Perplexing Apollo Questions for NASA
Many questions are unanswered on the possible staged lunar photos which provide compelling evidence for most objective Earthlings on the high probability that the photos were staged on Earth and edited into the delayed, claimed live footage from the Apollo 11 event.
We will link those questions and let NASA respond.
We will now study NASA provided Info-Graphic of the Saturn V rocket, the Apollo Command Module and the claimed Lunar Lander.
The gravitational constant for Earth is 9.8 m/sec2 and for the Moon is 1.6 m/sec2.
The gravity of Earth is therefore 6.125 times stronger than the gravity of the Moon. We are going to simplify the Physics because the NASA narrative defects are so glaring that exact calculations only amplify the errors by orders of magnitude.
Per NASA graphic, the first stage of Saturn V held 512,00 gallons of fuel which carries the upper stages from Cape Kennedy to 42 miles altitude at 5330 mph. The second stage held 340,000 gallons of fuel and lifted final stages to 115 miles and a speed of 15,300 mph.
NASA claims that the third stage, called S-IVB then boosted speed to 24,500 mph and carried the Apollo capsule to the Moon.
We will neglect that most of the first stage thrust is to overcome gravity, and assume this was only used to overcome air friction. Since there is no atmosphere on the Moon, there is no atmospheric drag, and there is likewise no way of slowing the Lander decent except with retro rockets.
Earth’s gravity is dominant for 5/6 of the 240,000 mile distance between the Earth and Moon, but reaching escape velocity means the Apollo crew could coast into Moons gravity field with no fuel use.
Neglecting the necessary first and third stage fuel, we will for layman discussion, assume that the 340,000 gallons of stage two are all that was needed to escape Earth’s gravity, therefore 1/6 of that would be necessary to escape the Moons gravity.
Given that Apollo must use a similar amount of fuel to slow approach, and use retrorockets to land with another 1/6 to land. Therefore to land and take off, the Lunar Lander would have required at least 1/3 of stage two volume, or 110,000 gallons of fuel.
NASA WHERE IS THE LANDER FUEL STORAGE ?
Next, study the NASA Command Module and Lunar Module graphic.
The claim is that the crew (astroNOTS) boarded the Lander, but there is a rocket engine between these two crafts. NASA Gemini 4 was their first space walk, on June 3, 1965 and it is doubtful that Armstrong and Aldrin ever spacewalked from the Command to the Landing module before and after their “giant leap”, see the list of spacewalks and moonwalks https://en.wikipedia.org
There is no airlock on the Apollo capsule, so the cabin pressure would have gone to zero for both exit and entry to the capsule.
NASA HOW DID THE ASTRONAUTS GET BETWEEN THE MODULES ?
Making a soft landing on the Moon is very difficult. The only successful NASA landings were Surveyor 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7. The only probes that landed and returned to Earth were the Russian, Luna 16 on Sept 20, 1970 and the later Luna 20 and 24.
It is highly probable that these are the only man-made objects to make a round trip to the Moon’s surface, see this list of Lunar Probes wikipedia.org
NASA HAS NEVER RETURNED A ROBOT FROM THE MOON, HOW DID THEY RETURN ASTRONAUTS ?
The problems with the NASA narrative are so glaring that the next question is, if this was staged, where was the event filmed?
Well, surprise, the US government has had a propaganda studio in continuous operation since WWII, see “Military Top Secret Hollywood Film Studio” at http://beforeitsnews.com/
NASA DID YOU FILM THE MOON LANDINGS AT LAURAL CANYON ?
Forty nine years of stonewalling is enough, it is time for NASA to answer some questions. Further stonewalling will only discredit every other science claim by these once worshipped science
leaders.
Header image: The Independant
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Ken Hughes
| #
Who wrote this crap?
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
Saturn V, stage three had 86,130 gallons of fuel
https://bitchute.com/video/80GCHBIr6VjS/
Reply
ICON
| #
One grossly ignorant person who didn’t do the most basic of research.
