Jump to content
The Education Forum

APOLLO : ONE GIANT HOAX


Recommended Posts

APOLLO : ONE GIANT HOAX

At the present time, nowhere on Earth does there exist, nor is there any prospect in the foreseeable future of there being, the technology to put men on the moon and bring them back safely. When NASA realised that President Kennedy's 1961 call, for a man on the moon and back alive before the end of the decade, was totally impossible, they decided, rather than lose face, to hoax the whole thing. With $40 billion – at 1961 rates – available, the scope for deception was endless.

The major problem was the impossibility of overcoming the cosmic radiation threat within and beyond the Earth's Van Allen Belts and on the moon’s surface. At least 5 feet of lead would be needed in all directions to protect the voyagers : for one man, in a telephone kiosk, this would involve a thousand tons of lead. 30-plus years later, the unprotected Apollo travellers, all of whom would have been fried, have shown no signs of radiation sickness.

Another problem was the inability of NASA to produce a stable craft which was intended to be the lunar landing module. “Lunar astronaut”, Neil Amstrong, almost lost his life when one of the prototype flying-bedstead LMs crashed and disintegrated. The problems were never even close to being solved.

The highly secret Area 51, in the Nevada Desert, is believed to be the location for the film studios – still visible from satellite photographs – which produced the television programmes – “live from the Moon”, whilst the astronauts merely sat out their time 200 miles above the Earth’s surface.

The official NASA record of the six Apollo excursions is so full of basic mistakes that various observers believe that some NASA personnel, very unhappy at being forced to be part of the hoax, deliberately left what would become obvious flaws in the record. The American flag flapping in the atmosphere-free, windless conditions ; the school-boy-level fake "moon photographs" and their difference from the live (film studio) transmissions ; the miracle of the standard Kodak film which withstood the X-rays and the extremes of heat and cold - 250 to minus-250 degrees ; the chest-mounted cameras which, without a viewfinder, produced hundreds of clear, well-framed photographs ; the multiple light sources ; the clear, uninterrupted voices of the astronauts as they sat above 10,000 lb-thrust, 140-decibel rockets ; the lack of any crater beneath the LMs; the lack of any exhaust smoke from the LM rockets (as it was pulled upwards, Thunderbird-style, by puppet strings in the studio) ; the lack of any stars in the lunar sky ; … and so on.

The impression that the men and vehicles were moving in a less dense gravity was created by simply slowing down the film to half-speed.

One of the "whistle-blowers" Bill Kaysing, former analyst and engineer with Rocketdyne, the Apollo rocket designers estimated that “.. there were 85 completely separate manoeuvres involved in a lunar landing. Statisticians have calculated that the chances of completing this set of manoeuvres six times, without a single failure, were totally beyond the realms of possibility".

Kaysing also reckoned that the chances of a successful, manned return trip to the moon were .0017%.

Other informants have not been so lucky. The outstanding critic of America’s chances of lunar success, Gus Grissom was one of ten astronauts who had “freak fatal accidents” between 1964 & 67. Apollo 1 safety inspector, Thomas Baron, produced a 500-page report. He stated that “The Apollo 1 programme was in such disarray that America would never make it to the moon.” One week later Baron and his family were killed in a road crash : the report disappeared.

Although the Americans recruited over 120 Nazi space scientists for their use, the Apollo scam is well beyond anything in the Joseph Goebbels Manual of Public Relations. Channels 4 and 5 TV have broadcast programmes exposing the fraud, but the Establishment media, led by -who else?- the BBC, have taken every opportunity to reinforce the hoax, with very good reason. If it were generally accepted that The Scientists have told us a pack of lies on "Man's Greatest Achievement" - and they have -even the most trusting of punter is likely to ask on what else would they deceive us : answer - everything.

Pat Rattigan

http://patrattigan.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/page2.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

APOLLO : ONE GIANT HOAX

At the present time, nowhere on Earth does there exist, nor is there any prospect in the foreseeable future of there being, the technology to put men on the moon and bring them back safely. When NASA realised that President Kennedy's 1961 call, for a man on the moon and back alive before the end of the decade, was totally impossible, they decided, rather than lose face, to hoax the whole thing. With $40 billion – at 1961 rates – available, the scope for deception was endless.

