pic upper : Moon buggies were used on Apollo 15-17. Impossible for any vehicle to make a straight right angle turn. . )

    Like

  9. Bearpoop February 25, 2016 at 6:58 pm Reply

    OMG this is funny stuff. A complete lack of understanding of math, navigation, photography and lighting. Stars are ALWAYS there. You in orbit or on the Moon you can take a picture of one or the other but NOT both at the sometime.

    As for the detail not being clear for the Moon and detailed for Earth on the Earth Rise photo, it is called depth of field; photography 101.

    As for the curve of the Moon in the photo. The average alt was 59 miles above the Moon’s surface. At that alt the curve is not noticed. That and framing the picture to get the shot.

    What it comes down to is if it was faked they sure didn’t do a good job of faking it if all your “proofs” were real.

    ALL and I mean ALL of your evidence has been taken to task and proved to just so much BS. There is not one plausible pice of evidence that supports the Space Program being fake. It would mean that every Physicist, and Engineer is in on it. And for what? the big WHY? There is no power, no money, NOTHING for anyone to gain this lie.

    You remind me of a response I got once on another subject; “I don’t care what the science or math says, I only know what I believe.” He like you are a lost cause. HOWEVER, you are entertaining and a source of material for Scifi stories.

    Like

    • jwlpeace February 25, 2016 at 11:11 pm Reply

      DUDE! Quit pooping on this site please! MILES X MILES X INCHES = the number of inches on a radius or ball Earth. If the longest rivers follow the curve of the Earth and some, like the Nile, having over one thousand miles of just 12 feet elevation change, when BASIC MATH says it should be a 3/4 mile drop/rise to account for the globe, yet does not?
      Simple Math, Einstein. Simple math.

      Now go poop elsewhere. thanx.

      Like

    • GaiaGrows July 20, 2016 at 10:47 pm Reply

      Only all the finances earmarked for space exploration…not cheap to go to the moon???

      Like

  10. Jason March 1, 2016 at 10:00 pm Reply

    Just want to point out a few questions people should ponder before jumping on believing all these claims.

    1 – When you walk outside during the day and look up into the sky, how many stars can you see during daylight? Why would this be any different on the moon?

    2 – With the boot prints on the moon that this web site claimed where RAISED above the surface and not indented into the surface – please look at those photos carefully, it CLEARLY shows that the print is INDENTED/IMPRESSION. The shadow is cast over part of the heel of the boot print and if you look at the part that is clearly in light, you can see the indent/impression directly.

    3 – Dark side of the moon that the astronaut reported was completely black and the moon could not be seen, just all the stars and where the stars where blocked out was how he knew where the moon was – What are you missing when you read this? It gives you ALL the information to know exactly what is going on.
    A – DARK side of the moon – it has NO light from the sun because the moon is directly between the space craft (where they are making the observation from) and the sun. The moon REFLECTS the suns light, that is why it is able to be seen. When the space craft entered into the DARK side of the moon, there is NO sunlight to reflect off the moons surface so its just pitch black. It can still be seen in silhouette against the back drop of all the stars in the universe though, exactly as they described it.
    When they orbited back around into the DAYLIGHT side, they once again are able to observe the moons reflects the SUNLIGHT from the sun once again.
    Go check this out right here on earth one night when there is no moon at night and go out into a country area and see how dark the earth gets when there is no sunlight.

    4 – Multiple light sources – Go outside during the day and what light do you see? …. The Sunlight. Go outside during the night and what light do you see? …… The moonlight.
    So, the sun gives off ALL the light and we either see that light directly during the day hours (Sunlight) or indirectly reflected off the moon at night (moonlight).
    But when you are position on the MOON, your PERSPECTIVE changes because your POSITION has changed. If your standing on the moon, you don’t see moonlight. When your on the day side of the moon, it is in SUNLIGHT (1st light source for the shadows), and there is also light reflected off the EARTHS surface when the earth is in sunlight (2nd light source for the shadows). So these 2 light sources for the moon end up casting multiple shadows if you are standing on the moon (just like in the photos).

    I’ll leave commenting on the rest because I don’t want to spend that much time highlighting everything else you should be checking up on the claims being made here on this site but there is a lot of errors on this site and you should all do your own due diligence.

    I’ll leave with a quote that was a statement made on this site:
    “If one photo is a lie. they all must be considered fakes.”

    Does the same go for dodgy claims that have been made on this site also?
    If 1 claim is a lie, they all must be considered fakes…….

    Personally, in both cases I think jumping to such a conclusion and dismissing everything because of some things would be a little overkill…… But each to their own I guess, maybe if its good for one, it should also be good for the other….

    Like

    • jwlpeace March 1, 2016 at 11:05 pm Reply

      First, thank you for at least your consideration and the last point first, my background is a Wall St. researcher for 25 years who “did it my way” and developed my own theories, etc. so to imply I’m “jumping to conclusions” is a false premise to start with. I’ve spent the past 1 1/2 yrs., several hours a day reading, studying, thinking, experimenting.

      Next, If 1 picture of NASA is fake then all must be considered fake and NASA, in reaction to calling them out, has now had to admit that ALL pics of Earth have been CGI. So all pictures of Earth are Photoshopped.

      1 – When you walk outside during the day and look up into the sky, how many stars can you see during daylight? Why would this be any different on the moon?

      UH, Earth = Atmosphere, Moon/Space Vacuum. Completely different, according to Not A Space Agency. Also, Google all the asto-nots who said they navigated by the stars, and saw “billions and billions of stars” like Edgar Mitchel claimed in his video, as well as them also saying they used sextants to guide them. Also, do you see any pics with people in sunlight on Earth yet a dark sky above. NOPE

      2 – With the boot prints on the moon that this web site claimed where RAISED above the surface and not indented into the surface – please look at those photos carefully, it CLEARLY shows that the print is INDENTED/IMPRESSION. The shadow is cast over part of the heel of the boot print and if you look at the part that is clearly in light, you can see the indent/impression directly.

