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.
WTFUD's picture

He's probably got a dick in his mouth.

TwelveOhOne's picture

You know, I had an alternate interpretation of John McAfee's threat to his genitals if Bitcoin doesn't rise enough in a certain amount of time.

He said he'd "eat his dick on live TV."

Perhaps this is merely a colloquial phrase, and he's proposing to demonstrate advanced flexibility?

It wouldn't be PG, though...

Wicked Old People's picture

If you think of NASA as the 'entertainment' division of the DoD then you'll be on the right track.

Dormouse's picture

More like NASA is the science division of Disney.

blankfeinsmom's picture

g(moon) = 1.6 m/s^2
g(mars) = 3.7 m/s^2

evildimensions's picture

Only whacko conspiracy theorists entertain such deranged notions as fake moon landings. I'd love to see you tell this to Edgar Mitchell or better yet Buzz Aldrin that the moon landing was "faked." You'll get your fucking clock cleaned.

In truth, a black eye and a broken nose might do you some good for espousing such ludicrous horsheshit.

Conscious Reviver's picture

Thank you for expressing the status quo party line in a nutshell.  'Parrot the party line or risk a black-eye and broken nose. '

evildimensions's picture

Dipshit trolls could benefit from a black eye and a busted lip.  Let them experience the real world for a change.

TwelveOhOne's picture

There's always a bigger bully than you, but, good to know on which side of the violence equation you fall.

Conscious Reviver's picture

Dipshit troll yourself cheesedick. Don't you know that Internet Tough Guy is a ridiculous pose to take, evildimensions. Can I just call you evil for short?  And why is evildimensions so passionate about NASA truthiness?

dangerb407's picture

You go, disinfo guy with your roll of magic tinfoil to protect the astranauts through the Van Allen belt.   They need to bring back the "Real American Heroes" commercials for "Mr believe what the spooks tell you" guys like you

TwelveOhOne's picture

Huh; just one letter away: "Believe what the spooks tell you"; "Believe what the Spock tells you" -- a character who is most logical, with few emotions (but one human parent; so, some).  Spock came from a volcano planet so listen to him!

Vacca's picture

The went through the van Allen belts within an hour and the spaceship deflected most of the radiation anyway. Not nearly enough time to have any adverse effect on them.

PrivetHedge's picture

Not within an hour no. Try over 11 hours.

NASA Apollo 11 journal gives the times as nearly 6 hours on the way out, 5.5 hours on the way back.

The spaceship's aluminum converts radiation to Xrays and neutron secondary radiation + the cosmic rays that get through anyway.

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap11fj/02earth-orbit-tli.html

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap11fj/04nav-housekeep.html

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap11fj/26day9-reentry.html

PrivetHedge's picture

No one who had really gone would be violent when challenged. Living a lie and being called on it's very stressful.

As for Edgar, he couldn't even see stars orbiting around the dark side of the moon so he's either the most unobservant person ever with zero interest in space or a lair.

As for Buzz and Neil, you can tell they never went anywhare with their miserable hangdog press conference.

evildimensions's picture

No wonder ZH has joined the list of fake news sites with whackos like you posting here. In fact, you are probably a deep state agent trying to discredit this site.

ZH used to be a source of wisdom. Now it's become a home for trolls, whack jobs, and joo haters.

PrivetHedge's picture

Nice fact free personal attack there.

The translation of your post "I have no argument so I'll just insult you instead'.

Bravo.

Ralph Spoilsport's picture

You do sound like a retard so deal with it.

Mr Hankey's picture

I would be in stunned incredulity or burst out  laughing. If I did something moderately impressive Id be like really, true story . I heard Armstrong  punched out a troll , too quickly It seems it would tak me a few moments to ve insulted.

knackered's picture

I told the pussies. They ran with their tail between their legs, clucking like chickens. Then I cleaned their clocks and I'm coming after you now.

iamerican4's picture

Even great productions have flaws. Kubrick did a great job but visible wires and the absence of a blast crater under, nor dust on the top of the lander's feet, are just a few. How good of Stanley's widow to make public his correspondence with the JFK-assassinating homo Nixon White House.

dlweld's picture

How do you think dust behaves with no atmosphere and blasted by 16,000 fps exhaust? It doesn't puff up and land gently back on the lander's feet - it goes in a straight line llke a bullet away from the lander and lands miles away. You can see it streaking away in the last few seconds of the lander's video.

