Did Elon Musk just confirm that the moon landings were faked?

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

Mother should I trust the government?
-Pink Floyd, Mother

Elon Musk just announced that SpaceX abandons propulsive landing plans for Red Dragon mission to Mars.

In my opinion, we should not be surprised.  

NASA supposedly used propulsive landing for the Apollo missions to the moon...in 1969.

I ask you to please click the following hyperlinks to read three articles, carefully, watch one 3-1/3 minute video, closely, and then draw your own conclusions about the Apollo Moon landings that we are told occured nearly 50 years ago.

 

First, an article from RT, today:  

 SpaceX abandons propulsive landing plans for Red Dragon mission to Mars


“The reason we decided not to pursue that heavily is that it would have taken a tremendous amount of effort to qualify that for safety for crew transport,” Musk said. “That’s why we are not pursuing it. It could be something that we bring back later, but it doesn’t seem like the right way to apply resources right now.”

 

 

Musk added that he did not think that propulsive landing was the best approach.

 

https://www.rt.com/usa/397023-musk-dragon-mars-propulsive/

 

Second, my article from ZeroHedge, last year, 2016:

I like velcro and used to drink Tang, but about the moon, was NASA really full of horseshit?


" My premise is that President Kennedy wasn't an aerospace engineer, he was a politician faced with the Russians and their satellites scaring the shit out of his constituency.  He called our shot, but we couldn't make it.  So they lied." 


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-03/i-velcro-and-used-drink-tang-wa...

 

Third, an article from Physics Professor, Dr. Oleg Oleynik, in 2012, and updated in 2017*:

A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images

 

"Thus, based on the above examples, this study concludes that the Apollo 15 photographic record does NOT depict real lunarscapes with distant backgrounds located more than a kilometre away from the camera."

 

"These pictures were, without doubt, taken in a studio set – up to 300 metres in size. A complex panorama mimicking the lunarscape shows degrees of movement, such as horizontal and vertical changes to give an impression of imaginary distance to the objects and perspective."

 

 

http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

Hat tip to Medium Giraffe

 

Fourth, a youtube video of the Apollo 11 astronaut press conference upon returning from the moon, July 20,1969*:

Apollo 11 Television Press Conference


 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

* Hat tip to Cognitive Dissonance

Do these three guys, who supposedly just came back from the moon with two of them landing and returning, look and sound like they just came back from the moon?

 

And here is the full hour and half press conference. Listen to the actual words and sentence structure as well as the body language, which is screaming out-loud disingenuous...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

 

What do you think, now?

 

Peace, liberty, and prosperity,

h_h

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
PrivetHedge's picture

Boot photos with a fixed, chest mounted camera are suspect. Especially with perfect focus and exposure. That would be rarer than pics of Neil on the moon.
Especially in vacuum dried dust, which is impossible to form a print in.

Second, NASA told people they took reflectors, so they simply pre-selected brighter spots to 'land' in, so in the future they could point out the bright spot and say 'look, there's the proof our mirror is there' for the gullible to swallow.

Thirdly that laser dot is about 2km wide (3.14km2) when it hits the moon, the 65cm square reflector is 0.0000004225km2 in area.

indio007's picture

MIT in 1962 bounced a laser off the moons bare surface.

In 1963, the Crimea National Observatory did the same.

 

Try again.

 

IdioTsincracY's picture

Try again what?!?! .. PRECISION is the keyword ..

not randomly shooting at the surface, you MORON, but shooting at the exact place of the refractor

over and over and over and over again and getting extremely precise results

PrivetHedge's picture

The precision is a 2km dot.

Your reflector makes up 0.000013448593% of the area.

Not going to make a difference.

VWAndy's picture

 Interesting reading the comments. Two things stand out. The ones with doubts seem to be fairly reasonable. The believers on the other hand seem kinda pissed off. As if it hurts to even consider they might have been tricked.

 

LikeyMikey's picture

Yeah...it is kind of like the "Man Made Global Warming" freaks that get angry when you question their so called "facts and science" supporting their claims!

