"The moon landings – subtlety so utterly consistent with expectations. Images of the moon landings show minute amounts of dust on the landing pads of the lunar module which can only be seen in high-resolution photos with the magnifying tool and a faint radial exhaust pattern under the lunar module."
They used real full sized or miniature models back then, not CGI. Thus, there could be dust from however the "landing images" of the ridiculously designed module was done. There should have been tons of dust. Even with the Moon's gravity, the exhaust blast should have been terrific.
Plus: The moonscape horizon was ridiculous. The moon isn't THAT small. Plenty of dust for footprints. Obvious "line" between the stage covered with soil / dust and a background painting. Kubrick should have been capable of better.
Even on the moon it would take a lot of power to blast off the surface. Absurd design of the craft made visual inspection impossible.
"There should have been tons of dust. Even with the Moon's gravity, the exhaust blast should have been terrific."
Why? What do you find wrong with this explanation that there shouldn't have been tons of dust? And why oh why oh why would they fake particles that you can only see with a magnifier - that makes no sense.
The dust on the Moon’s surface is electrically charged, due to its constant bombardment by solar and cosmic radiation without an intervening atmosphere to shield it. As a result, dust particles tend to stick together, which makes it less likely for dust to be blown around by the landers’ rocket exhaust. In several photographs from the Apollo missions, you can see the dust clinging to the astronauts boots, owing to its static charge.
Secondly, as the landers descended, they were slightly angled so as to kill their horizontal velocity right up until the last few meters, when they rotated the craft into a vertical orientation to wipe off the last of their vertical velocity. As a result, for most of the time that the rocket’s exhaust was interacting with the lunar dust, it was angled away from the LEMs’ eventual landing site. The LEM was really only blowing dust radially away from its landing site for a few seconds.
Third, the LEMs’ engines cut off a meter or so above the lunar surface, to avoid any potential complications from blowing dust back up toward the spacecraft.
Last, there’s no atmosphere on the Moon, so dust doesn’t billow like it does on Earth. On Earth, you would expect dust to be kicked up by the lander’s exhaust, hover in the air for a little while, and then settle back down, which would cause some of it to fall on top of the lander’s legs. But on the Moon, any dust that does get kicked up (and remember, there wouldn’t be as much as you might expect) would follow a more-or-less parabolic trajectory, spending no more than a few seconds in flight. Bottom line, by the time the lander’s legs touched down, the dust from its exhaust had already returned to the surface.
So let’s recap: Why was there no dust on top of the LEMs’ legs.
The dust is electrically charged and tends to stick together, making it less likely to be blown around in the first place.
For most of the LEMs’ descent, any dust that did get kicked up was blown at an angle away from the LEM.
The LEMs killed their engines right before the thrust would have been sufficient to disturb a large quantity of dust.
Any dust that did get disturbed quickly returned to the surface. It didn’t float around for a few minutes and then settle on whatever surface it could find.
Very unlikely in my opinion. Dust shown in footprint and the absurd moon vehicle being driven recklessly. The engines would have to be to be very powerful. On a general note: The idea any of this could have been done in '60s is absurd.
If the sun makes the dust particles electrically charged, the dust would not CLUMP together, but fly apart. The sun can't make one particle positively charged and the next negative so they would stick together. I know of no such physics.
What we need to accept is that the moon is alien territory about which people who aren't really interested in the subject are simply not qualified to have opinions on many aspects ... which is why I limit myself to things that cannot be argued about.
Yes but what you need first before you talk in terms of "could" is to have something that says "not real". In the case of the 9/11 deaths it's perfectly reasonable to say ALL the deaths could have been faked because:
--- there's clear evidence of fakery of some of the deaths
--- there's no clear evidence of a single death
So in that case "could" is perfectly fine but to say something "could" be faked without a reason to suggest it is faked is incorrect reasoning.
Having massive buildings destroyed with no standard public warnings, no cordoning off of the building, etc. is quite dangerous. I'd be surprised if no one died. One of the stupidest statements is "nobody died, nobody cried." My daughter who lost her business in the aftermath cried.
Why would they be careful to avoid deaths? They want depopulation! Some say the Towers were evacuated. There doesn't seem to be good evidence of that.
There are plenty of reasons to think most if not all of the space program is fake, especially.
The reason to hypothesize fake is these folks lie about everything and "space" is like "heaven" of the "new religion,"
You assume and assume and assume. But, we can't check our hypotheses conclusively, I admit. In some ways I'd like to believe the US has overwhelmingly advanced space technology. In that case, they aren't risking WWIII nuclear world devastation in the Ukraine. Putin would know a first strike would be met with utter devastation from "space planes." Unfortunately, I doubt it.
One can assume things based on bad premises and one can assume things based on good premises. I tend not to think of "assuming" but rather I think according to the idea:
"I accept something as true unless I have reason to disbelieve it or - if there are no good reasons to particularly believe or disbelieve - I just have an open mind on it."
When I tell the disbelievers that all the evidence perfectly matches the lunar conditions so utterly different from terrestrial conditions their response without fail is:
"But we don't know the conditions on the moon."
It's true, how can I verify the conditions on the moon? I can't, however, I accept them as stated because I see no reason to disbelieve them - no disbeliever has challenged the conditions as stated they've only challenged the landings. Furthermore, if the conditions weren't as stated it is extremely farfetched to think they would fake everything to be consistent with those utterly alien conditions. It is both the INTERNAL consistency (everything put forward being consistent with everything else) and the EXTERNAL consistency (everything consistent with the alien lunar conditions) that says they really happened.
There is no reason at all to worry about nuclear war - what a total hoax is nuclear weapons. Unbelievable. A friend has been urging me to see the film, Oppenheimer. I cannot do that - I could not sit through a film knowing the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't happen - that both cities were fire-bombed like the rest of the cities in Japan. I did go and see Vice though - the film about Cheney - because even though I knew everything about 9/11 would be a crock (and probably other things I don't even know are crocks) I still thought it worth seeing and I have to admit I did enjoy that film.
I thank you for your comments because you've prompted me to write an article devoted to the moon landings to explain why - as a dedicated psyop analyst who recognises dozens of other events as staged and accepts there are dozens more that would be shown to be staged when subjected to scrutiny - I bat hard for the reality of the moon landings.