 

Blast crater? On rock covered by 3 inches of dust?

PrivetHedge's picture

"On rock covered by 3 inches of dust?"

No, dust STILL on a rock after slowing down a 15 ton mass LM from a rocket motor.

flyingcaveman's picture

how'd they wiggle the flagpole into the rock?

 

PrivetHedge's picture

It went in as easily as if it were damp sand..

iamerican4's picture

That "no gravity" is why they need lift wires on the "astronauts." Watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zz9Bzi_GyD0

Chunk's picture

ah the good ol' flat earth/fake moon landings p s y - o p s...youtube has many super slick well produced vids about all this..i'm guessing they are in place to gauge just how low the iq and critical thinking/math skills of the avg american idiot are down to after the 60 year concerted effort to form a generation that will believe, or more accurately, not believe, ANYTHING.

my first inclination used to be to feel sad and want to educate these poor fools ...but you know what?  FUCK THEM.  it's willful ignorance and delusion.

 

 

TwelveOhOne's picture

it's willful ignorance and delusion.

Same could be said for your position.  I don't echo your sentiment prior to the above quote, though.

honestann's picture

First and foremost, nobody should ever believe what anyone claims... especially someone who works for authoritarians.  And the predators-that-be and supporting predator-class who call themselves the USSA are least trustworthy of all.  Their word is worth less than zero.

Nonetheless, my guess is, the landings happened.  Am I certain?  No.  Am I confident?  Fairly.

Nonetheless, a skeptic on either side of this issue has plenty of compelling "evidence" to consider and point at.

On balance though, I'd say the evidence that something landed and left scientific instruments on the moon is virtually impossible to refute.  So ask yourself this question.  Do you imagine the incredibly slow and lame electronics and control technology of the mid and late 1960s would be sufficient to land those craft on the moon?  Would I say "impossible"?  No.  Would I say "unlikely"?  Yes.  Could maybe astronauts in lunar orbit somehow control a landing craft?  Don't know.  But I think most skeptics agree that their fundamental disagreement is... they don't believe astronauts could travel to the moon without getting killed by radiation (either quickly or within weeks of their return).  So if they could get to lunar orbit (to remote control the lander), it seems likely they also landed.

One comment about the interesting complaint that "nobody went back to the moon in so many years".  One reason the moon mission was so important and got so much funding was... virtually ALL technology developed was VERY useful for military weapons.  Back in the 1960s, the USSA wanted to pretend they were "doing science" while developing weapons employing rockets and so forth.  The combined budget of NASA and the military was bigger than military alone, but more important provided cover for military projects (which could be deemed "part of the moon mission").

BTW, I reject the notion that "they could not keep this secret for so many years".  We don't know that.  And we do know that other huge projects WERE kept silent, so we can't be sure.  And without doubt, anyone who convincingly blew the lid on a fake moon mission would be so screwed... along with all their family and friends... that few would even dare.  Also note that anyone who revealed the moon mission was fake, but did not have extremely compelling and impossible to fake physical evidence, would immediately be laughed at and branded a nut, and thereby made irrelevant to the mainstream.

When thinking about this topic, one should observe that overall, scientists are just as unethical as any other humans.  The absolute proof of that little factoid is the global warming hoax, where virtually all scientists paid to perform the fake "science" have been totally willing to lie about the situation... in order to enjoy the nice fat paychecks, prestige, and social acceptance for being part of the scam.  This factoid can be referenced to bolster both sides of the moon mission question, but should always be kept in mind.

No matter which provisional inference one draws from the evidence, one must never ignore any of the evidence.  How NASA could possibly "lose" so much original material is almost beyond comprehension.  On the other hand, the pentagon has lost somewhere between $10,000,000,000,000 and $100,000,000,000,000 according to various sources (though yeah, that's not exactly a commensurate comparison).  It is always possible someone with access stole them, and they will be found (and hopefully recognized) when that person dies and the relatives liquidate their assets.