      I agree, it could be an optical illusion, yet come on, all the other 6,000 + faked photos and the lack of shadows, blurred backgrounds, no wheel tracks, hundreds of degree heat, not big hole on landing site, etc. etc.

      3 – Dark side of the moon that the astronaut reported was completely black and the moon could not be seen, just all the stars and where the stars where blocked out was how he knew where the moon was – What are you missing when you read this? It gives you ALL the information to know exactly what is going on.

      Dark Side? How doe we never see the backside if the Moon is rotating at 10.3 mph. What dark side. What are you talking about? it’s a luminous disk that you can see stars through with a telescope. (see link in my blog) Also the moonlight on earth is COLDER in the direct light than in the shade. How is this possible if it is a reflection of the Sunlight?

      A – DARK side of the moon – it has NO light from the sun because the moon is directly between the space craft (where they are making the observation from) and the sun. The moon REFLECTS the suns light, that is why it is able to be seen. When the space craft entered into the DARK side of the moon, there is NO sunlight to reflect off the moons surface so its just pitch black. It can still be seen in silhouette against the back drop of all the stars in the universe though, exactly as they described it.
      When they orbited back around into the DAYLIGHT side, they once again are able to observe the moons reflects the SUNLIGHT from the sun once again.
      Go check this out right here on earth one night when there is no moon at night and go out into a country area and see how dark the earth gets when there is no sunlight.

      So, the Moon is gray and dusty and round? So, the Sun is Warm and Golden 93 million miles away. 1) Gray is one of the least reflective surfaces. 2) If the Moon is round, why is there not a hot spot and how does it spread light evenly? 3) How can the Moonlight be warmer in the shade than in direct moonlight? Makes no sense

      4 – Multiple light sources – Go outside during the day and what light do you see? …. The Sunlight. Go outside during the night and what light do you see? …… The moonlight.
      So, the sun gives off ALL the light and we either see that light directly during the day hours (Sunlight) or indirectly reflected off the moon at night (moonlight).

      Multiple light sources, WTF? How the heck could an Astro-not stand on the Moon in 245 degree heat absorbing the intensity of the Sun, that is so powerful it can then reflect 238,000 miles all the way to EArth, yet not scorch the Astro-not or fry his retinas? Makes no sense.

      Bonus questions
      Why do we still to this day call it a Sunrise and Sunset if this is completely wrong terminology and what should the proper language be if Earth goes 533 MILLION MILES around the Sun each year, yet stars stay fixed and we don’t feel a thing? (and do call it a colloquialism plz.)

      Like

      • Jason March 2, 2016 at 3:40 pm

        ————— jwlpeace – “First, thank you for at least your consideration and the last point first, my background is a Wall St. researcher for 25 years who “did it my way” and developed my own theories, etc. so to imply I’m “jumping to conclusions” is a false premise to start with. I’ve spent the past 1 1/2 yrs., several hours a day reading, studying, thinking, experimenting.

        Next, If 1 picture of NASA is fake then all must be considered fake and NASA, in reaction to calling them out, has now had to admit that ALL pics of Earth have been CGI. So all pictures of Earth are Photoshopped.”

        Please link me to where NASA said this? I see it ALL the time from “flat earthers” but not once has it ever been qualified with the actual documentary evidence that shows them saying this.
        What I will say in the meantime while waiting for a link to back up these claims, is do you (“flat earthers” in general) know what a composite photo actually is?? ANY photo today is classed as a composite photo because they are all digitized. The photos you take with your camera, your phone or anything else are all composite images. This in itself does not make the photos you take with your phone or camera “fake”, its just describing the technology that is being used to take the photo.

        1 – When you walk outside during the day and look up into the sky, how many stars can you see during daylight? Why would this be any different on the moon?

        —————- jwlpeace – “UH, Earth = Atmosphere, Moon/Space Vacuum. Completely different, according to Not A Space Agency. Also, Google all the asto-nots who said they navigated by the stars, and saw “billions and billions of stars” like Edgar Mitchel claimed in his video, as well as them also saying they used sextants to guide them. Also, do you see any pics with people in sunlight on Earth yet a dark sky above. NOPE”

        For a “Wall St. researcher” you sure like to jump to conclusions. The atmosphere refracts light. But it is the actual light that washes out our vision to see objects past the bright light. The human eye shuts down and limits the light exposure when it is facing into a direct bright light. You can test this yourself at home by getting a friend to hold a bright flashlight in-front of your eyes and trying to look past it or stand in-front of a cars headlights while they are on and try to look into or past the car. Everything is washed out and your eyes only see the bright light.
        Getting back to the atmosphere and the bright light of the sun. This light is actually LESS bright when we view it on the earth BECAUSE of the atmospheric refraction. The atmosphere is made up of water, pollution, dust and so on and all these things bend the light-wave as it passes through them. There is also some reflection of light-waves in this same process.
        On the moon however, (as you pointed out), there is nearly no atmosphere so there is no refraction of the suns light-waves before it hits the person observing if standing on the moon. The sunlight observed from the moon will be unfiltered and unchanged but on Earth, the atmosphere filters, changes, reflects sunlight.
        So not only is the sunlight brighter when observing it from on the moon, it also shuts down the human eyes ability to see past the bright light even further because it is brighter then what is experienced on earth.

        2 – With the boot prints on the moon that this web site claimed where RAISED above the surface and not indented into the surface – please look at those photos carefully, it CLEARLY shows that the print is INDENTED/IMPRESSION. The shadow is cast over part of the heel of the boot print and if you look at the part that is clearly in light, you can see the indent/impression directly.

