Apollo 11 Hoax A..............++

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

It is not physically possible to land the Apollo 11 lunar lander onto the surface of the moon. A lunar 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

https://www.google.com/search?q=Surveyor+3&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj4m4_o8fTSAhVE7mMKHecrCCUQ_AUICSgC&biw=1920&bih=963#imgdii=6zDfGE0seegB7M:&imgrc=6d04KeTxouuW7M:&spf=249)

does not include a blast 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 2000o centigrade which results in an extremely intense thrust which is reducing the speed of the probe that is descending towards the moon's surface required to allow the probe to land on the surface of the moon without disintegrating upon impact; consequently, the thrust would result in a blast zone on the moon's surface beneath the Surveyor but the fine lunar particular matter still remains underneath the exhaust nozzle in the Surveyor 3 photograph which suggests that the Lunar Surveyor probe photograph was staged. NASA's explanation is that the Surveyor rocket engine cut off 4.3 meters before landing on the surface of the moon but even at an attitude of 4.3 meter the rocket thrust of the Surveyor's engine would produce a blast zone that would have cleared the fine lunar particular matter in the vicinity where the Surveyor landed yet no blast zone is depicted in the photograph of the Surveyor 3 probe. The Surveyor 3 probe's rocket engine activates at full throttle during the descent where the rocket thrust terminates after the fuel or oxidizer runs out. A rocket engine's thrust does not vary. In addition, the Surveyor 3 probe does not contain enough fuel to land on the surface of the moon. A landing on the surface of the moon, using a rocket engine descent, is virtually impossible since the moon lacks an atmosphere. Without an atmosphere to reduce the velocity of the Surveyor during the descent, it would be impossible to land on the surface of the moon using a rocket engine descent since it would require an enormous amount of fuel. The rocket fuel energy and weight ratio does not physically allow for a rocket descent onto the surface of the moon. Using the approximation that the amount of fuel required in 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; consequently, we can then use the liftoff payload weight from the surface of the earth to calculate the approximate fuel load required to land on the surface of the moon by compensating for the gravity. Using the moon gravity of .166 g, the 666 lb Surveyor 3 probe without fuel would be equivalent to landing a 100 lb payload onto the surface of the earth from the earth's orbit, if the earth did not have an atmosphere. To lift a 100 lb payload from the surface of the earth would require approximately 10,000 lb of fuel since the TD-2 rocket has a maximum payload weight of 1,000 lb yet the total amount of fuel carried by the Lunar Surveyor 3 probe is 1,600 lb which is five times less than the 10,000 lb of fuel required in landing the Surveyor probe onto the surface of the moon which proves the Lunar Surveyor 3 probe did not land on the surface of the moon. It is impossible to land on the moon using a rocket descent since the moon does not have an atmosphere that would cushion the descent of the landing probe resulting in a terminal velocity during the landing. Without an atmosphere the ever increasing velocity would result in an enormous velocity that cannot be neutralize using the energy of the current rocket fuel; consequently, any attempt at landing a probe on the surface of the moon would result in the complete destruction of the probe upon impact. 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. It is not physical possible to form a boot print depicted in the photographs of the Surveyor probe unless the Surveyor probe boot prints were located on the surface of the earth since all substances that can form a boot print contain a small percentage of water yet the fine particle matter on the surface of the moon lack the moisture required in the physical formation of a boot print. 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 where Cavendish measured a force of 1.74 x 10-7 N or approximately 2 ug that is 1000 times less than the weight (1 mg) measurement uncertainty in 1797; consequently, it is questionable how NASA obtain the .166 g moon gravity since like masses do not physically attract. Example, .73 kg and 158 kg masses, separated by 1 cm, located at the surface of the earth and also located in the international space station do not attract. 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 miles from the surface of the earth, a gravitational force of F = (G m1 m2)/r2 = (6.67384×10-11) x (50) x (6 x 1024 ) / (7 x 106)2 ≃ 400 N is calculated. According to Newton's gravity equation, a 50 kg astronaut in the space station forms a gravitational force of approximately 400 N pointed at the earth which is not experimentally observed since a 50 kg astronaut is weightless in the international space station. In addition, a 1000 lb metal sphere is projected into the earth's orbit, when a 70 N rocket engine thrust (30 s) is applied to the 1000 lb metal sphere and pointed at Jupiter, the 1000 lb metal sphere propagates towards Jupiter which conflicts with Newton's gravity equation that gravitational force would prevent the metal sphere from propagating to Jupiter. 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 weight of the fuel and an off centered horizontal thrust would cause the lunar lander to tip downward resulting in the spinning and subsequent crash of the lunar lander. Also, the lunar lander descent would require more than 100,000 lb of fuel dissipated in less than 5 minute yet the lunar lander only contains 18,000 lb of fuel used in the descent; consequently, the lunar lander does not contain enough fuel to land the lander on the surface of the moon. The landing of the lunar lander on the surface of the moon requires an enormous amount of fuel which would make it physically impossible to land on the surface of the moon; consequently, during the Apollo 11 surface landing, fuel is being wasted by propagating in the horizontal direction and two astronauts are used in the lunar landing when one astronaut would be sufficient. The Apollo 11 mission spendthrift of fuel and weight of the lunar landing implies that the Apollo landing was a hoax. Also, in the film of the decent of the lunar lander, viewed from a window of the lander, there is no smoke cloud caused by the primary thruster engine combustion of the Aerozine fuel and oxidizer upon the final landing approach of the lander onto the surface of the moon. Plus, 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 one half inch depth of fine particle matter on the surface of the moon beneath the lander during the lunar landing. 