NASA not responding to FOIA about atypical size and luminisioty of Apollo moon "sun" photos

I want to remind that Internet is full of all kinds of texts which "resemble" real technical reports as containing abbreviations and terminology sounding professional - Wikipedia is full of such texts. They are mostly completely unrealistic stories.

During the Apollo-11 launch Soviets sent a big fleet of electronic intelligence ships to Florida coast. They were suspicious if USA has some ufo-technology in rocket construction as the Soviets had found out that it is impossible to build a rocket capable of sending more than 30 tons to outer space - in Apollo-scheme the weight was 47 tons. USA tried to block Soviets to make the observations and 320 million dollars was used against the spy fleet (Operation Crossroads b) - but Soviets made their measurements. Of course this material was top secret data and never published. Only recently many Russian scientists have published the figures (Popov, Pokrovsky, etc) but making no reference to the original spy data, of course. English translation can be found from some hoax pages linked below.

wikispooks.com...
www.aulis.com...

There are number of lies related to Saturn V. One example is the weight of Skylab said to be 77 tons - calculated from the individual parts and by comparing the weight with other similar space stations, the real weight was less than 30 tons. Now US top rocket industries have dreams to break in the future the mysterious 50 ton limit - e.g. Falcon X Heavy will in the future have a payload of 53 tons. But today these dreams are still unrealistic. Wernher von Braun said that payload of Saturn V was 118 ton and 50 tons to moon. This is only possible in Disney's fairytale stories. It was not possible to fly to Moon and back with the rockets available.

LM was not manageable and it was never tested in reality. In USA there are number of companies which have studied the LM problems and developed alternative landers. LM was extremely unstable - one fixed engine and small manually driven "docking boosters" which did not allow the control of the powerful main engine. Today they use computer controlled dynamic main engine which is capable of automatically maintaining the balance in any circumstances. Here you can see what has been the development in these 40 yrs after Apollo (from a recent competition organized by NASA for creating the best lunar module):

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.spaceelevatorgames.org...
www.design-laorosa.com...
pktechnologies.blogspot.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

In 1960s USA took its first steps in docking technology. In Moon docking is very difficult because the lack of positioning technology there and docking may take several days if possible at all.

"Even the geniuses at NASA take several days to get close to the ISS with the Space Shuttle. Even though our orbital planes are aligned, we may be higher than (slower than) the ISS, lower than (faster than) the ISS, or maybe both if our orbit is highly eccentric (oval shaped). We want to find a point in time where our location, altitude, and speed are all very close to that of the ISS so that we can dock.":

smithplanet.com... ... ations.htm

In NASA videos the LM approached vertically directly from the Moon surface to meet the CM just within few tens of minutes. This is only possible in Disney's fairytale stories.

Apollo management asked Grumman to leave out the docking technology from LM because it was not ready and because of weight problems. Grumman said that it is not possible to make docking without such technology - nobody was worried. Apollo-14 was the first having some docking radar. Thus, the Apollo-scheme was not possible.
www.astronautix.com...

Almost all the moon rocks have never been seen by geologists as they are in a secret safe. Those which have been seen are stones from Earth and the geomagnetic orientation, isotope contents and habitus reveals this fact. There are Earth meteorites, impactites, tectites, volcanic rocks and even petrified wood. NASA did not understand how difficult it is to simulate Moon rocks. Russian Moon rock samples are completely different and they have some trace metals missing from Apollo samples. Maybe USA has not yet managed to get any samples from Moon.

Originally posted by XcLuciFer
Not sure if this movie has been posted before but I think that it has some very good info on this subject.

I think that we may have gone to the Moon but, I don't think we have ever seen real footage of it.

A funny thing happen on the way to the Moon!

Google Video Link

[edit on 3/16/2010 by XcLuciFer]

I think this video should have it's dedicated post. Very interesting. Thanks.

reply to post by Phage


Interesting tape, i can't believe how did they lie to us.