 

Great Point!!!

cyberfossil's picture

It hurts for my generation--growing up in the '70's and all of us saying we want to grow up and be astronauts.  After being one of those kids playing with space toys and visiting the space museums on field trips nearly ever year, it hurts.  But looking back on it and listening to my inner intelligence rather than programming and propaganda, it seemed fanciful--even quite impossible.  With less computing power than a 70's Radio Shack economy pocket calculator, a lunar lander that I viewed at the Space Museum that was too small to ever carry the cargo while appearing to be made partly of tinfoil and tape, and the Van Allen statements about fatal radiation in the Belts whilst Von Braun also stating a few years earlier that the rocket would have to be the size of the Empire State Building, etc., the evidence against such a 100% success rate for the six missions, common sense was this was an enormous engineering improbability of success on nearly every front (for laughs, watch Armstrong doing his earth testing of the lunar lander prototype from which he had to eject).  Now, with the easily verifiable faked photos (just turn up the contrast on photoshop to see the cut and paste on the famous earth photo above the US Flag), parallax proof of a movie set with a fake background, it is not only an engineering improbability but a clear deception.  Go into the problems of the moonsuit with those temperature variations and research that for 5 minutes--go ahead and look at the official product development specs and compare that--it is ludicrously inadequate in the boiling/superfreezing vacuum of space that would easily burst any material that was not solid.  Have you ever considered what it's like in a perfect vacuum?   I wish it were different but that's the way it is.

Moon Landing Logically Shredded by the Late Great Dave McGowan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4NwpQtOGTA

Moonsuits and how they fit on the Apollo mission, etc.:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1neQvcDGHs

wisefool's picture

Everything you said is true, on both technical and emotional levels. As others have pointed out, the defenders of the offical stories act like zealots and internet tough guys. The people with open minds and counterpoints seem cool and collected, abiet broken like you and I were.

Speaking of counterpoints. It is not just about what van braun said about the size of the rocket to make the mission go UP. It is also about the volume needed to store the parachutes to help the capsules (and egos) have a soft landing on the way DOWN. Long story short, yes the rocket would have needed to be the size of the empire state building. But the "command" module seems to be the exact size needed to hold the decent charges+drogues+parachutes+cordage+ballast. AND NOTHING ELSE. No "wire wrapped" computers and 1970s era heat sinks. No solar panels. No batteries. No Astronaughts. No empty 02 tanks and tang envelops. Not even room for those moon rocks. And especially not enough room for the moon suits or moon boots or backpack life support systems.

Speaking of mankinds greatest acheivement. The smithstonian has set up a 501c3 you can donate to (tax free) to preserve those moonsuits. Turns out they can handle the harsh enviroment of space, the 100C+ lunar surface,  but they are rotting away here on earth. Also turns out NASA does not have the budget to properly store them.

All the internet tough guys need to put their money where their mouths are and donate. The really tough guys wont write it off their taxes as a deduction. I hope you are reading this Elon. You should learn from these people. They are soooo much smarter than you. /sarc

cyberfossil's picture

That parachute storage problem is very interesting---didn't know about that but it makes sense with the immensity and strength that would be required for such parachutes and lines to slow the supersonic capsule!  I will read up on that one.  Haha--the spacesuit preservation charity is such a bad joke and quite ironic in that I have 100 year ordinary old clothing sitting in my garage that I just threw in the wash last week and it is still good to wear with no deterioration!

VWAndy's picture

 I knew many people that worked on that stuff. JPL is a 15 min drive. Rocketdine 20 min, Some of them boys shoulda known? Right?

Rusty Shorts's picture

This guy worked at Rocketdyne and he says the Moon landing were not possible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7pzg9xpAOE

PrivetHedge's picture

None of the Rocketdyne people would have bought the 1.5Mlbs thrust figures of the F-1 engine, above 50 ATM it was a big firework.

Job security and pensions meant none would feel the need to speak out and get fired or die on a railway crossing.

GreatUncle's picture

Did we or did we not ... I kind of like the concept that using modern methods it becomes possible to detect the movment in a surface made to look distant is in fact far nearer. That is kind of neat and portrays the concept of things that those who rule us have done in the past may one day be proven to be a deceit.

Bit like the Russians influenced the US elections.

VWAndy's picture

 And why would my opinion matter enough for you to ask? Trust yourself friend. Really its better that way.

VWAndy's picture

 I dont know for sure either way. But it dont look like we did to me. The van Allen belt is problematic and they should have lightend the load before leaving. I would have left any and all surplus gear,rations,oxygen you name it behind. Its just prudent?

indio007's picture

Exactly. You have people saying even entertaining the idea that the moon landings are faked makes you stupid.

I learned long ago. The truth doesn't need protection.

 

VWAndy's picture

 One of my old costomers was a real judge and said a thing thats always stuck with me. The truth dont dance around Andy it tends to just stand right where it is. It dont need a coat of paint or dressing up.

Cabreado's picture

It's hard to fathom that after 50 years, including 20+ years of Relatively free-flowing-and-anonymous communication, no one has come forward with a compelling enough hard-fact and verifiable story that serves to debunk the moon landing(s).

indio007's picture

Your not looking hard enough. In fact your not looking. The evidene of fakery is overwhelming.

silverer's picture

We only know what we are told about the moon. I doubt anyone posting here went on the trip personally. So whatever information you have in your head about the moon came from writings, pictures, TV, stories from the original first parties, etc.. The sources of information we depend on is more suspect and fake every month that goes by. They just make stuff up now. What bothers me more than anything, is that if in the event the whole thing was actually a staged fake, the taxpayer suckers paid for a full fledged moon landing anyway.

