Apollo 11 hoax 1234

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

The Apollo 11 lunar lander did not land on the surface of the moon since rocket fuel does not have the energy to landed and ascent the Apollo 11 astronauts on and from the surface of the moon using the lunar lander. In addition, there are numerous indiscretions regarding the films and photographs of the landing. The Surveyor 3 probe was initially sent to the surface of the moon to test for the possibility of landing on the moon yet the photograph of the Surveyor 3 lunar probe from the subsequent Apollo 12 mission (fig 23) does not include a shock zone formed by the thrust of the Surveyor probe's rocket engine. 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 particle matter that layers the surface of the moon but the fine lunar particular matter still remains undisturbed underneath the exhaust nozzle in the Surveyor 3 photograph which suggests that the Lunar Surveyor probe mission was a fabrication. NASA's explanation is that the Surveyor rocket engine cut off 4.3 meters before landing on the surface of the moon but 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 from the surface of the earth into the earth's orbit is approximately equal to the amount of fuel required in descending a payload from the earth's orbit to the surface of the earth using a rocket engine descent reentry based on the potential and kinetic energies. The maximum potential energy of the Surveyor when the probe is orbiting the moon's orbit and the maximum kinetic energy is at the moon's surface during free fall; based on the extrapolation that 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, during free fall, the rocket liftoff payload weight from the surface of the earth can be used to calculate the approximate fuel load required to land on the surface of the moon, using a descent rocket engine, by compensating for the moon's gravity. To liftoff a 111 lb payload from the surface of the earth into orbit would require approximately 10,000 lb of liquid rocket fuel and oxidizer since the TD-2 rocket has a maximum payload weight of 1,000 lb uses 100,000 lb of fuel. Using the moon gravity of .166 g, the 666 lb Surveyor 3 probe (dry) without fuel would be equivalent to landing a (666) x (.166) = 111 lb payload onto the surface of the earth from the earth's orbit, using a rocket descent; consequently, to descent the Surveyor probe onto the surface of the moon using a rocket descent would require approximately 10,000 lb of fuel yet the total amount of fuel carried by the Lunar Surveyor 3 probe is 1,596 lb which proves the Lunar Surveyor 3 probe did not land on the surface of the moon. In the descent of the Surveyor probe to the surface of the moon, after the Surveyor probe begins to descent to the surface of the moon and achieves a velocity of 550 mph, the Surveyor's rocket engine is activated and fires at full throttle until the Surveyor nears touchdown on the surface of the moon; the thrust of the Vernier rocket engine is 108 lbs; consequently, the Surveyor engine does not have the thrust required in landing on the surface of the moon since the 104 lb thrust for 4.8 seconds would not be enough thrust to reduce the reentry velocity sufficient enough to prevent the Surveyor 3 probe from disintegrating upon impact since the moon does not have an atmosphere that would form a terminal velocity. In addition, the Surveyor 3 probe photographs taken during the Apollo 16 mission show boot prints next to the Surveyor 3 probe yet the surface of the moon lacks an atmosphere required in producing the moisture that could form boot prints of the fine particle matter on the surface of the moon. Example, when a person wearing boots walks on dry sand that has been dried in a kiln, 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 would require moisture to support the structure of a boot print. People argue that since talcum powder and flour forms a boot print that the formation of the lunar boot prints is physically 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 moisture required in forming a boot print. In addition, a radio signal cannot be used to communicate with the Surveyor 3 probe 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 the dispersion of a radio signal would diminish the original intensity of the described radio signal 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 single would disappear yet the moon is located 238,000 miles from the earth. Furthermore, 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 but Cavendish measured a force of 1.74 x 10-7 N ≃ 2 μg that is 1000 times less than the 1 mg weight measurement uncertainty in 1797 which proves Newton's gravity equation is physically invalid. In addition, masses do not physically 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, when Newton's gravity equation is used to represented an astronaut with a mass of 50 kg in the international space station that is located approximately 350 km 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 is calculated. According to Newton's gravity equation, a 50 kg astronaut in the space station forms a gravitational force of approximately 445 N pointed at the earth which is not experimentally observed since a 50 kg astronaut is weightless in the international space station which proves Newton's gravity equation does not function. Also, according to Newton's gravity equation, a 100 kg satellite orbiting at 350 km from the earth's surface would experience a 890 N force in the direction of the earth which is not experimentally observed since the said satellite remains in orbit. 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 touches down at which time the thrust is reduced to 3,000 lb but the Apollo lunar lander does not contain the amount of fuel required to land the lunar lander onto the surface of the moon. NASA is assuming a 3,000 thrust is descending the lander on the surface of the moon based on the 18,000 lb of fuel that is contained in the descent stage of the lunar lander but to descend the lander onto the surface of the moon would require more than 300,000 lb of fuel which proves the Apollo 11 mission was fabricated. Also, 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 descends the center of mass would vary because of the 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 land’s descent onto the surface of the moon, a Bell Aerosystems Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) that main engine is a GE CF-700-2V jet engine is used but the primary engine of the LLRV is a jet 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 produces a thrust in the vacuum of stellar space or in the descent onto the surface of the moon. Also, the Apollo 11 lunar lander descent would require more than 300,000 lb of fuel yet the lunar lander only contains 18,000 lb of fuel which proves the lander did not land on the surface of the moon. Furthermore, the Apollo 11 lunar landing photographs do not show a blast zone produced by the rocket engine thrust during the final decent of the lunar lander onto the surface of the moon with the lander's rocket engine operating at full throttle. At the end of the descent the rocket engine's thrust would result in a blast crater beneath the lander and the accumulation of smoke at the moon's surface caused by the push back of the rocket smoke produced by the interaction of the rocket thrust smoke with the moon's surface yet the lunar descent film does not represent the