The major problem was the impossibility of overcoming the cosmic radiation threat within and beyond the Earth's Van Allen Belts and on the moon’s surface. At least 5 feet of lead would be needed in all directions to protect the voyagers : for one man, in a telephone kiosk, this would involve a thousand tons of lead. 30-plus years later, the unprotected Apollo travellers, all of whom would have been fried, have shown no signs of radiation sickness.

Another problem was the inability of NASA to produce a stable craft which was intended to be the lunar landing module. “Lunar astronaut”, Neil Amstrong, almost lost his life when one of the prototype flying-bedstead LMs crashed and disintegrated. The problems were never even close to being solved.

The highly secret Area 51, in the Nevada Desert, is believed to be the location for the film studios – still visible from satellite photographs – which produced the television programmes – “live from the Moon”, whilst the astronauts merely sat out their time 200 miles above the Earth’s surface.

The official NASA record of the six Apollo excursions is so full of basic mistakes that various observers believe that some NASA personnel, very unhappy at being forced to be part of the hoax, deliberately left what would become obvious flaws in the record. The American flag flapping in the atmosphere-free, windless conditions ; the school-boy-level fake "moon photographs" and their difference from the live (film studio) transmissions ; the miracle of the standard Kodak film which withstood the X-rays and the extremes of heat and cold - 250 to minus-250 degrees ; the chest-mounted cameras which, without a viewfinder, produced hundreds of clear, well-framed photographs ; the multiple light sources ; the clear, uninterrupted voices of the astronauts as they sat above 10,000 lb-thrust, 140-decibel rockets ; the lack of any crater beneath the LMs; the lack of any exhaust smoke from the LM rockets (as it was pulled upwards, Thunderbird-style, by puppet strings in the studio) ; the lack of any stars in the lunar sky ; … and so on.

The impression that the men and vehicles were moving in a less dense gravity was created by simply slowing down the film to half-speed.

One of the "whistle-blowers" Bill Kaysing, former analyst and engineer with Rocketdyne, the Apollo rocket designers estimated that “.. there were 85 completely separate manoeuvres involved in a lunar landing. Statisticians have calculated that the chances of completing this set of manoeuvres six times, without a single failure, were totally beyond the realms of possibility".

Kaysing also reckoned that the chances of a successful, manned return trip to the moon were .0017%.

Other informants have not been so lucky. The outstanding critic of America’s chances of lunar success, Gus Grissom was one of ten astronauts who had “freak fatal accidents” between 1964 & 67. Apollo 1 safety inspector, Thomas Baron, produced a 500-page report. He stated that “The Apollo 1 programme was in such disarray that America would never make it to the moon.” One week later Baron and his family were killed in a road crash : the report disappeared.

Although the Americans recruited over 120 Nazi space scientists for their use, the Apollo scam is well beyond anything in the Joseph Goebbels Manual of Public Relations. Channels 4 and 5 TV have broadcast programmes exposing the fraud, but the Establishment media, led by -who else?- the BBC, have taken every opportunity to reinforce the hoax, with very good reason. If it were generally accepted that The Scientists have told us a pack of lies on "Man's Greatest Achievement" - and they have -even the most trusting of punter is likely to ask on what else would they deceive us : answer - everything.

Pat Rattigan

http://patrattigan.mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/page2.html

I thought better of you Duane, I was expecting to see professionally verified photographic evidence. Never mind.

The explanations for most, if not all, of the "arguments" presented here have been thoroughly debunked on this and other forums you've participated in. Please spend a few minutes reviewing those explanations. If you disagree with any of those specific refutations, perhaps you'd like to discuss them in more detail? Personally I won't be wasting my time going over the "same old same old" - other members may feel differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't mind (too much) going over all this... again.

APOLLO : ONE GIANT HOAX

At the present time, nowhere on Earth does there exist, nor is there any prospect in the foreseeable future of there being, the technology to put men on the moon and bring them back safely.