Considering that there were allegedly numerous Apollo missions to and from the moon since 1969, you would think that NASA's scientists and experts would have a good idea of the moon's conditions by now. Otherwise, it doesn't add up to me.
And they do have a good idea. What the naysayers say is, "We don't know the conditions on the moon because we personally haven't been there." However, we have no reason to doubt what scientists and the astronauts tell us are the conditions on the moon. Before they landed they needed a pretty good idea to know that they would survive there.
Yeah. I've followed the "no nukes" theory, but don't have enough info to be confident one way or the other. Either the US power is so overwhelming they don't fear nuclear war or there are no nukes, or the world is run by worse maniac than I thought. More likely, however, is that A bombs are real but not H bombs. As demostrated, A bombs weren't scary enough.
I don't know whether the fact that I recognise "hidden in plain sight" as a phenomenon makes a significant difference to my analysis or not but as far as I'm concerned there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that nukes are fake. I wonder what would make you think they might not be.
The trusty old "miracle survivor" stories are there as they always are - 9/11, Pearl Harbour (another evacuated bombing), covid, and even a kind of low key miracle survivor story of the baker in the Great Fire of London 1666 narrative - he and his family made a narrow escape across the rooftop while the poor maid didn't make it.
So what is in favour of nukes - the only remotely credible-sounding evidence for their reality I'm aware of is the alleged radiation sickness but an explanation for that has been provided by chemistry professor, Michael Palmer, in his book, Hiroshima revisited: the evidence that napalm and mustard gas helped fake the atomic bombings
In my mind it is just too important a question and the conspiracy would have motives in either direction as I already noted. I've been intrigued by the "no nukes" theory ever since my mother showed me debunking articles in the Reader's Digest from early 1950s. I am really old, these days. HG Wells and others close to the Anglophile conspiracy have written about the importance of developing ultimate weapons.
I'm amazed you seem to have no knowledge of the "autohoax" philosophy. You don't need a reason to suspect hoax because we are dealing with a ruling class conspiracy that routinely lies for their often clearly discernable agendas AND has vast media control.
Petra - NASA says: The Moon is an average of 238,855 miles away from Earth, which is about 30 Earths away. So you believe in miracles & absurdities related to an obviously impossible moon trip/moon landing - 238,855 miles on a set of rocket engines after the initial blast-off - but not on a bogus 9/11?
Both are major deceptions - controlled psyops - and are BOTH easily proven false by simple physics.
You realize that there was no technology available for rocket engines to support extreme round trips of 238,000+ miles don't you? The technology for this round trip thru space vacuum is still non-existent & NASA has admitted this in many videos over the past 10 years. Also NASA says that rockets can't go thru the Van Allen radiation belts without burning up. So distance & conditions rule out the moon trips.
Moreover...
How was it possible for phone calls of 238.000+ miles between the astro-nots & Nixon in Wash DC? Huh? The phone technology way back in 1969 (I grew up then) was very basic & had no call distance possible without ground or ocean telecom cables. No satellites, no wifi/cell towers, so no space calls.
Wondering why you would opt out of understanding that the moon trips are all about the available technology at that time. Of course there are other reasons why the moon trips are impossible but it seems you are denying previous evidence provided & not fully considering the physics questions that rule out any possibility of moon trips. No available technology = no moon trip or moon walk. Simple.
Do you have any answer for how the rocket/ spaceship could possibly turn around & head back to earth without utilizing new rocket payloads or how the space capsule could navigate Van Allen safely?
All the other reasons why we didn't go to the moon are also the final nails in the moon coffin story.
Have you watched this? It's comprehensive & conclusive to me.
> AMERICAN MOON - A Documentary Exposing NASA, The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, The Space Race And More! (2017)
"The most comprehensive documentary on the moon landing hoax" by Massimo Mazzucco
First published at 04:20 UTC on February 13th, 2022.
Summary description at another mirrored post of documentary: A massive amount of really strong evidence shows that everything we saw has been made in studios. In the last minutes of the 3.5 hours film we see Neil Armstrong, "Buzz" Aldrin en Michael Collins at the press conference and some other places. Heavily timid faces. I mean, this is not evidence, but at the end of this documentary there is no need for that. Those who are a bit sensitive for the facial expression of people will see a few good man who shun as many questions as possible and are ashamed of the spectacle in which they are the heroes. They [astronauts] didn't even attend the most important commemorations in the years following their first steps on the moon. - 3 years, 7 months ago
Lucinda, I meant to respond to your comment but then it slipped my mind. I watched American Moon and then I read the two-part debunking which I link to at the bottom of my post. Please look at the debunkings. Most seeming anomalies are answered there. Of course, I know that "debunking" can often mean no such thing but in the case of American Moon and, in fact, most claims denying the moon landings the debunkings live up to their name.
Long time responding here, I know, but since you never answered my absolutely critical point before about the rudimentary nature of computing/technology in the 1960s, I just passed re: a response to you here. However, I received another *like* on my NASA/Van Allen Radiation Belt post/link below recently so thought I'd revisit this with you today.
Just can't figure why you are so willing to believe that low-level 1960s tech would have worked for all those lengthy moon trips/landings. All computers were room/main frames & WE WERE STILL USING DIAL PHONES IN THE 1960s - Do you know about dial phones, Petra? - AS PUSH BUTTON PHONES WEREN'T INTRODUCED UNTIL LATER IN THE 1970s.
See > "Digital push-button telephones were introduced with the adoption of metal–oxide–semiconductor (MOS) integrated circuit (IC) technology in the early 1970s, with features such as the storage of phone numbers (like in a telephone directory) on MOS memory chips for speed dialing. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push-button_telephone
Re: 1960s computing - it wasn't technological possible for space rocket trips/space exploration or moon trips/landings way back then. Instead, moon landings "films" were filmed/faked to simply convince the gullible that the US was winning the space war w/the USSR/Russia.
Re: 1960s supercomputer development history > When Supercomputers Were Invented
"The notion of a supercomputer first arose in the 1960s when an electrical engineer named Seymour Cray, embarked on creating the world’s fastest computer. Cray, considered the “father of supercomputing,” had left his post at business computing giant Sperry-Rand to join the newly formed Control Data Corporation [CDC] so that he [could] focus on developing scientific computers. The title of world’s fastest computer was held at the time by the IBM 7030 “Stretch,” one of the first to use transistors instead of vacuum tubes.