rocket smoke that would be expected. People argue that the lack of the lunar atmosphere prevents the production of the rocket smoke but the rocket smoke is caused by the combustion of the fuel and the oxidizer 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 that would be expected after the rocket engine's thrust disturbs the fine particle matter on the surface of the moon beneath the lander. It appears that the lunar lander photographs were staged. People argue that the Apollo 11 lander's rocket engine thrust decreases to 3,000 lb just before the final landing and would not produce a blast crater but landing the 15,000 lb lander that has a moon weight of 2,390 lb would result in some form of disturbance of the fine particle matter that exists beneath the lander. In addition, the lunar lander does not contain the amount of fuel required in landing onto the surface of the moon. NASA is assuming that a 3,000 thrust can descent the lander onto the surface of the moon based on the 18,000 lb of fuel that is initially contained in the decent stage of the lunar lander. An argument is that since there is no atmosphere on the moon, the surface lunar dust is not disturbed and only the lunar dust that is contacting the rocket exhaust is affected by the rocket thrust but to land on the surface of the moon would require a 3,000 thrust required in the landing which would result in a disturbance of the lunar surface that would be visually detectable yet the Apollo lunar lander photographs do not show a disturbance of the lunar dust beneath the lander which proves the Apollo 11 lunar lander did not land on the surface of the moon. Furthermore, in the Apollo 11 photographs take on the moon, the shadows appear to be created by more than one light source since the shadows in the lunar surface photographs are in different directions yet the sun intensity would only produce a single directional shadow. The variation in the contour of the lunar surface is used to justify the multiple shadow directions but in one Apollo 11 lunar photograph, the objects are on a level surface and forming shadows in different directions; consequently, the contour argument cannot be applied which proves the Apollo 11 photographs are fake. In another argument, the assumption that the earth and the Lunar lander represent the light sources that form the multiple directional shadows but the Sun is the primary source of light on the surface of the moon and is the only source that forms the shadows since the Sun’s intensity is 20 time greater than the reflected intensity formed by the earth or the lander. In addition, the ostensible lunar photographs do not include stars since the pattern of the stars would prove that the astronauts were never 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 with the Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong, after the Apollo 11 mission, Mr. 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 there is no atmosphere. NASA justifies the absents of stars in the Apollo photographs using the explanation that the extremely high intensity of reflected light on the surface of the moon prevents the stars from appearing in the Apollo 11 photographs and also the short 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. In addition, numerous Apollo 11 photographs taken on the surface of the moon clearly contain a cross hair that is beneath the image which suggests that the Apollo 11 photographs were manipulated since all of the cross hairs would be in front of the image since the cross hair are part of a filter that is attach to the camera lens; therefore, a lunar image would appear behind the cross hairs yet in numerous photographs the cross hairs appear behind the lunar image which suggests that the Apollo 11 lunar photographs were manipulated. After pointing out the cross hair problem NASA manipulated the Apollo photographs so that the cross hairs appear in front of the image. In addition, NASA justifies the lunar landing using the Caltech-MIT lunar reflector that was placed onto the surface of the moon during the Apollo 11 mission but the Hubble telescope (.1 arcsec) that is more than a thousand times more powerful than the LICK telescope (1,000 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 approximately one square meter. 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. The Caltech-MIT lunar reflector experiment is based on a laser beam's intensity that does not disperse after propagating from the moon and back displacing a total distance of 460,000 miles. Furthermore, in the films of an 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. The film footage shows the American flag that is producing a horizontal waving or flapping motion but the surface of the moon is approximately a vacuum which conflicts with the waving of the flag which would require an atmosphere similar to that on the surface of the earth which proves the Apollo lunar landing and subsequent lunar walks were staged. Finally, the lunar lander does not contain the amount of fuel required in landing the lunar lander on the surface of the moon. The total weight of the Apollo 11 lunar lander without fuel is 15,000 lbs. Using the moon gravity of .166 g the lunar lander weight would be comparable to descending a 2,500 lb payload onto the earth's surface from the earth's orbit, using a rocket descent. Using the extrapolation that the fuel load required in descending a payload onto the surface of the earth is equal to the total amount of rocket fuel required to accent a payload into the earth's orbit, based on the potential energy. The Taep'o-dong 2 rocket has a maximum payload weight of 1,000 lbs and uses 114,913 lb of fuel to reach the earth's orbit; consequently, the moon's gravity of .166 g forms the weight of the lunar lander comparable to 2,500 lb landing onto the surface of the earth from the earth's orbit, using a rocket descent; consequently, more than 200,000 lb of fuel would be required to decent the 15,000 lbs lander from the moon's orbit to the surface of the moon which is not physically possible since the total weight of the lunar lander loaded with fuel is 33,000 lb. Plus, in the accent stage of the lunar mission, the mass of the accent module is 4,740 lb and the fuel weight is 5,187 lb. At a gravity of .166 g, the accent module would be equivalent to the weight of 790 lb that is accented from the surface of the earth that would require approximately 100,000 lb of fuel yet the accent module contains only 5,167 lb of fuel. NASA is assuming a 3,000 lb rocket thrust is ascending the ascent module into the moon's orbit based on the amount of fuel contained in the recent module. Furthermore, the accent film shows the ascent module lifting off from the surface of the moon but no flame of the rocket engine or smoke is depicted yet the Titan II rocket that uses Areozine fuel produces an ignition thrust flame and exhaust smoke that trail 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 smoke cause by the combustion of the fuel with the oxidizer which would result in a smoke trail of the rocket exhaust. People argue that the moon lacks of an atmosphere prevents the formation of smoke from the rocket engine exhaust but the combustion of the Aerozine fuel with the oxidizer produces the smoke of the rocket exhaust not he earth's atmosphere. 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, there is a possibility that NASA could have obtained asteroids that landed on the earth and used the described

