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.




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." 



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."




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



* 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...




What do you think, now?


Peace, liberty, and prosperity,


Comment viewing options

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

The reason there are no more missions to the moon is because it is pointless. Nothing up there. Someone please explain the value. A mars landing would be equally as useless as another moon landing. These were and are jobs programs and really serve little purpose.

Mustafa Kemal's picture

"The reason there are no more missions to the moon is because it is pointless"

the problem with this logic is that then many other government programs would have been terminated -because they are pointless, except as a way to gouge

cj51's picture

why don't you do your homework and show it to us. The Apollo missions went thru the radiation belt very quickly, like over 25000 mph.The downside for the astronauts has been most of them have experienced cataracts in their later years.



PrivetHedge's picture

The Apollo missions went thru the radiation belt areas for nearly 6 hours on the way out and 5 and a half on the way in ACCORDING TO NASA'S OWN APOLLO 11 JOURNALS ON THE NASA SITE.

Please don't keep repeating lies that are disproven by NASA's own online data.





PrivetHedge's picture

Then you would have also seen the 2nd stage burn bright yellow, when the advertised 2nd stage was a pale blue (hydrogen) burn.

You can see this on youtubes of the launch videos.

Rubbish's picture

You watched these things go up then sideways...then kerplunk into the middle of the ocean.


Gold Bitchez.....I pick up pennies

PrivetHedge's picture

I reckon there's quite a bit in the Atlantic that's not supposed to be there, although much of the actual launch vehicle would have been empty.

Hopefully one day someone will do some salvage and put out an SM or CM that was supposed to be somewhere else.

indio007's picture

Anecdotal evidence isn't.

Suicyco's picture

I think the question presented is; did they ever leave the earth's orbit for the moon?

That body language bit was quite something. Looks like men ashamed of telling porkies.

PrivetHedge's picture

I suspect they didn't even reach orbit for Apollo 11.

We haven't even got Orion safe enough for that yet.

Vimes's picture

The technology was insufficient to go to the moon and back. NASA is still trying to figure out how to go back, after Bush  (or Obama) wanted them to study the possibilities. New suits were required  NASA said. New protection against micro meteorites had to be developed and of course a sufficient shield against cosmic rays. If it had worked so well in the past, not a single event sort of thing as well. Why start again? Should be simple enough, if they actually had been to the moon. There is a lot more but the internet is full of it already.

BouncingCat's picture

Of course, we went to the moon.  it takes a remarkable idiot to suggest we didn't.

dangerb407's picture

wow, someone isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer

PrivetHedge's picture

Maybe the idiot is the one inside your personal belief system and it's time to develop some critical thinking?

dearth vader's picture

Was Galileo a remarkable idiot?

indio007's picture

"Is there any knowledge in the world which is so certain that no reasonable man could doubt it? This question, which at first sight might not seem difficult, is really one of the most difficult that can be asked."


Bertrand Russell

MGA_1's picture

The big conspiracy is that it's made of cheese !  They couldn't tell anybody...

tuetenueggel's picture

I hereby confirm, that elon musk is a notorious hot air filled ballon of spreading nonsens.

I am the needle who makes this hot air filled ballon burst.............

coast1's picture

I didnt take time to study the links, or wtch any videos because, I REALLY DONT CARE :-)

I already know they lie about everything, so it would not surprise me if its fake, and if its not fake, so what, we went to the moon 50 years ago...

tuetenueggel's picture

nobody cares about at all.

indio007's picture
SpaceX Merlin (& Raptor ) Engine R&D



I'd say compare to the Saturn 5 development but all that stuff was destroyed.

indio007's picture

So far here is the evidence we landed on the moon in the comments.


1. Why didn't <insert country> rat USA out?
2. It's too large of conspiracy!
3. Your insane.
4. You don't understand science
5. We have photos of the landing sites (containing unidentifiable pixels)
6. Buzz Aldrin will punch your face!

I'm convinced!




Scrimpy's picture

The jew run media lies to us about everything.....

tuetenueggel's picture

quite normal as they are joos as you already mentioned.

CoonT's picture

H.H., ignoring history, returns to the cave....

Inevitability's picture

If I need to read shit like this i'll actually just go to infowars.com


You're damaging your credibility with shite like this hedgeless...


Oh & listening to Elon at all? Survivor bias. He will be okay sipping wine & popping ambien for the foreseeable future.


Get back to the quality work please.

Ralph Spoilsport's picture

Gotta admit he picked the right topic to get the view count up.

Flankspeed60's picture

The ratio of down:up votes you're getting is a good indicator of the amount of sanity left on this site, i.e. not much and going down quickly. Disappointing.

IdioTsincracY's picture

yep ... the old ZH was a jewel with thoughtful people and great discussions...

This is just a cesspool full of morons

PrivetHedge's picture

It's not a sanity issue, it's a critical thinking issue.

Look at the timescales.

Look at the radiation Orion is afraid of today.

Look at the fact no one's been back. Anyone. Ever.

Look how fast they dumped the F-1 engine.

Look how little testing they did on the LM (none).

Look at the splashdown accuracy

Look up: no one ever did on the moon. Stars? WHo cares, we're astronauts.

Look at the problems with the photos and video

Look at the space available in the CM for a several day camping trip with 3 adults unable to leave their small tent.

Look at the problems with 2nd stage burn colour - they didn't launch what they said they had.

Look at how no Apollo astronaut has suffered any radiation issues despite 11+ hours in the Van Allen belts.

