Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[rocketman]

There are numerous anomalies in this NASA photo, and some of them are just obvious.



Where to begin?

1. The viking ship is wind powered.  But there is no air on the moon!  How did it get there?  How did it move around on the moon?

2. There are only 24 stars on the American flag.  But there were 50 states at the time of this so-called moon landing!

3. The astronaut is saying "Seriously?!"  But without air on the moon, there is no way for the sound to be transmitted.  How can we hear what he is saying?

4. Look at the earth in the background.  We can see Africa and Arabia.  The so-called moon landings took off from Florida, which should be on the other side of the world.  So a rocket traveling up from Florida would be moving away from the moon, not towards it!

If you still believe the moon landings were real in light of this evidence, there is no hope for you.

[smartcooky]

There are numerous anomalies in this NASA photo, and some of them are just obvious.



Where to begin?

1. The viking ship is wind powered.  But there is no air on the moon!  How did it get there?  How did it move around on the moon?

2. There are only 24 stars on the American flag.  But there were 50 states at the time of this so-called moon landing!

3. The astronaut is saying "Seriously?!"  But without air on the moon, there is no way for the sound to be transmitted.  How can we hear what he is saying?

4. Look at the earth in the background.  We can see Africa and Arabia.  The so-called moon landings took off from Florida, which should be on the other side of the world.  So a rocket traveling up from Florida would be moving away from the moon, not towards it!

If you still believe the moon landings were real in light of this evidence, there is no hope for you.

Nice pisstake!

[najak]

If you stick with me - I believe I can present to you, compelling evidence that we didn't land humans on the moon.

Be nice.  I'm nice.  And I'm sincere.  So please lend me your ear.  I've posted my first thread here:

https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2016.0

I invite your scrutiny and challenges.  We are One.  We're in this together.

[bknight]

If you stick with me - I believe I can present to you, compelling evidence that we didn't land humans on the moon.

Be nice.  I'm nice.  And I'm sincere.  So please lend me your ear.  I've posted my first thread here:

https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2016.0

I invite your scrutiny and challenges.  We are One.  We're in this together.

You asked us to reconcile a dish falling away with gravity in one of your A 12 threads.  Now I'll ask you as a HB to reconcile.
800 lbs of moon rocks and regolith, that obviuosly were not made on earth?
Many minutes of lunar terrain from with the LRV?
Images of the landing stages still on the Moon capture days apart casting different aspect shadows?
Reflected laser beams from areas aimed at the landing sites?
Data collected from ALSEP's?
Telemetry received from the vehicles travelling to/from the Moon?
Apollo CSM taking images of cloud patterns on earth from distances greater than geosynchronous orbits?
Massive Saturn V rockets firing all the stages third stage twice propelling SM toward the Moon? 
If the CSM didn't travel to the Moon as you claim where did it go?  How were images taken from the capsule showing the Earth not travelling in orbit?
Images/videos of ascent stage LM rendezvousing with CM with the Moon in the background? 
Similar videos of the LM departing the CM?
Hours of video/film depicting stuff behaving in a lower G than Earth?
Images of Surveyor 3?
Returned camera and scoop from Surveyor returned inside the A12 CM?

[smartcooky]

You asked us to reconcile a dish falling away with gravity in one of your A 12 threads.  Now I'll ask you as a HB to reconcile.
800 lbs of moon rocks and regolith, that obviuosly were not made on earth?
Many minutes of lunar terrain from with the LRV?
Images of the landing stages still on the Moon capture days apart casting different aspect shadows?
Reflected laser beams from areas aimed at the landing sites?
Data collected from ALSEP's?
Telemetry received from the vehicles travelling to/from the Moon?
Apollo CSM taking images of cloud patterns on earth from distances greater than geosynchronous orbits?
Massive Saturn V rockets firing all the stages third stage twice propelling SM toward the Moon? 
If the CSM didn't travel to the Moon as you claim where did it go?  How were images taken from the capsule showing the Earth not travelling in orbit?
Images/videos of ascent stage LM rendezvousing with CM with the Moon in the background? 
Similar videos of the LM departing the CM?
Hours of video/film depicting stuff behaving in a lower G than Earth?
Images of Surveyor 3?
Returned camera and scoop from Surveyor returned inside the A12 CM?

And I will add a story that makes it impossible for the astronauts to have NOT been on the moon when it happened.

In 1969, an Amateur Radio Operator, Larry Baysinger (W4EJA) listened to, and recorded the Apollo 11 astronauts during the Lunar EVA from his home in Louisville Kentucky.

https://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11

https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/40664/what-was-the-transmitting-power-of-the-apollo-astronauts-plss-vhf-radio-transmi

The 8 × 12 foot “corner horn” reflector antenna Larry used had a motorized steering mechanism but it had to be manually guided. Its beam was such that, once pointed at the Moon, he could hear the 259.7 MHz VHF signals coming from the antenna mounted on the astronauts' PLSS "backpack" .
 


