# Apollo 11 Hoax



## bentsutomu (May 1, 2017)

The Apollo 11 lunar lander did not land on the surface of the moon since the lunar lander does not contain the amount of rocket fuel required in landing onto the surface of the moon. In addition, there are numerous indiscretions regarding the films and photographs of the landing and moon walk. The Surveyor 3 probe was initially sent to the surface of the moon to test for the possibility of landing on the moon. The Surveyor probe descends onto the surface of the moon and gains velocity because of the gravity of the moon; after the Surveyor probe begins to descent and achieves a velocity of 550 mph, the Surveyor's rocket engine is ignited and operates at full throttle until the Surveyor nears touchdown on the surface of the moon. The Surveyor engine's thrust is producing a flame that ambient temperature is over 3000o C which results in a 104 lb rocket thrust of the Vernier rocket engine which is reducing the speed of the descending Surveyor probe to allow the probe to land on the surface of the moon without disintegrating upon impact; consequently, the Surveyor rocket thrust would result in a shock zone beneath the Surveyor that would have cleared a circular area (d = 3 m) of the fine lunar particle matter that layers the surface of the moon but the fine lunar particle matter remains undisturbed underneath the exhaust nozzle in the Apollo 12 photograph of the Surveyor 3 probe. NASA's explanation is that the Surveyor rocket engine cuts off 4.3 meters before landing on the surface of the moon but the 104 lb rocket thrust at 4.3 meters above the surface would result in the disturbance of the fine lunar particle matter that layers the surface of the moon. In addition, the Surveyor 3 probe does not contain the amount of fuel required in landing on the surface of the moon. Using the approximation that the amount of fuel required for a rocket to liftoff a payload into the earth's orbit is equal to the amount of fuel required in descending a payload onto the earth's surface using a rocket engine descent reentry based on the potential and kinetic energies where the maximum potential energy of the Surveyor is achieved when the Surveyor probe is orbiting the moon and the maximum kinetic energy is at the moon's surface after a free fall; consequently, the potential energy of the Surveyor in the moon's orbit is approximately equal to the kinetic energy of the Surveyor at the moon's surface, after a free fall; therefore, the rocket liftoff payload weight from the surface of the earth can be used to calculate the fuel load required to land on the surface of the moon, using a descent rocket engine, by compensating for the moon's gravity. Using the moon gravity of .166 g, the 666 lb Surveyor 3 probe (dry) would be equivalent to landing a (666 lb) x (.166) = 111 lb payload onto the surface of the earth from the earth's orbit, using a rocket descent. The TD-2 rocket has a maximum payload weight of 1,000 lb uses 114,913 lb of liquid rocket fuel which forms a fuel-payload weight ratio of R = (114,913 lb) / (1,000 lb) = 115; consequently, to descent the Surveyor probe that has a moon weight of 111 lb using the fuel-payload weight ratio is (111 lb) x R = 12,765 lbs yet the total amount of fuel used in the descent of the Lunar Surveyor 3 probe is 1,596 lb. Furthermore, the Surveyor 3 probe photograph taken during the Apollo 12 mission shows boot prints next to the Surveyor 3 probe yet the lunar surface lacks an atmosphere required in producing the moisture that forms a boot print in the fine particle lunar matter on the surface of the moon. Example, when a person wearing boots walks on dry sand that has been kiln dried, an indentation of sand is produced, not a boot printed since the formation of a boot print in sand or the fine particular matter on the surface of the moon requires moisture to form a boot print. People argue that since talcum powder and flour form a boot print that the formation of the  lunar boot prints is possible but talcum powder and flour contain a small amount of water that allows for the formation of a boot print yet the lunar surface lacks an atmosphere that moisture is required in forming a boot print. In addition, a radio signal cannot be used to communicate with the Surveyor 3 probe at the moon because the intensity of a radio signal is dependent on the inverse of the fifth order of the distance I = K/r5. At 50,000 miles (r = 8 x 105 m) from the earth a radio signal would diminish by a factor of 10-25, the strongest radio signal produced on the surface of the earth would be less than the intensity of a cell phone after propagating a distance of 50,000 miles; at 100,000 miles the radio signal would disappear yet the moon is located 238,000 miles from the earth. Also, Newton's