        ——————– jwlpeace – “I agree, it could be an optical illusion, yet come on, all the other 6,000 + faked photos and the lack of shadows, blurred backgrounds, no wheel tracks, hundreds of degree heat, not big hole on landing site, etc. etc. ”

        It is a optical illusion and not even a very good one at that if you actually look at the photo for more then a glance.
        The lack of shadows or double shadows are caused by the earth reflecting light if observed from the moon, the same way that the moon reflects light if observed from the earth. I can understand why people are freaked out about this one because on the earth there is only ever the sun or the moon light and we always only get 1 shadow formed. But if you check the math and plot where the earth and the sun where in relation to the moon in those photos, the lack of shadows and double shadows are accounted for.
        The no wheel tracks photos all either have part of the vehicle out of shot meaning it could very well have been driven and parked from that direction and if you look carefully, there are always boot prints in-between the 2 wheels where it would be normal to dismount/remount and it has scuffed all the dust around. On the other photos, you can clearly see boot prints around where the tire marks “should” be on the ground and this would also cover over all the tire marks just as it does here on earth. There are clearly tire marks over open ground where they have not been out and about walking around the vehicle.

        3 – Dark side of the moon that the astronaut reported was completely black and the moon could not be seen, just all the stars and where the stars where blocked out was how he knew where the moon was – What are you missing when you read this? It gives you ALL the information to know exactly what is going on.

        —————— jwlpeace – “Dark Side? How doe we never see the backside if the Moon is rotating at 10.3 mph. What dark side. What are you talking about? it’s a luminous disk that you can see stars through with a telescope. (see link in my blog) Also the moonlight on earth is COLDER in the direct light than in the shade. How is this possible if it is a reflection of the Sunlight? ”

        Please re-read my first comment. This was in relation to the astronaut who made the observation when they passed around the moon in orbit after THEY passed into the dark side of the moon. The comment you quoted in this site said –
        “Outside my window I can see stars – and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon’s presence is defined solely by the absence of stars”. Michael Collins, coming around from the Dark Side of the Moon in Apollo Command Module.”

        Then this is my answer to that point and why it is not abnormal when making a observation from BEHIND the moon and the MOON is blocking the sun completely from your observation. Reflection REQUIRES a light source.

        A – DARK side of the moon – it has NO light from the sun because the moon is directly between the space craft (where they are making the observation from) and the sun. The moon REFLECTS the suns light, that is why it is able to be seen. When the space craft entered into the DARK side of the moon, there is NO sunlight to reflect off the moons surface so its just pitch black. It can still be seen in silhouette against the back drop of all the stars in the universe though, exactly as they described it.
        When they orbited back around into the DAYLIGHT side, they once again are able to observe the moons reflects the SUNLIGHT from the sun once again.
        Go check this out right here on earth one night when there is no moon at night and go out into a country area and see how dark the earth gets when there is no sunlight.

        ——————— jwlpeace – “So, the Moon is gray and dusty and round? So, the Sun is Warm and Golden 93 million miles away. 1) Gray is one of the least reflective surfaces. 2) If the Moon is round, why is there not a hot spot and how does it spread light evenly? 3) How can the Moonlight be warmer in the shade than in direct moonlight? Makes no sense”

        What does color have to do with it? The ONLY thing that matters is LIGHT illuminating it. Go for a walk anywhere on earth. Do you see dark greens in trees in day time? Do you see all color of rocks in the day time, do you see pinks, purples, reds, oranges, in fact are you able to see ALL colors in day time? Of course you can. Now, go and check those things out again at night time with no light and what do you see? Not much if anything and you certainly can’t wake out the same pallet of colors neither are they vibrant and rich in color.

        4 – Multiple light sources – Go outside during the day and what light do you see? …. The Sunlight. Go outside during the night and what light do you see? …… The moonlight.
        So, the sun gives off ALL the light and we either see that light directly during the day hours (Sunlight) or indirectly reflected off the moon at night (moonlight).

        —————– jwlpeace – “Multiple light sources, WTF? How the heck could an Astro-not stand on the Moon in 245 degree heat absorbing the intensity of the Sun, that is so powerful it can then reflect 238,000 miles all the way to EArth, yet not scorch the Astro-not or fry his retinas? Makes no sense.”

        Have you ever visited a power station? Coal fired power-station have big boilers in them where the coal dust is injected and a massive furnace burns to super-heat water in all the pipes making steam to turn turbines. These furnaces get REALLY REALLY hot and its also expensive to have them off line to repair. When they do go down from repair, people have to go in while they are still hot and they wear protective clothing to do so. (Have a family member who does this work and gets paid damn well for it).
        Same thing happens with places dealing with radioactive materials or waste, they have to have special protective clothing to protect from the radiation and heat.
        Have personally used eye protection that is rated to stand and look into a 1400 deg C furnace of melted metal from 3 feet away, the shielding worked fine and my eye sight is fine. That wasn’t even a very good eye shield or a high rating one for the industrial sector and it comes no where near the specifications of what is provided for astronauts.
        All the technology already exists and is in use right here on earth. So 300 degs and some radiation in space is nothing that is not already being dealt with right here on earth.

        ————– jwlpeace “Bonus questions
        Why do we still to this day call it a Sunrise and Sunset if this is completely wrong terminology and what should the proper language be if Earth goes 533 MILLION MILES around the Sun each year, yet stars stay fixed and we don’t feel a thing? (and do call it a colloquialism plz.)”