Reply
Scoobyvegan
| #
Obviously someone who doesn’t read. E.g. “Apollo must use a similar amount of fuel to slow approach.”
“Apollo” was the name of the Program not a vehicle. Eagle was the name of the lander. A better question is: How does this site expect to keep ANY vestige of credibility hosting this type of crap? Another, is why did I even stop by? Just to get embarrassed that I’m on this website?
Reply
Andy
| #
Please note: PSI does not necessarily endorse the views of each and every article we publish. Our intention is to encourage open, honest scientific debate.
Reply
alan harfield
| #
https://www.bitchute.com/video/0Yjb0c8ZkEvl/
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The first three stages of the rocket are just fuel tanks with nozzles attached and most of the fuel used was to carry fuel higher into the atmosphere. These tanks were jettisoned when empty.in numerical order so the second stage did not go to the moon with the lunar craft but fell back to Earth as did the third stage after it had sent the payload (Command module. lunar lander/launch pad, and lunar module) to orbit the moon. There was no seperate fuel tank for the moon as each unit of the payload contained the fuel it would need..
When the payload achieved orbit around the moon the command module separated from the lunar lander/launch pad, lunar module and used thrusters to maneuver so the hatches of the the lunar module and command module could be sealed together and opened for two of the astronauts to transfer from the command module to the lunar module. Both were full of air so the only air loss was from the gap between the two hatches. There was no need for space walks or blockage by an engine.
The command module, containing enough fuel to escape lunar orbit and return to Earth, remained in orbit while the lunar lander/launch pad and the lunar module with the two standing astronauts (no chairs) containing enough fuel for maneuvering and landing separated and descended towards the moon. The terrain on the moon was strewn with large boulders necessitating extensive maneuvering to find a landing spot using up almost all its fuel.
After doing their thing on the moon and collecting 52 pounds of lunar rocks. the lunar module with the astronauts and rocks simultaneously blew the exploding bolts holding it to the lunar lander/launchpad, severed the wires connecting the two and fired its rocket (using the fuel it contained) to return the astronauts, rocks, and module back to lunar orbit, leaving the lunar lander/launch pad on the moon. After rendezvousing with the command module the lunar module was jettisoned to fall back to the moon and the command module fired its rockets to return to Earth.
The whole design of rocket stages, command module, lunar lander, launch pad, and lunar module was to minimize the fuel necessary to transport fuel.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Yeah Herb, like that prized “moon rock” NASA donated to the Dutch museum that upon examination was proven to be FAKE, just like everything else in the 1969 – 72 “trips to the moon.”
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
Dec 2021, the Chinese returned a lunar robot with 2 kilograms of soil samples, using 50 years of improved telemetry and rocketry. NASA NEVER RETURNED A ROBOT FROM THE MOON.
Reply
Howdy
| #
My non-scientist answer is: The craft is not ‘held’ in orbit as the craft does fall to Earth and the orbit declines over time, but due to the distance, very slowly. A smaller body would exhibit weightlessness due to less mass.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Mark,
I will try to explain even though I know it’s futile.
Conventional physics: the space station and everything in it are “falling towards the Earth. At the same time the momentum of all the objects is pushing it in a straight line so they are simultaneously moving away from the Earth. When the distance they “fall” equals the distance they move away from the Earth it becomes an orbit.
The rate at which an object “falls” due to gravity is independent of its mass and depends solely on the mass attracting it.. All objects at the same distance from Earth will travel at the same velocity and “fall”at the same rate..
Real physics: Gravity is not a function of mass but of the energy associated with the mass. Mass produces inertia (resistance to motion) while energy produces motion. The Earth radiates an energy field and objects will equalize with that field. Since they are in equilibrium they do not gain or lose energy and remain in the circular path of equilibrium. If you were to fire a thruster increasing the object’s velocity/energy it would no longer be in equilibrium and move into weaker energy field, losing energy (less velocity). If you were to fire a thruster reducing the object’s velocity/energy it would move into a stronger energy field gain velocity/energy.
