Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Moon Landing Faked !! Why ?
1963 The USGS Astrogeology Science Center in Flagstaff, Arizona has a rich
history of participation in space exploration and planetary mapping,
starting in 1963 when the Flagstaff Science Center was established to
provide lunar geologic mapping and assist in training astronauts destined
for the Moon.

Cinder Lake Training Area - actual mock up of the Apollo-11 landing site
based upon Lunar Orbiter ll image.

Designed to duplicate (at 1:1 scale) an area within Mare Tranquillitatis
that was visible in a Lunar Orbiter II image
(potential landing site P-6-1)

image - cinder lake (There were similar sites for the other Apollo missions)

[Image: 2zcey0.jpg]

There were problems with the technology from the beginning.

 "Lost Moon: The Perilous Voyage of Apollo 13 by Jeffrey Kluger and
astronaut James Lovell, that "When the trio climbed out of the ship, [Apollo-1]...
Schirra made it clear that he was not pleased with what he had seen," and
that he later warned Grissom and Shea that "there's nothing wrong with
this ship that I can point to, but it just makes me uncomfortable.

Something about it just doesn't ring right," and that Grissom should get
out at the first sign of trouble"

"In the development and testing of the craft, the nozzle of the ship's
giant engine - the one that would have to function perfectly to place the
moonship in lunar orbit and blast it on its way home again - shattered
like a teacup when engineers tried to fire it."

image - Main service engine scale. Defect occurred at the juncture between the light brown and white areas at the top. See the video below.

[Image: llqQhT.jpg]

Remember, there were many of these engines already in the inventory. A
design flaw would have been present in all of them. So how were the
"fixed"? Or were they?

"During a splashdown test, the heat shield of the craft had split open,
causing the command module to sink like a $35 million anvil to the bottom
of a factory [NASA] test pool."

Splashdown and compromise of bottom heat shield on contact with water
surface in this video - at 20:35 mark.


Three CSM main engine failures at 4:40 mark.

Round LM hatch rather than square. What happened to it? 15:55 mark

1966 - "I doubt if I could have flown my (Mercury and Gemini) missions if
they had encountered as many foul-ups as the Apollo craft"  Walter Shirra,
Feb 1966

August 19, 1966

(In October 1963, Joseph F. Shea was named Apollo Spacecraft Program
Office (ASPO) manager, responsible for managing the design and
construction of both the CSM and the LM.)

In a spacecraft review meeting held with Shea on August 19, 1966 (a week
before delivery), the crew expressed concern about the amount of flammable
material (mainly nylon netting and Velcro) in the cabin, which the
technicians found convenient for holding tools and equipment in place.

Though Shea gave the spacecraft a passing grade, after the meeting they
gave him a crew portrait they had posed with heads bowed and hands clasped
in prayer, with the inscription:

"It isn't that we don't trust you, Joe, but this time we've decided to go
over your head."

These men considered this craft to be dangerous.
Their worst fears would soon be realized.

[Image: C0O7vV.jpg]

It should be no surprise that Grissom hung an actual lemon, brought from
his residence,  on the Apollo capsule.

January 27 1967 - Apollo 1 fire, three astronauts killed.

September 1965-November 1966

May 10, 1967

"Investigation into Apollo 204 Accident," in Hearings before the
Subcommittee on NASA Oversite of the Committee on Science and

U.S. House of Representatives, 90th Cong., 1st sess., April 10, 11, 12,
17, 21; May 10, 1967, No. 3, Vol 1. (Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1967), Baron Testimony

Baron provides a 500 page report listing major construction problems and
delivery of substandard parts for the Apollo program. He testifies before congress.
An extract of the report as well as the congressional record concerning the investigation  
is available online.

Thomas Ronald Baron, born Aug. 4, 1937. Died April 28, 1967,
Baron and all his family died in a car-train crash only a week after this
exposure to congressional questioning. His full report has never been located.

Is the design of the LM fundamentally unstable?


To allow astronauts to learn lunar landing techniques, NASA contracted
Bell Aerosystems in 1964 to build the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle
(LLRV), otherwise known as "The Flying Bedstead," which used a
gimbal-mounted vertical jet engine to counter 5/6 of its weight to
simulate the Moon's gravity, in addition to its own hydrogen peroxide
thrusters to simulate the LM's descent engine and attitude control.