        I really don’t really understand you question? Why is it not called sunrise and sunset…. from the perspective of the person making the observation no matter where you are on the earth, as the earth rotates and the sun breaks over your horizon, you are observing the sun rising relative to your position of observation and the same when it goes down.
        Sunrise = sun rising, Sunset (Sundown is the original term) = sun going down.
        (I was always taught as a child that the sunset was that brief moment before the sun goes right down when there is the beautiful splashes of color everywhere and the sun seems to just hang for a moment as it is framed in this glory. EG – Oh look, what a beautiful sunset.)
        If you look at tide charts, it will list sunrise/sundown or sunset times relative to the place. EG it might say:
        Doggy cove – sunrise on 2/23/15 @ 5.14am
        (and the next place it might list might be the next cove along the seaboard because it might be another popular fishing spot with recreational fisherman)
        Broken cove – sunrise on 2/23/15 @ 5.21am

        The sunrise and sundown is relative to each position it is observed from. What times that happens can be worked out using the orbit of the earth, its rotation speed on its axis and the position on the earth that is desired to be worked out. All using math that has, is and continues to be used and it correctly predicts it each and every-time. You can even go check this out by driving to different places with a sunrise/sundown guide to check them out for your self.

        Like

    • Renim Leinad June 17, 2016 at 12:39 am Reply

      You can’t see stars in the blue sky, but yet can still see the moon. How did they get through the Van Allen radiation belt? They claim because they didn’t know it was there at the time. But really, how did they? How does the moon’s gravitation turn the tides but yet hardly have any gravitation pull? How do you get through a vacuum space by not being crushed to oblivion? Why wasn’t the rocket lift off from the moon demonstrated on earth? Why did it not need a boaster? Why did the craft look like an aluminum heating system? Don’t try to insult my intelligence by answering any of these questions.

      Like

      • Boethius July 28, 2016 at 4:29 pm

        Yes, the Ideal Gas law. NASA’s greatest enemy.

        PV=nRT

        What happens when you set Pressure(P) = 0?

        0=nRT

        because R is a constant and T is temperature n, which is the amount of gas, must be 0
        (you can’t have 0 temperature, that would be absolute zero which would mean no motion of molecules)

        So, according to science, when gas is introduced to a vacuum it no longer is gas, only independent molecules no longer connected to each other in the way a gas is in an atmosphere such as earth.

        Therefore no rocket could use gas as a propellant in the vacuum of space regardless of oxidizer or combustion chamber. Once the nozzle was opened, the Ideal Gas law would take over, separating the gas into individual molecules, rendering them unable to produce a force of any kind (this is also a proven scientific law known as Joule Expansion).

        Science knows that space travel with rockets is impossible. Ask any scientist if Joule Expansion means that rockets don’t work in the vacuum. You will never get an answer from them because it is experimentally provable that gas does not generate a force in the vacuum. Even the NASA people won’t answer because the answer is obvious, provable and makes them look stupid.

        Logic and reasoning has not yet left the human race despite what looks like a concerted effort to wipe it out.

        Like

      • iheartiowa July 29, 2016 at 6:13 am

        Joule Expansion refers to the process of a gas being released from one chamber into another chamber, not into open space. It has an experimental use in determining the strength of intermolecular forces via the observation of heat, i.e. thermal (not kinetic) energy.

        If you release pressurized gas into open space, instead of into a chamber as in the case of Joule Expansion, then there is a propulsion effect due to Newton’s Third Law. This is why a balloon is propelled if you release its opening. And it would be no different in a vacuum or in an atmosphere.

        This is, once again, the same easily debunkable “evidence” presented by FE theorists over and over again. Joule Expansion isn’t applicable to the thrust of space vehicles, since they do not release gas into an enclosed chamber.

        Like

  11. semaj March 1, 2016 at 11:27 pm Reply

    Don’t get bogged down with the anomalies on the supposed moon surface as replies can never be proved or disproved. Better in my opinion to point out the myriad of lies about the LEM, CSM, space suits and there functional abilities, the farce of the ISS and the NASA lies regarding that, the joke that is Tim Peake’s trip to the ISS, the consumate liars Prof Brian Cock (more suitable than Cox), Chris Hadfield, good old Buzz give us a punch Aldrin etc etc.
    The only space travel that has ever happened is in the imagination!!

    Like

  12. semaj June 17, 2016 at 6:30 pm Reply

    Jason, please explain EXACTLY where the vacuum of space begins or ends relative to earth’s non vacuum. Then please explain how they exist side by side, and please do not insult me with gravity BS. Apparently the escape velocity to break away from the gravitational pull is around 17k mph(?) so please explain why the rocket can slowly accelerate upward when the gravitational pull would be greater on the surface and reduce with altitude so less speed would be required. Please explain why ALL film of launches show the rocket taking a path nearly parallel with earth after a short ascent as surely even scientists know the shortest route everywhere is a straight line and would therefore require less fuel load and guidance technology. Please explain why on the comedy tv program Star Gazing, Chris Hadfield did not know how the space suit worked. If you do not know Chris Hadfield is the one demonstrating on the ISS letting water droplets float around with all those electronic systems as if it was some kind of joke! I call it just taking the piss out of the sheeple but there you go Please explain from the same show how Buzz Aldrin did not know how he had a cup of coffee during A11 mission. Please explain how good old Buzz, mines a Bourbon, Aldrin, did not know about seeing radiation but then decided that you could see it at night with your eyes closed!!! That will do for now, more later.

    Like

    • Jason June 20, 2016 at 3:04 am Reply

      @semaj – “Please explain why ALL film of launches show the rocket taking a path nearly parallel with earth after a short ascent as surely even scientists know the shortest route everywhere is a straight line and would therefore require less fuel load and guidance
      technology.”

      When the shortest path ISN’T a straight line. – http://aa.quae.nl/en/reken/grootcirkel.html

      @semaj – “Please explain why on the comedy tv program Star Gazing, Chris Hadfield did not know how the space suit worked. If you do not know Chris Hadfield is the one demonstrating on the ISS letting water droplets float around with all those electronic systems as if it was some kind of joke! I call it just taking the piss out of the sheeple but there you go Please explain from the same show how Buzz Aldrin did not know how he had a cup of coffee during A11 mission. Please explain how good old Buzz, mines a Bourbon, Aldrin, did not know about seeing radiation but then decided that you could see it at night with your eyes closed!!! That will do for now, more later.”