[See photo of the IBM 7030 here & reminder that this computer memory was puny. IBM 7030 > "Memory - Main memory is 16K to 256K 64-bit binary words, in banks of 16K. [like an old-fashioned, wayback small desk computer from the much later 1980s, Petra!!]
"The memory was immersion oil-heated/cooled to stabilize its operating characteristics."
Okay. Right.
This was improbable in a relatively tiny space capsule hurtling thru cold space. > OIL-heated/cooled in the Apollo rocket/capsule? C'mon peeps, not possible in a capsule.
> "In 1964, Cray introduced the CDC 6600, which featured innovations such as switching out germanium transistors in favor of silicon and a Freon-based cooling system. More importantly, it ran at a speed of 40 MHz, executing roughly three million floating-point operations per second, which made it the fastest computer in the world. Often considered to be the world’s first supercomputer, the CDC 6600 was 10 times faster than most computers and three times faster than the IBM 7030 Stretch. The title was eventually relinquished in 1969 to its successor the CDC 7600." [Even so, the memory was limited altho its size was immense - certainly would never have "fitted" into a small capsule or rocket ship for that matter.]
"The CDC 6600 was the flagship of the 6000 series of mainframe computer systems manufactured by Control Data Corporation.[8][9] Generally considered to be the first successful supercomputer, it outperformed the industry's prior recordholder, the IBM 7030 Stretch, by a factor of three.[10][11] With performance of up to three megaFLOPS,[12][13] the CDC 6600 was the world's fastest computer from 1964 to 1969, when it relinquished that status to its successor, the CDC 7600.[14]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_6600
[The photo shows a large, room-size computer; not portable at all for a "rocket/capsule".]
"The first CDC 6600s were delivered in 1965 to Livermore and Los Alamos.[15] They quickly became a must-have system in high-end scientific and mathematical computing, with systems being delivered to Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, CERN, [16][17] the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory,[18] and many others. At least 100 were delivered in total.[19]"
> "A CDC 6600 is on display at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California. The only running CDC 6000 series machine has been restored by Living Computers: Museum +"
Thank you for watching American Moon - all 3+ hours - but am really intrigued that you could watch a comprehensive analysis of the so-called "moon landings" & then tell me/us that your links to reddit links' general points can "debunk" the specific documentary facts.
> Debunking of Massimo Mazzucco's, American Moon (Part 1)
> Debunking of Massimo Mazzucco's, American Moon (Part 2)
I hope that because you support "critical thinking" steps, you realize that commenting, "arguing" or positing theories on a false flag/hoax etc - without supporting evidence - is NOT debunking anything?? The supposed debunks (of moon landing hoax evidence) in those reddit links are just comments or statements, & so are unconvincing to anyone who seriously considers them. Saying something w/out any evidence isn't proof of anything. >
The moon is made of green cheese & others have said that so I don't need proof of that.
HAH
For example, this reddit comment > 2. If it were true, like the debunkers maintain, that “a lunar mission entails a total of radiation equivalent to an x-ray”, why does NASA describe today the Van Allen belts as “an area of dangerous radiation”?
[Where do any moonlandig analysts of the Apollo space missions say going through the Van Allen Radiation Belts is equal or the equivalent of an X-ray? Pls provide a citation.]
You say:
The NASA engineer, Kelly Smith, who says the Van Allen belts are dangerous in the clip starting at 1:09:44 actually explains the reason. He says "radiation like this could harm the guidance systems, onboard computers or other electronics on Orion". Smith does not say that the radiation is a danger to humans. NASA scientist David Sibeck gives more detail here, stating that "Our current technology is ever more susceptible to these accelerated particles because even a single hit from a particle can upset our ever smaller instruments and electronics." It is the threat to sensitive electronics, not to people, which is the problem."
Good try, Petra but just a reminder again that both household & exterior EMFs/radiation have been shown to be very dangerous to humans. Say NO to all those smart meters etc.
Again > NASA Admits They Can't Send Humans Through The Van Allen Radiation Belts [NOW or then.]
Video > Did We Go To The Moon In 1969? NASA Says The Radiation Is Too Deadly; I Agree!
> Are folks just not aware that extensive research has shown that constant or intense exposure to radiation/EMFs/microwaves/5G etc are dangerous to all animal & human life (causing neurological problems/tumors/cancer etc.).
According to one of the "debunks" you shared, Petra, if a NASA clip of a scientist doesn't go into all the details of Van Allen belt solar/EMFs/radiation effects/dangers to humans - scientifically proven fact - that doesn't mean that extensive Van Allen space radiation exposure is "safe". Not mentioning something doesn't prove it is okay. Do you have a cite proving space EMFs/solar radiation is safe for those exposed to it for many days/hours?
Always go to the facts/history of technological development to prove actual possibility. Without the tech to go to the moon, then all the other arguments fall by the wayside. ;-)
Lucinda, I try to avoid relying on belief but rather prefer to rely on the irrefutable facts as much as possible. This is an irrefutable fact as far as I can tell: no disbeliever of the moon landings has done a critique of the hefty tome, The Apollo Guidance Computer: Architecture and Operation, by Frank O'Brien. Why not? Surely, there are a number of computer experts who disbelieve the moon landings who could expose this volume as fraudulent. When that's done I'll pay some attention. I don't know anything about computing so I'll leave it to the trail made by the experts debunking one another. At this point the debunking trail ends with the tome.
[Where do any moonlanding analysts of the Apollo space missions say going through the Van Allen Radiation Belts is equal or the equivalent of an X-ray? Pls provide a citation.]
Response:
The debunker (whose name I worked out is Laington) is simply quoting American Moon on the x-ray aspect. American Moon says: "If only x-ray level why did NASA ..."
I think there might be a slight confusion in what the argument is with regard to the Van Allen Belts. The argument isn't that it's safe, the argument is that NASA didn't say it wasn't safe for astronauts but that it wasn't safe for the instruments. I agree radiation of various kinds isn't safe but, in fact, that is generally agreed anyway - however, we simply tolerate the lack of safety.