[John Gogo]

On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 8:54:22 PM UTC-5, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Apollo 11 lunar lander did not land on the surface of the moon since rocket fuel does not have the energy to landed and ascent the Apollo 11 astronauts on and from the surface of the moon using the lunar lander. In addition, there are numerous indiscretions regarding the films and photographs of the landing. The Surveyor 3 probe was initially sent to the surface of the moon to test for the possibility of landing on the moon yet the photograph of the Surveyor 3 lunar probe from the subsequent Apollo 12 mission (fig 23) does not include a shock zone formed by the thrust of the Surveyor probe's rocket engine. 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 particle matter that layers the surface of the moon but the fine lunar particular matter still remains undisturbed underneath the exhaust nozzle in the Surveyor 3 photograph which suggests that the Lunar Surveyor probe mission was a fabrication. NASA's explanation is that the Surveyor rocket engine cut off 4.3 meters before landing on the surface of the moon but 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 from the surface of the earth into the earth's orbit is approximately equal to the amount of fuel required in descending a payload from the earth's orbit to the surface of the earth using a rocket engine descent reentry based on the potential and kinetic energies. The maximum potential energy of the Surveyor when the probe is orbiting the moon's orbit and the maximum kinetic energy is at the moon's surface during free fall; based on the extrapolation that 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, during free fall, the rocket liftoff payload weight from the surface of the earth can be used to calculate the approximate fuel load required to land on the surface of the moon, using a descent rocket engine, by compensating for the moon's gravity. To liftoff a 111 lb payload from the surface of the earth into orbit would require approximately 10,000 lb of liquid rocket fuel and oxidizer since the TD-2 rocket has a maximum payload weight of 1,000 lb uses 100,000 lb of fuel. Using the moon gravity of .166 g, the 666 lb Surveyor 3 probe (dry) without fuel would be equivalent to landing a (666) x (.166) = 111 lb payload onto the surface of the earth from the earth's orbit, using a rocket descent; consequently, to descent the Surveyor probe onto the surface of the moon using a rocket descent would require approximately 10,000 lb of fuel yet the total amount of fuel carried by the Lunar Surveyor 3 probe is 1,596 lb which proves the Lunar Surveyor 3 probe did not land on the surface of the moon. In the descent of the Surveyor probe to the surface of the moon, after the Surveyor probe begins to descent to the surface of the moon and achieves a velocity of 550 mph, the Surveyor's rocket engine is activated and fires at full throttle until the Surveyor nears touchdown on the surface of the moon; the thrust of the Vernier rocket engine is 108 lbs; consequently, the Surveyor engine does not have the thrust required in landing on the surface of the moon since the 104 lb thrust for 4.8 seconds would not be enough thrust to reduce the reentry velocity sufficient enough to prevent the Surveyor 3 probe from disintegrating upon impact since the moon does not have an atmosphere that would form a terminal velocity. In addition, the Surveyor 3 probe photographs taken during the Apollo 16 mission show boot prints next to the Surveyor 3 probe yet the surface of the moon lacks an atmosphere required in producing the moisture that could form boot prints of the fine particle matter on the surface of the moon. Example, when a person wearing boots walks on dry sand that has been dried in a kiln, 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 would require moisture to support the structure of a boot print. People argue that since talcum powder and flour forms a boot print that the formation of the lunar boot prints is physically 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 moisture required in forming a boot print. In addition, a radio signal cannot be used to communicate with the Surveyor 3 probe 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 the dispersion of a radio signal would diminish the original intensity of the described radio signal 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 single would disappear yet the moon is located 238,000 miles from the earth. Furthermore, 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 but Cavendish measured a force of 1.74 x 10-7 N ≃ 2 μg that is 1000 times less than the 1 mg weight measurement uncertainty in 1797 which proves Newton's gravity equation is physically invalid. In addition, masses do not physically 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, when Newton's gravity equation is used to represented an astronaut with a mass of 50 kg in the international space station that is located approximately 350 km 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 is calculated. According to Newton's gravity equation, a 50 kg astronaut in the space station forms a gravitational force of approximately 445 N pointed at the earth which is not experimentally observed since a 50 kg astronaut is weightless in the international space station which proves Newton's gravity equation does not function. Also, according to Newton's gravity equation, a 100 kg satellite orbiting at 350 km from the earth's surface would experience a 890 N force in the direction of the earth which is not experimentally observed since the said satellite remains in orbit. 