gravity equation is used in the calculation of the moon's gravity but Cavendish's experiment is used to derive Newton's constant G that is used in Newton's gravity equation which is used to calculate the .166 g moon gravity that is used to determine the fuel load required in landing of the Surveyor 3 probe and Apollo 11 lunar lander onto the surface of the moon but Cavendish measured a force of 1.74 x 10-7 N ≃ 2 μg (equ 23) that is 1000 times less than the 1 mg weight measurement uncertainty in 1797. In addition, masses do not attract as implied by Newton's gravity equation. Example, .73 kg and 158 kg masses, separated by .01 mm, located in the international space station do not attract which contradicts Newton's gravity equation. Also, Newton's gravity equation is used to represent a 50 kg astronaut in the international space station that is located 249 miles (400,727 m) from the surface of the earth, a gravitational force of F = (G m1 m2)/r2 = (6.7 × 10-11) x (50) x (6 x 1024) / (6.721  x 106)2 ≃ 445 N or 45.4 kg is calculated. According to Newton's gravity equation, a 50 kg astronaut in the space station forms a 45.4 kg gravitational force pointed at the earth which is not experimentally observed since a 50 kg astronaut is weightless in the international space station. Also, according to Newton's gravity equation, a 100 kg satellite orbiting at 249 miles from the earth's surface would experience a 90.8 kg N force in the direction of the earth which is not experimentally observed since the 100 kg satellite remains in orbit. A 90.8 kg force in the direction of the earth would result in the 100 kg satellite losing its orbit and crashing to the earth. In the descent of the Apollo 11 lunar lander, after the lander begins to descent to the surface of the moon and achieves a velocity of 550 mph, the lander's rocket engine is activated and fires at full throttle and produces a thrust of 10,000 lb until the lander nears the moon's surface at which time the thrust is reduced to 3,000 lb. In the Apollo 11 lunar lander descent film, the lunar lander is propagating in the horizontal direction. The reaction control thrusters are located on the accent stage and a thrust from the right control thruster produces a horizontal motion of the lander if the reaction control thrusters are positioned at the center of mass of the lander but during the lander's descent the center of mass would vary because of the enormous decrease in the fuel. An off centered right horizontal thrust would cause the lunar lander to tip downward resulting in the spinning and subsequent crash of the lunar lander. In the testing the lunar landing, a Bell Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) that main engine is a GE CF-700-2V jet engine is used yet a jet engine cannot operate in the descent on the surface of the moon since the moon does not have an atmosphere that is required in the functioning of a jet engine. Only a rocket engine can produce a thrust in the vacuum of stellar space or in the descent onto the surface of the moon that lacks an atmosphere. Also, the LLRV project constructed a lander prototype with a rocket engine using spherical fuel tanks but the rocket engine LLRV did not function even when attached to a crane since it would be extremely difficult and expansive to emulate the lunar lander's extremely high descent reentry velocity and the rocket engine firing that is used to counteract the lander's descent velocity. Furthermore, the Apollo 11 lunar landing photographs do not show a thrust zone produced by the lunar lander's rocket engine 3,000 lb thrust during the final decent of the lunar lander onto the surface of the moon.  At the end of the descent the rocket engine's thrust would result in a thrust zone and the accumulation of rocket smoke at the  moon's surface caused by the push back of the rocket smoke from the moon's surface yet the lunar descent film does not depict rocket smoke. The lack of the lunar atmosphere is used to justify the absents of the rocket smoke in the descent film during the landing but the production of the rocket smoke is caused by the combustion of the Aerozine rocket fuel and the oxidizer (liquid oxygen) which would result in the formation of an enormous amount of rocket smoke that is missing from the descent film. Plus, after the landing, the close up photographs of the Apollo 11 lunar lander's landing pads do not have any lunar particle matter on the landing pads. A Lear jet Honeywell TFE731-20-AR turbofan engines is rated at 3,500 pounds thrust; consequently, the 3,000 lb thrust would result in a comparable disturbance as a Lear jet engine's thrust disturbing sand on the surface of the earth. The expectoration of the burning rocket fuel produces the change in the lander's momentum that