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.
IdioTsincracY's picture

Impossible ....IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

LOL

OMFG!!

Conscious Reviver's picture

Impractical might be a better term as lifting the weight of the necessary sheilding out of Earth orbit is not practical with available means.

Hey go wstch all the NASA original film to see how they

... Oh,  mever mind, NASA lost all the original film.

NASA is as fake as you are. Why cling to the obviously false narrative?  Do you work at NASA?

IdioTsincracY's picture

that must be it .. I work at NASA.

However, you, as somebody who has researched this matter, kindly,

tell us why the Russians did not point out all this BS when they could

have destroyed America's reputation.

Why?

PrivetHedge's picture

If you work at NASA can you explain wny Orion has failed for 17 years when Apollo succeeded in 2?

PrivetHedge's picture

a) Who would believe the Russians at the (1st) height of the cold war?

b) They lied about Gagarin themselves.

c) The rocket makers didn't mind the other side lying as it just increased their own funding.

d) The russians got a wheat deal out of staying quiet.

indio007's picture

So you work at NASA.

Your evidence for the USA landing on the moon in 1969 is Russia would have ratted on us.

Mmmmmkay.

fel.temp.reparatio's picture

...you work at nasa, omfg!! ;-) heh

Conscious Reviver's picture

Russia's motives are not something you are privy to. You use one false assumption to justify another.

Why not tell me again how in the days before NASA's hand delivered specially designed mirrors, you couldn't bounce laser beams off of the Moon.

dangerb407's picture

They were intimidated by the super duper Reynolds wrap that we used on the outside of the module!!!   Definitely not fake; no atmospheric projectictiles could penetrate super duper gold Reynold's wrap!!

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

Why?

US wheat.

Click on it and read.

I dare you.

that must be it .. I work at NASA.

That explains it.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

 

-Upton Sinclair

IdioTsincracY's picture

Holy $hit!! .. that's it .... they were too busy with the drought to

really pay attention to what was happening on the moon

Thank you! ... that  solves it ... hahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Unf-ingreal!!

------

I'm sure by keeping the secret of a fake landing, Russia got the wheat for free right??

Morons abound!

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

I'm sure by keeping the secret of a fake landing, Russia got the wheat for free right??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_grain_robbery

The great grain robbery was the July 1972 purchase of 10 million tons of United States grain (mainly wheat and corn) by the Soviet Union at subsidized prices, which resulted in higher grain prices in the United States. Grain prices soon reached 125-year highs in Chicago. In a 10-month span, soybeans went from $3.31 to $12.90 a bushel. Food prices around the world rose 50% in 1973. The U.S. government spent $300 million and by unwittingly subsidizing the Russian purchases, this event helped lead to the U.S. government seeking more information about global agricultural output via infrared satellite intelligence.

TANSTAAFL!

Conscious Reviver's picture

Fake fake fake.  Thanks HH.

Read Wag the Moon Doggie by excellent but dead Dave McGowan https://www.google.co.th/url?q=http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/moo...

IdioTsincracY's picture

Too bad he was not there to tell the Russian scientists when they accepted the

fact that they had lost the race to the moon.

How come all scientists all over the worl looked at the same things and nobody

said: Waaiiiiit a second, it's all fake!!

hmmmmmm ... A GLOBAL CONSPIRACY?!??!

DID THE WHOLE WORLD FAKE THE LANDING?!?!?

hmmmmmmmm

Conscious Reviver's picture

Use your mind for a change.  There is a long history of intimidating scientists who won't play along with the status quo. Copernicus, Galleleo? Tycho Brahe? Ever heard of them? Tycho was poisoned.

Why hasn't the NIST explained how 2 planes brought up down 3 buildings?

 

IdioTsincracY's picture

I know it's difficult in your case, but use your BRAIN and ask yourself,

if it was all fake, Russia could have destroyed the US by pointing that out,

why didn't they?

Then take a break from all conspiracy shit for at least 2 months

flyingcaveman's picture

Could be the whole 'cold war' was made up to to prevent that from happening and even if it did somehow get covered by the 3 US tv networks who were covering the hoax , it could be discredited as communist propaganda or just them being sore losers. The west would have no interest in covering what the Commies had to say.  Likewise, the Sovieits would have little to gain by doing so.  It's not like there was internet or anybody could tune into RT back then.

Jimbeau's picture

I don't know if HH is still bothering to read the comments, but I haven't seen one, huge (to me) discrepancy... I watched the original videos 'from the moon', live, back in 1969. Every one showed fluffy moon dust everywhere... EVEN RIGHT UNDERNEATH the lunar lander. How could this fluffy powder NOT be scoured and blown away in a huge blast ring (my term), dozens of yards away from the lander rockets?

