Conclusive Proof the Moon Landings were Faked

[bknight]

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.

I have seen their "work" and found it lacking.  I built with some help a spreadsheet that models the ascent of A11 quiet correctly with publish data.  Bob B. has a similar calculation on his website, try looking at using the way back machine.

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

No, RPG fuel was injected into the engine bell to help cool it.  The real reason they throttled back was to maintain an   acceleration of ~4.5g.  You are really bad at this

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!

For an individual who proclaims a good geal of physics knowledge, you don't show much. the reason for Starship refuelings is in part business, they want a fully reusable rocket. NASA only wanted to go to the Moon.  Secondly and this goes again with reusability Saturn V used three stages, a more optimal launch system, than SpaceX using two stages.

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.

You should really read about Apollo in other places than CT it would broaden your mind.

[najak]

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

Yet this claim isn't "niche"..  It's front-and-center -- it's fairly widely known that 2024 Artemis math/plans was going to require 15 "re-fuelings" for double-the-load.  This discrepancy is quite glaring.

So I'd think we no longer need "one of the rocket guys to answer this" - because they should already answered this, and you can just tell me "what they said".

Surely I'm not the first to notice this, right?

[najak]

NAJAK WROTE: "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."

You should really read about Apollo in other places than CT it would broaden your mind.

Note my disclaimer.  I've purposefully NOT delved into SaturnV validations, but as I've been searching the other evidence, I happen across some of this, which looks compelling for the Fakery.

At this time, I'm avoiding the "We never left earth orbit" claim -- because for this, there is much less evidence, and the mechanisms for a hoax would need to be larger.  So it's a 10X harder argument to make.  So I'm focusing on the "Humans didn't land on the moon" part of the MLH theory.  I currently have zero doubts about whether or not we landed -- due to my understanding of 3D physics.  I'm in process of devising a Unity3D mini-app that behaves like an "LM/AM" lab - which shows "perfect/ideal LM/AM control" vs. "what happens when you introduce those unavoidable imperfections" (differences between desired RCS output vs. actual, both on lbF as well as timing).   Hypergolic combustion has some chaos and variance in how it happens...    Plus the AM isn't a perfect "regular 3D shape" with "perfect center of mass" and wasn't being rotated along the actual center-of-mass for the "pitch/roll" maneuvers especially.

It's these imperfections that made this docking IMPOSSIBLE.   And even the might Apollo cannot break physics  (and imperfections are a part of it all).

Especially right before docking, the AM, using the same 100 lbF RCS thrusters to maneuver Attitude, were GROSSLY OVERPOWERED, such that a single 1 msec of error in firing time for one RCS thruster, would introduce a scant, but deadly, off-axis rotation...

Instead, we see Apollo 11/12 rendezvous, with impossible "Snap-stop" behaviors repeated, stopping turns that are up to 4.2 deg/sec in speed - in an instant, and perfectly.   No imperfections at all. 

I'll be getting to this next.   For me, this is the BIGGEST slam dunk in MY MIND- because of my professional experience with this domain, the world of realistic high-fidelity 3D physics simulations.

[TimberWolfAu]

Yet this claim isn't "niche"..  It's front-and-center -- it's fairly widely known that 2024 Artemis math/plans was going to require 15 "re-fuelings" for double-the-load.  This discrepancy is quite glaring.

So I'd think we no longer need "one of the rocket guys to answer this" - because they should already answered this, and you can just tell me "what they said".

Surely I'm not the first to notice this, right?

We don't even need one of the "rocket guys", just some simple common sense.

What did Apollo send to the moon? The CM, SM, LM, 3rd Stage, and the adaptor. All up, less than 163,313kg (since the 3rd stage wasn't full when TLI occurred).

What's Starship's weight? 100,000kg.... empty. Fully fueled, Starship is apparently 1,300,000kg.