results in a force that repels the descent velocity; consequently, the rocket smoke represents the mass of the rocket fuel that is producing the thrust which would disturb the fine particle matter that layers the surface of the moon yet the Apollo 11 photographs (fig 23) does not show a blast zone beneath the lunar lander. In the Apollo 11 photographs take on the moon, the shadows appear to be created by more than one light source since the lunar shadows are pointing in different directions yet the sun's intensity would only produce shadows pointing in a single direction. The variation in the contour of the lunar surface is used to explain the shadow catastrophe but in another Apollo 11 lunar photograph (fig 23), the objects are on a level surface and are also forming shadows in different directions; consequently, the contour argument cannot be applied since a level surface does not represent a contoured surface. In another argument, the earth represents a second light source that forms the multiple directional shadows that appear in the Apollo 11 photographs but if the intensities of the Sun and the Earth formed the shadows then each lunar object would form two separate shadows yet each of the lunar objects is forming a single shadow which proves the earth is not the light source that is producing the shadows. In addition, the ostensible lunar photographs do not include stars since the pattern of the stars would prove that the astronauts were not on the surface of the moon since the extremely intricate and exact pattern of the stars of the celestial universe represent a specific time and position that the photograph was taken which would be extremely difficult to reproduce if the lunar landing photographs were fake. No photographs were taken of the stars of the stellar universe that included an astronaut on the surface of the moon; in an on camera interview after the Apollo 11 mission Neil Armstrong stated that he did not recall the stars of the celestial universe while on the surface of the moon but one of the most spectacular views from the surface of the moon would be the brilliance and clarity of the stars because the moon does not have an atmosphere. NASA justifies the absents of stars in the Apollo photographs using the extremely high intensity of reflected Sun light from the surface of the moon prevents the stars from appearing in the Apollo 11 photographs because the short camera exposure time prevents the image of the stars to appear in the photographs. Nonetheless, the Apollo 11 mission astronauts appear extremely disturbed in the interview when the question was asked regarding the absents of the stars in the photographs taken on the surface of the moon. Neil Armstrong never gave an on camera interview after his initial interview that included the question regarding why no stars appear in any of the Apollo 11 photographs. Moreover, numerous Apollo 11 photographs taken on the surface of the moon clearly contain a cross hair that is beneath the image yet all of the cross hairs would be in front of the image since the cross hairs are part of a filter that is attach to the camera lens; therefore, a lunar image would appear behind the cross hairs. After pointing out the cross hair problem NASA manipulated the Apollo photographs so that the cross hairs appear in front of the image. Only 20 photographs of the Apollo 11 lunar landing were released. It appears extremely suspicious that such and important and expensive Apollo 11 project would only result in the release of 20 photographs from the surface of the moon. In addition, NASA justifies the lunar landing using the Caltech-MIT lunar reflector that was placed on the surface of the moon during the Apollo 11 mission but the Hubble telescope (.1 arcsec) that is more than six times more powerful than the LICK telescope (.6 arsec) cannot view the lunar lander on the surface of the moon yet the LICK telescope is detecting an intensity of the lunar reflector that has an area of one square meter. Also, the Caltech-MIT lunar reflector experiment is based on a laser beam's intensity that does not disperse after propagating to the moon and back, a total distance of 460,000 miles. There would have been absolutely no question regarding the Apollo 11 lunar landing, if NASA left a radio beacon on the surface of the moon and independent sources could verify the origin of the radio signal but a radio signal that originates from the moon cannot be detected on the earth because the intensity of a radio signal is dependent on the inverse of the fifth order of the distance I = K/r5. At 50,000 miles (r = 8 x 105 m) from the moon a radio signal would diminish by a factor of 10-25, the strongest radio signal produced on the surface of the moon would be less than the intensity of a cell