I'm a scientist with many years of experience in astronomy and space-sciences.  I am confident humans can survive in deep space for extended periods with feasible protections.  Nonetheless, I can't prove that to anyone here... yet, and therefore do not entirely dismiss those concerns.  But I will most certainly go when I get a chance.  I'm not worried.

Saratoga's picture

Do a lot more research. They never ever went.

Rusty Shorts's picture

The Moon is about 1.3 light seconds away from the Earth, or 2.6 seconds round trip. Now, lets say we're talking by radio comm to someone on the surface of the Moon, you would expect AT LEAST a 3 second delay betwizt the two parties, probably more in a real world situation, considering response time, radio repeaters etc.etc. If you listen to NASA's communications with the Apollo astronauts it becomes painfully clear that something is amiss.

honestann's picture

That could potentially be an interesting way to investigate these questions.  Unfortunately, you'd need to be ABSOLLUTELY certain that you had the original recordings, or at least faithful copies, otherwise you could easily fake yourself out.

In many cases they edit these VERY ANNOYING time gaps out of space-mission conversaions... precisely because they are very annoying.  Also, you need to be at least a little forgiving and not jump to conclusions.  Why?  Because when you're in this environment where delay always occurs, the natural tendency (when the conversation is interesting or important) is to start answering questions or comments before you hear the whole sentence (based on hearing the first part of a sentence).

I'll give you an analog (albeit not very precise) from my personal experience as a private pilot.  Far and away the most difficult part of learning to fly (for me) was... learning to understand WTF is being said over the freaking communications radios (with towers, ground control, air-to-air). After a couple hundred hours of experience flying though, one sorta knows what people tend to say (in various circumstances).  So what happens is, pilots (and ground control, and towers) just assume the other side said what they expected them to say... and answer based upon that guess.  For a while I thought I was the only one "faking it", but in time I heard many, many hilarious instances of voice replies that had absolutely nothing to do with the comment or question asked by the other side.  This happens when you understand what was said, but the other party does not.  So, while you may be onto something... you need to be careful.

BTW, you can verify for yourself that this becomes a natural tendency by rigging up a couple computers to delay conversations between two people in the same room (over a LAN).  You will notice what I'm talking about.  Hilariously, you will also notice the opposite effect sometimes.  When the parties are busy with something else, or kind of bored with the conversation, they will develop a habit to delay their responses even more than necessary... as a subconscious or semi-conscious (or conscious) way to assign a lower priority to the boring mental thread (computer term) in your head.

Nonetheless, if someone was looking for a way to [tend to] confirm or refute something like the moon missions, that's an interesting and possibly fruitful approach.

ebear's picture

"Far and away the most difficult part of learning to fly (for me) was..."

LOL.  That was my very first question on the first day of fight training!  How the hell do you understand any of this?  "You get used to it" was the reply.  Yeah, that was helpful.

ebear's picture

heheh... "fight training"

Floydian slip.

Rusty Shorts's picture

Indeed, and another line of investigation would be the movements of the astronauts in 1/6 gravity, what is presented by NASA is the astronauts appearing to move in slow motion, but one would expect that in 1/6 gravity body movements would be faster, not slower..

Ludwig Von's picture

As an 8 year old, I saw the television emissions. And there was an effective delay of a few seconds in the communications. 

WTFUD's picture

That was you shitting in your diapers, to be fair.

Unreliable Narrator's picture

It's not just that.  In the original recordings, the astronauts and mission control are constantly talking over each other because neither realizes the other party started speaking.  The clean tapes people usually mistake for "original recordings" are heavily edited to remove both the delay and periods where mission control and the astronauts were talking over each other. Additionally, other people besides the government agencies monitored and recorded the transmissions from the astronauts (i.e., WHAS radio in Kentucky for Apollo 11), which definitively originated from the moon.

PrivetHedge's picture

Heavily editing actual mission recordings?

How bizaare.

That's like carving patterns into dinosaur bones as you dig them up.

TwelveOhOne's picture

Exactly!  Only "dinosaur bones hunters" find dinosaur bones.

Whereas native American arrowheads, and shark's teeth, etc., are found by average people.

Rusty Shorts's picture

Hahahaaa bingo, the whole fucking thing is edited.

Unreliable Narrator's picture

HH:

https://www.metabunk.org/moon-stuff-stereoscopic-examination-of-photos.t...