Look at the launches during a period of CMEs from an active sun.

Benjamin123's picture

Suspicious though that as hard as getting one man on the moon was, what with all the weight constraints, they sent three. I get two astronauts for logistics but three? And a completely unnecesary golf cart (batmobile) to boot. Sure, just cram more useless shit and people and oxygen and food, they'll just make add another million tons of fuel to lift whatever you want.

As for the pictures taken from earth, these are always pixelated. The pixel is the lunar module, got it, flag and footprints. The pixel was not photoshopped in a movie studio using MS Paint.


Slammofandango's picture

You are simply ignorant to the fact that the Apollo moonwalkers put on overshoes that were stored in the LEM.  The overshoes were only worn while they were on the moon. Once they got back in the lander, they took the overshoes off because they were no longer needed. 

Only the final mission, Apollo 17,  thought to preserve overshoes that had tred on the moon and those are now on display at the Smithsonian.  

PrivetHedge's picture

Because the LEM was like the TARDIS inside right?

Getting a suit off and on in there is highly questionable.

Even getting out of it wearing a suit is a puzzler, standing up in a pressure suit there's a small panel next to the floor to get through, and you've got to face the ground and come out feet first while you do it!  Right. Really not seeing that.

IdioTsincracY's picture

I'd like to underscore IGNORANT and add a touch of ARROGANT.


PrivetHedge's picture

Interesting how abusive the believers are. 
Not a great sign of confidence is it?

PrivetHedge's picture

How do you make footprints in vacuum dried dust?

Not possible.

IdioTsincracY's picture

I know Conspiraturds have problems undestanding science,

so let's try with a video

PrivetHedge's picture

So you think some damp sharp sand is the same as the vacuum dried lunar dust?

Who says the lunar dust is sharp? Ah, NASA.

How does cosmic dust subject to hard radiation get to be sharp BTW? Most things crumble in radiation - like the elephant's foot in Chernobyl, they don't turn into sharp sand at earth (50-90%) humidity.

So you have the science wrong on two levels:

a) Assuming lunar dust is sharp 'because NASA said so'
b) Ignoring earth humidity

In fact fine dust almost liquifies as many people crossing desert tracks on motorbikes have found to their cost, it's extremely difficult to ride in.

Go get some sharp sand, heat it up to drive all the moisture off and then try and make the nice crisp footprints we see on Apollo. You'll see.

PorscheNoSub's picture

It would help to compare the same two things. There were 2 configurations - lunar surface and then in orbit and intravehicular activity. That is not the extravehicular/lunar excursion setup. See page 8. It was basically an over-boot.



Geez, people. This is getting hysterical and ridiculuous. The internet has real answers - you just need to actually try and look. "A conclusion is where someone else stopped thinking."

Baron Samedi's picture

Suppose they didn't use chemical rockets to get to the moon. That could make a difference. They'd have needed studio tricks to cover that up, too.

Baron Samedi's picture

Suppose they didn't use chemical rockets to get to the moon?  That could make a difference.

They'd have needed studio tricks to cover that up, too. 


SquadronVBF94's picture

The propulsive energy required to land on the moon is but a small fraction that required to land on Mars. Add in the factor of the requirements of a much larger vehicle that would be needed and the propulsion requirements go up even more.

Going into space is a Delta of one atmosphere. Blow up a toy balloon and you create a Delta of around three to four atmospheres. We routinely dive to great depths in the ocean where we deal with one Delta every thirty feet. The notion that the vacuum of space would have exploded the LEM module is absurd on it's face. I can only imagine what a boring unaccomplished lives people like this author must lead to be so foolishly obsessed.

Musk may be a self-indulgent ass but no where near as much as this author.


Dovda Wimar's picture

Exactly. The mass of Mars is much greater than the moon, hence the gravitational forces involved are significantly greater. The difference between a propulsive landing on Mars v. Moon is like the difference between stopping a speeding 18-wheeler v. Motorcycle. Physics are a bitch.

o r c k's picture

They left footprints and gear at each landing site. It's still there and has been photographed by various countries. Case closed. However NASA does lie about Mars and heavily manipulates Curiosity Rover's photos. I studied these photos myself and it changed my whole life. There is massive,widespread and undeniable evidence of a Martian industrial civilization. either past or present.  NASA, etc., has been successful in labeling anyone who reports this as a nut-job. When the truth is finally revealed, humanity will be shocked with wonder - as I was. Yeah, I know--I used to think people who said things like this were looney too. But I'm trained in several areas of science and I know what I see. One day we'll all hear about the discovery of the millenium. You'll be shocked.  

PrivetHedge's picture

Footprints in vacuum dried dust?

No chance.

Also try bending over in a pressure suit with a chest mounted camera you can't see to take a (perfectly exposed and focussed) photo of your own foot.

No chance.

indio007's picture

Please link those photos.

Truly Inspiration's picture

It must be silly season again when reading such articles.

Question for the moon fake supporters: Why would you fake six moon landings? It's already a big risk to fake one moon landing with thousands of people being involved in the Apollo project around the world!! So why 6 times?!

I am working in space domain for more than 36 years and I could have made millions if I would have found any prove for a fake moon landing.

There was no fake, except: NASA prepared certain film material in a studio before the launch. The political pressure at that time was so big that certain people needed an insurance in case the moon landing would have failed. But as the mission was a success the studio recordings went into the archive. And at the end of the Apollo program they were forgotten and landed with the rest of the film boxes in one big archive.