AMPALANCE's picture

Don't forget it took a former Nazi to build a rocket big enough to carry the payload with out blowing itself up on the pad, then they "bolted" a 4 hundred pound dune buggy to the side. Makes perfect sense.

PrivetHedge's picture

Not just 'on the side', but on the side of the LM that is precariously balanced on top of a single rocket motor...

IdioTsincracY's picture

and as you wondered that, scientists all over the world looked

at the same images and said .. "hey, look, how come that dust does not get blown away".

And that led to a  worldwide revolt against the OBVIOUS fake.

----

Not!

IdioTsincracY's picture

the less it changes the facts

Vacca's picture

India, China and Japan have all photographed the moon landing sites from their own orbiters and verified the tracks left on the moon by the astronauts.

However, don't let facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

PrivetHedge's picture

No one can find any of those pictures from India, Japan or China, and neither can you.

tangent's picture

The most ardent moon landing hoax advocate on Youtube once said he would change his mind if the photos are there of the LM bottom half that was left there on the moon. Then photos did show up and he still did not revise his theory.

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

Then photos did show up and he still did not revise his theory.

Link?

Or should we just trust you?

Conscious Reviver's picture

"India, China and Japan have all photographed the moon landing sites from their own orbiters and verified the tracks left on the moon by the astronauts."

No they did not. Links or it didn't happen.

IdioTsincracY's picture

Don't bother, the loonies are out in full force

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

verified the tracks left on the moon by the astronauts

How would they verify the authenticity of these tracks and that they were left by astronauts?

Can we please see these government's electronic image files, or must we simply trust you on this matter?

Also, would you like to see a verified electronic image file of my 10 inch cock?

Vacca's picture

Do you know how to use google?

hedgeless_horseman's picture

 

Yes! 

Have you read the other comments in this thread where these images were debunked?

IdioTsincracY's picture

Nope ... just your neurons were debunked

. . . _ _ _ . . .'s picture

Let's say that you have been living under the impression that your dick is 8" long, but one day you take out a ruler, slap your manhood on the table, and measure it. It turns out your dick is only 5" long. Is your first reaction to doubt the ruler?

Now, let's say you have been living under the impression that the universe is 6000 years old. A scientist pulls out his (more sophisticated) ruler and measures it. It turns out the universe is 14B years old. Again, do you doubt the ruler?

The bible is a book full of wisdom and good advice, but the people who wrote it didn't have sophisticated rulers. They measured the world as best they could and have been living under the impression that certain things are a certain way ever since.

The bible is good for many things, but not for science. It was not designed to be.

Faith tends to relegate all our thinking to the heavens. Take some responsibility. Do some intellectual work. Thinking you have all the answers is the opposite of humility.

As for the moon, if you discount the photos as fakes, none of the images should be used as proof of anything. You can't both say that the film was made on earth and use it to prove a separate point. If you don't trust the institutions, the satellite photos, the people, or the government, then nothing which is said or shown to you can change your mind. On the other hand, if you trust the previous outright, no corruption is possible. There are many compelling arguments that we didn't go, and there is much compelling evidence that we did. Either way, your faith lies in either the establishment or in conspiracy. Both can be as religions. Neither should be.

As for flat Earth, math shows it cannot be. Math is a ruler everybody can trust because it is a language accessible to all. Trust it. The earth, like every other celestial body in the universe, is spherical. To deny that is to deny gravity, and to deny gravity, you're gonna' need a much different book, and you'll need to know how to read it.

Question everything, but know when to back off. Learn what it means to prove something. William of Ockham was right, and he helped to develop the idea of critical thinking, even though he was a theologian and a monk.

Have a good one.

SOS

Benjamin123's picture

I just want to point out that you are not actually doing any math. Just using the word math in your little rant. Math this, math that. Q.E.D.

Not so different from the addle brain prog bastards that love staring at pictues of galaxies while drooling SCIENCE!

LawfulPath's picture

It was Dave McGowan, more than five years ago, who finally got me to look at this subject seriously. Dave wrote a fourteen chapter essay called "Wagging the Moondoggie". It only took me somewhere into the second chapter to realize there was no way, with the disclosed level of technology available in the 1960s and early 1970s, that any of the Moon landings really happened.

What made me so sure? Power.

I've lived for years off the grid, making my own electricity, with post-2000 technology. Using more than a ton (literally) of batteries, solar panels, and a diesel generator, I can do pretty well. But not well enough to support electric heat or air conditioning.