And then there's the mission profile. Starship HLS has to get itself to Earth orbit, that uses it's fuel. Then it will need to get itself to the moon, hence the need to refuel. That fuel will also be needed to establish lunar orbit, descent to the lunar surface, and return from the surface to lunar orbit.

Apollo used the 1st, 2nd, and part of the 3rd stage to get to Earth orbit, reducing in mass with each subsequent staging. The 3rd stage sent them to the moon. The CSM, now with a lot less mass to worry about, put them in lunar orbit and sent them back to Earth, while the LM, with even more less mass to worry about, got them to the surface, and the LM ascent stage, with even less mass again, got back to lunar orbit.

[smartcooky]

Yet this claim isn't "niche"..  It's front-and-center -- it's fairly widely known that 2024 Artemis math/plans was going to require 15 "re-fuelings" for double-the-load.  This discrepancy is quite glaring.

So I'd think we no longer need "one of the rocket guys to answer this" - because they should already answered this, and you can just tell me "what they said".

Surely I'm not the first to notice this, right?

We don't even need one of the "rocket guys", just some simple common sense.

What did Apollo send to the moon? The CM, SM, LM, 3rd Stage, and the adaptor. All up, less than 163,313kg (since the 3rd stage wasn't full when TLI occurred).

What's Starship's weight? 100,000kg.... empty. Fully fueled, Starship is apparently 1,300,000kg.

And then there's the mission profile. Starship HLS has to get itself to Earth orbit, that uses it's fuel. Then it will need to get itself to the moon, hence the need to refuel. That fuel will also be needed to establish lunar orbit, descent to the lunar surface, and return from the surface to lunar orbit.

Apollo used the 1st, 2nd, and part of the 3rd stage to get to Earth orbit, reducing in mass with each subsequent staging. The 3rd stage sent them to the moon. The CSM, now with a lot less mass to worry about, put them in lunar orbit and sent them back to Earth, while the LM, with even more less mass to worry about, got them to the surface, and the LM ascent stage, with even less mass again, got back to lunar orbit.

To display this graphically



Both NASA and SpaceX were/are trying to get their respective blue bits to the moon

NASA's blue bit was around 61,000 kg with fuel and expendables
SpaceX's blue bit is around 1,300,000 kg with fuel and expendables

And SpaceX want to get the green bit back for re-use, while NASA didn't get anything back except the CM, which was not re-usbale. 

This is what we mean when we say that Apollo and Starship cannot be compared because they had/have different mission profiles. Starship's profile is to send 21x the mass Apollo did (1.3 million kg v 61 thousand kg) to TLI... this is more than an order of magnitude greater - not a difference that can just be handwaved away in conspiracy theorist fashion!

[najak]

This is what we mean when we say that Apollo and Starship cannot be compared because they had/have different mission profiles. Starship's profile is to send 21x the mass Apollo did (1.3 million kg v 61 thousand kg) to TLI... this is more than an order of magnitude greater - not a difference that can just be handwaved away in conspiracy theorist fashion!

Thanks for the responses here, and since we have a lot of balls in the air right now -- I'm going to put this one to rest... punt/postpone.

My focus will ONLY be part where I'm sure we did not "land men on the moon"... that's the only part I'm going to stay focused on here, until I get through my "slam dunk" list.

[TimberWolfAu]

To display this graphically

Both NASA and SpaceX were/are trying to get their respective blue bits to the moon

NASA's blue bit was around 61,000 kg with fuel and expendables
SpaceX's blue bit is around 1,300,000 kg with fuel and expendables

And SpaceX want to get the green bit back for re-use, while NASA didn't get anything back except the CM, which was not re-usbale. 

This is what we mean when we say that Apollo and Starship cannot be compared because they had/have different mission profiles. Starship's profile is to send 21x the mass Apollo did (1.3 million kg v 61 thousand kg) to TLI... this is more than an order of magnitude greater - not a difference that can just be handwaved away in conspiracy theorist fashion!