There a couple of pieces of irrefutable evidence that proved conclusively the signals he received must have been coming from the moon.

1. The antenna had to be continually re-aimed at the moon. If this wasn't done, the signal disappeared. The moon set at his location during the time he was listening, so he was unable to continue to hear them

2. Baysinger's recordings do not include the voices of CAPCOM in Houston, Texas or the associated quindar tones (beeps) heard in NASA audio. In other words, he could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from the Earth.

There is no way either of the above could be true if he was listening to some random local transmission or had somehow hooked into a satellite by accident (and in point of fact, no satellite would have been using a VHF frequency in that range anyway)

Here is one of Larry's recordings

https://soundcloud.com/shannon-hall4/apollo-11-recording

[bknight]

I had forgotten that one.  Thanks for refreshing the story.

[smartcooky]

I had forgotten that one.  Thanks for refreshing the story.

There are others too.

Professor Heinz Kaminski recorded Apollo 11 transmissions at Bochum Observatory in Germany. Again, the transmissions he received and recorded had no CAPCOM transmissions, and no quindar tones.

https://honeysucklecreek.net/other_stations/bochum/main.html

And of course, the famous occasion when British scientist Sir Bernard Lovell and his team used the Jodrell Bank Radio Telescope as a radar to track the Lunar Module on its decent to Tranquility (as well as the Soviet Luna 15 probe that was operating near the moon at the same time). They were even able to detect when Neil Armstrong took control of the LM and started to translate across the Lunar surface to look for a safer landing site.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-49001181
 
All this is further proof of the reality of the Moon landings... and as a bonus, the three of them together prove the earth is not flat!!

[najak]

Professor Heinz Kaminski recorded Apollo 11 transmissions at Bochum Observatory in Germany. Again, the transmissions he received and recorded had no CAPCOM transmissions, and no quindar tones.
https://honeysucklecreek.net/other_stations/bochum/main.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-49001181

Thanks for the 3 references.  I hadn't see the 1st one about Larry Baysinger (although I had seen other articles, but just not one as good as this one).

Those are the BIG three..  Are there more?

From a MLH perspective, I reconcile these as following:

1. Baysinger - spent a lot of money/time on this.  Could he and his one friend be lying?  (Otherwise, they wasted all that time/money; or they could fib and be famous)
Where is his recording?  I've seen/heard NOTHING about this... seems like that would be pretty VITAL -- as the ONLY amateur recording in history to capture this.
Did he do it again a few months later for Apollo 12?  14, 15, 16, 17?
I hear about NO OTHER amateurs ever doing this.

2. Bochum - all we have left here is 67 second MP3.   What else is there?   How many witnesses?  Any other testimonies?  Or just one guy?....  Anymore more than an MP3 which simply plays the same track that was also broadcast..   I'm not sure how to tell that "this is verifiable fact".

3. Jodrelll -- same questions.   What proof still exists?  Who are the witnesses?  All I've seen from them is a "altitude line graph" - without knowing "how did they actually track their landing from their earth dish that was a lot smaller than what we see now.

All 3 sources have gains for these claims - fame, good for tourism or funding..   Jodrell got LOTS of funding after this...   Follow the money?

===
LASTLY, and maybe most importantly....  I am not trying to prove we didn't orbit the moon -- ONLY that we didn't land humans on the moon.

The moon itself is only 0.4 arc angle field-of-view from earth.    Our technology back then wasn't so precise that we could tell a difference of 0.2 deg tolerance (likely).

So there exist a few other options, to transmit from the Lunar orbit (70 minutes Line-of-Site, per 2 hr orbit).

Rumor has it that the Russians played a joke on Nixon by sending some fake transmissions from their own lunar satellite, using it as a relay - to say that they landed on the moon.  Have you heard this rumor?  (is it true, or just made up?)

Anyhow - I'm a rookie, filliing in gaps of info as I go.  But what I've presented is my current understanding of this situation and evidence.

[Zakalwe]

Professor Heinz Kaminski recorded Apollo 11 transmissions at Bochum Observatory in Germany. Again, the transmissions he received and recorded had no CAPCOM transmissions, and no quindar tones.
https://honeysucklecreek.net/other_stations/bochum/main.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-49001181

Thanks for the 3 references.  I hadn't see the 1st one about Larry Baysinger (although I had seen other articles, but just not one as good as this one).

Those are the BIG three..  Are there more?