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 touches down at which time the thrust is reduced to 3,000 lb but the Apollo lunar lander does not contain the amount of fuel required to land the lunar lander onto the surface of the moon. NASA is assuming a 3,000 thrust is descending the lander on the surface of the moon based on the 18,000 lb of fuel that is contained in the descent stage of the lunar lander but to descend the lander onto the surface of the moon would require more than 300,000 lb of fuel which proves the Apollo 11 mission was fabricated. Also, 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 descends the center of mass would vary because of the 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 land’s descent onto the surface of the moon, a Bell Aerosystems Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) that main engine is a GE CF-700-2V jet engine is used but the primary engine of the LLRV is a jet 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 produces a thrust in the vacuum of stellar space or in the descent onto the surface of the moon. Also, the Apollo 11 lunar lander descent would require more than 300,000 lb of fuel yet the lunar lander only contains 18,000 lb of fuel which proves the lander did not land on the surface of the moon. Furthermore, the Apollo 11 lunar landing photographs do not show a blast zone produced by the rocket engine thrust during the final decent of the lunar lander onto the surface of the moon with the lander's rocket engine operating at full throttle. At the end of the descent the rocket engine's thrust would result in a blast crater beneath the lander and the accumulation of smoke at the moon's surface caused by the push back of the rocket smoke produced by the interaction of the rocket thrust smoke with the moon's surface yet the lunar descent film does not represent the rocket smoke that would be expected. People argue that the lack of the lunar atmosphere prevents the production of the rocket smoke but the rocket smoke is caused by the combustion of the fuel and the oxidizer 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 that would be expected after the rocket engine's thrust disturbs the fine particle matter on the surface of the moon beneath the lander. It appears that the lunar lander photographs were staged. People argue that the Apollo 11 lander's rocket engine thrust decreases to 3,000 lb just before the final landing and would not produce a blast crater but landing the 15,000 lb lander that has a moon weight of 2,390 lb would result in some form of disturbance of the fine particle matter that exists beneath the lander. In addition, the lunar lander does not contain the amount of fuel required in landing onto the surface of the moon. NASA is assuming that a 3,000 thrust can descent the lander onto the surface of the moon based on the 18,000 lb of fuel that is initially contained in the decent stage of the lunar lander. An argument is that since there is no atmosphere on the moon, the surface lunar dust is not disturbed and only the lunar dust that is contacting the rocket exhaust is affected by the rocket thrust but to land on the surface of the moon would require a 3,000 thrust required in the landing which would result in a disturbance of the lunar surface that would be visually detectable yet the Apollo lunar lander photographs do not show a disturbance of the lunar dust beneath the lander which proves the Apollo 11 lunar lander did not land on the surface of the moon. Furthermore, in the Apollo 11 photographs take on the moon, the shadows appear to be created by more than one light source since the shadows in the lunar surface photographs are in different directions yet the sun intensity would only produce a single directional shadow. The variation in the contour of the lunar surface is used to justify the multiple shadow directions but in one Apollo 11 lunar photograph, the objects are on a level surface and forming shadows in different directions; consequently, the contour argument cannot be applied which proves the Apollo 11 photographs are fake. In another argument, the assumption that the earth and the Lunar lander represent the light sources that form the multiple directional shadows but the Sun is the primary source of light on the surface of the moon and is the only source that forms the shadows since the Sun’s intensity is 20 time greater than the reflected intensity formed by the earth or the lander. In addition, the ostensible lunar photographs do not include stars since the pattern of the stars would prove that the astronauts were never 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 with the Apollo 11 astronaut Neil Armstrong, after the Apollo 11 mission, Mr. 