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

by hedgeless_horseman
Fri, 07/21/2017 - 11:23

 

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-w…

 

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

Comments

Vote up!
 1
Vote down!
 0
hedgeless_horseman Squid Viscous Fri, 07/21/2017 - 12:19 Permalink

 

But down to the moon's surface, landing soft enough to not injure or kill the astronauts, and then back up into lunar orbit?  Come on!  What was Kennedy thinking?  There is no atmosphere on the moon to brake against.  That requires a lot of fuel.  No?  The little toy-sized Mars Rovers supposedly bounced along forever even with an atmosphere, parachute, and retro rockets. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-03/i-velcro-and-used-drink-tang-w…

 
 Can OJ still withstand that many big hits?  He ain't as young as he used to be.  He is 70 now.  Very old technology. 

Vote up!
 6
Vote down!
 2
Nobody For President hedgeless_horseman Fri, 07/21/2017 - 12:39 Permalink

Ahh, HH - the landing was not 'braking against the atmosphere', it was pushing back against the inertia of the landing module.I buy that Kennedy was CIA'ed, and that 911 was an inside job, but just can't buy that all the moon landings, or any of them, were staged in a studio. Way too many people involved to fake - way; and a bunch of them engineers to boot.The press conference was three astronauts - right stuff guys, engineers, test pilots, the works - being in a suit and tie press conference - they were fish out of water in a huge goldfish bowl with no water in it. Of course they were uncomfortable. Look at it that way, and it works a lot better than a big conspiracy/lie.And how about the additional landings? They all fake too?You are better than that, HH. I mean, the US of A IS good at technical shit, like putting men on the moon.Building big ass bombs that can pretty much destroy civilization as we know it - shit like that.Governing ourselves in a civil manner - not so much.

Vote up!
 2
Vote down!
 0
jeff montanye Oh regional Indian Sat, 07/22/2017 - 02:47 Permalink

i don't find that clinching evidence of fakery but the press conference of the apollo 13 guys, and here's a longer one without the conspiracy theory subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI_ZehPOMwI, certainly gives one pause.these were people who had been interviewed before.  they had just achieved perhaps the greatest voyage of discovery of the species and history.  the pressure was off at last; they did it!!  the mood just doesn't seem right.   this is a conspiracy that i don't want to believe in but the more i watch that interview it just sounds like "what honey, red underpants under the back seat?  i have no idea where they could have come from.  probably a trick by the guys at work."   not "we ran the whole payroll under the new system and every check was right.  they made me a vice president and i got a ten thousand dollar a year raise."  not even that.the byrds wrote a song about them.here's what it might have sounded like:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8MB2AGm2vs

Vote up!
 0
Vote down!
 2
nmewn jeff montanye Sat, 07/22/2017 - 07:09 Permalink

Yeah.But I'm glad we've finally proven satellite phones & TeeeVeee's only exist in the imagination!If no one gets my sarc, that means...put me down as not believing it was all an elaborate hoax, they went there multiple times and the lander brakes not against the "atmosphere" of the moon but against its own forward/downward motion.So I guess Voyager 1 isn't really in interstellar space right now, either ;-)

Vote up!
 1
Vote down!
 1
OverTheHedge jeff montanye Thu, 05/03/2018 - 10:21 Permalink

 https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

https://www.space.com/14874-apollo-11-landing-site-moon-photo.html

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/observing/how-to-see-all-six-apollo-moon…

You can even see the tiny, tiny footprints! Either the scam continues unabated, and Photoshop rules, or NASA really did get to the moon. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_la…

My position is that I have no idea, and until some people go there and confirm / deny, we won't know for sure.

Vote up!
 1
Vote down!
 0
hedgeless_horseman zippedydoodah Fri, 07/21/2017 - 21:35 Permalink

 Whose orbiter is providing these electronic mages?

NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO)

I see.Conflict of interest?Do you also not take issue with the fact that the Federal Reserve Bank is responsile for regulating the very same banks that own it? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-24/nobody-ready-willing-or-able-as...
3)  What is your position on the Federal Reserve Banks being responsible for regulating and supervising the very same banks that own them?
 

Conflict of Interest

 
A term used to
describe the situation in which a public official or fiduciary who,
contrary to the obligation and absolute duty to act for the benefit of
the public or a designated individual, exploits the relationship for
personal benefit, typically pecuniary.
 