Thank you for your comment here Petra. Two critical points to your response:
1. Just because information is published in a book does not make that info true.
2. Does your comment that you don't know anything about computing history or programming rule out your common sense, logic or CRITICAL REASONING?
Aren't you a big promoter of critical reasoning (you even outlined it carefully)?
Yeah, yeah. The US govt/computer corps had a secret compact computer available for Apollo but not available to market to the general peeps to make gazillions of bucks on it. The pure gall of this book just boggles the mind huh?
And there's a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, too...
Sorry, but I don't believe for even one second there was a secret computer that enabled the astronauts to traverse the so-called vacuum of space to the moon. And this so-called book on how the space rocket/capsule will be operated is only prescriptive or an explanation of how it would or might work and NOT how it ever worked IRL. Big difference there.
See bullet point in the book > "What we hope to accomplish" is plainly stated in the outline & NOT what was accomplished. This book is only pie in the sky.
Btw, you can actually read this simple manual here & tell me what you think >
The Apollo Guidance Computer: Architecture & Operation by Frank O'Brien
Kinda anti-climactic reading this, isn't it? So you & I can read their proposed outline plan of operation in this slim book & see that it was just a prescription without details, Not a real plan of operation with specific detailed info that a competent computing engineer could critique or actually review. Hmmm...
[My actual belief is that this book was created/invented in 2010 (or otherwise an earlier pub date from an earlier edition - say 1969? - would have been cited too) in order to respond to & discount increasing moon skeptics' comments re: the obvious lack of available computer tech for space travel in 1969. Right??]
All those millions & millions of Apollo space race money & all we got was this lousy 61 page outline book w/their "plans" but not their real accomplishment.
Lucinda, Can I advise that you be a little more careful in interpretation of argument.
1. Strawman argument - I don't say that the book is gospel, I say that no disbeliever of the moon landings has critiqued it and I ask why not.
2. My friend argues for "common sense" with the argument, "If they'd gone to the moon they would have gone again" which falls into the logical fallacy, Hypothesis Contrary to Fact. I do use the "common sense" argument sometimes but it can be dangerous especially when it comes to subjects in which one has no expertise.
Please tell me why no one has critiqued this tome? In all other various events recognised as psyops that I can think of where expertise is useful, there are experts arguing against the official story, however, with the moon landings there is a complete absence of relevant experts arguing as far as I'm aware. Why are there relevant experts arguing against the narratives for covid, hiv-aids, 9/11 and no doubt other events that I can't think of at the moment but none arguing for the fakery of the moon landings?
You say:
"See bullet point in the book > "What we hope to accomplish" is plainly stated in the outline & NOT what was accomplished. This book is only pie in the sky."
What book? You haven't linked to the book, you've linked to what looks like a PowerPoint presentation and presumably "What we hope to accomplish" refers to "accomplished in the presentation."
No I don't understand a word of it but so what? I wouldn't expect to as a computer know-nothing plus the fact that it seems like a kind of skeleton that will be fleshed out in presentation.
There's a whole volume on the Apollo Guidance Computer just waiting to be critiqued. Who is going to do it? Do disbelievers even know of this volume? No, because the disbelievers don't do due diligence - my goodness is that so obvious.
I just exposed Operation Northwoods as a fabrication without having the slightest expertise in military matters, however, it was fabricated Revelation-of-the-Method style BIG TIME so any idiot could expose it if they weren't seduced by the propaganda.
I've never seen a psyop that wasn't done Revelation-of-the-Method style and what I find most interesting is that not a single disbeliever of the moon landings has even seemed to notice that if the moon landings were indeed faked it would be noteworthy that they weren't done using the typical ROTM MO. No one has noticed, nor did anyone notice that Bill Kaysing was very clearly an agent whose job was to encourage those disinclined to believe the authorities that the moon landings were faked. They made him an obvious stooge - they told us that he was Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne, a ludicrous absurdity and other things that are ludicrous too.
Why hasn't any disbeliever picked up on this stooge? Because they're judging by their biases and their small fonts of knowledge ... not the evidence.
NATO – an anti-white and anti-family institution . . .
After the apocalypse of 1945, a number of global organizations have been formed with the aim of maintaining and expanding totalitarian liberalism. One of the earliest organizations formed for this purpose was the war alliance "North Atlantic Treaty Organization", or NATO, which can be seen as the military wing of globalism.
In addition to ensuring that Washington always has international support for its military campaigns, NATO as an institution is explicitly anti-white and explicitly dedicated to "racial justice" for racial aliens living in white countries. As early as 1999, NATO authored reports blaming nationalists for a number of modern problems and warning against the influence of nationalism.
In 2023, the war alliance held a summit at its headquarters in Brussels on race where the alliance's leaders pledged to fight "homogeneous attitudes" and to use NATO's "collective intelligence" for the purpose.
In fact, NATO is so dedicated to its anti-white agenda that it openly advocates that institutions must be reshaped to be "inclusive," in other words, restructured to be more anti-white, and consist of fewer white employees and executives.
NASA video clip here > NASA Admits They Can't Send Humans Through The Van Allen Radiation Belts - First published on January 4th, 2021 (altho I've seen clips on this for more than a decade).
"The moon landings – subtlety so utterly consistent with expectations. Images of the moon landings show minute amounts of dust on the landing pads of the lunar module which can only be seen in high-resolution photos with the magnifying tool and a faint radial exhaust pattern under the lunar module."
They used real full sized or miniature models back then, not CGI. Thus, there could be dust from however the "landing images" of the ridiculously designed module was done. There should have been tons of dust. Even with the Moon's gravity, the exhaust blast should have been terrific.
Plus: The moonscape horizon was ridiculous. The moon isn't THAT small. Plenty of dust for footprints. Obvious "line" between the stage covered with soil / dust and a background painting. Kubrick should have been capable of better.
Even on the moon it would take a lot of power to blast off the surface. Absurd design of the craft made visual inspection impossible.
ISS and space walks fake too.
"There should have been tons of dust. Even with the Moon's gravity, the exhaust blast should have been terrific."
Why? What do you find wrong with this explanation that there shouldn't have been tons of dust? And why oh why oh why would they fake particles that you can only see with a magnifier - that makes no sense.
https://www.quora.com/Why-was-there-no-dust-on-the-feet-of-the-lunar-module-after-it-landed-on-the-moons-surface
Several reasons.
