0a. COMBUSTION IS IMPOSSIBLE IN A VACUUM :
0b. The air locks between the lunar rover and the outside, none. NONE!!! Fantasy the lot.
0c. Batteries are very heavy.. can you imagine the weight of a battery in 1965, big enough to run an air system for a week?
0d. Lunar Rover problems :
While watching this video pay attention to these problems as well :
A) When you look at footage from these lunar rovers, is that the dust behaves as if there is an atmosphere. It forms waves and is resisted by air and it falls back to the ground at the same speed. The dust from the wheelspin should propel 300 feet away.
B) It's a remote control small scale toy car.
The driver NEVER STEERS the wheel.
C) Listen it : 29min 49sec in the video : I seriously doubt that spoiled little douchebag (Edgar Mitchell's son) was joking about having him whacked - anyone know if this dude still alive?
1. CGI are possible, however, they never presented them, since Neil Armstrong and especially Michael Collins have pointed out many times that they hadn't been able to see ANY stars from the moon, or from the lunar orbit.
However, Michael Collins wrote on page 221 of "Carrying the Fire" : "My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady. Of course I know that a star's twinkle is created by the atmosphere, and I have seen twinkle-less stars before in a planetarium, but this is different, this is no simulation, this is the best view of the universe that a human ever had."?
See the last part of this video : APOLLO - HOAX OF THE CENTURY - part 3 :
It's about Michael Collins contradicting himself : During famous Apollo 11 conference he claimed that he wasn't able to see *ANY* star from the lunar orbit...However in his book he claims that he was very able to observe countless stars from earth' orbit...How about that??? You see, this is an example where the same person asserts two totally contradictory claims (in two different occasions)...There is more to it (concerning Michael Collins) :
Michael Collins was designated the navigator for Apollo 11. In his book he lists the 37 navigation stars they were to use, plus their corresponding octal numbers which identified them to the computers. Here's how Michael explains that navigation package:
"The astronaut, peering out through either his telescope or his sextant finds one of the chosen few, superimposes a + on it, and pushes a button at the instant of perfect alignment. He then tells the computer which star it was, by numbers. Repeating this process on a second star allows the computer and the platform to determine which way the spacecraft is pointing. So we now know which way is up? Well, not exactly, because "up" is a rather fragile concept meaning away from the center of the earth, a direction opposite the gravity vector used to clutch us tightly by. But suppose we cannot even see the earth in our window, suppose we are floating free of earth's gravity. What now, M.I.T.? Back to our friendly stars. We simply define a new up-down and left-right, using the stars in place of earth. All will be well as long as we all play the game by the same rules, as long as the ground controllers send us instructions using the same stellar frame of reference. Now we are free of all terrestrial conventions and can correct our course to and from the Moon by pointing in the proper direction relative to the stars."
Someone could say that there is the difference : Michael Collins was able to see the stars by naked eyes from earth's orbit (Gemini), but he wasn't able to see *ANY* star from the lunar orbit...And if someone attempted to claim such a ridiculous claim, then he would have to be able to explain to us this : what would disable Michael Collins to see the stars from the lunar orbit? If there was anything that could obscure the stars while he was in lunar orbit, that very same reason (an obstacle) would disable him to see the stars TO EVEN A GREATER EXTENT while he was in earth's orbit since according to NeilDeGrass Tyson the only reason why we can't see the stars from the earth (during the day) is the presence of earth's atmosphere which is a glow with scattered light from the sun!!! If you take away the atmosphere, the sun will still be there but the sky goes dark! That is what folks get when they get to the edge of the atmosphere, the atmosphere is no longer between you and the rest of the universe and the stars would reveal themselves just as they would at night! Plain and simple!!!
2. YOU ONLY NEED TO PROVE ONE OF THEM TO BE THE SAME PERSON TO PROVE THE THEORY : LUNACY - PART 2 :
3. When the first crew who landed on the moon did a world tour ,they presented the Dutch premier with a piece of moon rock ,,,when he died a few years ago the university of Utrecht in Holland did some experiments on what they thought was moon rock ,,and it was found to be worthless petrified wood ,,?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html4. No tyre tracks from rover : Even guys who believe that we landed on the moon admit that there is huge amount of altered (photoshopped) "apollo" images.--- MOON FAKERY - 3 :
http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/evidence-reports/2010/192/moon-fakery-3.htm5. Set of excerpts of "docking" : You must be a genuine idiot so to be unable to recognize obvious fakery in this cheap animation : once again : 100% proof moon landing Hoax in a 1 minute clip :
6. In 60 years of all of NASA or any other organizations outer space video footage... there does not exist a single video clip of someone panning the camera 360 degrees!!! HOW COME???
7. Why Are There No Real Photos of The Complete Earth? = NASA has never been into space far enough from the Earth to get the whole planet in the frame.