In certain
relationships, individuals or the general public place their trust and
confidence in someone to act in their best interests. When an individual
has the responsibility to represent another person—whether as
administrator, attorney, executor, government official, or trustee—a
clash between professional obligations and personal interests arises if
the individual tries to perform that duty while at the same time trying
to achieve personal gain. The appearance of a conflict of interest is
present if there is a potential for the personal interests of an
individual to clash with fiduciary duties, such as when a client has his
or her attorney commence an action against a company in which the
attorney is the majority stockholder.
 
Incompatibility of
professional duties and personal interests has led Congress and many
state legislatures to enact statutes defining conduct that constitutes a
conflict of interest and specifying the sanctions for violations. A
member of a profession who has been involved in a conflict of interest
might be subject to disciplinary proceedings before the body that
granted permission to practice that profession.
 
 
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conflict+of+interest

Vote up!
 0
Vote down!
 0
jeff montanye post turtle saver (not verified) Sat, 07/22/2017 - 03:29 Permalink

thanks.  i feel better again.  the best evidence are the moon rocks and the laser reflectors placed on the moon which do apparently work.of course i can't guarantee that and the astronaut interview still seems super duper weird.and nasa notes: In terms of these pictures, it says because the Moon is smaller than Earth, horizons appear closer to the human eye than they really are, and may therefore look the same from different viewpoints.http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/769062/Moon-landings-hoax-Apollo-15… i'm no scientist but wouldn't the moon being smaller and horizons appearing (and being) closer make the horizons look relatively different from different viewpoints?  like moving twenty feet from side to side in a room versus in front of the rocky mountains, fifty miles away?  p.s. google is utterly impotent on this question; doesn't even appear to know what is asked: https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=do+horizons+on+the… statements like this from the government (like the reports of their investigations of 9-11) that seem most to incriminate it.

Vote up!
 0
Vote down!
 2
post turtle saver (not verified) jeff montanye Sat, 07/22/2017 - 09:14 Permalink

look, the discussion with people who swear up and down that it didn't happen is... prove itthere's a HUGE body of evidence available to back up the fact that it did indeed happen... you will not see this from those who claim it didn't... all you'll see are a smoke cloud of dismissals and logical fallacies (Gish gallop, anyone?) that would choke a billy goat... at the end of the day, those who claim it didn't happen have NO evidence that it didn't happen compared to the body of both interested and third party evidence presented to show that it did...sorry, but if you think after all evidence presented that the moon landings were faked, then you're a crackpot - simple as that... science, it works bitchez 

Vote up!
 2
Vote down!
 0
Bubba Rum Das XlibertyX Sat, 07/22/2017 - 11:03 Permalink

"You want them to prove something didn't happen? Well, since they can't prove you didn't commit the most horrific of crimes, you must have done them! Lock this person up!"There is NO denying this fact: In regards to a 'Mars Expedition', NASA Aerospace Technicians themselves admitted (woops!) that the most difficult part of planning the journey, was HOW to get a spacecraft through the cosmic radiation inherent in the Van Allen Radiation Belts safely, (without frying the occupants w/ 'cosmic radiation'), as this HAD NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE...Coincidentally, the Van Allen Radiation Belts lie geographically BETWEEN THE EARTH & THE MOON...Now, think about that shit for about 30 seconds, RETARDS!

Vote up!
 0
Vote down!
 2
Mr.BlingBling Bubba Rum Das Sat, 07/22/2017 - 15:30 Permalink

. . . because the government would NEVER risk the lives of astronauts by sending them through radiation belts, especially since doing so wouldn't result in health problems (i.e. cancer) until long after the ticker tape parade.

Instead, the astronauts just orbited earth for a week, despite the fact that anyone with a $20 telescope could have seen the mirror-finish CSM doing so.

Vote up!
 0
Vote down!
 3
post turtle saver (not verified) jeff montanye Sat, 07/22/2017 - 09:19 Permalink

I'll add one more note for thought and then I'm done with this thread, because reading the bullshit posted here is fucking cancer...*** just because you don't trust the government doesn't mean that landing men on the moon didn't happen ***wrap your heads around that for a moment, clowns... then, when you're done dismissing plain facts, go back to your special world and play with your toys...