The dust on the Moon’s surface is electrically charged, due to its constant bombardment by solar and cosmic radiation without an intervening atmosphere to shield it. As a result, dust particles tend to stick together, which makes it less likely for dust to be blown around by the landers’ rocket exhaust. In several photographs from the Apollo missions, you can see the dust clinging to the astronauts boots, owing to its static charge.
Secondly, as the landers descended, they were slightly angled so as to kill their horizontal velocity right up until the last few meters, when they rotated the craft into a vertical orientation to wipe off the last of their vertical velocity. As a result, for most of the time that the rocket’s exhaust was interacting with the lunar dust, it was angled away from the LEMs’ eventual landing site. The LEM was really only blowing dust radially away from its landing site for a few seconds.
Third, the LEMs’ engines cut off a meter or so above the lunar surface, to avoid any potential complications from blowing dust back up toward the spacecraft.
Last, there’s no atmosphere on the Moon, so dust doesn’t billow like it does on Earth. On Earth, you would expect dust to be kicked up by the lander’s exhaust, hover in the air for a little while, and then settle back down, which would cause some of it to fall on top of the lander’s legs. But on the Moon, any dust that does get kicked up (and remember, there wouldn’t be as much as you might expect) would follow a more-or-less parabolic trajectory, spending no more than a few seconds in flight. Bottom line, by the time the lander’s legs touched down, the dust from its exhaust had already returned to the surface.
So let’s recap: Why was there no dust on top of the LEMs’ legs.
The dust is electrically charged and tends to stick together, making it less likely to be blown around in the first place.
For most of the LEMs’ descent, any dust that did get kicked up was blown at an angle away from the LEM.
The LEMs killed their engines right before the thrust would have been sufficient to disturb a large quantity of dust.
Any dust that did get disturbed quickly returned to the surface. It didn’t float around for a few minutes and then settle on whatever surface it could find.
Very unlikely in my opinion. Dust shown in footprint and the absurd moon vehicle being driven recklessly. The engines would have to be to be very powerful. On a general note: The idea any of this could have been done in '60s is absurd.
If the sun makes the dust particles electrically charged, the dust would not CLUMP together, but fly apart. The sun can't make one particle positively charged and the next negative so they would stick together. I know of no such physics.
OK, that's just one person's response and the fact that one person might have it wrong doesn't mean fakery. This is another response.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-no-Apollo-11-lunar-blast-zone/answer/C-Stuart-Hardwick?no_redirect=1
And this is the same person's response on the blast crater.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-there-no-Apollo-11-lunar-blast-zone/answer/C-Stuart-Hardwick?no_redirect=1
What we need to accept is that the moon is alien territory about which people who aren't really interested in the subject are simply not qualified to have opinions on many aspects ... which is why I limit myself to things that cannot be argued about.
I already explained the particles would be consistent with a real model as they didn't have CGI.
"Would?" But what says they're not real? Could and would don't count unless you can find something wrong with the evidence in the first place.
Of course. I supporting the hypothesis they are not real.
Yes but what you need first before you talk in terms of "could" is to have something that says "not real". In the case of the 9/11 deaths it's perfectly reasonable to say ALL the deaths could have been faked because:
--- there's clear evidence of fakery of some of the deaths
--- there's no clear evidence of a single death
So in that case "could" is perfectly fine but to say something "could" be faked without a reason to suggest it is faked is incorrect reasoning.
Having massive buildings destroyed with no standard public warnings, no cordoning off of the building, etc. is quite dangerous. I'd be surprised if no one died. One of the stupidest statements is "nobody died, nobody cried." My daughter who lost her business in the aftermath cried.
Why would they be careful to avoid deaths? They want depopulation! Some say the Towers were evacuated. There doesn't seem to be good evidence of that.
There are plenty of reasons to think most if not all of the space program is fake, especially.
The reason to hypothesize fake is these folks lie about everything and "space" is like "heaven" of the "new religion,"
You assume and assume and assume. But, we can't check our hypotheses conclusively, I admit. In some ways I'd like to believe the US has overwhelmingly advanced space technology. In that case, they aren't risking WWIII nuclear world devastation in the Ukraine. Putin would know a first strike would be met with utter devastation from "space planes." Unfortunately, I doubt it.
"You assume and assume and assume."
One can assume things based on bad premises and one can assume things based on good premises. I tend not to think of "assuming" but rather I think according to the idea:
"I accept something as true unless I have reason to disbelieve it or - if there are no good reasons to particularly believe or disbelieve - I just have an open mind on it."
When I tell the disbelievers that all the evidence perfectly matches the lunar conditions so utterly different from terrestrial conditions their response without fail is:
"But we don't know the conditions on the moon."
It's true, how can I verify the conditions on the moon? I can't, however, I accept them as stated because I see no reason to disbelieve them - no disbeliever has challenged the conditions as stated they've only challenged the landings. Furthermore, if the conditions weren't as stated it is extremely farfetched to think they would fake everything to be consistent with those utterly alien conditions. It is both the INTERNAL consistency (everything put forward being consistent with everything else) and the EXTERNAL consistency (everything consistent with the alien lunar conditions) that says they really happened.
There is no reason at all to worry about nuclear war - what a total hoax is nuclear weapons. Unbelievable. A friend has been urging me to see the film, Oppenheimer. I cannot do that - I could not sit through a film knowing the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't happen - that both cities were fire-bombed like the rest of the cities in Japan. I did go and see Vice though - the film about Cheney - because even though I knew everything about 9/11 would be a crock (and probably other things I don't even know are crocks) I still thought it worth seeing and I have to admit I did enjoy that film.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/nuclear-weapons-hoax.html
I thank you for your comments because you've prompted me to write an article devoted to the moon landings to explain why - as a dedicated psyop analyst who recognises dozens of other events as staged and accepts there are dozens more that would be shown to be staged when subjected to scrutiny - I bat hard for the reality of the moon landings.
Considering that there were allegedly numerous Apollo missions to and from the moon since 1969, you would think that NASA's scientists and experts would have a good idea of the moon's conditions by now. Otherwise, it doesn't add up to me.