Heh, stealing that. Although, technically the third stage and the SLA should be blue as well, since they were all boosted in the direction of the moon.

until I get through my "slam dunk" list.

Oh? Have you started it yet?

[smartcooky]

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?)

Conspiracy Theory 101... If you can't explain something someone has done that shows you are wrong, claim they were lying.

Anyhow - I'm a rookie

This is the first and only factual thing you have said here so far.

[najak]

Conspiracy Theory 101... If you can't explain something someone has done that shows you are wrong, claim they were lying.

Nah, it's common sense.  When you go to a magic show that everyone is proclaiming to be "real" and you see the man cut a lady in half, then put her back together again...  while everyone else is saying "it's real!" and quoting some remote/historic sources saying "but so-and-so verified it"..

I'm still saying "that was impossible"- there's likely a more scientifically sound explanation.

My point in stating all of that was to demonstrate that MOST people who accept Apollo as real have a VERY SKEWED understanding of the *actual* evidence that forms the foundation of their beliefs.

In their minds, Apollogists happily summarize their foundation with many dishonest claims, such as:
1. 400,000 people couldn't have all lied.  (this hoax required the work of a few hundred - military men who firmly understand the nature of Top Secret and Treason).
2. Nations around the world validated it as it was happening. (a few, claims, with no lasting evidence, and no witnesses specified except a few names)
3. Amateurs around the world validated it as it was happening.  (we have one)
4. Russia had no reason to congratulate us if we lied.
5. 50,000 samples have been given out to 500 labs in over 15 nations (not true).

[bknight]

Conspiracy Theory 101... If you can't explain something someone has done that shows you are wrong, claim they were lying.

Nah, it's common sense.  When you go to a magic show that everyone is proclaiming to be "real" and you see the man cut a lady in half, then put her back together again...  while everyone else is saying "it's real!" and quoting some remote/historic sources saying "but so-and-so verified it"..

I'm still saying "that was impossible"- there's likely a more scientifically sound explanation.

My point in stating all of that was to demonstrate that MOST people who accept Apollo as real have a VERY SKEWED understanding of the *actual* evidence that forms the foundation of their beliefs.

In their minds, Apollogists happily summarize their foundation with many dishonest claims, such as:
1. 400,000 people couldn't have all lied.  (this hoax required the work of a few hundred - military men who firmly understand the nature of Top Secret and Treason).
2. Nations around the world validated it as it was happening. (a few, claims, with no lasting evidence, and no witnesses specified except a few names)
3. Amateurs around the world validated it as it was happening.  (we have one)
4. Russia had no reason to congratulate us if we lied.
5. 50,000 samples have been given out to 500 labs in over 15 nations (not true).

The more people that are associated with a conspiracy the harder it is to keep a lid on it.
Yes nations validated the A11 mission, Great Britain, Rusia (USSR) for another.
You have been shown some of the individuals and hand waved them away because it doesn't fit you CT.
Well I didn't count the countries/scientists that have been supplied with regolith, but it is substantial.  You saying that is not true does not make it a lie/falsehood.
You have no evidence nothing except you belief.  Don't understand that if scientist disbelieved the story they would cry foul?  And not in aulis.com, nor Jarrah, nor Kasing, nor Rene, nor Allen, nor Persey, none of them.

[Mag40]

Nah, it's common sense.

Oh no! Did he just play the "common sense" card? The one played by people who demonstrate a lack of even that?

When you go to a magic show that everyone is proclaiming to be "real" and you see the man cut a lady in half, then put her back together again...  while everyone else is saying "it's real!" and quoting some remote/historic sources saying "but so-and-so verified it".

A pathetic and already used analogy. The whole thing is supplied with copious amounts of evidence - more than any event in history by a considerable amount. They prove it's real with things that cannot be faked, items that include rocks and soil, visible motion that no variant of speed makes look real.

I'm still saying "that was impossible"- there's likely a more scientifically sound explanation.

