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.
el buitre's picture

And they murdered Gus Grissom for painting a lemon on that shit tube.  Was Hillary around then :-)

I Feel a little Qeasy's picture
Did Elon Musk just confirm that the moon landings were faked?

HOW THE FUCK WOULD HE KNOW? You cunts really are as dumb as dirt.

Dormouse's picture

Would former Nazis and Freemasons lie to the American people?

TwelveOhOne's picture

Based on the respective oaths, is there even such a thing (above the grass) as a "former" one of either?

indio007's picture

And Satanists. JPL's Jack Parson was a buddy of Aliester Crowley.

Dormouse's picture

Don't forget L. Ron was part of that trio as well.

Tenshin Headache's picture

The (six) landing sites have all been imaged by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.


PrivetHedge's picture

So you're saying that NASA can prove something NASA said by referring to some NASA data?


indio007's picture

all 6 pixels ? BWAHAHAHA!!! I'm sure you made a positive ID.

dangerb407's picture

stop already disinfo dude.    You must have an investment in the magic tinfoil that the module was made of!

indio007's picture

Mythbusters LOL.

Do you know they were questioned about this in front of an audience and thier response was , "We are not scientists, we are entertainers" ?

Vacca's picture

This is the only place on the internet that this "quote" appears.


indio007's picture

It was at a conference in Las Vegas in front of 200 people.

There is video of it somewhere on Youtube.


indio007's picture

NASA = $50 million / day

ebear's picture

Skepticism is all well and good, but there are times when you have to be skeptical of skeptics.

Bubbette's picture
Let’s All Remember the Time Buzz Aldrin Punched a Conspiracy Theorist in the Face



The Eagle has landed.

GardenWeasel's picture

You might want to consider this:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpnyoffFloY

Basically, in 1969, the technology to land a man on the moon DID exist, the technology to fake it DID NOT.  

You decide.

dangerb407's picture

magic tinfoil module anyone?  LOL

indio007's picture

Von Braun said it would take 3 rockets bigger than the Saturn V int the book he wrote about it so I haven't clue what your talking about.

The techonology to fake it DID exist. The first fake photo is from 1876. They had optical printers in the 1940's. Maybe you should go watch the first Ben Hur (1925).

indio007's picture

How retarded do you have to be to think we had the tech to go to the moon but not the tech to fake it?

Do you even hear what your saying?

white horse's picture

They never hear what they are saying, logic is a fake science to them.

indio007's picture

We don't need his confirmation.

Where's the 2000+ banker boxes of telemtry data NASA.

Oops you lost it? BS!!!

You think the moon landing is real?

Who panned the camera because they left someone there?

Apollo 17 LEM launch



Still think it happened?

Go collect your 10G'S THEN




hedgeless_horseman's picture


In deed, whoever stayed behind to pan and zoom the camera did a very nice job, all things considered.


Rusty Shorts's picture

The ascent module's rocket engine was not steerable, "not gimbled", crazy stuff huh?

dlweld's picture

I guress the technology to do a motorized pan just didn't exist then.

hedgeless_horseman's picture


Double tap.

Fuck me.

See my point?

I cannot even comment correctly after nearly 8 years, yet the Apollo astronauts supposedly effected a soft landing on the moon 8 of 8 attempts, nearly 50 years ago, and Musk can't do it reliably today. 

hedgeless_horseman's picture


You tell me who you think was controlling the pan and zoom to keep the rocket ship focused and in frame, and I will say if the technology was on the Apollo mission:

Houston?  No.

The astronauts in the LEM?  No.

The astronaut in lunar orbit? No.

Software?  No.

Griffin's picture

Is it not possible that the camera was being remotely controlled, possibly even automatic, designed to lock on this specific target and then transmit this image to the module.


hedgeless_horseman's picture


Not in 1969.

Definitely not from the surface of the moon in 1969.

Most definitely not carried in the LEM to the surface of the moon in 1969.


hedgeless_horseman's picture



It was first used on the Apollo 10 mission. The camera used the Command Module's extra S-band channel and large S-band antenna to accommodate the camera's larger bandwidth. It was only used in the Lunar Module when it was docked to the Command Module. Unlike the earlier cameras, it contained a portable video monitor that could be either directly attached to the camera or float separately. Combined with the new zoom lens, it allowed the astronauts to have better precision with their framing.