Considering the extreme temperatures on the Moon's surface, it simply was not possible to provide life support on the lander, let alone in those ridiculous suits the astronauts supposedly bounced around in.

Anyone who wants to argue this point based on the actual power requirements of heating and cooling is welcome to join in. While you're at it, explain how air conditioning works when you have nowhere to vent the heat without also venting all your breathable air. Or how the suits switched instantly from cooling to heating the moment an astronaut stepped into the shade of the lunar lander.

What I've learned since my epiphany is Americans WANT to believe in the Moon landings so badly, they will not acknowledge any counter-argument no matter how logical or well-presented. The Moon landings have become one of those foundational beliefs underpinning the psyche of nearly every American, to the point they simply refuse to believe it could not have happened. In my experience, none of them will come forward with a logical, reasoned response; all responses will be knee-jerk emotional ravings.

McGowan's essay is very enlightening, if you can find it. His daughter took down his website after his swift and somewhat suspicious death from cancer in 2015.

tangent's picture

I don't agree because would not NASA have measured the most favorable time and place for a lander such that the temperature would be moderate and then design and test the module in those exact same conditions? They did have a very large vacuum chamber. They got to pick the exact amount of solar radiation hitting the lunar module.

Rusty Shorts's picture
Dave McGowan Laurel Canyon and Apollo moon landing hoax SOT radio 6/3/11

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frjaJWkI1u8

 

Yes, Dave got me to thinking too, I even went out to Califonia and visited Laurel Canyon, cool place.

dangerb407's picture

It's in the link below; good read.   Also read his Laurel Canyon info; many of the Woodstock/Altamont type rock stars in the 60s had a father who was CIA or military

 

http://centerforaninformedamerica.com/

IdioTsincracY's picture

So, Russia and the US were competing over who'd get first to the moon.

Then the US fakes the whole thing and, while all these morons online can DEFINITELY tell

that the moon landing is fake, the Russians, all their best scientists, all of them

looked at this and said: OK, they beat us! They could've raised all the issues and doubts

that these Conpiratards talk about, but no! They did not! .... hmmmmmmmm

--------

We are surrounded by an ocean of IDIOTS pretending to be experts on the web.

el buitre's picture

What you say is almost true.  The Soviet leadership and top scientists knew it was fake and for the most part made a national political decision to keep their collective mouths shut.  What that means to me is that the "cold war" was not exactly as it was presented to me by Walter Cronkite at the time.

The Van Allen Belt obstacle is very convincing to me, but what snapped my rat trap shut was an hour by hour analysis of the photos with impossible multiple light sources casting shadows with impossible angles.  Trigonometry won the battle for me.  Stanley Kubrick was certainly a cinematic genius but there was only so much he could do.  But the mass media did the rest for 48 odd years.  Welcome to the Matrix.  Another myth bites the dust for the people with technical or scientific backgrounds who can look the devil right in the eye.

dangerb407's picture

the first part of your name is fitting.  Yes, we got there in a module wrapped by our magic tinfoil.  Fuc*ing moron...

PeterLong's picture

It takes one to know one, a fake that is.

Snaffew's picture

ummm...the moon's gravity is about 40 percent of mars' gravity (mars is only 37 percent of the gravity of earth)---a landing on the moon requires only 16 percent of the thrust needed to land on earth.

Saratoga's picture

ummmm...we never went...pure hollywood

quesnay's picture

And the reduced gravity means you need only 4.5% the energy to escape the moon as you do earth.

And this doesn't take into account there is no air resistance on the Moon, or the fact that the craft needs less fuel (and so is lighter). Take all that into account and the result will be 1/100th the energy needed or less.

PrivetHedge's picture

So why did they need a winch for the rover? In the moon that's an easy pickup. It would also have slid around a lot more with 1/6th the grip but the same cornering mass.

Also you still have to stop 15 tonnes of MASS with that motor without disturbing the dust.

Perhaps you can explain why the descent and ascent motors are silent?

Or why hypergolic thrust residue is visible on the shuttle in space but not when lifting several tonnes of mass into lunar orbit?

dangerb407's picture

Moon landing videos are tied for the most stupid AF disinfo events with Sandy Hook (see multiple role playing David Wheeler).   The fact that anyone believes either crap story gives me little hope that the Deep State will ever be fully disclosed and neutralized.    I'm not discounting the fact that someone has potentially been to the moon with technology that hasn't been disclosed to us but it certain wasn't in that shi*box that the spooks in DS want us to believe made it there.