From a MLH perspective, I reconcile these as following:

1. Baysinger - spent a lot of money/time on this.  Could he and his one friend be lying?  (Otherwise, they wasted all that time/money; or they could fib and be famous)
Where is his recording?  I've seen/heard NOTHING about this... seems like that would be pretty VITAL -- as the ONLY amateur recording in history to capture this.
Did he do it again a few months later for Apollo 12?  14, 15, 16, 17?
I hear about NO OTHER amateurs ever doing this.

2. Bochum - all we have left here is 67 second MP3.   What else is there?   How many witnesses?  Any other testimonies?  Or just one guy?....  Anymore more than an MP3 which simply plays the same track that was also broadcast..   I'm not sure how to tell that "this is verifiable fact".

3. Jodrelll -- same questions.   What proof still exists?  Who are the witnesses?  All I've seen from them is a "altitude line graph" - without knowing "how did they actually track their landing from their earth dish that was a lot smaller than what we see now.

All 3 sources have gains for these claims - fame, good for tourism or funding..   Jodrell got LOTS of funding after this...   Follow the money?

Standard conspiracist thinking at work.

It is not enough to imagine that something could happen- you have to show that it did happen. And if you can show that it did, your workings have to overcome the other vast mounds of independently verified corroborating evidence.

You place standards of proof on theirs that you happily hand-wave away when it doesn't confirm with your internal belief system. No mind so closed as those who do not want to learn.


I bet that you have never heard of Christopher Taylor? He observed the fuel dump from the Apollo 8 booster from a backyard in the UK
I bet you also have never heard of Commander Henry Hatfield either. He, along with a number of other UK amateur astronomers not only observed the same dump, but actually photographed it.
https://pages.astronomy.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

Just goes to show how ridiculous claims of a conspiracy are. It would be easier to go to the Moon that to plant all of these pieces on independent evidence all over the world.

[najak]

It is not enough to imagine that something could happen- you have to show that it did happen. And if you can show that it did, your workings have to overcome the other vast mounds of independently verified corroborating evidence.

My approach is to show "what could NOT have happened."  If I prove enough IMPOSSIBILITIES - even the Mighty Apollo cannot Break Physics.   Once you show Physics being broken, it compels the physicists to open their minds to the likelihood that what they previously believed, may simply not be true.

I bet that you have never heard of Christopher Taylor? He observed the fuel dump from the Apollo 8 booster from a backyard in the UK
I bet you also have never heard of Commander Henry Hatfield either. He, along with a number of other UK amateur astronomers not only observed the same dump, but actually photographed it.
https://pages.astronomy.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

I think you misunderstand my MLH theory -- I simply say "we didn't LAND humans on the moon".

So sure -- we saw fuel dumps.   At minimum, we made it into LOE -- and here again, there will be fuel dumps, no?

And does that video seem like a "good argument against MLH" really?  This is a strawman approach - pretending MLH is something that it's not.

Most believe the real decision to fake it, occurred in 1967, after Apollo 1, but also that these preparations/considerations as Plan B, had started earlier.

Like any good Military plan, there's always multiple COA's -- in 1967 "Plan B" went into effect.... a year later Webb and Seamans both resigned -- didn't want to be a part of it.

Nearly all 400,000 people working on NASA were doing "good work" - but the LEM was simply not "capable of landing humans on the surface", and even harder -- "ascending back into a perfectly aligned and timed orbit at 3000 mph 60 miles high - 1st try every time".

So they had to fake this Landing part... minimum.

===
And that video talks about "the biggest cost being SaturnV" -- there's a strong theory that the SaturnV was NOT CAPABLE of launching a 110,000 lb payload to leave Earth's orbit.   I may delve into this issue in the future.

The biggest smoking gun I know of now is that SpaceX's SLS rocket has more total power than the SaturnV by a lot - but is still only rated at 59,000 lbs for leaving earth's orbit... about HALF.

I haven't gotten more into this yet -- but what I've seen so far, doesn't bode too well, even for leaving LOE.   More on that later...

[Grashtel]

And that video talks about "the biggest cost being SaturnV" -- there's a strong theory that the SaturnV was NOT CAPABLE of launching a 110,000 lb payload to leave Earth's orbit.   I may delve into this issue in the future.

The biggest smoking gun I know of now is that SpaceX's SLS rocket has more total power than the SaturnV by a lot - but is still only rated at 59,000 lbs for leaving earth's orbit... about HALF.

I haven't gotten more into this yet -- but what I've seen so far, doesn't bode too well, even for leaving LOE.   More on that later...

Firstly the fact that you are confusing SpaceX's Falcon Superheavy/Starship and the SLS is not a good start at all, they are completely different vehicles.