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 there is no atmosphere. NASA justifies the absents of stars in the Apollo photographs using the explanation that the extremely high intensity of reflected light on the surface of the moon prevents the stars from appearing in the Apollo 11 photographs and also the short 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. In addition, numerous Apollo 11 photographs taken on the surface of the moon clearly contain a cross hair that is beneath the image which suggests that the Apollo 11 photographs were manipulated since all of the cross hairs would be in front of the image since the cross hair are part of a filter that is attach to the camera lens; therefore, a lunar image would appear behind the cross hairs yet in numerous photographs the cross hairs appear behind the lunar image which suggests that the Apollo 11 lunar photographs were manipulated. After pointing out the cross hair problem NASA manipulated the Apollo photographs so that the cross hairs appear in front of the image. In addition, NASA justifies the lunar landing using the Caltech-MIT lunar reflector that was placed onto the surface of the moon during the Apollo 11 mission but the Hubble telescope (.1 arcsec) that is more than a thousand times more powerful than the LICK telescope (1,000 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 approximately one square meter. 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. The Caltech-MIT lunar reflector experiment is based on a laser beam's intensity that does not disperse after propagating from the moon and back displacing a total distance of 460,000 miles. Furthermore, in the films of an 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. The film footage shows the American flag that is producing a horizontal waving or flapping motion but the surface of the moon is approximately a vacuum which conflicts with the waving of the flag which would require an atmosphere similar to that on the surface of the earth which proves the Apollo lunar landing and subsequent lunar walks were staged. Finally, the lunar lander does not contain the amount of fuel required in landing the lunar lander on the surface of the moon. The total weight of the Apollo 11 lunar lander without fuel is 15,000 lbs. Using the moon gravity of .166 g the lunar lander weight would be comparable to descending a 2,500 lb payload onto the earth's surface from the earth's orbit, using a rocket descent. Using the extrapolation that the fuel load required in descending a payload onto the surface of the earth is equal to the total amount of rocket fuel required to accent a payload into the earth's orbit, based on the potential energy. The Taep'o-dong 2 rocket has a maximum payload weight of 1,000 lbs and uses 114,913 lb of fuel to reach the earth's orbit; consequently, the moon's gravity of .166 g forms the weight of the lunar lander comparable to 2,500 lb landing onto the surface of the earth from the earth's orbit, using a rocket descent; consequently, more than 200,000 lb of fuel would be required to decent the 15,000 lbs lander from the moon's orbit to the surface of the moon which is not physically possible since the total weight of the lunar lander loaded with fuel is 33,000 lb. Plus, in the accent stage of the lunar mission, the mass of the accent module is 4,740 lb and the fuel weight is 5,187 lb. At a gravity of .166 g, the accent module would be equivalent to the weight of 790 lb that is accented from the surface of the earth that would require approximately 100,000 lb of fuel yet the accent module contains only 5,167 lb of fuel. NASA is assuming a 3,000 lb rocket thrust is ascending the ascent module into the moon's orbit based on the amount of fuel contained in the recent module. Furthermore, the accent film shows the ascent module lifting off from the surface of the moon but no flame of the rocket engine or smoke is depicted yet the Titan II rocket that uses Areozine fuel produces an ignition thrust flame and exhaust smoke that trail 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 smoke cause by the combustion of the fuel with the oxidizer which would result in a smoke trail of the rocket exhaust. People argue that the moon lacks of an atmosphere prevents the formation of smoke from the rocket engine exhaust but the combustion of the Aerozine fuel with the oxidizer produces the smoke of the rocket exhaust not he earth's atmosphere. 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, there is a possibility that NASA could have obtained asteroids that landed on the earth and used the described