Apollo 12 was the first mission to use the color camera on the lunar surface. About 42 minutes into telecasting the first EVA, astronaut Alan Bean inadvertently pointed the camera at the Sun while preparing to mount it on the tripod. The Sun's extreme brightness burned out the video pickup tube, rendering the camera useless. When the camera was returned to Earth, it was shipped to Westinghouse, and they were able to get an image on the section of the tube that wasn't damaged. Procedures were re-written in order to prevent such damage in the future, including the addition of a lens cap to protect the tube when the camera was repositioned off the MESA.




Apollo 14 EVA frame demonstrates the "blooming" issue with Color Camera.


The color camera successfully covered the lunar operations during the Apollo 14 mission in 1971. Image quality issues appeared due to the camera's automatic gain control (AGC) having problems getting the proper exposure when the astronauts were in high contrast light situations, and caused the white spacesuits to be overexposed or "bloom". The camera did not have a gamma correction circuit. This resulted in the image's mid-tones losing detail.



After Apollo 14, it was only used in the Command Module, as the new RCA-built camera replaced it for lunar surface operations.


[However, MIRACULOUSLY] On Apollo 15 the camera produced live images from the LM's MESA, just as the previous missions did. It was repositioned from the MESA onto a tripod, where it photographed the Lunar Rover Vehicle (LRV) being deployed. Once the LRV was fully deployed, the camera was mounted there and controlled by commands from the ground to tilt, pan, and zoom in and out. This was the last mission to have live video of the mission's first steps via the MESA, as on the following flights it was stowed with the LRV.




And if you believe that, then I have some RCA stock to sell you.

Haitian Snackout's picture

It also had to locate, overtake , and dock with a command module literally out in the middle of f'ing nowhere. Circling the moon at a leisurely 4000 mph. 

Griffin's picture

The Appolo crew trained in Iceland before the mission.


The reason why this area in the north east was selected is that it looks very much like the moon.

Maybe there were some Hollywood film makers on the trip with them :)




Valentina Tereshkova, the fisrst woman in space  and Neil Armstrong http://lemurinn.is/2013/01/04/valentina-tereshkova-og-neil-armstrong/

dangerb407's picture

RIP to the hero that was left behind!!   Plus, the video of what the module supposedly did is stupid AF

PrivetHedge's picture

Also lack of hypergolic mist/smoke as seen on the Shuttle thrusters,

Note also it rocks slightly as it ascends, as if on a rope.

Also it's a rocket motor sitting on a flat plate: never tested in 1/6th G.

In fact none of the LM was tested, but the project WAS late to deliver, and we're supposed to buy that it all worked after sitting 2 days in the sun cooking on one side and freezing on the other? No chance.

elephant's picture

For me, the giveaway is watching these guys moving around in supposed 1/6 earth gravity.  They should be jumping around meters off the ground but all I see is movement in a slowed down video recording.

GoinFawr's picture

so how'd they fake this one then elephant:



Galileo is rolling over in his grave...

PrivetHedge's picture

A lead strip up the quill of the feather.

They didn't manage to hide a few acoustic mistakes caused by sound transmitting through the air though. 

GoinFawr's picture

...You do realize the point of the experiment was to demonstrate that objects (in a ~vacuum, so friction is ~zero) accelerate through a gravitational field at the same rate, regardless of mass, right?

IE. If that drop wasn't conducted in a ~vacuum, even your 'lead-lined feather' would have had its direction deflected by atmospheric friction, rather than accelerating straight down at the same 1.63 metre per second squared rate as the hammer.

Try Again.


PrivetHedge's picture

No, you try it in your living room.

It was about a 4' drop, try it yourself.



GoinFawr's picture

Your example doesn't refute my points PH, it confirms them

PrivetHedge's picture

Only if your point is that you can do the experiment on earth just the same.

It hardly proves the guy was in the big vacuum chamber at Langley, let alone on the lunar surface!

GoinFawr's picture

"the big vacuum chamber at Langley"

Oh, you mean Big Gary's Vacuum

Somehow I get the impression no amount of hard evidence could change your mind on this one PH, but just in case:

One point six meters per second squared can't lie, my friend.


Otherwise, you keep trying!

mrviolin22's picture

This footage and the still shots I consider "B" roll. Maybe they wanted a backup ...just in case. They might have used slo motion to make it look real. 

But , fact is...we made it there ...and back. 

elephant's picture

you speak so authoritatively yet offer nothing of substance to support your position