And they do have a good idea. What the naysayers say is, "We don't know the conditions on the moon because we personally haven't been there." However, we have no reason to doubt what scientists and the astronauts tell us are the conditions on the moon. Before they landed they needed a pretty good idea to know that they would survive there.
Yeah. I've followed the "no nukes" theory, but don't have enough info to be confident one way or the other. Either the US power is so overwhelming they don't fear nuclear war or there are no nukes, or the world is run by worse maniac than I thought. More likely, however, is that A bombs are real but not H bombs. As demostrated, A bombs weren't scary enough.
I don't know whether the fact that I recognise "hidden in plain sight" as a phenomenon makes a significant difference to my analysis or not but as far as I'm concerned there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that nukes are fake. I wonder what would make you think they might not be.
The trusty old "miracle survivor" stories are there as they always are - 9/11, Pearl Harbour (another evacuated bombing), covid, and even a kind of low key miracle survivor story of the baker in the Great Fire of London 1666 narrative - he and his family made a narrow escape across the rooftop while the poor maid didn't make it.
So what is in favour of nukes - the only remotely credible-sounding evidence for their reality I'm aware of is the alleged radiation sickness but an explanation for that has been provided by chemistry professor, Michael Palmer, in his book, Hiroshima revisited: the evidence that napalm and mustard gas helped fake the atomic bombings
https://www.henrymakow.com/2020/10/palmer-nuclear-attacks-on-japan.html
What makes you think that nukes might be real?
In my mind it is just too important a question and the conspiracy would have motives in either direction as I already noted. I've been intrigued by the "no nukes" theory ever since my mother showed me debunking articles in the Reader's Digest from early 1950s. I am really old, these days. HG Wells and others close to the Anglophile conspiracy have written about the importance of developing ultimate weapons.
I'm amazed you seem to have no knowledge of the "autohoax" philosophy. You don't need a reason to suspect hoax because we are dealing with a ruling class conspiracy that routinely lies for their often clearly discernable agendas AND has vast media control.
Petra - NASA says: The Moon is an average of 238,855 miles away from Earth, which is about 30 Earths away. So you believe in miracles & absurdities related to an obviously impossible moon trip/moon landing - 238,855 miles on a set of rocket engines after the initial blast-off - but not on a bogus 9/11?
Both are major deceptions - controlled psyops - and are BOTH easily proven false by simple physics.
You realize that there was no technology available for rocket engines to support extreme round trips of 238,000+ miles don't you? The technology for this round trip thru space vacuum is still non-existent & NASA has admitted this in many videos over the past 10 years. Also NASA says that rockets can't go thru the Van Allen radiation belts without burning up. So distance & conditions rule out the moon trips.
Moreover...
How was it possible for phone calls of 238.000+ miles between the astro-nots & Nixon in Wash DC? Huh? The phone technology way back in 1969 (I grew up then) was very basic & had no call distance possible without ground or ocean telecom cables. No satellites, no wifi/cell towers, so no space calls.
Wondering why you would opt out of understanding that the moon trips are all about the available technology at that time. Of course there are other reasons why the moon trips are impossible but it seems you are denying previous evidence provided & not fully considering the physics questions that rule out any possibility of moon trips. No available technology = no moon trip or moon walk. Simple.
Do you have any answer for how the rocket/ spaceship could possibly turn around & head back to earth without utilizing new rocket payloads or how the space capsule could navigate Van Allen safely?
All the other reasons why we didn't go to the moon are also the final nails in the moon coffin story.
Have you watched this? It's comprehensive & conclusive to me.
> AMERICAN MOON - A Documentary Exposing NASA, The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, The Space Race And More! (2017)
"The most comprehensive documentary on the moon landing hoax" by Massimo Mazzucco
https://www.bitchute.com/video/35KNMehaxiSg/
Jim Crenshaw
First published at 04:20 UTC on February 13th, 2022.
Summary description at another mirrored post of documentary: A massive amount of really strong evidence shows that everything we saw has been made in studios. In the last minutes of the 3.5 hours film we see Neil Armstrong, "Buzz" Aldrin en Michael Collins at the press conference and some other places. Heavily timid faces. I mean, this is not evidence, but at the end of this documentary there is no need for that. Those who are a bit sensitive for the facial expression of people will see a few good man who shun as many questions as possible and are ashamed of the spectacle in which they are the heroes. They [astronauts] didn't even attend the most important commemorations in the years following their first steps on the moon. - 3 years, 7 months ago
Lucinda, I meant to respond to your comment but then it slipped my mind. I watched American Moon and then I read the two-part debunking which I link to at the bottom of my post. Please look at the debunkings. Most seeming anomalies are answered there. Of course, I know that "debunking" can often mean no such thing but in the case of American Moon and, in fact, most claims denying the moon landings the debunkings live up to their name.
Long time responding here, I know, but since you never answered my absolutely critical point before about the rudimentary nature of computing/technology in the 1960s, I just passed re: a response to you here. However, I received another *like* on my NASA/Van Allen Radiation Belt post/link below recently so thought I'd revisit this with you today.
Just can't figure why you are so willing to believe that low-level 1960s tech would have worked for all those lengthy moon trips/landings. All computers were room/main frames & WE WERE STILL USING DIAL PHONES IN THE 1960s - Do you know about dial phones, Petra? - AS PUSH BUTTON PHONES WEREN'T INTRODUCED UNTIL LATER IN THE 1970s.
See > "Digital push-button telephones were introduced with the adoption of metal–oxide–semiconductor (MOS) integrated circuit (IC) technology in the early 1970s, with features such as the storage of phone numbers (like in a telephone directory) on MOS memory chips for speed dialing. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Push-button_telephone
Re: 1960s computing - it wasn't technological possible for space rocket trips/space exploration or moon trips/landings way back then. Instead, moon landings "films" were filmed/faked to simply convince the gullible that the US was winning the space war w/the USSR/Russia.
Re: 1960s supercomputer development history > When Supercomputers Were Invented
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_7030_Stretch
"The notion of a supercomputer first arose in the 1960s when an electrical engineer named Seymour Cray, embarked on creating the world’s fastest computer. Cray, considered the “father of supercomputing,” had left his post at business computing giant Sperry-Rand to join the newly formed Control Data Corporation [CDC] so that he [could] focus on developing scientific computers. The title of world’s fastest computer was held at the time by the IBM 7030 “Stretch,” one of the first to use transistors instead of vacuum tubes.