Secondly consider what the FSh/Starship do that the Saturn V doesn't do and why that might make comparing them need more thought than just looking at the maximum payload.  Perhaps consider how many times a given Saturn V was intended to be used vs the fully resuable FSh/Starship

Finally the Saturn V is rocket that is still looked at today, why wouldn't all the rocket scientists and engineers notice that it was not as capable as it was claimed?

[najak]

Firstly the fact that you are confusing SpaceX's Falcon Superheavy/Starship and the SLS is not a good start at all, they are completely different vehicles.

Secondly consider what the FSh/Starship do that the Saturn V doesn't do and why that might make comparing them need more thought than just looking at the maximum payload.  Perhaps consider how many times a given Saturn V was intended to be used vs the fully resuable FSh/Starship

Finally the Saturn V is rocket that is still looked at today, why wouldn't all the rocket scientists and engineers notice that it was not as capable as it was claimed?

Thanks for the info - I will record/keep ALL Of this for later reference.  My rookie focus is purposefully limited to (for now) only "the moon landing part".   I have abundant very solid reasons to doubt this.

As for the SaturnV - I'm only recounting "memories of what I saw/heard" along the way.   My thoughts haven't been tested.   Your comments are great, and what I really need most.  Thank you.

Since we're on this topic, there are 3 more reasons I doubt the SaturnV's capability:

1. Some Russian scientist did an analysis of the Saturn V Timed rocket launch to where it went through the clouds.   And based on his estimated timing and velocity as it went through the clouds, it showed the Saturn V to have only a fraction of the power advertised.

2. In part, this was because they throttled it down some, because the "Cooling system" was incapable of handling full throttle.

3. Artemis X - the one wants to land 220,000 lbs on the moon - currently thinks they need 15 re-fuelings to get there....     So SaturnV can deliver 110,000 lbs with one fueling...   But Starship with boosters (more lift than Saturn) - we need 15 refuelings???    Why not just put 110,000 lbs onto TWO Saturn V's??     They could just rendezvous and attach in orbit around the moon!

I get some of the excuses -- but there is a DRAMATIC rift here...  between what we "said we did" vs. "what we can do now"... regarding the "Payload capacity" and Rocket power needed to launch to the moon.

===
Again -- the above is not-tested/vetted -- I'm writing it to you now -- so you can tell me what about all of this is crap, or how it's refuted.

[Mag40]

As for the SaturnV - I'm only recounting "memories of what I saw/heard" along the way.   My thoughts haven't been tested.   Your comments are great, and what I really need most.  Thank you.

Since we're on this topic, there are 3 more reasons I doubt the SaturnV's capability:

1. Some Russian scientist did an analysis of the Saturn V Timed rocket launch to where it went through the clouds.   And based on his estimated timing and velocity as it went through the clouds, it showed the Saturn V to have only a fraction of the power advertised.

This is like one of those situations where you throw a party and someone shows up to your house fifteen years late:
https://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/2732
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=776.0

. In part, this was because they throttled it down some, because the "Cooling system" was incapable of handling full throttle.

I wouldn't make any statements about rocket science if I were you.

3. Artemis X - the one wants to land 220,000 lbs on the moon - currently thinks they need 15 re-fuelings to get there....     So SaturnV can deliver 110,000 lbs with one fueling...   But Starship with boosters (more lift than Saturn) - we need 15 refuelings???    Why not just put 110,000 lbs onto TWO Saturn V's??     They could just rendezvous and attach in orbit around the moon!

If I ran the Zoo. The HB playback, every single thing. Maybe they don't have 2 Saturn V's?

[najak]

. In part, this was because they throttled it down some, because the "Cooling system" was incapable of handling full throttle.

I wouldn't make any statements about rocket science if I were you.

If I ran the Zoo. The HB playback, every single thing. Maybe they don't have 2 Saturn V's?

Thanks for those links -- added those to my list for future reading before I consider tackling the "SaturnV was underpowered" argument, if I ever do this.

I believe there might be something to the "Cooling system" thing, as well as some factuality to the USA switching over to use a Russian design for cooling.

And why use SaturnV when we have ones with MORE power today -- just use two of those... and we're done, right?
(We can just do what Apollo did in 1969, but have two.)

And since Apollo tech knows how to rendezvous 50x faster than ISS/CST100/etc -- we should use their designs for this too.  Why take hours to dock, when Apollo always did it in a few minutes.

[Mag40]

And why use SaturnV when we have ones with MORE power today -- just use two of those... and we're done, right?

I'm being flippant. One of the rocket guys is better qualified to answer your parroted claim.

And since Apollo tech knows how to rendezvous 50x faster than ISS/CST100/etc -- we should use their designs for this too.  Why take hours to dock, when Apollo always did it in a few minutes.

You don't know what you are talking about .