Pasadena Phil's picture

You would think that a guy who believes that the odds are less than a one in a billion that we are NOT living in a computer simulation would also believe that in that world, ANYTHING is possible. Musk is a nut. Throw enough taxpayer money at me and I could become a billionaire making electric cars at a steep loss too. It's that "making things at a profit" thing that keeps tripping me up.

lucyvp's picture

What about the retro-reflector that was left?

Can we independtly prove those are there?

 

PrivetHedge's picture

No, they are not proof. A point on the moon reflecting more than another point? The lunar surface is highly irrelgular they had the ability to scan and map these points for 7 years before choosing some of them as 'landing' sites.

What about the fact Apollo is still Classified info?

Baron von Bud's picture

The biggest problem for the moon landings and Mars is the same. Radiation. We were told that Apollo 11 was able to dodge the worst effects of the radiation belts. There is intense radiation in space. Musk needs a much bigger ship because of the needed shielding.

PrivetHedge's picture

Impossible to dodge with a translunar burn, you have at least 5.5 hours going up through the zone (Source: Apollo 11 Journal: NASA) which is about 3 orbits.

You'd need a gravity drive to do it, once out of course you have problem #2: space radiation and CME flares.

LynchThe FederalReserve's picture

He was going off the deep end but we can now confirm that Tyler Durden has jumped the shark. What's next on ZH? The earth is flat. At this point I have completely lost respect for this site. Once upon a time it was an avenue for alternative thinking but he has gone full retard. They should add a tin foil hat to the Tyler Durden graphic.

Pasadena Phil's picture

This was by Hedgeless Horseman. And anyone who still insists on recycling this kind of "evidence" is simply a nut. Every single piece of evidence that I have ever seen offered up has been thoroughly debunked including this one.

Just stop thinking like a child and start thinking like a reasonable adult human being. One does not need to be a astronautical engineer to reason through this. First of all, the Russians were also capable of attempting a lunar landing at that time and even sent a unit to track the Apollo mission making everyone nervous. You can bet that the Russians KNOW that the landing was real. The technology already existed. Why would they fake it? Fear of failure?

Second, radio communications were trackable by anyone who had the equipment. Ham radio operators track manned space missions for sport. You can bet that governments were triangulating (for one thing) to establish distance and angle of radio signals.

Third, the space effort involved tens of thousands of people to work out all of the details at the minutest level. People I knew and people I still know today. I used to share an office with a stock broker who at one time had all twelve Apollo astronauts who walked on the moon and had pictures. Don't you think ONE of them would have blabbed by now? 

ZH should just focust on their usual "today is the last chance to sell out of the market" schtick. Worrying about reality is tiring enough. We don't need to waste our time listening to crazy lunatics.

 

 

PrivetHedge's picture

Just stop thinking like a child and start thinking like a reasonable adult human being.

Engineering timescales alone are impossible: compare to Orion.

The Russians got their wheat deal to stay quiet, plus they'd lied about Gagarin anyway.

Not many people in NASA needed to know, just a select few in the right positions.

But the miserable astronauts knew all right.

Mustafa Kemal's picture

"He was going off the deep end but we can now confirm that Tyler Durden has jumped the shark"

Maybe you could point to errors or exagerations?

Or do you just say "conspiracy theory!"

 

Rubbish's picture

You're new around here, it's ABC Media Ltd now and Bitcoin jabber used to get 99% down votes.

 

They made us stupid and there is no coming back.

 

Gold Bitchez......I pick up pennies

Baron von Bud's picture

ZH is not owned by the ABC network here in the US.

Rubbish's picture

We're living in one big deception, top to bottom. Look at the bright side, I won't have to pay any of the $20 Trillion in debt back.

 

Can we get on to more important things like Chemtrails, Fluoride and GMO's? You're soooo stupid now.

 

Gold Bitchez.....I pick up pennies

mikesap's picture

EM knows there's nothing up there but was just playing the game to keep Tesla subsidies going.  Otherwise everyhting collapses like a house of cards.  C'mon, 50 friggin years from the 'supposed' moon landing and we STILL haven't been able to go above lower earth orbit ever since. 50 years and we're STILL working on propulsive landings and parachute drops.  And we're supposed to believe the Europeans landing a dinky craft on an asteroid....wake everyone, we're being had....