That's a pretty big call from Mr Rattigan - who is a naturopath, not an aerospace engineer, rocket scientist, etc. Perhaps he is unaware that as well as the US space programme, the USSR also had a lunar landing programme. The spacecraft were built (a modified Soyuz and a one-man lunar lander) but the launcher (N-1) was never successfully test flown. Mr Rattigan should also take a look at the Chinese, who have not only put their own taikonaut into space but are planning their own lunar landing.
When NASA realised that President Kennedy's 1961 call, for a man on the moon and back alive before the end of the decade, was totally impossible, they decided, rather than lose face, to hoax the whole thing. With $40 billion – at 1961 rates – available, the scope for deception was endless.

Proof? The development of the Apollo spacecraft is very well documented, and is easily verified by engineers. So far, no-one with a qualification in the field has leap up and said the the documented history is wrong.

The major problem was the impossibility of overcoming the cosmic radiation threat within and beyond the Earth's Van Allen Belts and on the moon’s surface. At least 5 feet of lead would be needed in all directions to protect the voyagers : for one man, in a telephone kiosk, this would involve a thousand tons of lead. 30-plus years later, the unprotected Apollo travellers, all of whom would have been fried, have shown no signs of radiation sickness.
Proof? The "six feet of lead" claim is often made but strangely no calculations showing how this was derived is ever shown. I'm sure I know why - because it refers to a 'generation ship' on a deep space mission, where the spaceship occupants would spend their entire lives in space. Also I think it refers to water shielding, not lead. Lead would have problems of its own (Bremsstrahlung).

People with qualifications in the field don't seem to find Apollo impossible, nor the problems of radiation insurmountable.

Space Radiation Hazards and the Vision for Space exploration (2006)

The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon

Biomedical results of Apollo

Heavy cosmic ray exposure of Apollo astronauts

Neutron exposure to lunar astronauts (Abstract)

Space radiation cancer risk projections for exploration missions

Another problem was the inability of NASA to produce a stable craft which was intended to be the lunar landing module. “Lunar astronaut”, Neil Amstrong, almost lost his life when one of the prototype flying-bedstead LMs crashed and disintegrated. The problems were never even close to being solved.

Armstrong crashed in the Lunar Landing Training Vehicle (LLTV), a craft meant to simulate the last portions of a lunar landing. It was not, and has never been claimed to be, a 'prototype' LM. The LM had been extensively tested on the ground, tested in unmanned Earth-orbital flights (Apollo 5), in a manned Earth orbit flight (Apollo 9), and manned in lunar orbit (Apollo 10) before a manned lunar landing was attempted.

Some of the technical reports from the testing are available in this post.

The highly secret Area 51, in the Nevada Desert, is believed to be the location for the film studios – still visible from satellite photographs – which produced the television programmes – “live from the Moon”, whilst the astronauts merely sat out their time 200 miles above the Earth’s surface.

Conjecture - proof? Also, does not explain the tracking of the spacecraft, visual observations of the spacecraft in cislunar space, nor the large quantity of lunar samples brought back by Apollo.

(more to follow)

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The official NASA record of the six Apollo excursions is so full of basic mistakes that various observers believe that some NASA personnel, very unhappy at being forced to be part of the hoax, deliberately left what would become obvious flaws in the record. The American flag flapping in the atmosphere-free, windless conditions ;

Movement by the astronauts pushing it into the lunar surface. No movement observed when the astronauts are not handling it.

the school-boy-level fake "moon photographs" and their difference from the live (film studio) transmissions ;

No difference has been found, and no images have ever been proven to have been faked (yes, that includes Jack).

the miracle of the standard Kodak film which withstood the X-rays and the extremes of heat and cold - 250 to minus-250 degrees ;

The film was designed to withstand those conditions. It was NOT 'standard' Kodak film.

the chest-mounted cameras which, without a viewfinder, produced hundreds of clear, well-framed photographs ;

The cameras could be taken off the chest-mount, and before the astronauts left they practiced extensively with the camera. Even so, a number of frames were duds.

the multiple light sources ;

Unproven, and I'd say disproven.

the clear, uninterrupted voices of the astronauts as they sat above 10,000 lb-thrust, 140-decibel rockets ;

Sound doesn't travel in a vacuum. Some sound traveled through the spacecraft structure itself, but this was muted by the noise-cancelling microphones used by the astronauts who had their helmets on.

the lack of any crater beneath the LMs;

There is evidence of blast on the lunar surface in some cases, but the engine was not at full throttle for landing. It was at about 15% throttle (IIRC).

the lack of any exhaust smoke from the LM rockets (as it was pulled upwards, Thunderbird-style, by puppet strings in the studio) ;

The hypergolic fuels did not produce any smoke.