      Got any links for these things? I have never heard any of these except from your mouth. I’d be more then happy to watch them if you can provide links to back up your claims. Its the very least you can do considering its you who are making the allegations about others and what you claim they have said.

      @semaj – “please explain EXACTLY where the vacuum of space begins or ends relative to earth’s non vacuum. Then please explain how they exist side by side, and please do not insult me with gravity BS. ”

      Considering that YOU yourself can send up a weather balloon with a cheap monitoring station to log the atmosphere density and make up to actually check it for YOURSELF, it doesn’t require speculation about what might or might not be.
      Once YOU have actually done that for YOURSELF, then you might have something to actually talk about instead of wild speculation.

      I’m not going to insult you with “gravity BS”, but on the same hand I would ask you to not insult me with your wild baseless speculation with no actual real world hard data experiments that you have failed to carry out in support of your own wild speculation.

      Show me hard data I can test for myself and that then holds up, then you might actually be onto something.

      All I EVER see from “flat earthers” is SPECULATION. Even the “flat earthers” who first appear to have something, whenever I have actually gone to test it, it ALL comes down to SPECULATION.

      No one has actually gone out into the REAL WORLD to accurately measure, document anything to back up the claims “flat earthers” are making.

      Why is it so hard to actually go outside and get documented proof of the “flat”, and then have that experiment replicated completely independently by others to actually confirm it?????

      Like

  13. semaj June 20, 2016 at 6:02 am Reply

    OK. Nice tone in your reply as if you are the only one on here that knows anything. I hoped you could point me in the direction of experiments that show for example a vacuum existing next to a non vacuum without an air tight physical barrier separating them. Unfortunately unlike you I assume, do not have laboratory facilities to do this so you understand why I can only question this. Star Gazing episodes should be available on BBC iPlayer and YouTube. The Chris Hadfield stuff from the ISS is easily found on YouTube which is all officially released and credited to NASA. We can all answer questions with questions but if you do not know then say so, no shame in that.

    Like

  14. semaj June 20, 2016 at 10:23 am Reply

    Sorry meant to add the shortest path to travel anywhere through air space is a straight line. Space craft are not travelling between 2 points on earth. Perhaps crows need retraining and the Romans had no idea how to build roads then. Flippant I know but could not resist! Keep smiling!

    Like

  15. John the scientist June 22, 2016 at 1:31 am Reply

    Are you claiming that all pictures of the Earth taken from space are fakes, as Samuel Shelton the founder of the modern day Flat Earth Society did?
    That is simple pathological “denial” because you cannot admit that you are wrong.
    act check = YOU FAIL – Readers, now you can view real-time pictures of the Earth from space…
    You can see realtime updates(well, an update every 10 minutes) at http://himawari8.nict.go.jp/ this is the satellite’s dedicated webpage, freely open to the public where you can see a picture at any time and date back to its activation, or play them all in order if you like, but it is set to show each next picture every few seconds instead of a time lapse like this.

    Like

  16. John the scientist June 25, 2016 at 8:51 pm Reply

    Why do you believe that the earth is flat?
    Is it demanded by your religious conviction or do you just have a low IQ?

    Like

    • Ram June 27, 2016 at 6:03 am Reply

      John ,i laugh at your foolishness, seriously he claim to be a scientist.but how can you be so irrational. the photo posted over “http://himawari8.nict.go.jp/” are fake.

      the place like vacuum does not exist.air is every where ,the only difference can be that it is less at one place and more at another place.

      and it s my challange to john the scientist if he can prove or show any kind of evidence for that

      Like

  17. semaj June 25, 2016 at 10:30 pm Reply

    John, as you are a ‘scientist’ please can you answer the questions that I hoped Jason would be able to e.g. vacuum next to non vacuum, escape velocity etc. The official NASA photo of the CSM with the LEM attached supposedly flying over the moon which was posted on this site asking who took the photo, please can you tell me as its had me baffled for years.Thanks. Oh, my IQ is 153.

    Like

  18. semaj June 26, 2016 at 7:34 pm Reply

    Wow insults, very becoming of a scientist! If you research further I think you will find that the picture ‘became’ an artists impression some time ago as have so many NASA sourced photos have when called into question. You believe what you want on that as you have decided. Even so can you please explain the vacuum next to non vacuum without an airtight barrier and I would appreciate a scientifically proven demonstration of which as a scientist I am sure you can provide. Is Richard Size one of your colleagues?

    Like

  19. semaj July 27, 2016 at 6:08 am Reply

    Found it but still want a ‘scientist’ to demonstrate a vacuum existing next to non vacuum without an air tight barrier. All the maths in the world can support a theory but theory is very different from fact. Where has John the scientist gone? Where does this vacuum start and end, there must be a cut off point??

    Like

    • Nick July 27, 2016 at 11:11 am Reply

      Semaj, I answered this in the 47th anniversary page.

      “At no point is there “a vacuum existing next to a non vacuum without an air tight barrier between them”. I think you will understand that the atmospheric pressure decreases with altitude – that is why aeroplanes are pressurised and breathing gets harder as you climb Mount Everest – so there is no “barrier” needed.”

      I would add that this is based on evidence and fits exactly with what is observed in “space”. Satellites in low Earth orbits need to have regular boosts to keep them in orbit as, even at over 100 miles altitude, the atmosphere still causes drag. There is no “cut off point”. Essentially, air pressure is caused by the weight of the air above us, so the higher we are the less weight above us.

      So no “vacuum next to non vacuum”, so no problem!

      Out of interest, how is the variation in pressure with altitude explained in the FE model?