In orbit dynamics to make an object go faster and get closer to another object you put on the brakes so it goes into a lower orbit and gains velocity. To make it slow down you step on the gas moving it into a higher orbit where it goes slower.
In a physics course I took, they had a Teddy Bear suspended from the ceiling by an electromagnet. Using an air gun they aimed a dart at the Teddy Bear and when they threw a switch the air gun fired and the bear dropped. The dart hit the bear because both the bear and the dart (once leaving the barrel) were “falling” at the same rate.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb, Joe and others,
Herb, very good comment!!! However, I believe you and the others have failed to consider the fact that the earth and moon do not STANDSTILL. So that there is the centrifugal effect due to their rotations.
See if you or the others can find where it (centrifugal effect) is being considered in what has been written in the article or the comments.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Herb:
So the countering effects of the velocity (centrifugal force) and gravity are neutralized in the orbit. similar to the diving plane. Ok, that seems reasonable to me. Thank you for explaining that. There are still other anomalies seen in the NASA “space station” videos. As far as the Apollo moon landing, I have noted quite a few glaring problems (there are lots more) but it seems that everyone would be skeptical of this Apollo Program. NASA has stated that “we no longer have that technology” and they now have also claimed that the Van Allen belt is a serious obstacle. As I noted why would all plans, original photos and footage be ”lost” unless they are getting rid of evidence. If they had gone to the moon in 1969 by now they would be on Mars not just faking it on Devon Island. There has been huge technological advancements. A cell phone has an incredible amount more computing power than what was available in 1969. They did not go to the moon in 1969 and they still have not.
I am still skeptical as to re entry from space. They can put satellites in orbit but getting back is another matter. That is another reason I believe NASA has had to produce fake videos. The ass tronouts are not in a space station but are in a diving plane or they are using CGI (much improved from 9/11). It is also evident that the space walks are also faked:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot54-wbVqb4
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Mark,
I recently saw program called “American Made” that dealt with the making of the lunar lander. Watch it and see if their explanations for why it looks like it does seem reasonable.
The Apollo program was a political Cold War decision where no expense was spared to reach the moon in that decade. Tooling, production, and funding were all directed to that one goal, just as it was done in WWII. That expenditure could not be sustained and progress in other avenues was stunted. After the goal was accomplished all the infrastructure used became useless because every effort had been directed in one direction. The effort had been on building bigger rockets not better rockets. You notice today that solid fuel boosters are used in addition to the liquid fuel rockets in order to launch large objects into space. As I recall the first space station was made from a leftover Saturn 5 rocket.
The Van Allen belts (consisting of charged particles) only pose a threat when a large solar flare erupts from the sun.
There have been huge technological advances (When loading the moon rocks into the lunar module they broke the circuit breaker lever needed to launch the module off the moon to rendezvous with the orbiting command module. Buss Aldrin used a ball point pen to flip the switch. He kept the pen and broken lever in a safe deposit box.).
The reason there has not been further effort at space exploration is not about technology but an unwillingness to commit such a vast amount of resources for a publicity stunt, with no resulting benefits, when there are so many more problems on Earth that need addressing.
Re-entry is just a matter of having enough insulation to prevent damage to the capsule or craft.
You videos are just unbelievers trying to find fault using suppositions.(Why would NASA …) If the astronaut was using a harness to fly across the screen the attachment to his belt would bend in the direction of the attachment instead of being perpendicular.
I would suggest to you, as I did to Mario, that you explore how things were done instead of why they couldn’t be done.
Herb
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
The name of the program maybe “American Built” about engineering accomplishments.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Herb:
You are desperately trying to justify your need to believe in the corrupt government and its money laundering programs. They did not have the technology in 1969 to go to the moon and they don’t today. The so called “Cold War” was another fraud carried on by the same criminals while the U.S. kept the USSR propped up fro 70 years with massive aid as documented by Stanford professor Sutton in his book “Wall St. and the Bolshevik Revolution.”