[See photo of the IBM 7030 here & reminder that this computer memory was puny. IBM 7030 > "Memory - Main memory is 16K to 256K 64-bit binary words, in banks of 16K. [like an old-fashioned, wayback small desk computer from the much later 1980s, Petra!!]
"The memory was immersion oil-heated/cooled to stabilize its operating characteristics."
Okay. Right.
This was improbable in a relatively tiny space capsule hurtling thru cold space. > OIL-heated/cooled in the Apollo rocket/capsule? C'mon peeps, not possible in a capsule.
> "In 1964, Cray introduced the CDC 6600, which featured innovations such as switching out germanium transistors in favor of silicon and a Freon-based cooling system. More importantly, it ran at a speed of 40 MHz, executing roughly three million floating-point operations per second, which made it the fastest computer in the world. Often considered to be the world’s first supercomputer, the CDC 6600 was 10 times faster than most computers and three times faster than the IBM 7030 Stretch. The title was eventually relinquished in 1969 to its successor the CDC 7600." [Even so, the memory was limited altho its size was immense - certainly would never have "fitted" into a small capsule or rocket ship for that matter.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_6600#/media/File:CDC_6600.jc.jpg
"The CDC 6600 was the flagship of the 6000 series of mainframe computer systems manufactured by Control Data Corporation.[8][9] Generally considered to be the first successful supercomputer, it outperformed the industry's prior recordholder, the IBM 7030 Stretch, by a factor of three.[10][11] With performance of up to three megaFLOPS,[12][13] the CDC 6600 was the world's fastest computer from 1964 to 1969, when it relinquished that status to its successor, the CDC 7600.[14]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_6600
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_6600#/media/File:CDC_6600_Overview.png
[The photo shows a large, room-size computer; not portable at all for a "rocket/capsule".]
"The first CDC 6600s were delivered in 1965 to Livermore and Los Alamos.[15] They quickly became a must-have system in high-end scientific and mathematical computing, with systems being delivered to Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, CERN, [16][17] the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory,[18] and many others. At least 100 were delivered in total.[19]"
> "A CDC 6600 is on display at the Computer History Museum in Mountain View, California. The only running CDC 6000 series machine has been restored by Living Computers: Museum +"
Thank you for watching American Moon - all 3+ hours - but am really intrigued that you could watch a comprehensive analysis of the so-called "moon landings" & then tell me/us that your links to reddit links' general points can "debunk" the specific documentary facts.
> Debunking of Massimo Mazzucco's, American Moon (Part 1)
> Debunking of Massimo Mazzucco's, American Moon (Part 2)
I hope that because you support "critical thinking" steps, you realize that commenting, "arguing" or positing theories on a false flag/hoax etc - without supporting evidence - is NOT debunking anything?? The supposed debunks (of moon landing hoax evidence) in those reddit links are just comments or statements, & so are unconvincing to anyone who seriously considers them. Saying something w/out any evidence isn't proof of anything. >
The moon is made of green cheese & others have said that so I don't need proof of that.
HAH
For example, this reddit comment > 2. If it were true, like the debunkers maintain, that “a lunar mission entails a total of radiation equivalent to an x-ray”, why does NASA describe today the Van Allen belts as “an area of dangerous radiation”?
[Where do any moonlandig analysts of the Apollo space missions say going through the Van Allen Radiation Belts is equal or the equivalent of an X-ray? Pls provide a citation.]
You say:
The NASA engineer, Kelly Smith, who says the Van Allen belts are dangerous in the clip starting at 1:09:44 actually explains the reason. He says "radiation like this could harm the guidance systems, onboard computers or other electronics on Orion". Smith does not say that the radiation is a danger to humans. NASA scientist David Sibeck gives more detail here, stating that "Our current technology is ever more susceptible to these accelerated particles because even a single hit from a particle can upset our ever smaller instruments and electronics." It is the threat to sensitive electronics, not to people, which is the problem."
Good try, Petra but just a reminder again that both household & exterior EMFs/radiation have been shown to be very dangerous to humans. Say NO to all those smart meters etc.
Again > NASA Admits They Can't Send Humans Through The Van Allen Radiation Belts [NOW or then.]
Video > Did We Go To The Moon In 1969? NASA Says The Radiation Is Too Deadly; I Agree!
Watch https://www.bitchute.com/video/e6Hdk4wmTDxp/
> Are folks just not aware that extensive research has shown that constant or intense exposure to radiation/EMFs/microwaves/5G etc are dangerous to all animal & human life (causing neurological problems/tumors/cancer etc.).
According to one of the "debunks" you shared, Petra, if a NASA clip of a scientist doesn't go into all the details of Van Allen belt solar/EMFs/radiation effects/dangers to humans - scientifically proven fact - that doesn't mean that extensive Van Allen space radiation exposure is "safe". Not mentioning something doesn't prove it is okay. Do you have a cite proving space EMFs/solar radiation is safe for those exposed to it for many days/hours?
Always go to the facts/history of technological development to prove actual possibility. Without the tech to go to the moon, then all the other arguments fall by the wayside. ;-)
Lucinda, I try to avoid relying on belief but rather prefer to rely on the irrefutable facts as much as possible. This is an irrefutable fact as far as I can tell: no disbeliever of the moon landings has done a critique of the hefty tome, The Apollo Guidance Computer: Architecture and Operation, by Frank O'Brien. Why not? Surely, there are a number of computer experts who disbelieve the moon landings who could expose this volume as fraudulent. When that's done I'll pay some attention. I don't know anything about computing so I'll leave it to the trail made by the experts debunking one another. At this point the debunking trail ends with the tome.
https://www.amazon.com/Apollo-Guidance-Computer-Architecture-Operation/dp/1441908765
You say:
[Where do any moonlanding analysts of the Apollo space missions say going through the Van Allen Radiation Belts is equal or the equivalent of an X-ray? Pls provide a citation.]
Response:
The debunker (whose name I worked out is Laington) is simply quoting American Moon on the x-ray aspect. American Moon says: "If only x-ray level why did NASA ..."