      Like

  20. semaj July 27, 2016 at 12:16 pm Reply

    So its not a vacuum then?

    Like

  21. Nick July 27, 2016 at 12:48 pm Reply

    It depends what you mean by a vacuum! I’m not being rude, it is just that it is a pretty complicated subject and I’m no expert! The Wikipedia article give 8 terms to describe different types of vacuum. What they all have in common is that they are MUCH lower pressure than sea level atmospheric pressure, they would all suffocate someone and need some kind of pressure vessel to keep a human safe.

    So in low Earth orbit there is effectively a vacuum, but the pressure is higher than in deep space, and there are enough gas particles to cause drag on a satellite travelling at 20,000 mph!

    Does this clarify things?

    Like

  22. semaj July 27, 2016 at 8:20 pm Reply

    Different types of vacuum! Ok, never heard NASA mention anything but the vacuum of space. So how could a space suit or space craft be able to cope with ‘different’ types of vacuum as it must be incalculable until you get there. What type of vacuum does my Hoover produce???? So is the ‘vacuum’ greater on the moon than on the way there and how was this accounted for or is that why the LEM was made of paper and sticky tape as they knew the vacuum from its journey to the moon was the same as on the moon? Surely the idea of pressurising is to maintain a breathable atmosphere because oxygen is a rarified gas at altitude. A pressurised vessel is needed in water simply because of the crushing effect of the water mass not because of a vacuum.
    So satellites further away from the earth can travel slower then as no air drag further out but the vacuum increases does it? How does this affect satellites in geostationary orbit? Effectively a vacuum! What is that???

    Like

    • silverfut July 30, 2016 at 1:35 am Reply

      @semaj – Why are you even claiming that you have only heard NASA speak of the vacuum of space?? Of course NASA will talk in those terms almost exclusively because everything they do is related to ….. SPACE. That does not mean they have the exclusive description on ALL things.

      Vacuums are not incalculable before you get there, far from it. You yourself can go purchase some very simple and cheap instruments and accurately measure atmospheric pressure at different altitudes, accurately measure altitude and accurately measure air density.

      With those 3 data points being able to be accurately measured, in time and repeated measurements, you will find the mathematical formula that can then express pressure/altitude/density accurately. This has already been done but you yourself can actually go and replicate it to check the formula for yourself.

      Once this mathematical formula is known and proven, its a simple mathematical calculation to work out what forces will be exerted in a vacuum of any type. Then when things are being designed for that environment, its a simple engineering problem. Typical engineering will allow a excess tolerance on top of whatever is worked out to compensate for unforeseen stresses (heat, impacts or whatever)

      It was actually the Germans during the 2nd world war who made the first extensive advancements in what effects vacuum has on the human body and they had very extensive and advanced vacuum chambers already built and undertaking human experiments on prisoners. If you interested in this part of history a great book that goes into some detail is : Operation paperclip. It also details the US’s grab from the results, plants, materials and expertise so that they could catch up in a number of fields including space. NASA was a extremely late comer to the whole space scene and only came about by importing NAZI war criminals so the US could even get the program up and running in any real way compared to Germany and Russia.

      The LEM was not made out of “paper and sticky tape” as you put it, what you are referring to is the reflective material to help cut down on temperatures for the landing capsule whenever it was in direct sunlight. It still comprised a pressure vessel underneath the reflective surface. You can clearly see this where the entry/exit is.

      As you pointed out, underwater, its the “crushing” of the water mass that means a pressure vessel is needed. By the one point, you have proven why a vacuum also requires a pressure vessel. If you have spent any time around the ocean you should know that when you dive, depth is measured in atmospheres of pressure. As you may or may not know, gasses are nothing more then liquid’s that are expanded between their molecules. The oxygen/nitrogen found in our atmosphere can be bottled and pressurized with a process and turn it into its liquid state. Regardless if its in a gas state or liquid state, it still has MASS. That mass exerts a inwards force on all surfaces of everything, no matter if its 10km above the earth or 3km below the surface of the ocean. That force is directly relative to the mass of “atmospheres” (Another known mathematical formula you can check for yourself if you so wish)

      But a vacuum does the opposite, it exerts a sucking (or outwards force) on all surfaces.

      In both cases, a pressure chamber is needed (Of slightly different engineering construction to allow for the different directions of force being accounted for.)

      There are vacuum test chamber all over the world that are accessible if you go through the right ways to get access or you can even build yourself a rudimentary one at home if you so wish (Highly unlikely you will achieve a true fully sealed vacuum at home but you can certainly maintain a level of vacuum with constant mechanical assistance that would be more then enough for basic experiments). Either way, you can do your own test to see what effects a vacuum has as opposed to what effects an increase in pressure might have on different things.

      A satellite in geostationary orbit is still in motion around the earth, it just seems to look like it does not move when we look up at it because it is matching the same speed and direction as the earths rotation. Relative to us looking up at it, it appears to be stationary but if you were able to look at it from space you would see it rotating around the earth matching speed with the earth. It is no different then any other satellite, they all require motion to overcome the downwards force (what the rest of us call Gravity but FE seem to have no name for this observable force)

      Its not that satellite can travel slower the further away, the real trade off is that there is less orbit maintenance required. The further away, the slower the orbital decay but the lower down the better the coverage/communication but it takes work (opposing force) to maintain the set orbit.

      As for atmospheric drag, this again can be measured if you so wish so you can check the already established known data and formulas. Airlines use these extensively to work out fuel requirements at different altitudes. We even do this for cars at ground level and top end cars do extensive wind tunnel tests to cut down on the drag caused by the airs mass that it exerts on all things. This again changes at different altitudes. We ourselves can see a marked difference between drag between gas state (air) and liquid state (water). Go buy a cheap car a rig a snorkel on it and see how fast it will drive through water (liquid) as opposed to on land in the air (gas).