Since you mention WW2 and I think you also said you had relatives in the Pacific theater, I link three articles to the Pearl Harbor psy. op., precursor to the “War On Terror” (Yinnon Plan) and 9/11. I think you will find them interesting. The authors however left out an important point. All the ships damaged and sank at Pearl Harbor were junk left from WW1 while the three carriers were moved out and the important targets such as critical fuel storage for the Pacific Fleet, submarine base, and dockyard and maintenance facilities were untouched right beside them. In fact Pearl Harbor was built (as were the towers) to create an incident to generate contrived wars:
http://mileswmathis.com/pearl1.pdf
http://mileswmathis.com/PT42of3.pdf
http://mileswmathis.com/pearlharbor.pdf
Reply
Andy
| #
The inevitable tiresome anti-Semitic comments. You also seen to think everyone else in the world is wrong about every subject, and you are the only one who is right 100% of the time.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Andy:
Since you think so much of the Zionist racket, perhaps you should join the ADL-aIPAC lobby and become a self proclaimed Zionist like Biden. I suppose since you are so responsive to the Zionist tactic of using anything the Zionists don’t like as being “anti semitic” you must be a firm supporter of Boris and his program right out of the Zionist playbook that is dragging your country assuredly into agenda 21.
https://i.imgur.com/cT1KD4d.jpg
Reply
Andy
| #
I don’t do religion of any sort, so that’s not going to happen. I am just fed up of reading your frankly inane comments.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
This has nothing to do with religion although the Zionist do also often use a religious facade of Judaism and the “homeland” as an excuse for the invasion, occupation and murder of the Palestinians. You claim my comments are “inane” but you cannot refute what I write nor can you logically deny what is happening with the fake virus medical control scam or the climate change fraud. I guess these highly coordinated agendas are just another coincidence, huh Andy.
Reply
Andy
| #
I am not denying anything to do with the fake pandemic or so-called climate change.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Andy,
As a former political propagandist Mark in not interested in the truth, only promoting his agenda. Everything that deviates from his agenda is fake or a plot trying to hide the truth. and any tome his evidence is shown to be bogus that ignored and the subject is switched. You must understand that Mark is not interested in examining evidence to establish reality, only in presenting things that support his agenda no matter how how dubious or fake that support.
Herb
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Herb:
The truth has been exposed. Thats your problem. You are still on fantasy island believing Apollo nonsense that is easily refuted. One look at the “lunar lander” is all it should take, much less all the other discrepancies that are glaringly evident. NASA even indirectly revealed the truth when they published the photo on the Yahoo front page of the ass tronout on the “moon” with the stage hand’s image reflected in his fake space helmet visor.
Reply
Andy
| #
I think you are probably right there Herb.
Reply
Denis domba
| #
Andy,there is no credible evidence that anybody was on the Moon yet,never mind in those years.I have seen replica of that craft in 1986 in Vancouver,British Columbia at Expo 86 and such craft could not go trough Van Allen belt,so flimsy.Sun visor on on face of an ass trounant shows 4 reflection,but only one source of light,also foot prints in environment that has no moisture,flag flying ?etc?
Reply
Geraint HUghes
| #
Maybe they can show us how they did it in a studio reconstruction.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Hughes:
Government psy.ops. are much more advanced now. No more grainy tv images and Kubric front screen projection. Now they have an entire expansive facility in Louisiana for advanced CGI, green screen money laundering fabrication. Some stuff however has to still be done on site such as the remote helicopter on Mars (Devon Island):
https://www.bitchute.com/video/pZOEuvHvC8rZ/
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ML1I0cx7Xi7W/
Reply
Howdy
| #
“NASA HOW DID THE ASTRONAUTS GET BETWEEN THE MODULES ?”
“There is no airlock on the Apollo capsule, so the cabin pressure would have gone to zero for both exit and entry to the capsule.”