phone after propagating a distance of 50,000 miles; at 100,000 miles the radio signal would disappear yet the moon is located 238,000 miles from the earth. Furthermore, in a film of an Apollo astronaut walking on the surface of the moon shows the placement of the American flag on the surface of the moon but in the film, the flag appears to be flapping similar to a flag blowing in the wind yet the surface of the moon has no atmosphere that could form the waving of the flag. Likewise, the lunar lander does not contain the amount of fuel required in a descent landing onto the surface of the moon. Using the extrapolation that the fuel load required in descending a payload onto the surface of the earth from the earth's orbit is equal fuel load to accent a payload into the earth's orbit, based on the potential and kinetic energies; consequently, the fuel load required to descent a payload from the moon's orbit to the surface of the moon can be calculated using an earth base rocket launch by compensating for the moon's gravity. The total weight of the Apollo 11 lunar lander (dry) is 4,783 lb descent module (dry) + 10,300 lb ascent module (wet) = 15,083 lb. The fuel of the ascent module is part of the descent payload. Using the moon gravity of .166 g the lunar lander weight would be comparable to descending a (15,083 lb) x (.166) = 2,504 lb payload onto the earth's surface from the earth's orbit, using a rocket descent. The Taep'o-dong 2 rocket has a maximum payload weight of 1,000 lbs and uses 114,913 lb of liquid fuel to reach the earth's orbit which forms a fuel-payload ratio of R = (114,913 lb) / (1,000 lb) = 115. The fuel-payload ratio R and the moon weight of the lander (dry) is used to calculate the fuel load required to descent the Apollo lunar lander onto the surface of the moon using a descent rocket,  (2,504 lb) x R = 287,960 lb. To descent the 15,083 lb Apollo 11 lander onto the surface of the moon requires 287,960 lb of fuel yet the total weight of the lunar lander is 33,000 lb (wet). Plus, in the accent stage of the lunar mission, the mass of the accent module is 4,740 lb (dry) which represents a moon weight of (4,740 lb) x (.166) = 790 lbs. To accented  a 790 payload from the surface of the earth into orbit would require (790 lb) x R = 90,850 lb of fuel which is part of the payload weight of the lunar lander. Normalizing the fuel requirement of the lander descent using the 90,850 lb fuel as part of the descent payload. To land the Apollo 11 lunar lander on the surface of the moon, using the ascent module fuel load of 90,850 lbs, would produce a total weight of the lander (dry) of  4,783 lb descent module (dry) + 4,740 lb ascent module (dry) + 90,850 lb (fuel) = 100,373 lb that moon weight would be equivalent to (100,373 lb) x (.166) = 11,643 lbs which would require (11,643) x R = 1,338,975 lbs of fuel to produce a Apollo 11 lunar landing. Plus, the accent film shows the ascent module lifting off from the surface of the moon but no flame of the rocket engine or smoke produced by the burning of the Aerozine rocket fuel is depicted yet the film of the Titan II rocket launched from the surface of the earth using Aerozine rocket fuel and an oxidizer produces an ignition thrust flame and exhaust smoke that trails from the surface of the earth to over 100 miles in the upward direction yet the Apollo 11 accent film does not show the production of rocket smoke cause by the combustion of the Aerozine rocket fuel with the oxidizer. The non-existence of an atmosphere on the surface of the moon is used to justify the lack of smoke but rocket smoke is produced by the combustion of the Aerozine rocket fuel with the oxidizer not the earth's atmosphere. The rocket smoke causes the rocket thrust; consequently, the absents of the rocket smoke proves the lunar lander did not land on the surface of the moon. In addition, it would have been extremely difficult to depict the rocket smoke produced by the liftoff from the surface of the moon that does not have an atmosphere and possesses a reduce gravity since it would require the slow motion of the rocket smoke plume formation and dispersion, and the fast motion of the ascent liftoff of the ascent module, in the same film. The Space Shuttle is used to justify that the lunar lander landed on the surface of the moon but the Space Shuttle cannot land on the surface of the moon since the moon does not contain an atmosphere that is required in utilizing the Space Shuttle's wings and the ceramic tiles used to slow the descent velocity of the Space Shuttle when landing on the surface of the earth. In addition, moon rocks are used to justify the lunar landing but the moon rocks are asteroids; consequently, NASA obtained asteroids that landed on the earth and passed them off as moon rocks.