The explanation is that you don't know what you are doing and you are doing everything you can to bluster replies rather than face up to things that stand up to scrutiny.

My point in stating all of that was to demonstrate that MOST people who accept Apollo as real have a VERY SKEWED understanding of the *actual* evidence that forms the foundation of their beliefs.

Oh do shut up with your patronising. You have no idea how "most" people arrived at their belief. I would add that it is an order of magnitude more robust than the flimsy bollocks HBs get taken in by.

In their minds, Apollogists happily summarize their foundation with many dishonest claims, such as:
1. 400,000 people couldn't have all lied.  (this hoax required the work of a few hundred - military men who firmly understand the nature of Top Secret and Treason).
2. Nations around the world validated it as it was happening. (a few, claims, with no lasting evidence, and no witnesses specified except a few names)
3. Amateurs around the world validated it as it was happening.  (we have one)
4. Russia had no reason to congratulate us if we lied.
5. 50,000 samples have been given out to 500 labs in over 15 nations (not true).

These are just background items. I'm sure there are a whole host of pathetic hand waved replies to all of them.

[najak]

These are just background items. I'm sure there are a whole host of pathetic hand waved replies to all of them.

Do you both, Mag40 and bknight, believe that "400,000 people would have had to know they are participating in a hoax?" - as a reason to believe in Apollo?

[bknight]

No I know that all those people have worked in a very technical and complex project It is plain to see that you are providing only lip service to you participation, if any in military projects.  Each of the other disciplines need to know the dimension of the hardware that is to be integrated into the parts.  If they don't the project doesn't proceed. So, in a way yes everyone would need to be in on a CT.  But you are waving a red herring, instead of proving hard scientific calculations on your pet theories.  "I don't understand", is not proof of a CTI

[najak]

No I know that all those people have worked in a very technical and complex project It is plain to see that you are providing only lip service to you participation, if any in military projects.  Each of the other disciplines need to know the dimension of the hardware that is to be integrated into the parts.  If they don't the project doesn't proceed. So, in a way yes everyone would need to be in on a CT.  But you are waving a red herring, instead of proving hard scientific calculations on your pet theories.  "I don't understand", is not proof of a CTI

I worked for 4 years in an environment with Secret Clearances where you were prohibited from talking to other groups.  "Need to Know Basis" and very compartmentalized.

These NASA workers were all doing "legit work" - then they tossed it over the wall to the next group.   So if you weren't at the "end of the process" - the "Systems Engineers" - you'd have no idea about the full system, nor integration tests, etc...   All you knew is that your Unit/component testing met spec and you delivered your piece.

NASA was very very spread out and compartmentalized like this for the development.

And MOST of Apollo was real.   But parts simply were incomplete...  such as the LM itself.

[bknight]

No I know that all those people have worked in a very technical and complex project It is plain to see that you are providing only lip service to you participation, if any in military projects.  Each of the other disciplines need to know the dimension of the hardware that is to be integrated into the parts.  If they don't the project doesn't proceed. So, in a way yes everyone would need to be in on a CT.  But you are waving a red herring, instead of proving hard scientific calculations on your pet theories.  "I don't understand", is not proof of a CTI

I worked for 4 years in an environment with Secret Clearances where you were prohibited from talking to other groups.  "Need to Know Basis" and very compartmentalized.

These NASA workers were all doing "legit work" - then they tossed it over the wall to the next group.   So if you weren't at the "end of the process" - the "Systems Engineers" - you'd have no idea about the full system, nor integration tests, etc...   All you knew is that your Unit/component testing met spec and you delivered your piece.

NASA was very very spread out and compartmentalized like this for the development.

And MOST of Apollo was real.   But parts simply were incomplete...  such as the LM itself.

NASA was not run in that manner every group knew what other groups were doing.  You lose big time.  Yes, NASA was/is compartmentalized, but they all know and work together.
The LM was a complete vehicle regardles of what you think, look up the pices aand you will find out.