(More to follow)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the lack of any stars in the lunar sky ; … and so on.

As has been explained by countless sites, the film didn't register any because they were not bright enough to be recorded on the film when exposure settings were for lunar surface photography. Venus was actually captured in a couple of shots, but Venus is a bright planet in our sky.

The impression that the men and vehicles were moving in a less dense gravity was created by simply slowing down the film to half-speed.

Does not explain the ballistic trajectory of the dust, dirt, etc, which follows the path predicted in an airless, 1/6G environment.

One of the "whistle-blowers" Bill Kaysing, former analyst and engineer with Rocketdyne, the Apollo rocket designers

Not a whistle-blower. Kaysing was a technical librarian who left Rocketdyne (who designed the F-1 engine, not the Apollo spacecraft or the Saturn V launch vehicle) in 1963, when the Saturn V had not yet even been built.

estimated that “.. there were 85 completely separate manoeuvres involved in a lunar landing. Statisticians have calculated that the chances of completing this set of manoeuvres six times, without a single failure, were totally beyond the realms of possibility".

Where is this analysis? Have other statisticians concurred with the assessment?

Kaysing also reckoned that the chances of a successful, manned return trip to the moon were .0017%.

How did he derive this figure? Was Kaysing trained in statistical analysis?

Other informants have not been so lucky. The outstanding critic of America’s chances of lunar success, Gus Grissom was one of ten astronauts who had “freak fatal accidents” between 1964 & 67.

Gus Grissom was an outspoken supporter of the lunar landing programme. If not for the Apollo 1 fire, he would have likely been the first American on the Moon. The astronauts who died were all pilots; flying high performance aircraft can be risky. Check out the accident statistics for US military pilots during the period. One died in a car crash.

Apollo 1 safety inspector, Thomas Baron, produced a 500-page report. He stated that “The Apollo 1 programme was in such disarray that America would never make it to the moon.” One week later Baron and his family were killed in a road crash : the report disappeared.

The report was given to the House Committee, and they concluded that although there were some pertinent aspects, the majority of claims were unsubstantiated, hearsay from people who were unidentified or disputed Mr Baron's claims, and was generally assessed to be the work of a disgruntled employee.

Although the Americans recruited over 120 Nazi space scientists for their use, the Apollo scam is well beyond anything in the Joseph Goebbels Manual of Public Relations.

The Germans were the world leaders in rocket construction. The USSR also used Germans for their space programme.

Sorry, Mr Rattigan, but your webpage is just a rant with the usual inaccurate & disproven claims. It has zero merit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical Bad Astronomy and clavius claptrap ...

Do you really expect everyone to fall for you disecting every line of every post I put here as a real rebuttal ? ... You didn't post one bit of information here that I haven't seen before ... You are only quoting what you have brought here from nasa defending sources, whose sole purpose is to defend the Apollo myth , by attempting to defuse the hoax evidence by any means possible ..

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical Bad Astronomy and clavius claptrap ...

Do you really expect everyone to fall for you disecting every line of every post I put here as a real rebutal ? ... You didn't post one bit of information here that I haven't seen before ... You are only quoting what you have brought here from nasa defending sources, whose sole purpose is to defend the Apollo myth , by attempting to defuse the hoax evidence by any means possible ..

Duane - you're post didn't contain anything new either. And surely a rebuttal SHOULD address each point you raise? Otherwise, you will simply claim that noone knows the answer to any opint not addressed, or is hiding something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical Bad Astronomy and clavius claptrap ...

Do you really expect everyone to fall for you disecting every line of every post I put here as a real rebutal ? ... You didn't post one bit of information here that I haven't seen before ... You are only quoting what you have brought here from nasa defending sources, whose sole purpose is to defend the Apollo myth , by attempting to defuse the hoax evidence by any means possible ..