I think there might be a slight confusion in what the argument is with regard to the Van Allen Belts. The argument isn't that it's safe, the argument is that NASA didn't say it wasn't safe for astronauts but that it wasn't safe for the instruments. I agree radiation of various kinds isn't safe but, in fact, that is generally agreed anyway - however, we simply tolerate the lack of safety.
Thank you for your comment here Petra. Two critical points to your response:
1. Just because information is published in a book does not make that info true.
2. Does your comment that you don't know anything about computing history or programming rule out your common sense, logic or CRITICAL REASONING?
Aren't you a big promoter of critical reasoning (you even outlined it carefully)?
Yeah, yeah. The US govt/computer corps had a secret compact computer available for Apollo but not available to market to the general peeps to make gazillions of bucks on it. The pure gall of this book just boggles the mind huh?
And there's a bridge in Brooklyn for sale, too...
Sorry, but I don't believe for even one second there was a secret computer that enabled the astronauts to traverse the so-called vacuum of space to the moon. And this so-called book on how the space rocket/capsule will be operated is only prescriptive or an explanation of how it would or might work and NOT how it ever worked IRL. Big difference there.
See bullet point in the book > "What we hope to accomplish" is plainly stated in the outline & NOT what was accomplished. This book is only pie in the sky.
Btw, you can actually read this simple manual here & tell me what you think >
The Apollo Guidance Computer: Architecture & Operation by Frank O'Brien
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4f4f/65e172903e5c34f5862941d558d6c88452a3.pdf
(Praxis; 2010th edition (July 12, 2010)
Kinda anti-climactic reading this, isn't it? So you & I can read their proposed outline plan of operation in this slim book & see that it was just a prescription without details, Not a real plan of operation with specific detailed info that a competent computing engineer could critique or actually review. Hmmm...
[My actual belief is that this book was created/invented in 2010 (or otherwise an earlier pub date from an earlier edition - say 1969? - would have been cited too) in order to respond to & discount increasing moon skeptics' comments re: the obvious lack of available computer tech for space travel in 1969. Right??]
All those millions & millions of Apollo space race money & all we got was this lousy 61 page outline book w/their "plans" but not their real accomplishment.
< sarc > Good try, again, though, Petra.
;-)
Lucinda, Can I advise that you be a little more careful in interpretation of argument.
1. Strawman argument - I don't say that the book is gospel, I say that no disbeliever of the moon landings has critiqued it and I ask why not.
2. My friend argues for "common sense" with the argument, "If they'd gone to the moon they would have gone again" which falls into the logical fallacy, Hypothesis Contrary to Fact. I do use the "common sense" argument sometimes but it can be dangerous especially when it comes to subjects in which one has no expertise.
Please tell me why no one has critiqued this tome? In all other various events recognised as psyops that I can think of where expertise is useful, there are experts arguing against the official story, however, with the moon landings there is a complete absence of relevant experts arguing as far as I'm aware. Why are there relevant experts arguing against the narratives for covid, hiv-aids, 9/11 and no doubt other events that I can't think of at the moment but none arguing for the fakery of the moon landings?
You say:
"See bullet point in the book > "What we hope to accomplish" is plainly stated in the outline & NOT what was accomplished. This book is only pie in the sky."
What book? You haven't linked to the book, you've linked to what looks like a PowerPoint presentation and presumably "What we hope to accomplish" refers to "accomplished in the presentation."
No I don't understand a word of it but so what? I wouldn't expect to as a computer know-nothing plus the fact that it seems like a kind of skeleton that will be fleshed out in presentation.
There's a whole volume on the Apollo Guidance Computer just waiting to be critiqued. Who is going to do it? Do disbelievers even know of this volume? No, because the disbelievers don't do due diligence - my goodness is that so obvious.
https://www.amazon.com/Apollo-Guidance-Computer-Architecture-Operation/dp/1441908765
I just exposed Operation Northwoods as a fabrication without having the slightest expertise in military matters, however, it was fabricated Revelation-of-the-Method style BIG TIME so any idiot could expose it if they weren't seduced by the propaganda.
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/operation-northwoods-false-flag-proposal
I've never seen a psyop that wasn't done Revelation-of-the-Method style and what I find most interesting is that not a single disbeliever of the moon landings has even seemed to notice that if the moon landings were indeed faked it would be noteworthy that they weren't done using the typical ROTM MO. No one has noticed, nor did anyone notice that Bill Kaysing was very clearly an agent whose job was to encourage those disinclined to believe the authorities that the moon landings were faked. They made him an obvious stooge - they told us that he was Head of Technical Publications at Rocketdyne, a ludicrous absurdity and other things that are ludicrous too.
Why hasn't any disbeliever picked up on this stooge? Because they're judging by their biases and their small fonts of knowledge ... not the evidence.
NATO = NORTH ATLANTIC TRANSGENDER ORGANIZATION
NATO – an anti-white and anti-family institution . . .
After the apocalypse of 1945, a number of global organizations have been formed with the aim of maintaining and expanding totalitarian liberalism. One of the earliest organizations formed for this purpose was the war alliance "North Atlantic Treaty Organization", or NATO, which can be seen as the military wing of globalism.
In addition to ensuring that Washington always has international support for its military campaigns, NATO as an institution is explicitly anti-white and explicitly dedicated to "racial justice" for racial aliens living in white countries. As early as 1999, NATO authored reports blaming nationalists for a number of modern problems and warning against the influence of nationalism.
In 2023, the war alliance held a summit at its headquarters in Brussels on race where the alliance's leaders pledged to fight "homogeneous attitudes" and to use NATO's "collective intelligence" for the purpose.
In fact, NATO is so dedicated to its anti-white agenda that it openly advocates that institutions must be reshaped to be "inclusive," in other words, restructured to be more anti-white, and consist of fewer white employees and executives.
https://nordfront.se/nato-en-antivit-och-familjefientlig-institution
NASA video clip here > NASA Admits They Can't Send Humans Through The Van Allen Radiation Belts - First published on January 4th, 2021 (altho I've seen clips on this for more than a decade).
Watch https://www.bitchute.com/video/XQ2IukNVvzqm/
Seems pretty conclusive to me that no humans can go through the Van Allen Radiation Belts. So.
Are you disputing NASA's own statements here??