How Do 400,000 Smart People Get Fooled And Never Doubt Apollo And Never See It For A Big Phony Fake

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
The tech used in the Apollo missions is well documented and easily understood by anyone of average intelligence

No its not... in fact NASA doesn't know how they did it

NASA Forgot How To Go To The Moon!!!
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Seems they need to reverse engineer the Saturn 5 because no one knows how they did it and no one kept notes and on top of that they lost over 4800 lbs of video tape of the event

reply to post by decisively


How Do 400,000 Smart People Get Fooled And Never Doubt Apollo And Never See It For A Big Phony Fake?

The same way they got fooled over the Kennedy assassination and 9/11

reply to post by zorgon


thanks zorgon,

appreciate the support

any specifics you can jot down for us like the forgetting how the Saturn V works and losing the tapes is great

when we are done here we can make a nice list and send it to the Clavius and Rocket and Space guys for a good laugh and Obama too for good measure

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by N3k9Ni

 

Best way to say it is that obviously the quindar thing is speculative at this time but the John Young thing is a definite

Apollo is very fake and i know that for myself

www.abovetopsecret.com...

see those numbers there N3k9Ni ?

John Young cannot lie his way out of that one

he flies fake ships because my calculations unlike John Young do not lie

I read this yesterday. It made no sense then, it makes no sense now.

To get the distance between Tranquility and the real time MSFN solution for the landing site you just do pythagoras and so that is ( (58) x (58) ) + ( (2' 05") x (2' 05")) and then take the square root of that sum.

I don't know what you're doing and I don't think you do either. How does one "do pythagoras" with numbers like these?

What right triangle has legs measuring 58 and 2' 05"?

How did the reflector get setup on the moon if no one was there? It was just crashed there and happens to work.

I suppose someone has a conspiracy for it.

So Russia was making a fake to out fake America huh? Russia must not like being outdone if that's really the case.

But really, it's all too easy to fake a fake. Especially with today's fake technology.

Folks, I really hate to break it to y'all, but nobody (other than some dementia sufferers) at NASA has "forgotten" how a Saturn V works. The problem with building a Saturn V in 2012 isn't "not knowing how it works", it's "we don't do things that way any more". Think of a vacuum-tube radio as an example of the same phenomenon. Any decent electrical engineer or ham operator can tell you *how* one works...but building one is a major undertaking simply because commercial-grade vacuum tubes are scarce as diamonds. Anybody who wants a radio these days goes with solid state.

In the case of the Saturn V, the instrument unit was designed and built in the 1960s. Discrete transistors, no integrated circuits. We could replace the whole thing with a desktop computer's CPU (or even one from a graphics card)...but now we have to redesign the electrical system (different voltage requirements and tolerances), and the sensors (different output voltages) and the control systems within the booster (again, different voltages for input).

Now that you've had to redesign the control systems, electrical systems, and power supply, you're ready to start on the really hard part...custom-fabricating plumbing, pressure vessels. and pumps to fifty year old specifications. Don't tell me this is simple...I've been a Colonel in the Commemorative Air Force for over 20 years, and we have 'fun' with legacy parts all the (expletive deleted) time. To make a long story short (too late, I know :lol, by the time you've redesigned the Saturn V to work around all the things we simply don't (as opposed to can't) make any more, you've already more-or-less designed a new booster from scratch anyway. It's a better idea to look at a Saturn V as an inspiration, and start with a blank slate.

reply to post by decisively


I realy didn't follow the hoax much. I read abit about it and saw a few 5 min vids and I find it very interesting. What is the best video that explains the lunar landing hoax? It could be hours long I don't mind.

Read the headline. The fourth word is the reason.

There are photos as clear as mud of the Apollo gear on the moon. Of course that must be faked as well. By the way, maybe the shuttle is fake and it didn't really fly into space..oh my God, were in the matrix and all we know is being broadcast to us as we lie in a preserved sate on a table as we live out imaginary lives...!!!!

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


The Rusians were planting military equipment on the moon and in various and sundry earth orbits just as we did and do still today. The only major difference between our program weaponizing space and their's is that ours featured the moon landing fraud as a cover. They of course had their own covers. Not much difference at tall .

It is important to keep in mind Apollo was fraudulent in the limited sense that men were not landed on the moon. The rockets, satellites, workers and so forth are quite real and engaged in real albethey nefarious activities.

reply to post by Brother Stormhammer


How about bathroom's ? Do we build bathrooms differently on our spaceships today Brother Stormhammer, or is it rather the case that were we to send Frank Borman again, he would yet again poop all over his colleagues and contaminate the phony space ship with phony vomitus and dime store phony diarrhea exactly like he did in December of 1968 ?

reply to post by XLR8R


Read Chaikin's book A MAN ON THE MOON to get the "official story" XLR8R and then you might try you tube searching "JARRAH WHITE'S" videos. He is very mainstream, but thorough and that will get you started.

reply to post by pacifier2012



No one claims Apollo is fake in an absolute sense for the umpteenth time. The LRRR is on the moon for a reason, and one of them had to do with determining the strength of the earth's gravitational field for ICBM targeting.

All kinds of military equipment was planted in space under the guise of Apollo. We don't say Apollo is fake in an absolute sense. We only say it never was NOR WAS IT EVER INTENDED TO BE a real manned lunar landing program.

Why do you think U.S. Air Force General Samuel Philips was in charge of the Apollo Manned Space Program for NASA? Hint, he was in charge of the U.S. Minuteman ICBM Program just prior.

Why do you think Apollo 14 LM stooge Edgar Mitchell slid over from the Manned Orbital Lab Program to join Apollo? Hint, the Manned Orbital Lab Program as all acknowledge now was a military program to set up a more or less permanent manned surveillance and reconnaissance platform in earth orbit.