I remember when my dad told me that men were attempting to land on the moon. I must have be 5 or 6 years old. I remember looking for the craft in the sky at night the same day we launched it. I remember actually being able to see the craft as it was going to the moon. I remember seeing the pictures as the craft hovered just a few hundred meters above the moon's surface. I remember our great astronauts land on the moon more than once, and coming back to have a story to tell. I can't imagine that the Neil Armstrong's of the time, great hero's of this time all collaborating to facilitate, to what would amount to the biggest scientific lie of all time. Even the Russians admit that we landed on the moon. I am curious to ask, that if you don't believe we landed on the moon, how close in your opinion did we come?

[JanPB]

On Tuesday, April 25, 2017 at 6:54:22 PM UTC-7, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Apollo 11 lunar lander did not land on the surface of the moon

Yes, it did. Stop posting this garbage to this newsgroup, in case you haven't noticed it
yet, it's called "sci.physics.relativity".

--
Jan

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Earth's orbit.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Mars probe is also fake.

[Python]

numbernu...@gmail.com, bullshitter, wrote:
> Mars probe is also fake.

You are fake, aren't you, Mr numberbumber1964?

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

It that your only argument, P. Do you not have a brain or are U scared like the rest--most of them.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 3:08:58 PM UTC-7, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> It that your only argument, P. Do you not have a brain or are U scared like the rest--most of them.

Why would anyone be scared of you? You are among the most scientifically uneducated people around and your bogus claims are easy to refute!

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Then why isn't anyone attempting to engaging is a scientific discussion. Are they all scared? IF you post anything I will kick your collective butts from here to infinity. BUZZ

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 2:51:50 PM UTC-7, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:

> Then why isn't anyone attempting to engaging is a scientific discussion. Are they all scared? IF you post anything I will kick your collective butts from here to infinity. BUZZ

You are not capable of a scientific discussion, that's why. I've responded to a couple of your posts, offering links that show you are wrong, but you just ignore them and have no response.

Wanna try again? Read these...

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/apollohoax.html

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

... and then we can talk... but you won't, we both know that.

[Python]

##19...@gmail.com, utter cretin, wrote:
> Then why isn't anyone attempting to engaging is a scientific discussion.

With a dumb pain-in-the-ass as you Mr n°n°1964? How could it be good
for anyone? You're a psycho.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Do not use links as your argument. Use your own words.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 5:38:40 PM UTC-7, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:

> Do not use links as your argument. Use your own words.