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 rocket engine 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 surface caused by the push back of the smoke cause by the moon's surface. It appears that the lunar lander photographs were staged since the lander's engine thrust produces a flame that ambient temperature that is over 2000o centigrade which would result in the scorching of the moon's surface and the formation of a blast zone that is not depicted in any of the Apollo 11 lunar lander photographs. People argue that the Apollo 11 lander's rocket engine thrust is 3,000 lb before the landing and would not produce a blast crater but during the lunar landing descent, the velocity of the lander would increases while propagating towards the moon's surface. After propagating a distance of 100 miles towards the moon's surface, the lander's velocity would increase to approximately 750 mph at which time the lander's rocket engine is activated and fires at full throttle until the lander touches down on the surface of the moon; consequently the thrust of the lander's rocket engine is estimated at 15,000 lbs that is more than 5 times the 3,000 lb of thrust used to represent the lander's descent onto the surface of the moon. If a person placed a quarter inch layer of sand on the surface beneath the rocket engine before the liftoff of the TD-2 rocket, after the liftoff the surface beneath the rocket exhaust nozzle would be eliminated of the quarter inch layer of sand placed beneath the rocket engine nozzle. In fact, I would expect that the sand would be completely eliminated from the surface area beneath the rocket engine and a small amount of sand may have also been converted into glass by the rocket thrust flame that ambient temperature is over 2000o centigrade. Using an analogy, the thrust of a F-16 jet plane is used to represent the Apollo lander thrust, if a person were to stand behind the F-16 jet engine, during a full throttle ground testing of the engine (15,000 lb), according to NASA, the person standing directly behind the jet engine, during a full throttle test, would be unharmed but the contrary is true since the jet engine's full throttle thrust would disintegrate the person standing in front of the exhaust nozzle of the F-16 jet engine during the full throttle ground test of the F-16 jet engine. 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. Plus, 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. Every hour, the pattern of the stellar universe would shift which would be extremely difficult to reproduce if the lunar landing photographs were fakes. No photographs were taken of the stellar universe that included the lunar lander or astronauts on the surface of the moon and 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 view from the surface of the moon would be the brilliance and clarity of the stars because there is no atmosphere on the surface of the moon. NASA justifies the absents of stars in the Apollo photographs using the explanation that the extremely high intensity of 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 first 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 etched into the camera lens system; 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. People argue that the cross hairs are in fact in front of the lunar image and that the distortion is caused by the intensity of the image but the lunar image is clearly behind the cross hairs. In addition, NASA justifies the lunar landing using the Caltech-MIT lunar reflector experiment that was placed onto the surface of the moon during the Apollo 11 mission but the Hubble telescope that is more powerful than the LICK telescope 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 assuming that a laser beam's intensity does not disperse after propagating from the moon and back displacing a total distance of more than 400,000 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 since the flag is only flapping in the horizontal direction. If the flag waving was produced by another source other than the atmosphere of the earth then the flag flapping would also occur in the vertical direction or a combination of the vertical and horizontal directions but only a horizontal motion of the flapping is observed. Also, the lunar landing films are similar to the movie set of the movie "2001 Space Odyssey" that was released in 1968 approximately one year before the Apollo 11 mission; in the 2001 film, the lunar landing appear to be produced by rocket thrust of compressed air. 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 into the earth's surface from the earth's orbit. Using the approximation that the fuel load required in descending a payload onto the surface of the earth is approximately equal to the total amount of rocket fuel required to accent a payload into the earth's orbit. 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 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. It is not physically possible to land on the surface of the moon using rockets because of the weight verse energy ratio of the Aerozine rocket fuel does not allow for a descent landing, using a rocket engine, without the destruction of the lander upon landing. 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 of a 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 which is 20 times less than the calculated fuel load required to accent the lunar accent module into the moon's orbit. Plus, the accent film shows the accent 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 uses Areozine fuel which produces an ignition thrust flame and exhaust smoke that trail from the surface of the earth to over 100 miles in the upward direction. 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 wings and the ceramic tiles of the space Shuttle that are used to slow the descent of the Space Shuttle onto the surface of the earth.

[john]

The gummint said it was so.
Let's see what happens when the
next poor sucker tries

[pnal...@gmail.com]

Do you think that if you continue to post the same old crap over and over again it will somehow become valid? ALL of your points have been rendered illogical and unsound, but somehow you remain unconvinced, probably because you have not read and/or understood any of the refutations provided.

[benj]

Hey, HVAC assures me that if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes
true. That is the science. What you need to do is remind him that all
his points have been "explained" by some plausible story and that is
good enough for science. Science does not demand that ALL facts fit the
evidence, but only that the theory be plausible.

And anyway, just remind him that even if he DID have irrefutable
evidence of an Apollo 11 fake, the only thing that would happen is that
he'd end up dead by suicide. The power of government is immense.

[Wally W.]

On Fri, 14 Apr 2017 22:06:29 -0400, benj wrote:

<snip>

Saw some potentially interesting stuff while scanning.

Needs paragraph breaks.

As is: TL;DR.