What is a Space Shuttle ? Hint, it is a Dyna-Soar or an X-20, the same piece of military equipment that Armstrong was scheduled to test fly before he left the military X-20 program in 1962 to join the NASA military programs.

reply to post by decisively


Thank you, much appreciated. I'll look into that tonight. Again thanks

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


The moon is 6783 miles 'round at its equator

18.84 miles per degree of arc

0.314 miles per minute of arc

27.6 feet per seconds of arc

The Apollo 11 mission Report says that when the eagle touched down, the MSFN system tracked the bird to 0.631 north and 23.47 east. Tranquility Base was determined to be at 0.6875 north and 23.433 east. This determination was said to have been officially made 08/01/1969 (the time of the first successful LRRR targeting).

What is the distance between the MSFN real time solution and Tranquility Base actual/official ?

You'll note reading footnote (a) of the Apollo 11 Mission Report table 5-IV, a correction had to be made going from trajectory derived coordinates(this includes the MSFN numbers) to map based numbers (the official Tranquility Base figures fall into this latter category). Per the Apollo 11 Mission Report table 5-IV footnote (a) those correction factors are ADD 2' 25"(0.04 degrees) TO THE NORTH COORDINATE, SUBTRACT 4' 17"(0.07 degrees) FROM THE EAST FIGURE.

There you go DenyObfuscation, you have all you need now to find the distance between the two points on a map of the moon(the MSFN real time solution for the Eagle's landing site is one point and the ultimately official LRRR targeting certified Tranquility Base site is the other point)

MSFN based landing site solution numbers are 0.661 north and 23.40 east, here now having taken the correction factors into account. One simply takes the difference of the north figures and squares. Take the east figures and subtract one from the other and square. Add those two figures and take its square root. A very simple pythagorean solution to determining the distance between the two points.

With respect to the north coordinate (0.0265)(0.0265) + and east (.033)(.033) = 0.0007 + 0.001089= 0.001789. The square root of that is 0.0425.

0.0425 is the "distance" in degrees separating the MSFN real time solution and Tranquility Base's location as was ultimately determined by careful study (photos, flight data and LRRR targeting). As there are 18.84 miles per degree, the MSFN and Tranquility Base coordinates are 0.0425 X 18.84 = 0.8 miles apart.

In the other thread I got 0.72 miles so I suspect the difference in the answers has to do with my rounding differently in the 2 cases.

You should check my work regardless DenyObfuscation.

We see Apollo proven fraudulent here as Eagle launch FIDO H. David Reed was told that the MSFN solution was at least 4.7 miles from what Tranquility Base's location turned out to be. This from Reed's nice chapter in the book FROM THE TRENCH OF MISSION CONTROL TO THE CRATERS OF THE MOON;

"After Apollo XI landed, as the World celebrated and sipped champagne, I slept in preparation for my shift prior to lunar launch. I wouldwork with SELECT and DYNAMICS to get all the relative geometry down and work out the correct ignition time for return to the CSM.Piece of cake really. All we needed were landing site coordinates and a solid ephemeris on the CSM. I sat down at the console for that prelaunch shift and was debriefed bythe previous team to complete hand-off. I probably had my secondcup of coffee by then and got on the loop to SELECT to get the bestlanding site. I remember asking SELECT what he had for landing sitecoordinates. I’ll never forget his answer when he said, “take your pick FIDO!” I also remember not reacting too positively to his offer. He explained that we had five different sites. He said “we have MSFN(tracking radars), PNGS (primary LM guidance computer), AGS(backup LM guidance computer), the targeted landing site and, ohyes, the geologist have determined yet another site based upon thecrew’s description of the landscape and correlating that with orbiter photos”. No two of these were even close to each other. ....

I remember taking my headset off and walking up to the Flight Direc- tor, Milt Windler to explain the situation. We only used that kind of face to face communication when we had a serious problem such as this.....

Now we had the data we needed to run the problem (a rendezvous problem in reverse) and get the correct liftoff time*. And that’s what we used. Later we would find out just where were we on the surface. We were actually over 25,000 feet from the nearest of the other five choices we had! At 5,000-fps orbital velocity of the CSM that could have been up to a ten second error in liftoff. That would have meant we’d need a LOT of RCS (reaction control system fuel) to play catch up or slow down in a rather abnormal (I don’t recall train- ing for this one) rendezvous situation. "

Everyone interested in Apollo should read H. David Reed's book chapter, read the relevant Apollo 11 Mission Report sections as well. Do the calculations on your own. Write to Obama.

How sickeningly and unbelievable FAKE!!!

reply to post by decisively


So according to you...
We had the hardware to go to the Moon.
We sent the hardware to the Moon.

Why not just put humans on the hardware and finish the mission??

You keep bringing up names of long ago debunked Apollo hoaxers.

Why not pretend you believe Apollo for an hour. Search hardware websites for details. Search websites with the mission details. I have seen websites with so much minor details including every single word spoken over the radios. Search websites that show every single picture taken on each mission. Including the crappy pictures that you and I would delete.
Then spend an hour researching the people whos websites claim Apollo was a hoax.

Then come back here and explain why the entire world accepts Apollo at face value. Including our enemies at the time.

reply to post by decisively

Obviously I jumped the gun with my post. If I had had continued beyond the portion I quoted I would have seen what you meant.

You should check my work regardless DenyObfuscation.

I know next to nothing about Apollo missions but let's check it anyway. When I calculate the distance from the powered flight processor location to the LM targeted location I get about 4.8 miles. Would you agree to that?

Why are you using data from LRRR released Aug.1 as if Reed should have known this already? There were no coordinates for tranquility base until it landed, correct?