According to what I found, the capsule itself could be decompressed down to a fraction of an atmosphere, thus no explosive decompression.
The onboard instruments and electronics were creat4ed to withstand a vacuum and water cooled, because no air means no cooling air flow.
That is entirely reasonable.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Yeah reasonable like all the other major discrepancies I pointed out. It required over 800 engine modifications on the 747 before this plane was allowed to fly commercially. And thats after millions of flight hours by hundreds of thousands of planes. However the much more complicated Apollo mission was accomplished on the first try. Any one who believes that and has looked at photos of the “lunar lander” knows it is all a fraud. Of course as I stated above, NASA has “lost” all documents, schematics, drawing, photos, and original footage of the greatest technological achievement in history. And now “we no longer have that technology.” Who in their right mind would believe an asinine story like that.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Yeah, reasonable, as in, I used observation and reason. Common sense based on knowledge. Since I have no compelling evidence to the contrary, my claim is justified.
Photos are not evidence of fact.
A 747 uses a jet engine and paying passengers, not a rocket motor, and not NASA employees.
None of the video evidence you showed me is even slightly believable Mark, and I told you why at the time. For example, the rat. I mean, come on… The video of the woman floating that was supposed to be a fake due to it being claimed it was the diving aircraft instead of being in space. It did not stand up to scrutiny since the video evidence itself, proved by science, it was not the aircraft. The claimed ‘fraud’ was invalid.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Howdy, you have not refuted one point I made as to the alleged 1969 fake Apollo program. The 747 (regardless of passengers) is just further evidence of the probability of going to the moon decades before the 747, having only a tiny fraction of the computerization that is now contained in a cell phone. This is on top of the many other discrepancies I mentioned., The fact that it has been almost fifty years since the alleged moon landing is pretty much proof. In less than 35 years after the Wright Bros. first flight, aviation advanced so much that the DC3 was in operation and many are still flying today, yet they cannot go back to the moon now any more than they could in 1969.
Reply
Howdy
| #
“Howdy, you have not refuted one point I made as to the alleged 1969 fake Apollo program. ”
I allready stated, your own video did that, Mark, not me. I just said what I saw.
Were the video really on a diving plane, inertia would have played a part on the cable loop, which would have lifted within the confines of it’s flexibility. It never moved, until the woman kicked it later, proving it was flexible, and not fastened down. It simply defies science to say otherwise.
Again, in the absence of anything contrary, I find that irrefutable considering it’s a video.
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Howdy:
I don’t know what you are specifically referring to but the NASA videos I posted are clearly faked as are the many Apollo discrepancies I noted. After almost 50 years they don because as Buzz Aldrin told the 8 year old girl who asked “why have we not ever gone back to the moon”, “we didn’t.”
Reply
Howdy
| #
Mark Tapley
March 20, 2022 at 11:11 am | #
Dear PSI readers:
Please view the two short videos linked below containing official NASA footage showing an obvious fake space station with ass tronount actors. Let us know your opinions. I also pose a science question. Assuming there was a real space station rather than just another NASA money laundering propaganda hoax to fleece the flock. If we pretend the fake space station is actually in low earth orbit as claimed, then it would necessarily be subject to the gravitational field of the earth. How then would the personnel in this fictitious vehicle not also be subject to the same gravitational force rather than floating around?
I pose a second question. Considering the high velocity required for a satellite or other craft to remain in low earth orbit, would it not be a very difficult procedure to then re enter the earth’s atmosphere from a high velocity orbit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU0IBMUD2dw&t=16s
Second video is the one I watched. My reply:
Howdy
March 20, 2022 at 1:19 pm | #
All I will say Mark, is that in the second video at 1:13, where the woman in red floats upwards, it’s claimed as being in the diving jet, but none of the cabling moves up in sympathy as one would expect. A little later on at 2:15, she kicks the cabling demonstrating it is free moving, so it was not not static because it was fastened down and should have moved if in the free fall jet..