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I've provided documented sources and studies from persons with qualifications & expertise in the field that counter the arguments of Mr Rattigan.

If you say those sources are wrong, then you have to show documented sources from people with the necessary expertise that disprove those counter-arguments. Simply saying "That is NASA claptrap" or "This is from a NASA Apollogist" does not cut it. You have to show where and why my rebuttals are incorrect.

I know, however, that you are unable to do this; that is why you resort to the poor tactic of saying "no it isn't!" rather than giving evidence.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being unable to do something is not the same thing as not having the time or interest ... I have debated this subject long enough to know that it's a losing battle and a waste of valuable time to try to refute every single point made by those who obviously have nothing more to do with their time than defend the faked Apollo moon landings .

I don't need to rebutt every one of your points because the most important one wasn't and can't be rebutted by you or anyone else for that matter ...

"At the present time, nowhere on Earth does there exist, nor is there any prospect in the foreseeable future of there being, the technology to put men on the moon and bring them back safely."

You didn't rebutt that statement , or did you think perhaps I wouldn't notice ?

Russia NEVER claimed to have landed men on the moon ... only the American's pretended to do that impossible feat , six times ! ... and China will NEVER land manned missions on the moon , until the monumental problem of how to technically soft land a manned craft can be resolved , and then how to sheild their astronauts against the deadly cosmic rays and solar radiation of deep space .

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"At the present time, nowhere on Earth does there exist, nor is there any prospect in the foreseeable future of there being, the technology to put men on the moon and bring them back safely."

You didn't rebutt that statement , or did you think perhaps I wouldn't notice ?

You need to improve your reading comprehension. My rebuttal was immediately under the quote:

That's a pretty big call from Mr Rattigan - who is a naturopath, not an aerospace engineer, rocket scientist, etc. Perhaps he is unaware that as well as the US space programme, the USSR also had a lunar landing programme. The spacecraft were built (a modified Soyuz and a one-man lunar lander) but the launcher (N-1) was never successfully test flown. Mr Rattigan should also take a look at the Chinese, who have not only put their own taikonaut into space but are planning their own lunar landing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read your 'rebuttal ' , so perhaps you should improve your reading comprehension and read what I wrote again ... Plus my rebuttal ... This was in reply to what you first posted . .. I didn't mean that you didn't try to rebutt the first statment of the article , but that you couldn't properly rebutt it ... I guess you didn't understand what I meant .

Yours ... "That's a pretty big call from Mr Rattigan - who is a naturopath, not an aerospace engineer, rocket scientist, etc. Perhaps he is unaware that as well as the US space programme, the USSR also had a lunar landing programme. The spacecraft were built (a modified Soyuz and a one-man lunar lander) but the launcher (N-1) was never successfully test flown. Mr Rattigan should also take a look at the Chinese, who have not only put their own taikonaut into space but are planning their own lunar landing."

Mine ... "Russia NEVER claimed to have landed men on the moon ... only the American's pretended to do that impossible feat , six times ! ... and China will NEVER land manned missions on the moon , until the monumental problem of how to technically soft land a manned craft can be resolved , and then how to sheild their astronauts against the deadly cosmic rays and solar radiation of deep space . "

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn’t continuously starting new threads on the same topic by cutting and pasting from web pages repeating the same “evidence” and usually failing to respond to rebuttals in any meaningful way constitute trolling? If not what does?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn’t continuously starting new threads on the same topic by cutting and pasting from web pages repeating the same “evidence” and usually failing to respond to rebuttals in any meaningful way constitute trolling? If not what does?

Good question Len!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn’t continuously starting new threads on the same topic by cutting and pasting from web pages repeating the same “evidence” and usually failing to respond to rebuttals in any meaningful way constitute trolling? If not what does?

Why does the Conspiracy section here, which usually includes controversial, informative, and possibly some of the better discussion/debtae on salient current affairs spend so much ink on the NASA hoax?

It seems that half of the recent posts on page 1 are dedicated to some issue related to the apollo program or space travel in general. The energy spent on this topic at this forum could almost power a space mission to escape velocity.

I would like to suggest that a separate section be dedicated to the apollo 'hoax'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...