Successful testing of two LLRV prototypes at the Dryden Flight Research
Center led in 1966 to three production Lunar Landing Training Vehicles
(LLTV) which along with the LLRV's were used to train the astronauts at
the Houston Manned Spacecraft Center. This aircraft proved fairly
dangerous to fly, as three of the five were destroyed in crashes. It was
equipped with a rocket-powered ejection seat, so in each case the pilot
survived, including the first man to walk on the Moon, Neil Armstrong.

On May 6, 1968 Armstrong was forced to use LLRV #1’s ejection seat from
about 200 feet (60 m) altitude after a control problem, and had about four
seconds on his full parachute before landing on the ground unhurt. The
accident investigation board found that the fuel for the vehicle’s
attitude control thrusters had run out, and that high winds were a major
factor. As a result the decision was made by JSC management to terminate
further LLRV flights as the first LLTV was about to be shipped from Bell
to Ellington to begin ground and flight testing.

This test vehicle was developed to mimic the Lunar Lander and was used as
an active simulator for training. But it didn't seem to work real well up
to a year before the actual/supposed first launch. Was the actual LM as
difficult to pilot?

Video here:

A little over a year later, all the problems with the Apollo program had
been solved, and on July 16, 1969 Apollo-11 was launched to the moon.

Or was it?

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.<br />Aldous Huxley
Did we actually send men to the moon utilizing the following workmanship?

Apollo-11 styrofoam on lander leg, on the moon. WTF?

[Image: GVVy7w.jpg]

Apollo-11 capsule at the Smithsonian

with what appear to be wooden struts (green arrows) and
with metal brackets around the entire perimeter of the top (red arrow).

Were these required to reinforce a wooden top?

[Image: IDgh81.jpg]

Apollo-11, added weight with numerous bolts, one of many larger metal
brackets around the bottom perimeter of the capsule..

[Image: RRoki8.jpg]

Apollo-17,scotch tape used on Flag decal and US sign.

[Image: Lffm8M.jpg]

Apollo-17, Ascent module looks more like a paper model.

[Image: v8is1v.jpg]


From LMAS-GPN-2000-001110

Again, looks like a poor excuse for a model.

[Image: pRi4il.jpg]

[Image: LfNZkY.jpg]

Construction of Apollo 12 Command Module:

Looks a bit like the old Chris Craft boat type construction back in the early 60s.
This should look like metal, not wood.

The insulation looks like something one would put in the walls of a refrigerator.

[Image: LEbBbT.jpg]

You might find something like this "window" in a person's camper. Notice the split plastic on the right.

[Image: E4iMSO.jpg]

[Image: PeUHCr.jpg]

How could you possibly maintain any capsule internal pressure integrity with this type of construction?

It's difficult to maintain a belief in this if one bothers at all to look closely.

There are inconsistencies, sadly, which cannot be ignored.

Top ten problems:

Two interesting videos:

and A funny thing happened on the way to the moon
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.<br />Aldous Huxley
yeah yeah, yeah.
everyone who knows anything about Apollo knows the lunar module was a glorified insulated tin can, made with such (then state of the art) materials as styrofoam and mylar, wrapped with gold foil. it was made to flex and bubble. what, did you think it was supposed to be, plate steel?
and those bolts are ...rivets, and that wood? t shaped aluminum supports
this thing had to be light!

You don't get it..
That's what makes it so fing incredible a feat that we DID go to the moon and MADE it
many times,
On a satellite I ride. Nothing down below can hide.
Agreed keith,

Your theory has a few chasms.  You state that this falcon was flying over the studio and dropped a feather into the studio???!!!

1. Supply the cooperating links to this bird (image) confirming  where you proport it to be (Good strong citations please and not hand me downs from other conspiracy sites).
2. Coborating evidence of location for filming. Crew sheets etc. Unfortunately your word isn’t enough. Good, strong supporting data would assist your theory.
3. At least get the species of Falcon right lolol. As you can see in the insert … The feathers don’t match. Your image (unqualified I might add)  shows concentric patterning which is clearly not in the Apollo image. Also the shape of the feathers are radically different.

[Image: 10407552_913441755408621_345640891260557...e=56CCE0EB]

What surprises me is the obvious lack of just comparing the feathers. Are you unable to interrogate what you see? You state never to trust images but clearly you’re breaking your own cardinal rule. Try and see what you’re looking at through the lens of unbiased logic.  This is kind of elementary unfortunately.



Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)