Originally posted by Tsialkovsky
During the Apollo-11 launch Soviets sent a big fleet of electronic intelligence ships to Florida coast. They were suspicious if USA has some ufo-technology in rocket construction as the Soviets had found out that it is impossible to build a rocket capable of sending more than 30 tons to outer space - in Apollo-scheme the weight was 47 tons. USA tried to block Soviets to make the observations and 320 million dollars was used against the spy fleet (Operation Crossroads b) - but Soviets made their measurements.

Is this one of those "unrealistic stories" you were talking about? It sure sounds like it.

Of course this material was top secret data and never published. Only recently many Russian scientists have published the figures (Popov, Pokrovsky, etc) but making no reference to the original spy data, of course. English translation can be found from some hoax pages linked below.

If the data is top secret and the Russian's make no reference to it, then how can you or anyone know about its existence? Sounds like another unrealistic story.

There are number of lies related to Saturn V. One example is the weight of Skylab said to be 77 tons - calculated from the individual parts and by comparing the weight with other similar space stations, the real weight was less than 30 tons.

Some one calculated its mass by adding up all the individual parts? Every nut and bolt? Where does one get a list of all the individual parts? That sounds rather unrealistic to me.

Also what other space stations were similar to Skylab? I don't know of any other space stations that were a modified S-IVB stage. So it's not really comparable to any other space stations of that time.

Now US top rocket industries have dreams to break in the future the mysterious 50 ton limit...

I have never heard of this "mysterious 50 ton limit". Could you post any references that talk about this supposed limit? preferably from a reliable source.

LM was not manageable...

Evidence please.

...and it was never tested in reality.

So Apollo's 5, 6, 9 and 10 were what then?

LM was extremely unstable - one fixed engine and small manually driven "docking boosters" which did not allow the control of the powerful main engine.

In what way was it extremely unstable? Also the descent engine was gimbaled, not fixed. They had control over the 16 reaction control system thrusters and the main engine. Where is your evidence that they did not? How did the astronauts manually land the LM if they did not have control of the main engine? It makes no sense.

In NASA videos the LM approached vertically directly from the Moon surface to meet the CM just within few tens of minutes. This is only possible in Disney's fairytale stories.

That's not what happened at all. Where do you get your information from? No LM ever launched vertically from the Moon to meet up with the CSM. You have to achieve orbit first and you can not do that by going straight up. No wonder why you think NASA lies all the time. You don't even understand or know what actually happened during the missions.

Apollo's 11 and 12 used a Coelliptic Method to rendezvous with the CSM in orbit. It generally took over three hours and nearly two orbits to perform. Apollo's 14 - 17 used the Direct Rendezvous method, which took under two hours and less than one orbit to perform.

Here's some reading for you to do:Lunar orbit rondezvous

reply to post by bochen181

I don't believe we faked the moon landing.

That's why I can laugh so hard at these "we faked it!" conspiracies.

I imagine the people who actually went there must think you're short some brain cells.

Like we could pull it off and even if we could, why?

Originally posted by bochen181
Whatever the actual construction of the Apollo super light rig, it appears not to have been perfect as an artificial sun. There are noticeable hot-spots (or brighter areas) around shadows where the photographer has the 'sun' immediately behind him. An effect that can be seen in the centre of many Apollo photographs – here is an example:

[edit on 16-3-2010 by bochen181]

I hope I'm not retreading an already answered point, but I didn't see anyone yet point out that this is totally normal for any picture pointed away from the sun.


This is called the "opposition effect" or "opposition surge". It is a brightening at the anti-solar point (the point directly opposite of the sun (or any source of light). The reason it occurs is because you can't see as much shadow at the anti-solar point because the features casting the shadows (such as tiny bumps on the terrain) are occluding (blocking) their own shadows from the camera's viewpoint.

Here's a bunch of examples of this effect as seen on the surface of the earth. Notice that the effect is greatest at the point opposite of the sun.