Well, there you go. There is plenty of science in links from reliable sources, you can learn a lot from links. My links refute virtually every argument that you presented regarding the Apollo missions.

Perhaps if you had read those links the first time I posted them you would not have repeated and repeated the same trash over and over again. You are completely in error on all counts.

This just reinforces my claim that you really are not capable of an actual discussion.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

I have read these links. So what problem do you want to discuss? I cannot read your mind or lack of which ever come first. Write something.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 6:39:58 PM UTC-7, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have read these links. So what problem do you want to discuss? I cannot read your mind or lack of which ever come first. Write something.

Fine. You said...

"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."

Tell us, exactly *how* was the Space Shuttle used to justify the lunar landed on the moon...

[John Gogo]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 8:39:58 PM UTC-5, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have read these links. So what problem do you want to discuss? I cannot read your mind or lack of which ever come first. Write something.

Whether the moon landing was a hoax or not is not the big picture. For example, if what you allege is true- then, at least we can look forward to the REAL first landing on the moon.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 7:19:08 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote:
> On Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 8:39:58 PM UTC-5, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I have read these links. So what problem do you want to discuss? I cannot read your mind or lack of which ever come first. Write something.
>
> Whether the moon landing was a hoax or not is not the big picture.

Of course it is. Too many of the nation's uneducated somehow think they know better than the tens of thousands of people who did it. Even the Russians had to admit that the landings were real, and they certainly had a lot of motivation to prove it never happened. They couldn't show it was faked and they didn't ever deny that it happened... and they certainly would have if they could have.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Someone used the space shuttle landing on the earth to justify the fuel catastrophe of the lander.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 1:23:59 PM UTC-7, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:

> Someone used the space shuttle landing on the earth to justify the fuel catastrophe of the lander.

Nice scientific response! No actual evidence provided, just saying "someone" did something. You call this 'discussing science'?

There was no fuel catastrophe for the lander, obviously, because they made it there and back. Why you believe they did not is the mystery to me, for there are lots and lots of sources that prove you wrong, beyond a shadow of a doubt. There will always be conspiracy believers, whatever the subject matter, and you are one of them, uneducated with regards to the science involved and ready to get behind anyone who thinks the same way you do, too lazy or unable to properly research the actual facts.

Such is life, the world will continue to revolve around the Sun, no matter how much you may or may not refuse to believe it.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Before I continue this conversation, please answer the following question:



Do you believe that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuel by man?

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 2:36:37 PM UTC-7, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Before I continue this conversation, please answer the following question:
>
>
>
> Do you believe that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuel by man?

Anyone with even half a brain knows that you cannot dump 35 or more gigatons of CO2 globally into the atmosphere every year without that having *some* kind of affect. Man certainly contributes to the *rate* of climate change, and science tells us so. Something tells me that you don't trust science and scientists.

What does climate change have to do with the lunar landings? Is it because someone who is skeptical of one is also automatically skeptical of the other? Birds of a feather, etc.?

Still unable to discuss actual science?

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Is the burning of fossil fuel by man the primary source of global warming?

I checking your logic.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 28, 2017 at 4:26:34 PM UTC-7, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is the burning of fossil fuel by man the primary source of global warming?
>
> I checking your logic.

So, is this code for 'I don't want to discuss science?

I believe the phrase 'global warming' should be replaced with the phrase 'climate change'. I believe that man exacerbates the climate change situation by deforestation and the use of fossil fuels, which is minor compared to natural effects. Good enough to pass your absurd 'logic test'?

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

Yes. Also, I'm terrible sorry but you are correct about everything regarding my Apollo 11 post. Thank you very much and good bye.

[Himère Bezuinig]

pnalsing wrote:

> Anyone with even half a brain knows that you cannot dump 35 or more
> gigatons of CO2 globally into the atmosphere every year without that
> having *some* kind of affect. Man certainly contributes to the *rate* of
> climate change, and science tells us so. Something tells me that you
> don't trust science and scientists.

Clearly, they are just a deep state department. The Sun is establishing
the amount of life on this planet, according to many factors. Hence, when
you have an over-emission one place, you must have it lowered somewhere
else. Kindergarten physics.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

He does not believe in global warming.