Templar X's picture

Yeah, this was faked. LOL!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E96EPhqT-ds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GtCvZlXeVk

 

And these people did not see what they saw! LOL!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpwBqWcnZgM

 

Even the Irish press was in on the 'fakery'! LOL!!!

https://illusorypromise.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/irish-times-front-pa...

 

Here's the fifth Apollo moon landing (1972), Apollo 16, which I suppose is fake too, to some of the jokers here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E81SeSIGSrk

 

PrivetHedge's picture

In the first video the distance to the horizon looks around 20 feet. The moon is however 2159 miles across.

Your second video cuts out the crucial docking sequence which NASA doesn't seem to have included anywhere at any time, docking would be a thing to be very proud of, but it was untested (from the surface) and is never ever shown. This video merely highlights the omission yet again.

The third video merely proves at 1:02 in that the earth based TV feed is lower quality than the one alledgely coming from the moon flight.

The Irish Times - so what?

The Apollo16 footage you can see was taken in the desert as the horizon is evenly lit and quite far away, quite unlike the early A11/A12 soundstage versions with their pool of light lighting and 20 foot horizons. At 9:59 you can see the astronaut stepping out into total darkness mysteriously lit somehow, and well lit enough to be picked up by an ancient TV camera with the sun lit moon also in it's view: rather impossible.

At 17:12 we have one astronaut mysteriously front lit on the RHS, less so on the LHS but all the shadows under the rocks pitch black as you'd expect.

Later we see the landing with parachutes that mysteriously fitted into the CM along with all the camping gear, life support, 3 fully grown men with a splashdown within a km or so of the designated spot (like all Apollo missions invluding A13!) just for the press cameras on a nearby boat they managed to always just miss. 

Almost like they were pushed out the back of a transport plane in fact.

Obvious fakes are obvious fakes.

dangerb407's picture

Yeah, that's what Uncle Walter told you.   Go super long gold Reynolds Wrap!    Neither space projectiles nor Van Allen Belt radiation can penetrate it!

_SILENCER's picture

Point that goddamn space telescoep at the moon and let's see a crystal clear photo of all the shit left behind... not a shitty little dot and an arrow you get on some NASA site.

 

If Google earth can see my car in the driveway, NASA can get us a photo of the Chrysler allegedly left on the moon.

 

GreatUncle's picture

Use the hubble space telescope to prove this shit once and for all. LOL

malcolmevans's picture

I don't know shit from shinola about telescopes but didn't they say that the Hubble couldn't be pointed at the moon because the moon was too bright and would screw up the optics which are very sensitive?

PrivetHedge's picture

Not true really, remember even if that was a valid excuse we have various amounts of sun on the moon at different times, they'd just have to point it at the right place at dusk for that area to get a nice dark image.

The real problem involved with pointing hubble at the lunar surface is that apart from lots of craters, there's nothing to see, and being that it's NASA's telescope I think we're pretty much stuffed on getting them to prove themselves liars by doing it. They'll 'take the 5th' every time..

TwelveOhOne's picture

Yes, and the spacewalks on the ISS similarly can't do a 360 degree pan with the camera, because, sensitive?

kommissar's picture

good point: it's called a mercadtelluride sensor, and we use them in the semiconductor bidness as well.

quesnay's picture

Okay - https://www.space.com/12835-nasa-apollo-moon-landing-sites-photos-lro.ht...

Satellites around Earth are around 35,000 km away.

Distance to moon is around 384,000 km.

It's the difference between seeing a person 100 meters away and seeing a person 1 km away.

PrivetHedge's picture

The LRO had a 50 km mean altitude orbit.

So around 700 times closer than your 35,000 km earth orbit above.

It's the difference between seeing a person 700 meters away and seeing a person 1 meter away.

Slammofandango's picture

Just a silly premise from this author. There are other options for landing on Mars besides propulsive landing, just as there is here on Earth. A propulsive landing on Earth is possible but a rarely used method compared to all of the other safe ways to land a vehicle. Sure, some jet aircraft can take off and land vertically but those are but a tiny fraction of all of aircraft that are used on Earth. But just because it's comparatively  rare for a jet to take off and land vertically like the USMC and British Navy have been doing every day for the last 40 years, does not mean propulsive landing is fantasy. 

Propulsive landing is of course possible and to suggest that instead taking advantage of other possible means such as airfoils, parachutes, balloons, etc., somehow therefore equates to propulsive landing being impossible, is just ludicrous.

Siouxwestern's picture

Occam's Razor tells me that it is far far easier to photoshop a couple of old NASA photos and claim that, as photoshopped, they "prove" a dumbfuck truther theory. 

 

quesnay's picture

What does Occam's Razor tell you about a conspiracy involving thousands of people and multiple governments remaining a secret for several decades?