Original thread: https://principia-scientific.com/nasas-pioneer-missions-half-a-century-ago/
Mark Tapley
| #
Hi Herb:
No one here is suggesting aliens built the pyramids. If they were able to maintain a space station they would not need to use obvious CGI fakery and women with hair sprayed up as we see in the videos. Anyone who thinks that piece of cobbled together crap they claim is the lunar lander actually went to the moon is not using rational thinking.
Reply
Opus P.
| #
The 49th anniversity of Apollo 11 was 2018. Pretty much tells you all you need to know about the credibility of this article.
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
this article was written in 2019, posted at FauxScienceSlayer.com, reprinted for pending TNT Radio interview with Gart Sibrel,
Reply
Mario M
| #
It is not possible space travel for human, neither around the earth nor on the moon. The actual technology does not allow that possibility, for two main reasons: the equipment you need to live in an empty space are not available, and the reentry technique is not possible.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Mario:
I have raised both of those contentions at PSI and have gotten no response. We know that they did not have the technology in 1969 and they do not have it today. I have also questioned the problem of reentry into the atmosphere from space. As far as maneuvering from earth and then landing on Mars and flying a remote control helicopter in basically zero atmosphere, If anyone believes that they will believe anything. I have not even got an answer to my question as to how the ass tronouts in the fake space station can be weightless, when the vehicle they are in is held in orbit by earth’s gravity.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Are you saying it’s not possible for an airplane to fly at a high altitude and carry passengers because no technology exists to make a pressurized container? Do you maintain that meteorites do not land on Earth or that we haven’t made insulation that can protect things from extreme heat? Is a steel worker tending the molten steel a one time suicide job? I think you need to investigate the advancements in technology since the nineteenth century.
Herb
Reply
Mario M
| #
Herb, the technical challenge between an aircraft and a spacecraft are drastically different. The aircraft does not fly in an empty space, the travel time in an aircraft lasts less then 20 hours, whereas ours fake astro-nots pretend to stay in space for months. The aircraft is fully assembled on ground whereas the ISS space station seems having been built by magicians. Think of all the equipment for air conditioning, for the toilet etc, that have to work in extreem conditions without fault.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Mario,
There are lots of things existing onEarth that cannot have been done. How were the pyramids built without metal tools, wheels, etc.? How were the Inca able to build the buildings that have withstood earthquakes and centuries using no metal tools, mortar, or instruments?
I would suggest you pick one impossibility then research how they claim it was done and judge the feasibility instead of being someone who claims the pyramids had to be made by aliens because primitive people could not have done it.
Herb
Reply
Mario M
| #
Herb, I know that we have lost a lot of old technologies, but we are speaking of ISS, the huge bin which is orbiting today.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Mario,
Technology is developed so we don’t have to do it the old way. Can you imagine the effort needed to use a rock to pulverize the surface of another rock so precisely that a piece of paper cannot fit in the seam?
As to the space station, I have seen Skylab and shuttles crossing the sky in the evening. You can look up when the ISS will be visible in your area and watch it cross the sky, if you so desire.
Herb
Mario M
| #
Herb, you have seen Skylab an ISS as huge and empty can.
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Mario:
The ISS is much more than an empty can. It is a critical component in the NASA money laundering system along with the highly lucrative fake Apollo program, fake shuttle launches, and now the fake mission to Mars, kicked off by the fake helicopter that flys in zero atmosphere.
All of these great patriotic programs for flag waving simps are really just lagniappe for the many “defense” industry insiders in between the main programs such as 9/11 for the Yinon Plan for Greater Israel, contrived Wars such as the fake one in Ukrainian, accelerated financial predation and fake viruses in order to get the goyim to line up for poison injections.
https://aplanetruth.info/theyre-alive-challenger-crew-found-alive-and-well-30-years-since-the-disaster/
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Again, very good comments.!!! If you need more ammunition, take a look at the Pre-Hisbanic (sp?) article. Some people do not understand PRACTICAL.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Heretic Jones
| #
Moon landing. Lol. Anyone who still believes that is dumber than a bag of hammers.