----------



## P-E (May 1, 2017)

So what're ya trying to say?


----------



## Road Guy (May 1, 2017)

Can you provide more information?


----------



## J_MEC (May 1, 2017)

Seriously, you need to break this up into a few paragraphs! They are your friend and make things easier to read! Don't be afraid to hit the enter key every once and awhile.


----------



## P-E (May 1, 2017)

Or the delete key


----------



## kevo_55 (May 1, 2017)

Ok, tell me more.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (May 1, 2017)

I'll need Dolph Lundgren to peer review this before I'll believe it.


----------



## matt267 PE (May 2, 2017)

Talk about copy-paste spam. Well done bent!


----------



## Supe (May 2, 2017)




----------



## wilheldp_PE (May 2, 2017)

I don't know why that "map" made me think of it, but do flights between Australia, South America and Africa fly over Antarctica?  I know when you go from the US to Europe or Asia, you fly over the Arctic.


----------



## Road Guy (May 2, 2017)

And you have to change planes in Atlanta


----------



## ptatohed (May 2, 2017)

We've talked about this before.  At the risk of embarrassing myself, I am not convinced man has gone to the moon.


----------



## matt267 PE (May 2, 2017)




----------



## NJmike PE (May 2, 2017)




----------



## ptatohed (May 2, 2017)

I am not a wacky conspiracy theorist kind of person.  I consider myself reasonable and logical.  But in this particular instance, I just feel there is enough compelling evidence to question that man has visited the moon.


----------



## P-E (May 2, 2017)

It appears the evidence is overwhelming


----------



## Road Guy (May 2, 2017)

Maybe if any of them other countries that use the metric system ever make it to the moon they can bring back some evidence ....

however I must've admit it's a little suspect that google doesn't offer a google "moon" service so we can all see for ourselves


----------



## Ken PE 3.1 (May 2, 2017)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/faked-moon-landing-would-have-been-exposed-within-four-years-sci/


----------



## Road Guy (May 2, 2017)

http://tribunist.com/lifestyle/never-forget-the-time-buzz-aldrin-kicked-this-guys-ass-for-saying-the-moon-landing-is-fake-video/?utm_source=MOH


----------



## knight1fox3 (May 2, 2017)

Road Guy said:


> however I must've admit it's a little suspect that google doesn't offer a google "moon" service so we can all see for ourselves


Or at the very least, "Google Moon Street View" so we can all locate the US Flag on our own. :thumbs:


----------



## matt267 PE (May 2, 2017)

knight1fox3 said:


> Or at the very least, "Google Moon Street View" so we can all locate the US Flag on our own. :thumbs:


The flag is likely faded to white by now. I guess the French can claim they were there first.


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (May 2, 2017)

A population that needs warning labels to tell them their coffee is hot...


----------



## Road Guy (May 5, 2017)

Its actually an interesting case study if you read past the headlines of the case (something foreigners cant do  ).  I think what also made it worse is that the incident involved an 81 year old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

Its not cited here in wiki - but when I caught some of the HBO story on this, this particular McDonald's had been cited by the "main office" for serving coffee "too hot" many times


----------



## Dexman PE PMP (May 9, 2017)

I know the full back-story. That particular McD's had been violating safe food requirements and had been cited multiple times. Lady got some nasty burns because of it.

However, most companies do follow safe food prep requirements and they still have to put the warnings on despite the fact that people order a hot beverage, they still need to be legally warned that they're getting what they ordered.

People still need to be "warned" for stupid shit because they'll claim ignorance in the courts: "Warning: This device moves" - found on Razor scooters...


----------



## ruggercsc (May 9, 2017)

Does any of this really matter?  We are all living in a simulated reality where there was no moon landing because there is no moon.  There is no McDonald's hot coffee because there is no hot coffee.

11011100001110101010101010101011111010101011010101010101010101010110111101010101010101010100101010110101011010101010101011001010 1011100001110101010101010101011111010101011010101010101010101010110111101010101010101010100101010110101011010101010101011001010101110000111010101010101010101111101010101101010101010101011101110000111010101010101010101111101010101101010101010101010101011011110101010101010101010010101011010101101010101010101100101001010110111101010101010101010100101010110101011010101010101011001010110

and so on and so on.

Have a cookie Neo.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html


----------



## Audi Driver P.E. (May 26, 2017)




----------