      All these things can physically be tested for yourself to check the underlying formulas. You don’t need billions of $ to go and double check what others have already proven. You don’t have to “just” take their word for it. YOU can actually check it yourself if you so wish. No speculation needed, just cold hard facts that will demonstrate the facts one way or the other.

      Like

  23. John Adkins November 11, 2016 at 2:26 pm Reply

    On the “no stars” predicament, one thing people have to realise is that the cameras they took to the moon very fully manual, except for the electrical film wind on. The shutter speed was set to 1/250th of a second, the ISO was fixed as it was film and was about 100, the aperture had two settings f8 and f11. These settings were applicable to the relatively steady state of the light on the moon during their stay. So now go and borrow a modern DSLR camera, set it to manual, set it up as above and take photos of the stars. There will just be lack images if the camera is pointed upwards. Now increase the shutter open time, 125th of a second, 1/60th of a second etc. See how long the shutter has to be open to see the stars. All cameras these days are automatic and will compensate for you, they didn’t in the 1960’s when the Hasselblad was designed. Cheers, John.

    Like

  24. Sarah M. November 13, 2016 at 2:23 pm Reply

    I am sad I served 6 years in the Navy to protect your right to spew this bullshit. But, anyone can makeup anything and post it on the internet. The USA has become a low-class society of conspiracy-believing fools. Sad.

    Like

    • jwlpeace November 13, 2016 at 3:42 pm Reply

      you did not “protect” anything for me, Sarah M.
      All you did was promote killing of brown and black people with might weapons
      supporting a world military government (your debt follows you everywhere, google: BIIS bank)
      that puts our children now tens of trillions of dollars in debt
      so we can put military bases in 134/180 countries
      while people in the US starve
      while people n the US don’t have shelter
      while people in the US will pay and pay,
      so we can go kill brown and black people.

      Kinda sad you cannot see you supported our own enslavement as well as ours.
      thanx for nothing.
      dare to learn more truths?
      http://remnantradio.org/Archives/articles/William%20Cooper/Mystery%20Babylon/MB1.htm

      Like

      • semaj November 14, 2016 at 11:14 am

        Spot on mate, when will the mindless morons ever say to the their controllers no, you go I don’t want a war and I have no right to invade another’s country and kill unarmed men, women and children who just want to get on with their lives. I have no sympathy with people who put on a uniform and are prepared to kill. Help for heroes, what a load of bollocks. Nothing heroic in bombing the shit out of people and the ultimate cowardice of drone pilots killing from their home country! How do they sleep at night I will never know. I only hope Karma is real!

        Like

  25. John Adkins November 14, 2016 at 8:54 am Reply

    Hi Semaj,
    Satellites in geosynchronous orbits are not geosynchronous because they are going slowly, they are in fact going fast with respect to the earths rotation, about 41% is the speed of the ISS. Satellites in this type of orbit have to be 26,199 miles above the earths surface, directly above the equator. This is the type of orbit for satellites used for TV. The ISS is about 250 miles above the earth. Cheers, John.

    Like

  26. semaj November 14, 2016 at 11:03 am Reply

    Please explain how these satellites attained 26,199 miles and how are they maintained exactly at this distance. Do they need servicing or repairs or are they just left to become defunct? What if the satellite shifted to 26,200 miles or 26,198miles, how was this distance decided? Remember that apparently the earth is an ‘oblate spheroid’ according to tosspot N. De Grasse Tyson so the distance will vary. Do satellite dishes point directly vertical at the equator? With, we are told, thousands of satellites in orbit how are they all controlled to maintain trajectory? They must need constant attention as the gravitational pull of the earth and the pull of the moon, which remember manages to pull our enormous oceans backward and forward? How are they protected from solar activity, radiation, hot, cold and apparently variable vacuum?

    Like

  27. John Adkins November 14, 2016 at 12:22 pm Reply

    Hi Semaj,
    “How was that distance decided?” Good old Newtons laws of motion.
    “how these satellites attained 26,199 miles?” Powerful rockets put the satellites into orbit.
    “apparently the earth is an ‘oblate spheroid’ according to tosspot N. De Grasse Tyson so the distance will vary.” The fact that the earth is oblate makes no difference I’d reckon as the orbit is ‘around’ the equator, even if it wasn’t, the earth is 8,000 miles in diameter and the difference in diameter between the equator and from pole to pole is only about 25 miles. Of course the fact that the satellite is geosynchronous mean it doesn’t actually go around the earth, it is effectively at the same spot above the earth, otherwise our satellite dishes would have to be moving all the time.
    “Do satellite dishes point directly vertical at the equator?” If you mean would a satellite dish at the equator point up vertically, well I would expect so, if that satellite was designed to service people at the equator. My understanding is that the signals from the satellite are focussed on the expected area of reception.
    “How are they all controlled to maintain trajectory?”
    https://www.quora.com/What-sort-of-engine-and-fuel-does-a-satellite-use
    “How are they protected from solar activity, radiation, hot, cold and apparently variable vacuum?” Well I’m not a satellite design engineer. They need solar radiation to power themselves. “Vacuum of space”. Can’t see that as problem for most things, why should it be? “Hot cold”. I would imagine they are not getting hot, then cold, I’d think they would be fairly stable and would be designed to work properly.
    Seems like the life of a satellite is dependant on it’s fuel, everything else is designed to last for much longer.
    To get more info, read it up, I’m just an old pensioner who was never involved in rockets, satellites or anything like that. Cheers, John.

    Like

  28. John Adkins November 14, 2016 at 5:39 pm Reply

    “Multiple use of sets and backdrops”.
    “Backgrounds match exactly”. Only if you use low resolution, blurred versions of the photos. treat yourselves, look at hi resolution images with your glasses on if you need them. If you still think the “backgrounds match exactly”, get back to me and I’ll walk you through this “backgrounds match exactly” nonsense.