Vote up!
 2
Vote down!
 0
Herd Redirecti… Common_Law Fri, 07/21/2017 - 14:03 Permalink

And Gus and Roger and Ed White...  And THOMAS BARON (dead in 1967):"a quality control and safety inspector for North American Aviation (NAA), when it was the primary contractor to build the Apollo command module.[2]After the Apollo 1 fire Baron wrote a 500-page report on NASA safety protocol violations, which he gave to Rep. Olin E. Teague's investigation at Cape Kennedy, Florida, on April 21, 1967. When Baron mentioned the report during his testimony, Teague told him "Your report went to the chairman of the full committee, not to me", and that "something of that length ... we can take it as an exhibit."[3]Six days after his testimony, Baron was killed instantly, along with his wife and stepdaughter, when a train crashed into their car near their home in Florida.[1][4] Baron's death, which was witnessed by a woman, was later ruled as an accident, with no suspicion of foul play"Hmm, where is that 500 page report these days???

Vote up!
 1
Vote down!
 0
trulz4lulz Herd Redirecti… Fri, 07/21/2017 - 16:02 Permalink

I can sum it up, "In no way, shape, or form will a canvas and mylar puptent, with a thickness of .02", be able to safely navigate the infinite cavuum of space. The craft will without a doubt, run into a grain of space dust travelling at tens of thousands of miles an hour and be destroyed quickly. Humans also do not have the technological capacity to create an HVAC system that functions without atmoshpere, nor do we pocess the technology to create lithium ion batteries that will hold a charge lond enough to power the refrigerator sized on board computer needed to address the special maths functions of high speed reentry. This is impssible."  Youre Truely,Mr. baron

Vote up!
 2
Vote down!
 0
Golden Showers Crush the cube Sat, 07/22/2017 - 10:40 Permalink

Well, there's something called the "Van Allen Belt" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_beltIt's supposed to be pretty hairy. You have to bust through that radiation to get the 250,000 miles to the moon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_distance_(astronomy)Does everyone remember where they were when Christa McAuliffe got blown to high heaven because of some faulty O rings?Or make sense of this locution: "The Endeavor to Discover Atlantis: All Challengers will be destroyed."Y'all need to quit pissing your pants about whether or not the Moon landings were faked. Ask yourself something else, like, why can't we get Google Earth Pictures of Antarctica? Why the fuck does NASA photoshop thier images? NASA gets caught with their pants down all the time.If you asked me 20 years ago if I could imagine that someone rigged the price of precious metals every day, or that FDR knew full well that Pearl Harbor was going to be bombed, or that there were adds posted in the NYT telling people not to board the Lusitania, I'd have thought you were schizophrenic.The point isn't whether we went to the Moon. I don't believe the story. But there's lots of interesting dialogue about it. Go read "Who Built the Moon?"Go read about the history of JPL. Go watch some Kubrick films. I'm personally not in a position to confirm or deny whether the Moon landing stories are true. I just wonder, why haven't we gone back?Whether the earth is flat or Kubrick filmed the moon landings or the moon (or Earth) is hollow, or whatever, it has absolutely no import to my personal life. It's out of my control. And I think that's what scares people so much. There is so much evidence that the whole moon landings are bullshit that it will blow your hair back. When you dig deeper and deeper into this stuff it fucks with you. And that's a good thing. When you start wondering about whether the narrative you've grown up with is bullshit and "we" know a lot of it is total bullshit... how far does it go? And when a lot of solutions to modern living are blown up you feel escared and small.Why is silver associated with the moon? Is it because the atomic weight of silver is 108 and the diameter of the moon is 1080 miles? http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_radius_of_the_moon / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver People do think about this stuff. There's lots of relationships with numbers that make good mnemonic devices. But yeah, you have to dip your toe in the waters to find how gratifying all the information is. Gratifying? Well, when you realize that maybe there is a lot more out there to learn than what you were told, life becomes more interesting. When you begin to really wonder what year it is, or ponder the archaeoligical evidence all around you, wonder about engineering feats done thousands of years ago that we today cannot reproduce, it gets you thinking. Just look really hard at the monoliths at Balbek Lebanon.Truth is stranger than fiction. I find these questions more interesting than watching shit on TV. But that's just me.Oh, and drive friendly, the Texas way!