I also can find no publications of Oleg's - with the exception of this "article".  Suspicious.

Anyway, while the GIFs in the article look damning, I can tell you with 100% certainty that what he has written is a crock of shit.  I've done a fair amount of image retouching / correction in Photoshop (the "digital grid" he shows is Photoshop's "warp" filter") and it absolutely cannot be applied in the manner in which he applies it and preserve any kind of accurate pixel location for a parallax determination (also note that he shows no equations or raw measurements).

Most damning, however, is the guy doesn't know jack fucking shit about camera optics.  The Hasselblad optics used by the astronauts on the Apollo missions for still photography have noticeable distortion that increases with angular distance from center-of-field.  All cameras have this; some are more noticeable than others.  Note that his power plant "test" uses only the center-of-field portion of the image - where distortion is negligible.  But for the Apollo images, the portions he's worried about are not just from the edge-of-field, but from different sides of the lens.  Unless he has a fucking transformation filter for the exact lens used for the photograph (a photograph taken with the camera of an exact grid, digitized), reverses the distortion on the original images, and only then extracts the pieces for comparison, what he claims to be doing is simply impossible.  By his own admission he did not do that and instead estimated the "curvature of the screen" with a fucking manual manipulation of Photoshop's warp filter.  Holy shit.

This fucking jokester knows nothing of photography or optics.  His "This situation cannot occur in real world photography" statement is blathering nonsense.

You've been had, HH.

honestann's picture

Yes, I can confirm that it is virtually impossible to design wide-angle lenses of that size, for that large a format that have no field distortion.  To even attempt such a feat would require the designer pay less attention to other aberrations, which would blur the image.

In some cases it is possible to "first order correct" field distortion, but that just means the scale at the corner of the field will match the center of the field.  BUT... the scale in parts of the field between the center and corners of the field will vary from that in the center and corners.

I don't know anything about those GIF images in the article, but I do know from past experience that sometimes odd effects like that turned out to be natural and appropriate upon later careful examination (especially when one can access the location and repeat the process).  I have personally noted a few cases in the past where similar "strangeness" turned out to be regions/stretches at certain distances from the camera that were not visible (because they were blocked by foreground), but the ground looked continuous in the photos.  The usual kind of feature I'm talking about is a gradual but long depression (or even a dramatic one like a ditch or canyon) running horizontal across the frame.  What makes this situation extremely difficult to detect visually on inspection of the photos is the extremely foreshortened view of the ground just before and after the horizontal depression.  That tends to make the discontinuity in reality almost impossible to detect on the images.  When I look at this GIF photo, it doesn't appear like there is any geological feature of this kind... but I have been visually tricked in the past, so who knows.  When you have thousands of photos to look though, it is almost always possible to find difficult to explain aspects in 2D photos of 3D reality.  And it gets even worse with 4D reality (which just means photos of 3D reality taken at different times).

Question:  Who is HH ?

ebear's picture

Damn, girl you are hot!

You seein' anyone?

honestann's picture

I live in my self-sufficient digs 125km from the nearest human being here in the extreme boonies of the southern hemisphere.  Also, there's no access to my place by land vehicle.  So... nobody to see anywhere near here.  I love the solitude, but obviously very few people do.  Unless I decide to fly my little airplane somewhere to explore some other extreme boonies somewhere, I don't see or hear from anyone.  While I did manage to find a way to set myself up with good internet here, I don't have any other communications devices (no TV, radio, phone, etc).  Just lots of peace and quiet... and time to work on my projects.  If that's not enough, I'm about as odd, weird, strange, different, abnormal as sentient beings get.  Just ask any long time reader of messages here.

Unreliable Narrator's picture

Hedgeless Horseman.  The guy who wrote the article we're all commenting on.

hun's picture

My solution to the Moon Landing Dinerers is, they should put together some money to send an unmanned scientific robot back to the original landing area of any Apollo sites, and prove whatever comes after ! I am sick and tired about all the scientifically unqualified people to trying to denied something, what happened almost 50 years ago.    

Redneck Makin-tosh's picture

Bah, the hype surrounding the moon landings proabably inspired the creation of my brother so no concern whatsoever with sixties exhuberance.  The incompetence that inspired the destruction of the levant on the other hand needs exposing at the earliest possible opportunity...