Have you not seen the ‘original video from the moon’ of the ass-tro-not hammering on a metal object? It made hammering sounds! Hilarious – such sound is not possible in ‘space’! Have you not seen the age old ‘bell in a vacuum’ experiment in which the bell can be heard ringing until the atmosphere was vacuumed out rendering the bell inaudible because of the lack of sound wave-carrying atmosphere? Ha ha hilarious! I’ve had about six million laughs over this!!
Reply
Howdy
| #
“hammering sounds! Hilarious – such sound is not possible in ‘space’”
You actually believe the microphone was in open space? Wow.
Vibration travels through objects, as well as other things, thus would be transmitted through the structure and heard inside the space vehicle. Have you not seen the old movies where prisoners communicate via tapping on pipes, or done the science experiment of two-cans-and-string intercom?
Reply
Heretic Jones
| #
Address my comment fool! Watch the video! The asstronot literally throws a tool against the ‘lunar lander’ and it also clinks!
Address the physical reality that there is no sound in a vacuum! Faggot hasbara kike.
Reply
Howdy
| #
“Address the physical reality that there is no sound in a vacuum!”
I expected you wouldn’t be able to process the simple procedure I explained. Still, thank you for verifying my concerns about you. Now go in peace.
Reply
Peter Connett
| #
I enjoy the science comments. Alot of you guys have done unique knowledge. The lunar landing if it was a psyop was very effective. You have to give TPTB credit.
Personally I believe it was as fake as can fake can be.
But that’s just me. Belief is psychological. If you want to believe in something that I find to be a fairy tale… fine I hope it makes you happy. We all believe in something that others don’t.
I could care less if someone doesn’t believe in what I hold true and fast. The universe has room for us all. But not everything can nor should be connected the protocols of zion.
The world is what we believe. If we believe it’s all a plot, then you will be convinced by your belief, because belief shapes perception. Perception firms up our belief. Anything that goes against our belief is rejected anything that proves our belief is confirmed.
Confirmation bias is stronger than cognitive dissonance. For Mark there’s a Zionist behind it all. For others there’s a luciferian. And yet others believe in the benevolence of “the state”.
Who are we to judge since the pursuit of happiness is enshrined in our hearts.
The mind
Reply
Howdy
| #
“For Mark there’s a Zionist behind it all. For others there’s a luciferian. And yet others believe in the benevolence of “the state”.”
“Who are we to judge”
You write about individuality and live and let live, then wholesale stamp a label on people in the same comment. I am not one of those and I am what I am, so speak for yourself Peter, thanks.
Reply
Howdy
| #
Gordon, I know you struggle to figure this stuff out, but you really shouldn’t punish yourself like this.
Reply
Howdy
| #
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
I guess you know where the line comes from, and why it’s here.
Reply
Mervyn
| #
To effectively suggest Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin never walked on the moon is like suggesting World War II never happened.
Stop this crap!!!
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Mervyn
There is in fact an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that they did not put people on the moon. Buzz Aldrin even admitted it to the question posed by the 8 yr. old girl at the end of this video which also contains a mountain of other evidence showing that it was all as fake as covid.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/0oANUdFS0LxK/
Reply
GGordongoodguy
| #
Hey Merv by the way Santa Clause, the tooth fairy, Easter Bunny, etc. all are similar to the Moon landing hoax in that they are all just made up. Just another lie in this lie filled world. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that those two Charlatans never walked on the Moon. They are stating it as FACT.
Question is, what rock are you living under?
Reply
GGordongoodguy
| #
Same cabal behind WW2 is behind the fake moon fantasy landings. Same cabal is behind everything that is tyrannical in this upside down world.
Reply
GGordongoodguy
| #
Good stuff Mark.
Reply