8. How could they survive the radiation and high temperature, WITH THAT SUITE. i think that a bunch of fan could never handle that, cause that (include all things on back pack) will broken and become unusable on such a hot temperatures...Just how... is it calculated to know the temperature on the moon? Being the moon is some 1/4 million miles away? The temps calculated for the earth are not always accurate, let-alone to tell us the temps on the moons surface are such. Are they shooting a beam to the moon such as one checking the temp of his steak on the grill? A 1/4 million miles away. Forgive—a thermometer was stuck in the soil upon arrival.
Now let's see why we should take with a grain of salt official (NASA) "data" regarding the temperature of/on the surface of the moon :
In the "Lancet" (Medical Journal), for March 14th, 1856, particulars are given of several experiments which proved that the moon's rays when concentrated, actually reduced the temperature upon a thermometer more than eight degrees.
"The light of the moon, though concentrated by the most powerful burning-glass, is incapable of raising the temperature of the most delicate thermometer. M. De la Hire collected the rays of the full moon when on the meridian, by means of a burning-glass 35 inches in diameter, and made them fall on the bulb of a delicate air-thermometer. No effect was produced though the lunar rays by this glass were concentrated 300 times.
Professor Forbes concentrated the moon's light by a lens 30 inches in diameter, its focal distance being about 41 inches, and having a power of concentration exceeding 6000 times. The image of the moon, which was only 18 hours past full, and less than two hours from the meridian, was brilliantly thrown by this lens on the extremity of a commodious thermopile. Although the observations were made in the most unexceptional manner, and (supposing that half the rays were reflected, dispersed and absorbed), though the light of the moon was concentrated 3000 times, not the slightest thermo effect was produced."
9. All NASA missions were and are faked. A total fraud. NASA has extorted trillions of dollars since their formation. What a sham!
10. NASA : "The simulator provided 5/6-g thrust (83 % of the propulsion) to simulate the amount of thrust that the rocket engine would need to lift the craft while flying down to the surface of the moon."
This would be using 83 % of earth's propulsion requirements to adjust for an environment with only 17 % of the earth's gravity?
Explanations such as this certainly drive home the point that no matter how convoluted they will always have rationalization (no matter how stupid) for everything!!!<<<
So, since the gravitational force is 6 times stronger on the earth than on the moon, shouldn't then simulator provide 600 % of the propulsion (instead of 83 %) to simulate the amount of thrust that the rocket engine would need to lift the craft while flying down to the surface of the moon???
A BAD ATTEMPT AT RESPONDING TO THIS PROBLEM :
No. The LLRV (flown on Earth) cut the load of the craft to 1/6th (simulating lunar gravity) by lifting 5/6th of the load with a jet engine, leaving 1/6th of the load to be carried by the rocket engine.?
WHY IS THIS A BAD RESPOND :
By cutting the load of the craft to 1/6th you don't cut 1/6th of the whole weight of the craft, you would still have to increase the amount of thrust instead of decreasing it...
11. They can't find any of the footage or telemetry info regarding one of humankind's greatest ever achievements, if not it's greatest, and they don't even know where to look? FFS. Game up. Proof positive.
12. Very interesting comment left by one of my viewers :
You know, as a retired advanced sport scuba diver, myself nor any of my diving buddies ever sacrificed our equipment underwater at any depth in any which way in regards to safety in a possible serious risk of damaging our life support system! Now what kind of and IDIOTIC FOOL would be taking chances in an environment like ( coff coffff ) so-called space where you risk an INSTANT VIOLENT DEATH if your life support system failed in a compromising manner? Huh? You'd think these drunkin' freemansonic clowns are actors-on-a-stage! I call this: ( ( ( FIRST CLASS BS ) ) )
14. *The money the money the money.* Project Apollo was the source of money for the cost of the Vietnam War and CIA black ops all over the world. The cost of the SR71, F15,F16,F14 the XB70 Valkyrie project the B1B project, the Corona spy satellites that were replaced by newer spy satellites, replacing the fleet of WWII Essex class aircraft carriers with the Nimitz class nuclear super carriers, the entire fleet of nuclear submarines, replace the M48 and M60 tanks with the M1A1 battle tank, the Bradley fighting vehicle project to replace the M113 APC. But the old M113 in an upgraded from is still in service, a all services rifle the M16, replaced the BAR with the M60 light machine gun, that was replaced by the M249 SAW anti missile missile systems. The space program was always a military project first and a large number of space missions were a cover for covert spy missions and Apollo was no exception the Pentagon budget just became so large with the short list of projects I have given along with the space shuttle another military project we were stuck in low earth orbit. As we tried to move to man missions to Mars we have had 3 more wars more high tech weapons systems, Reagan's star wars projects. We pay as much on military budgets as the next 10 countries and Trump and Congress wants to spend a lot more on the military. If we cut the Pentagon budget by 15-20% we would still be out spending every other country in the world.
The last paragraph explains the main reason for faking other moon missions (China's, India's, Russian's)!!!