    Of course if you believe that the earth is flat, please don’t bother wasting my time.

    Cheers, John.

    Like

  29. semaj November 14, 2016 at 10:16 pm Reply

    Oh dear!

    Like

  30. John Adkins December 3, 2016 at 9:50 am Reply

    “The No Ignition, No Dust Rapid LEM Takeoff from Moon

    First, how did this thing fly???. There is no external output of energy. No flame, no blast from the exhaust nozzle. Look again at the above picture of how friggin’ big that thing was.”

    As the caption said, it was the DESCENT module, the part that took off from the moon was the ASCENT module. The descent module had a descent ending as the diagram said. The ascent module had it’s own smaller engine called, wait for it, the ASCENT engine. The descent module (which included the ascent module as it landed on the moon was the bit that went DOWNWARD. The ascent module went up from the moon WITHOUT the descent module.
    How comical, first comment was 16 months ago, didn’t anyone on the staff of this magnificent piece of scientific publication notice this schoolboy error? Or is this just a typical ‘flat earther windup”?

    Like

  31. William Wilkinson December 8, 2016 at 4:04 am Reply

    Another joke are the tires of the rover. Temp differences would not allow pressurized tires. If they didnt use pressurized tires why are they so big. Think old timey model t tires.

    Like

    • jwlpeace December 8, 2016 at 3:35 pm Reply

      Great pt. thank you.

      Like

      • John Adkins December 9, 2016 at 8:41 am

        Hi jw, Do you think it is a great pt. that the temperature difference would not allow pressurised tyres? If so, what would cause the temperature on difference to be so big?

        Like

      • jwlpeace December 9, 2016 at 3:09 pm

        Hi John
        They play so many games with even recording temps. The Thermosphere is supposed to be over 3500 F where the ISS travels, but NASA says the molecules are diff, so it doesn’t heat up like our heat….also the Jesuits created the F thermometer, that is why its 32/33 degrees at being unfrozen.
        But on hte moon, in an alleged vacuum of space, then tire pressure would be nil, since there is no resistance, drag or friction to push out against.its all bs, all of it

        Like

    • John Adkins December 8, 2016 at 6:45 pm Reply

      Hi William, I was wondering what you meant by temperature differences. What temperature differences would the tyres get on the moon?

      Like

  32. John Adkins December 8, 2016 at 5:08 pm Reply

    Hi William, I would imagine that maybe they didn’t use ‘pressurised’ tyres was the fear of getting a puncture. Maybe a tyre with a big footprint would travel better over the regolith of the lunar surface and would be less likely to get stuck. Just a thought.

    Like

  33. John Adkins December 8, 2016 at 5:11 pm Reply

    Hi William, I was wondering what you meant by temperature differences. What temperature differences would the tyres get on the moon?

    Like

  34. semaj December 8, 2016 at 5:44 pm Reply

    The wheels did not have pressurised tyres though they might as well had as they were never on the moon anyway!!

    Like

  35. John Adkins December 8, 2016 at 5:49 pm Reply

    “Ignorance is bliss” or so they say. Go enjoy your blissful existence! Hope you make the most of it.

    Like

  36. John Adkins December 8, 2016 at 6:44 pm Reply

    Hi William, Can you tell me what you meant by temperature differences. What temperature differences would the tyres get on the moon?

    Like

  37. John Adkins December 9, 2016 at 11:01 am Reply

    Hi sem, jwl, will, can one of you answer why there would be too big a temperature difference for the tyres on the moon. What would cause this? Such a simple question, why no answers?

    Like

    • semaj December 9, 2016 at 1:28 pm Reply

      No idea as I am not a scientist but its not relevant as they were not there. That’s a simple, honest answer! Probable change in temperature would be to do with sunlight or no sunlight but hey what do I know?

      Like

      • John Adkins December 9, 2016 at 2:46 pm

        Yup, no idea. Don’t have to be a scientist to understand basic thermal dynamics and they did go there, SIX times.

        Like

  38. John Adkins December 9, 2016 at 11:22 am Reply

    Do you have detailed, full maps of the flat earth that I can see please?

    Like

    • semaj December 9, 2016 at 1:29 pm Reply

      Refer to the UN flag is a good start maybe?

      Like

      • John Adkins December 9, 2016 at 2:48 pm

        Never A Straight Answer!! What a laugh!!! Flat earth, just a joke. Just a bunch of time wasting wind up merchants.

        Like

  39. semaj December 9, 2016 at 6:54 pm Reply

    Well at least we agree that NASA stands for never a straight answer! I am pleased for you that you have all the answers but you do not seem happy. What do you see on the UN flag, you seem to want to ignore that. Stop getting wound up its not good for you. I guess by your last post it will be the last post? Well, will it?

    Like

    • John Adkins December 9, 2016 at 7:33 pm Reply

      Never a straight answer was applied to flat earthers. I’m not wound up as I realised a while ago what flat earthers are up to. No one can can believe the earth is really flat.

      Like

      • jwlpeace December 9, 2016 at 7:42 pm

        and there in lies your problem, sir
        Be LIE F
        how do you know when the smartest of all of us uses less that 13% of our brain power?
        your Be LIE F told you so???

        Like

      • semaj December 13, 2016 at 10:55 am

        I assume that should say ‘no one can believe the earth is really flat’? Is that an order from your controllers Mr Adkins?

        Like

  40. M.A.S December 14, 2016 at 10:51 pm Reply

    the EARTH is flat and will always be flat, nobody has ever been to space , why because we can’t penetrate the the firmament end of story.!!!!

    Like

  41. M.A.S December 15, 2016 at 9:26 pm Reply

    MNS The flat Earth is obvious. (I am 10)

    LOL

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: