The Venus Lie Trap
or
Eclipse Lines have the Solar Distance at Three Million Miles Maximum
or
Moon Hoax Revisited
I haven't been following the coup attempt on the Turkish president. I do have suspicions that the Americans were supporting it, for Western media has focused on attacking Erdogan rather than the perpetrators of the coup. But I have been busy with my anti-evolutionist project. Eventually, this update will be a chapter in an anti-evolutionist book. I hope you like the challenges that I'm undertaking. I am not the most-qualified person for these tasks, but it's a free world, I'm allowed to try. This chapter gives some backdrop to a challenge of exposing the speed-of-light hoax. It revisits the moon hoax to show that the speed-of-light hoax is tame by comparison, nothing to be surprised about. I have spent a lot of time on the moon hoax in previous years; I've been familiar with it even before this update.
I would like to steer you to the page below, to see figure 5. I am looking at this page to find how they are conducting their trick to convince us that they were able to use Venus in estimating the 93-million-mile figure. The importance of this drawing is that it purports to be to scale. Figure 5 isn't in itself able to discover the distances to Venus or the sun. Put this page on a separate browser for easier following:
https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/relativity-space-astronomy-and-cosmology/transit-of-Venus-and-the-distance-to-the-sun/You can readily see that Venus, where it's plotted upon its orbit, has a half crescent as viewed from Earth; the shadow line (not shown), between the Venus night and day, points directly to the earth. One could see Venus as a half-crescent from every planet, and, in every case, there will be a 90-degree angle to the sun at the time that the half-crescent represents. However, the Earth is supposedly peculiar, different from all other planets, in that the triangle forms two 45-degree angles (no other planet has this when dealing with a half-crescent Venus).
In figure 5, the very top of the Earth dot (this is at the equator, not the north pole) is to be viewed as dusk (the bottom of the dot is dawn). A person standing on the top of the earth dot would see the sun on the horizon, about to set for night. Venus, shown at 10:30 o'clock, would be high in the night sky (top half of the Venus circle) when it's a half-crescent. The highest in the sky it ever gets is precisely when it's a half crescent. Figure 5 shows you why. The Earth-Venus line is at its highest, but is lower (less of an angle) between the 10:30 and 12 -o'clock positions of Venus.
It takes months for Venus to rise to its maximum height in the sky, yet it sets each night below the horizon as the Earth turns away from it. Where do you take the angle measurement to its half-crescent? Is it just a matter of comparing the angles to Venus and the sun when they appear together in the afternoon or evening sky? I suppose it is, almost, that easy. Adjustment in angle for the plane of Venus (only 3.39 degrees, they say) needs to be made. I've read that Venus measures 46 degrees, which may be due to this slight orbital difference to the plain of the Earth orbit. But this gets over me little head because I don't know how they arrive to the plane angle of Venus. I'm thinking that, when the sun is on the horizon (use as zero degrees), Venus is midway up the sky at 45 degrees (because 90 degrees is directly overhead).
If we do not know the angle at the earth for Figure 5, then all we know about the position of the sun is that it's on the Venus-sun line somewhere" when Venus is a half-crescent. This is why it's important to know the angle at the earth (no matter what it is), for it allows the astronomers to know that the sun is exactly where the Earth-sun line meets the Venus-sun line. As you can see, those two lines represent the radius of Venus and the radius of Earth, to scale. Being able to get the picture to scale by this angle method is a big deal, but we should always ask whether tricks (unverifiable materials) are being played on us.
If the width of Venus is known, it can reveal the width of the sun...if figure 5 is to scale. One with a telescope can compare the apparent width of Venus with that of the sun -- when Venus is moving across the sun -- making it easy to know the width of the sun if the width of Venus is known. Later in this page, we will find a speed-of-light hoax from James Bradley, and he was awarded (1700s) a very large telescope to study the width of Venus.
The diagram has the Earth and Venus orbits apart by 28 percent the total solar distance from Earth, with the remaining 72 percent between Venus and the sun. One can do much with this information. As an object twice as far is twice as small, this proportionate law can tell them the diameter of the sun from the apparent (to our eye) size of the sun as compared to Venus. But, again, this solar diameter can only be known by this method if the width of Venus is first known. And that's why they are predicted to have fabricated a way to determine the width of Venus; otherwise, their great 93-million-mile hoax could not be advanced. James Bradley had to know the distance between the earth and Sun before he could figure out the speed of light, which he claimed was 183,300 mps. It looks like a too-neat-little package from the Bradley circle of astronomers.
Once the hoax revealed the diameter of the sun (with their figure), they just compare the apparent size of the sun with the same of the moon (virtually the same size), which tells them how much further from the earth the sun is from the moon. For example, if the width of Venus revealed the sun to be 21,600 miles wide, ten times wider than the moon, it would be known (precisely because they are the same size in the sky) that the sun is ten times further than the moon. The way they have it done is to say that the sun's diameter is 400 times that of the moon, and therefore 400 times further; that's their 93-million-mile hoax. One needs to ask by what coincidence this nice round number, 400, ever came to be. Using the to-scale figure 5, one can then find the distance to Venus (which they say is 67 million miles away from the sun) because the relative size of Venus versus the sun had been already discovered. It all seems so neat and tidy, yet all dependent on the width of Venus.
With this in mind, let's quote again from the article above: "Although the surface of Venus is obscured by thick clouds, radar signals were bounced of the surface of the planet in 1961. This allowed astronomers to calculate the its radius accurately, and measure its speed of rotation." None of us are experts in the field of bouncing waves off Venus; we might have more-important things to do, anyway. None of us are experts at studying the waves returning to Earth. And what is this wave, anyway? They register it on paper, and the shape depends on how they want it registered, and who knows how accurate this wave diagram is, anyway, as compared to the real wave, or whether they are accurately interpreting the wave diagram. It's simply way over our heads to repeat the experiments, or to know what they are doing. This is precisely why the astronomers' club can lie to us concerning their results. This is where they have us at their mercy. Besides, I'll bet that the returning waves are very debatable, amongst astronomers, as to what they reveal. In cases of disagreement, the head cheeses usually win out with their version, and no one hears much about the dissenting views. Thank God for the orbiting electron and the speedy photon, because it teaches us that the head cheeses are willing to believe in fantasies.
First of all, how does a wave bouncing back from Venus tell the shape of the planet? They even claim that the wave tells them the direction of Venus spin. Imagine how faint the returning wave was in 1961? It's amazing that they could even pick it up with instruments if Venus is 26 million miles off at its nearest. But if Venus is not as far as they say, then that could begin to explain how a wave can be detected on the bounce-back.
A wave hits ROUND Venus (it is not a flat wall), and most of it bounces off into space, never returning to Earth. The only part of the wave returning is where it hits directly on the "flat" towards the earth. I'm sure astronomers have claimed that the small curvature of the planet was somehow made evident to them by the returning waves, and that this curvature could be measured sufficient to find the planet's full diameter reliably. Can we imagine room for misinterpretation? Can we see people willing to believe in orbiting electrons being, not just lousy astronomers, but desperate to force mankind to a theory of cosmic evolution?
Long before 1961, they had studied eclipse lines in efforts to find the solar distance (they would have been dumb not to), and they had decided to ignore the eclipse data as they found it. They revamped it desperately, making the earth shadow a few percent smaller than it really was (see last chapter for proof), and so, along with this hoax, other hoaxes can be expected to create the same 93-million-mile picture. We never hear that they found the distance to the sun using eclipse data, which is another reason to suspect that the data doesn't give the 93-million-mile picture. Eclipse lines not only tell the solar distance, but the solar diameter (said to be about 865,000 miles). I therefore claim that they arranged the diameter of Venus to be of a certain size that verified the diameter of the sun as revealed in their eclipse-line hoax. Chances are, people in Newton's time (before James Bradley) were doing eclipse-line studies, but they must have swept the results under the carpet, because they wanted a bigger solar system.
Google can find no page with the phrases, "discovery of the sun's diameter" and "the sun's diameter was discovered." Aristarchus claims to have discovered it as 19 times the width of the moon:
Aristarchus measured the angle M-E-S to be 87 degrees, giving the ratio to be 1/19. Actually, the angle is 89 degrees, 51 minutes, giving an actual value of 1/400, that is, the Sun is 400 times further away from the Earth than the Moon is.http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/aristarchus.htm
There is a drawing at the page showing the M-E-S angle. The ratio, 1/19, means that Aristarchus was able to use his triangle to figure that the sun was 19 times larger than the moon, or 41,000 miles. When we multiple the average lunar distance from earth (238,700 miles) by 19, the sun works out to be 4.5 million miles away. This figure makes Venus just 1.26 million miles away.
Here's from my last update:
As you can see, the solar-eclipse line will catch up to the lunar-eclipse line by about 121 miles (straight upward) per lunar distance; at the earth, the two lines begin about 3,960 miles apart. It means that the sun's distance is calculated with: 3,960 / 121 = 32.7 lunar distances = 7.8 million miles. Isn't that exciting? Tearing down the walls of science can be a lot of fun.That calculation was not using any precise figures, but rather it used some averages to get a gross calculation. A small shift in the eclipse lines could easily change things to get 4.5 million. And that's a good point: a very small shift in the angle can be the difference between 93 and 5 million. Can we trust the astronomers when they say that the angle is such as to make the sun 400 times further than the moon? No, we cannot, and must not.
The difference between Aristarchus' 87 degrees and the near-90 degrees of astronomy is large. How can we argue against astronomy? They have such accurate instruments by now. Yes, but even while possessing these instruments, they are not giving us the eclipse facts. The instruments are irrelevant if they choose to lie. In the last update, I found two key eclipses with a slower lunar velocity than is the reality, and this lie was deliberately given to keep the sun at 93-million miles when the eclipse data suggested less than 7.8 million miles.
Let's re-quote from the last chapter:
Let's look at the times [of the lunar eclipse on July 16, 2000], checking for false entries. Between U1 (11:57:17) and U2 (13:02:05) there is 1 hour, five minutes, which is 1.08 hours. As the moon enters directly at the center, the distance between U1 and U2 must allow maybe an ant to get between them. Maybe. It means that the distance between the two positions is one lunar diameter, plus an ant, maybe just half an ant. Can you believe it? The lunar velocity works out to 2,000 mph (2160 / 1.08). Now you know that they are lying for both dead-center eclipses. If you were not convinced in the last one (you would be kind to give them the benefit of the doubt), here you can brightly exclaim, like a valiant savior of the world, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 2,000 MPH FOR THE MOON. Help save the world from the evolutionists. Do not be kind, do not be trusting, do not spare them.The slowest lunar velocity, they tell us, is over 2,160 mph. They entered a too-low velocity so that the earth shadow (a cone that points to the edges of the sun) would look smaller to anyone studying it, thus pointing to a location 93 million miles away. But if the correct lunar velocity was implied by the times given, then the sun becomes much closer to the earth.
In the next paragraph, I had written this:
The only reason that they are lying is that it's a dead-center eclipse, capable of revealing their 93-million-mile hoax. The time given between U2 and U4 (15:53:55) is 2 hours, 52 minutes = 2.87 hrs. If we use the velocity figure of 2,000 mph, the umbral diameter [where the moon crossed it in the eclipse] works out exactly to where they want it, at 5,740 miles. We have them right where we want them because we can now use the slowest lunar velocity to get: 2,163 mph x 2.87 = 6,208 miles. That number is going to get a solar distance of well under seven million miles. This eclipse was a day after apogee, and the 2,163 figure does not occur in most cases of apogee, meaning that the velocity for this eclipse was more like 2,200 mph.
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot1/LEplot1951/LE2000Jul16T.GIFEarlier in the chapter, I showed how to do the math to calculate the distance to the sun. To find the solar distance, a lunar-eclipse line needs to be used in conjunction with an appropriate solar-eclipse line. Finding a perfect solar eclipse for this isn't easy, but one can do a good approximation due to the many choices. The solar eclipse above has a gamma figure of .57. "Gamma" is defined as the distance, from the earth's core, of the lunar-shadow tip (at the middle of the eclipse). As 1.0 unit of gamma is made one earth radius, .57 works out to a shadow tip 1,980 miles from the center of the earth. In other words, the lunar-shadow lines are to be viewed as a cone entering the interior of the earth to a point where the cone's tip reaches 1,980 miles past the core of the earth. For the calculation, the distance from the tip to the moon is the only measurement we need to discover (the rest of what's needed is already known).
You don't need to follow the math, but I need to give it for anyone that wants to verify my bottom line, the real distance to the sun. To measure the solar-eclipse lines of the June-21 eclipse, we look to the June 23 date on the perigee and apogee calculator below, to find that the moon was 363,134 kilometers = 225,500 miles from earth on that day. We can find the rough distance on June 21 where the distance for June 11 is given as 404,628 kilometers = 251,100 miles. It's almost exactly 12 days between these dates. One can find how much the moon is dropping (toward Earth) on average per day, and thus one can find the approximate distance on June 21. I'll spare you the math, which you can do on your own: the lunar distance on June 21 was about 229,800 miles.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.htmlWe are now ready to find the angle of the solar-eclipse line. From the tip of the lunar shadow, until it reaches the moon, its spreads out half a lunar diameter = 1,080 miles. It spreads by this amount over 229,800 miles toward the sun. This is your angle; you don't need to know what degree it is. I'll come back to this angle when ready to calculate the solar distance.
For use with this June eclipse, a solar eclipse of June is best, for the sun is roughly at the same distance in any part of any June. We can use this one:
The total solar eclipse of June 21, 2001, has the moon covering the diameter of the sun by 1.0495. This is called the eclipse magnitude for a solar eclipse. If the number is greater than 1.0, the moon has covered more than the entire sun, predicting a large moon near perigee. This eclipse turns out to be two days before perigee. This eclipse would be a good one to pair with the June 15 of 2011 lunar eclipse that was three days after perigee. The latter one is the one proving to have more than 6,000 miles for the earth umbra, without doubt. On second thought, it doesn't matter how close the moon is to the earth during any eclipse. What matters is whether the two solar positions between lunar and solar eclipses are at the same distance.
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEplot/SEplot2001/SE2001Jun21T.GIFHere are my thoughts for this June-15 lunar eclipse:
Three days after perigee, the moon could have a velocity of about 2,350 mph, but even if we use 2,325, the math now works like this: 2,325 x 2.67 = 6,341 miles!!! Even if we go down to 2,300 mph, the umbra diameter is almost 6,150 miles.It's a great eclipse to use with the solar eclipse, but unless we know the lunar velocity, we can't be certain about the diameter of the earth umbra. We have the alternative choice of using the lunar-eclipse line for July 16, 2000 (the super-duper one above), but it's got a sun a little further away than for June 15 (maximum solar distance is in July). No matter, it's good enough to expose the hoax. For this July eclipse, we will use the slowest lunar velocity possible, keeping in mind that a faster velocity brings the sun even closer to us. We saw above that by using the slowest velocity, the moon crossed the earth shadow (the umbra) when it was 6,208 miles in diameter.
The lunar-eclipse line extends from the outer edge of the umbra to the outer edge of the earth (3960-mile radius), a distance of 856 miles (3960 - 6208/2 = 856). Using the apogee calculator, with the moon starting at 252,412 miles from earth the day before the eclipse, I reasoned that the moon should drop no more than to 252,000 miles, and so decided to use 252,050 for the math. The angle of the lunar-eclipse line is therefore a spreading of 856 miles per one lunar distance of 252,050 miles toward the sun. The solar-eclipse line, on the other hand, spreads by 1,080 miles over 229,800 miles toward the sun.
As the lunar distances are not the same in both cases, we need more math to reduce the angles to miles. We just divide 856 by 252,050 to find .0033 mile spread per mile toward the sun. And we divide 1,080 by 229,800 to find .0047 mile of spread per mile toward the sun. By simply subtracting .0033 from .0047, the two figures, we find that the solar-eclipse line is spreading by .0013 mile more than the lunar-eclipse line. Don't be afraid of the decimals. They are small but very real numbers reflecting the larger numbers perfectly.
We need only to find how many units of .0013 mile go into the figure of distance between the starting points of each line. If the solar-eclipse line started at the core of the Earth, the distance between it and the lunar-eclipse line (at the (earth's surface) is 3,960 miles. It's just a matter of catch-up...to see how many miles toward the sun the faster-spreading solar-eclipse line takes to catch up and meet the lunar-eclipse line. They will meet at the sun. The math is as easy as 3,960 divided by .0013 = 3.04 million miles (the maximum distance based on the numbers given by NASA's times between U2 and U4).
Two chapters from now, the .0047 will be changed to .00457 when the solar distance is tackled with greater effort, and the 856 will change to 960 when the 6,208-mile shadow is found to be more likely 6,000 miles exactly due to a thing I didn't realize while writing here. The solar distance then changes to 5.12 million.
We now need to go back to the problem tackled by the Aristarchus triangle. He had the right solution for discovering the distance to the sun, and it seems so very simple, aside from measuring the angle. He faces the half moon, and wants to know the angle of the sun in relation to the direction of his face. That seems like a simpleton thing to figure out, in theory, for a geometrist. But this is where we need to find how the goons changed the true angle to one that gets them 93 million.
If I recall correctly, astronomers claim that our atmosphere bends light. What if they invented or exaggerated this in order to shift the sun a few degrees over from where we see it? Could that play to the favor of their 93-million-mile hoax? Yes, it certainly can. What man on the street can prove whether or not sunlight / moonlight bends when crossing through the atmosphere? We are at their mercy on this one. Their angle to the sun is 89 degrees, 51 minutes = 89.85 degrees, almost a perfect right angle.
The page where figure 5 is found is an attempt to explain how, supposedly, they found the distance to the sun and/or Venus, but the page does not satisfy this task, and leaves things out. The bottom line is, I doubt very much that, in the mid-1700s, they were able to measure the small angle of Venus with triangulation. As it's claimed that they measured near the 93-million mile distance, it seems they had planned the hoax from that time. I can understand clearly what they have done with triangulation and parallax on Venus: they got the "wrong" measurements many times, and because it wasn't 93 million, they kept on finding excuses to adjust things...until they got it.
Triangulation needs two locations on earth. If there are two instruments thousands of miles apart on earth, both need to be set up in exactly the same way. Where will zero degrees be on both instruments? I think you can see the difficulty in this. I think you can see room for "fixing" things.
It's hard to believe that a ball of fire 93 million miles away can heat the earth. It's not true that, if the sun were twice as far and twice as large, it would produce twice the temperature on earth. Doubling the distance decreases both heat and light energy by eight times. The volume of space above a sphere is eight times as much for every doubling of distance in all directions. The sun would produce more heat on earth if it were twice as far as the moon and twice as large, as opposed to 400 times as large and 400 times as far as the moon. A distance of three million miles is not exactly small. It's far away and very large, but not large enough for evolution. That's okay because the Creator never had in mind to build the universe for evolution.
The reason that a transit of Venus [over the sun] allows for a measurement of the absolute size of the Earth's orbit and Venus's orbit is that the transit of Venus can be observed with precision at different locations on the Earth, giving two different high-precision perspectives on the apparent location of Venus relative to the Sun, taken from positions that are separated by a known distance. This parallax measurement (a bit of a tricky one) in turn allows the absolute distance from Earth to Venus to be determined from the parallax angle and the distance between the two observing points on Earth...A "tricky one." Not very straight-forward. There is room for adjusting things. And no amateur astronomer can do a light-speed test to Venus; we can easily see how such a thing can be abused by elite evolutionists...who pass the hoax on, generation after generation, to others in their club. It's not been many generations, yet. If the light wave is their only method of finding the width and distance of Venus, they are not there yet. They can now claim to send rockets to Venus, and they can claim that the rocket moves at such-and-such velocity, but this too is a lie, based on the faulty distance of Venus.
The rocket first needs to escape earth gravity; then, somewhere midway, it saves fuel by cruising to Venus on the pull of its gravity. How do they really know the velocity out there? They will estimate the velocity based on the mass of Venus, because they think that mass is directly related to gravity force. They will therefore estimate the rocket's velocity based on a much-bigger Venus -- a much-stronger Venus -- than is the reality. The rocket doesn't move as fast as they think it does, does it?
If one googles "diameter of the earth's shadow," one will find the diameter without a problem, right? Not at all. There are few results when searching that query, which is wholly unexpected under normal circumstances where there is nothing to hide. There are only four page results, though, actually, only two show. Googling "duration of total lunar eclipse" gives only seven results. Not seven pages of results, but seven websites, as if Google doesn't know what you want to know. At the bottom of the Google page, there are suggestions to similar topics, but not one is to a page telling the duration of an eclipse. Most people would like to know the duration of an eclipse where the moon passes through the very center of the shadow. Astronomers are not at all as giddy about giving this information away as they are explaining things that the man on the street can neither prove nor disprove.
Of course, the astronomers and every "sensible" person will mock me, but before you do, try laying out on the table the evidence you actually possess for the 93-million-mile theory. Never mind what you've been told or taught. Where are your own triangulation experiments? Where are your own speed-of-light experiments? Where are your own wave-bouncing experiments? What? You don't have any? Exactly my point. You are a willing stooge of the goons. You trusted them. They tried to rob God of his creation, and they are goons, therefore, and you trusted them. They claimed to have the true illumination, and they lied while portraying themselves as a new kind of angel.
Here you have the eclipse method of finding the solar distance and diameter all in one. This is so easy to do, you can do it yourself if you really are interested in knowing the truth. Any big-league astronomer can verify what I'm saying. Someone in the Middle East, or western Africa, can time the total lunar eclipses of July, 2018 (details below). Don't listen to NASA; time it yourself. It's a near-central path, and enters the umbra almost straight on, which makes the velocity of the moon very discoverable.
http://www.eclipsewise.com/lunar/LEdisk/2001-2100/LE2018Jul27T.pdfHere is how you can find what NASA claims for the diameter of the earth shadow. First, get the gamma figure at the page above; it's .1168, and means that the distance of the moon's center, from the center if the umbra, in the middle of the eclipse, is .1168 of an earth radius, or 427 miles. Next, get the umbral-magnitude figure of 1.6087, which means that the distance between the edge of the umbra to the edge of the moon, in the middle of the eclipse, is .6087 of a lunar diameter, or 1,315 miles (gamma and umbral magnitude were treated in the last chapter). As you can realize with just a little study, these two figures, plus half a lunar diameter, are exactly half the umbra diameter. Therefore, NASA claims that the umbra diameter will be 427 + 1,315 + 1,080 = 5,624 miles.
Ignore NASA and do you own calculations. Imagine being able to expose NASA in this way. Just look at how central the eclipse is. Never mind that the moon doesn't enter at the dotted line (= the earth-orbit plane); just note how central the moon is kissing the umbra. NASA may have placed it more off-center than it actually will be. As it is, there can't be more than a sliver of a gap between the moon of U1 and the moon of U2. It seems certain that the distance between U1 and U2 is virtually one lunar diameter exactly, maybe three percent more. Let's call it 2160 + 3 percent = 2,200 miles. The times they have for U1 and U2 are 18:24:27 pm and 19:30:15, just 13 seconds shy of 1 hour, six minutes = 1.1 hour. If NASA's times are correct, it means that the moon moved across 2,200 miles in 1.1 hour. One merely divides 2,200 by 1.1 to find the lunar velocity given by these times, and it turns out to be 2,000 mph...impossible because the slowest the moon ever gets is more than 2,160 mph. Therefore, NASA is lying about the times.
I didn't do this calculation in the last chapter. It's the second time that NASA has been found (by me) dishing out 2,000 miles per hour for a central-path eclipse. But this one is in our near future; we can test NASA's times if we have the means. It will be on July 27 of 2018. The apogee calculator says that the moon will be at apogee on July 27, 2018, at a distance of 406,222 kilometers from earth = 252,426 miles. The slowest the moon can go at apogee is 2,163 miles (the moon is 2,160 miles in diameter) per hour, meaning that the time between U1 and U2 must be one hour maximum. NASA has entered an extra 5 to 6 minutes.
https://www.fourmilab.ch/earthview/pacalc.htmlThis means that NASA will enter an extra 5 minutes, minimum, per hour for each of the hours that the moon takes to cross the umbra, which it does between U2 and U4. From 19:30:15 to 22:19:00, that is, there are 2 hours and 48.75 minutes = 2.81 hours. We can now do the math for the umbra diameter: it will be greater than 2.81 x 2,163 = 6,078 miles. How, then, can NASA claim that the diameter for this eclipse will be only 5,624 miles? One other reason that it will be greater than 6,078 miles is that the lunar path (as shown, anyway) through the umbra is less than the umbra diameter.
There you have it, a guilty party seeking to salvage the 93-million-mile hoax. I should be mocking the astronomer, not him me. But it's not the astronomer's fault altogether, unless he refuses to see what I'm saying when it's staring him in the face. It was determined in the last update that, if the times offered by NASA were correct, a gap of 219 miles between U1 and U2 would be needed, which is nine percent the moon's diameter, an impossibility due to the angle of the lunar path into the near-center of the umbra.
If NASA's Apollo was a Hoax, What Else Was?
I did an extensive study on whether the Apollo moon landings were hoaxes, and came down on the side of hoax. If correct (and it is), the 93-million-mile hoax is mild by comparison. You can't conduct a hoax like the Apollo landings alone. At a page discussing the flight path of Apollo rockets, someone asks a good question of why it took so long (a month) to get to the moon:
I am actually reading a book on the Apollo missions right now, and I can confirm that it went:1) Saturn rocket to high earth orbit
2) Assuming all is well, burn to leave orbit and head towards moon
3) Minor course corrections as needed
4) Burn to achieve the desired moon orbit
Not sure about speed of orbit around moon, but IIRC it took 43 mins to go around the dark side (where radio contact was lost) so you can extrapolate a 1.5 hours (approx) orbit around the entire body...http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-373360.html
The velocity of an orbit is very fast. They would use all their orbital velocity to fling toward the moon. Whether they claim to have taken the most-direct path to the moon, or a long curve, I don't know. But assuming an orbital velocity of 10,000 mph, the aim would have been to reach the point where the moon first starts to over-ride the earth's gravity. Someone on the page says that the moon starts to pull when the rocket is 26,000 miles away.
The best scenario for NASA is where they reach the 26,000 point at 1 mph. We then ask how fast the rocket would fall to the moon, and how much gas would have been needed to slow it down. Judging from the quote above, the rocket (or module) was orbiting the moon once per 1.5 hours, suggesting 2,260 mph if it was orbiting 100 miles high. This gives us an idea of how much gas would be needed to steer the craft to a straight-up position for a soft landing from a fast velocity. A fall to the moon of 26,000 miles in pure space suggests that it will be moving incredibly fast by the time it orbits, if no gas is used to slow it down. As soon as it reaches about 2,000 mph, they will start to use gas as the breaks, and it will be over a period of several hours at that velocity.
Let's back up. We assume it leaves earth orbit at more than 5,000 mph. This is probably on the low side, for a reason of making a point. If it reached the 26,000 point at zero velocity, its average velocity to it would have been 2,500 mph. The 26,000 point is about 212,000 miles away, or 85 hours at 2,500 mph. Let's assume a curved path to the moon three times as long as 212,000, meaning that the trip to the 26,000 point was three times 85, or 255 hours = 10.6 days. In my opinion, this is on a slow-side velocity, yet they were at the moon's doorstep in about 10 days by this scenario. It's not going to take another three weeks to go the rest of the way, is it?
NASA could argue that it lingered for several days between 26,000 and 20,000 miles, approaching the moon at the slowest speed possible because the coming acceleration would propel the module too fast to begin with. But that's my point. How fast would the acceleration due to lunar gravity be? They say that it's 1/6th that of earth, making lunar acceleration about 1.6 meters per second (at the lunar surface). It's not going to be that much way out in space, over the last 5,000 miles of fall, but let's look at it, using even .5 meter per second on average, and assuming that the module was moving at zero mph when at 5,000 miles up. I'm doing the best I can to help NASA explain this.
A half meter per second means that it will be falling 5 meters per second after 10 seconds, 500 meters per second after 1,000 seconds, and so on. But 500 meters per second, which is achieved in just 16 minutes, is already more than 1,100 mph. More than 2,200 mph will be achieved after 32 minutes, and about 4,400 mph after one hour, if no gas is used to slow it down. Look at what little time was involved in going the last 5,000 miles: no more than a couple of hours when gas is used to slow it to about 2,500 mph.
Once can readily see the predicament of falling for 26,000 miles with a tiny module having very little gas, most of it needed to get to the ground without crashing, and out of the moon's gravity and back to earth. But, then, after reaching 26,000 miles out, it starts to fall to earth, and six times as much (or more) gas is needed to keep it from accelerating too fast for re-entry into the atmosphere as was needed to slow it when dropping to lunar orbit. It looks very impossible, especially as it will need more gas to slow it, the heavier the gas tank was to begin with. We were supposed to swallow this, anyway, because no one in his right mind would accuse NASA of conducting a moon-landing hoax. But that's exactly what happened: people started to accuse when they realized the many problems.
Maybe the Americans did this hoax because they knew that the Russians had conducted a hoax when claiming to be the first to get a landing on the moon. The Americans knew the Russians wouldn't say anything publicly (to expose the Apollo hoax) because they were afraid of tit-for-tat from the Americans. The Russians could not argue that the ship didn't have enough gas because the same would apply to their ship. The heavier the ship, the more gas needed; the lighter the ship, the less gas load-able. Was it do-able in either scenario, or anything in between?
Try to imagine the gas needed to take a ship, orbiting at 2,500 mph, to the ground with a gentle landing. How will they get the ship into position for a straight-down landing, anyway? Did you ever think of that? They can't use wings or helicopter blades. All they have is gas jets on the outer sides of the module. Doesn't that sound risky? They didn't even practice it on the earth...because it wasn't possible. They got it right the first time on the moon, right? Only in your dreams. When was the last time you heard that a man-made satellite (no wings) was made to land nice and gently on the land of earth? Shouldn't they have practiced this on earth before risking the lives of three men on the moon? Now you're talking.
Trying to control something like a module on a downward landing from a circular orbit is obviously too complicated, or they would have done it on earth by now. What if the jets aren't pointing in the right direction for an important part of the plan? That's why they haven't done it. Imagine needing to get the craft at a certain angle prompto, but no jet is pointing the right direction to do it. It would be like instant game-over, chaos if they tried to use the jets when they were not pointing in the needed direction. Or, even if they had a jet pointing in the right direction, too much or too little gas could create an oops moment, a spin in the making. Then, another oops moment to correct the first oops. What if the spin makes the driver unable to look at the moon? How will he know which jet to use if he's facing up? Is a hundred miles up from the moon the best place to learn how to drive this thing??? You have got to be kidding. The craft would start to spin as it fell, and the minds of the men with it. It might be less risky if the craft were moving straight down the entire path, but it's got to go from a fast orbit to a slow, straight-down path. Is this easy, in your opinion? Would you be willing to try this on the moon for the first time in 1969?
The only way to do this is to use a computerized robot, highly technological, reliably self-correcting for any unwanted spins. The Apollo modules were too simple for this feat. Today, science definitely has the tools to build such a robot, but, where is it? The U.S military isn't using them yet, and the only explanation is, it's too risky. They crash too easily. Or, they crash everytime. Yet the astronauts learned to drive one on the moon for the first time??? The page below describes the technicalities involved in the descent to the moon, and makes it sound do-able, of course. But you should know better. It is a trick to make you believe. It all sounds so scientific, yet it's science-fiction. The explanation speaks on an "attitude hold mode," but holding the position of the craft (automatically) at a certain position is useless if it's in the wrong position...that needs to be corrected. The computer will not take the thing to a perfect landing where it's never been tried before, in a gravity sphere foreign to science. The men will need to take the controls themselves, but, as you can gather, they have not yet made such crafts even in an unmanned form due to the difficulties involved.
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.30075?journalCode=jsrThe following suspense reads just as in a fictional novel:
The Lunar module had to orbit the moon before starting the dangerous descent. As it reappeared from behind the moon mission control could see that it had strayed off course. And then almost immediately communication was lost [oh no]. Communication was essential between Houston and the lunar module and it was re-routed through the command vehicle to the lunar module [oh good]. But this didn't work very successfully either. Communication was in and out for a long period [I'm biting my nails, and almost crying].When the lunar module switched the landing radar on, a catastrophic chain of events occurred [it's hopeless]. Alarms began to sound [oh no, not those] because the tiny computer on board became overloaded with data [I'm freaking] from the landing radar. Mission control had no idea what the alarm meant either [gasp], other than one person luckily [hurray] in the backroom staff. Based on his decision mission control gave a thumbs up [hurrah again] for the mission to continue so long as the alarm did not go off again. But the alarm kept going off again and again [I can't take it anymore]. Armstrong had to override the computer and take manual control of the lunar module [just like the superhero at the last moment]. It was now off course and worse still the descent engine was running low on fuel [yikes, just when it couldn't get any worse]. At an altitude of five hundred feet there was only two minute of fuel left [gulp]. It was time to seriously worry [oh don't worry, I am]. They hand never run so low on fuel during the training simulations. And if they did they would choose to abort the descent and start again. When the Eagle eventually landed it had only 15 seconds of fuel to spare! [hahaha, a joke]
The Lunar module had only one ascent engine, which failed many times when testing in the comfort of the Earth's surface. But on the moon it had to work first time or there was no hope of returning home.
Just before the ascent from the moon, Aldrin noticed that the switch for the circuit breaker, essential for starting the ascent engine, had snapped off [cheap circuit-breaker switches, or just added thrill?]. Aldrin had to improvise and use a pen to push the circuit breaker in which in reality was an emergency repair [my heroes].
I'm reading online that "The computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k memory." Today, we know exactly how small 32 kilobytes is. The fact is, there was no lunar lander. The one in the images is a model made cheaply. It looks cheap because it was cheap. It never flew anywhere.
One person who lists several curiosities, making him suspicious, ends with the module-control problem: "How can the quadruple thrusters fire quickly enough and sufficiently enough to counteract a quickly changing and significantly changing thrust vector? How can the system remain stable and not loop uncontrollably? The ascent stage engine was not gimballed, and the inherently off-center, large torquing thrust would have to have been constantly and very immediately counteracted by the small, low-thrust, quadruple thrusters. The craft has good potential to fly like a balloon you let go of and let deflate. I am currently attempting to obtain actual engineering drawings to perform detailed calculations." He's having a problem merely with the ascent, never mind the landing, much-more complicated.
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo1.htmThere are ways to counteract claims of an Apollo hoax, and, often, websites show these ways. But there are dozens of curiosities, and not all of them are treated with rebuttals. Obviously, only the ones that can be given logical explanations, or fine-sounding explanations, are going to be disseminated. The tough ones will be left alone. It is best not to popularize the instances having insufficient rebuttal. When reports of a fraud landing started to circulate, many people started to look more closely at the production that NASA had given the world. One would never think that dozens and dozens of problems would have been possible if they had simply gone to the moon and had filmed the real event. The many problems need to be placed together as a lot. For example, if the moon has 1/6th the gravity, we should see the astronauts jumping at least three feet in the air. They never do get that high. They never get higher than they would on earth. Were they really wearing four to six times the weight on their bodies?
I was shown two images of the moon landscape, and reported on this (can't recall the name of the file in my extensive records), where the same mountain appeared in two different trips to the moon, at two different locations, meaning that they pasted a mountain scene into at least one faked moon-landscape image. It predicts that they took pictures on earth, and did the moon trips from a studio on earth. Imagine that, all nothing but an elaborate trick.
The webpage below shows what is claimed to be a rehearsal video for the Apollo 11 "giant leap" (the first manned moon landing). Two men appear from offstage to speak with the astronaut at the bottom of a ladder. This could be a true video leaked or accidentally misplaced, or it could have been created by the Russians, for example, to "prove" a hoax. However, the author, Ted Twietmeyer, makes a good case that the white part is a stage floor, for there is not really an explanation as to what the dark area is beyond the white. The only acceptable explanation is that it's a straight line from the module, made by the sun fairly high in the sky.
http://www.rense.com/general79/rehar.htmThe page shows a comparison of the released-to-TV version and the rehearsal. The stage-like surface is in both. Between the white and the black area in the released-to-TV version, there seems to be a different terrain, like sand. They would remove the stage, and then go on performing the rest of the hoax from a camera supposedly held by an astronaut. The stage can be deemed required so that there wouldn't be a lot of footsteps in the sand due to the rehearsals. The men off camera can walk on and discuss with the astronauts how it should best be done. Also, the ladder can be set up without footsteps in the sand. One can see that the ladders are not the same between the two images.
The Apollo-15 lander is shown with a different ladder yet, permanently fixed to the lander, but the bottom rung is curiously three feet off the ground, which perfectly suits a stage more than two feet off the ground. It makes no sense, otherwise, to have the bottom rung that far off the ground. I'll show this image later.
No one is touching this story who seeks to oppose it. Don't you think NASA should answer to it, to say that it's a fake, at least? If it's not a fake, NASA isn't expected to respond. There is no way to argue against this except by saying that someone faked the video. It's one thing to fake a photo, but harder to cut and paste things into a video. NASA is one giant goon; the world needs yet to learn this. NASA will go down in infamy.
https://www.google.ca/webhp?hl=en-CA&source=hp&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=2&gws_rd=ssl#hl=en-CA&q=%22Ted+Twietmeyer%22+stage+rehearsalThe reason that the moon set was with "dust" on the ground is that evolutionists are of the opinion that millions of years of cosmic dust has piled, untouched by wind, water or worms in all that time. Evolutionists, however, predicted much more than the one inch we see in NASA pictures. NASA decided to go with the one inch-boot sink, anyway. It's not likely that their natural environment on earth had this soft material. They needed to truck it in, and spread it out. The obvious problem: rain. It would make the "dust" hard. One way to solve this is to do the hoax indoors, then add outdoor background to the pictures.
The page below has someone arguing against an argument posed by Ted. The latter says that a post in the ground should have boot prints right up to it, and the one arguing says that there are boot prints right up to it. You decide. In my opinion, there are not the boot prints of the one who hammered this post into the "dust." The one who argues against it is frankly desperate, and pretends to be the expert over Ted. But Ted is clearly right on this one. And that means that this was a studio set up. They pounded the post, then spread the sand nice and neat for the cameras, but neglected to put boot prints properly at the post. The one boot print about two feet or more from the post isn't facing the post, and therefore cannot be of the person who hammered the post into the ground. It's clear. His other boot, off the photo to the right, would be as much as four feet from the post. Image to die-hard goof trying to argue that these boots represent the man pounding in the post. Look at how neat the dust is around the post, as though the post wasn't shifted a millimeter, in any direction, while pounding it in. Forget it. Be smart; the post was pounded, then the sand was spread around it.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/01/30/another-moon-hoax-claim-bites-the-dust/ever, Here is the image from my files in case it disappears from above:
http://www.tribwatch.com/photos/moonPost.jpgIn this page, the writer is having fun. He comes to a point where a moon vehicle is sitting on the dust without tire tracks either in front or behind the wheels. How did that happen in million-year, puffy, virgin dust? The writer thinks the vehicle was lifted and dropped by a hoist. The other possibility is that the sand-spreading crew worked the area over after it had been parked there. One thing is sure; they did not drive the vehicle on the freshly-laid sand. Here is an enlarged view of the NASA image:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_7Bqr1I5gzyk/R519Frk7fOI/AAAAAAAAAPM/AcFZK9C3iWc/s1600-h/moon%2520stuff001.jpgWhy would a sand-spreading crew wipe away the tire tracks? It wouldn't. As the image below has a boot print in the path of the rear tire, but without a tire track, I would have to agree with Jack on the hoist. An explanation on the missing tracks is, not planners too stupid to put them in, but risk-takers, going ahead with the photos without them...because the vehicle couldn't run at the time. It is probably powered by a heavy solar battery, and they don't last long. If they were in the country, there was no electrical plug to re-charge the one(s) that they had on-hand. I never see anything resembling a solar panel (to re-charge the battery (pack)) in any image of the rover. Better yet, this modified piece of junk (it doesn't look new) may not have run at all, and they used something else to make tire marks in various images.
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_18.htmlJack White and others think that some people, forced to go ahead with the hoax partly against their will, ended up rebelling. They then created deliberate, subtle goof-ups in images in efforts to reveal the hoax covertly. Later, they could inform people about these problems. The Internet, which the hoaxers were not ready for, would do the rest to expose it. Aside from insulting those that expose it, the goons are helpless to repair the damage. As time goes on, more and more people will come to see the truth, guaranteed.
The next page should convince you that the lunar modules were not on the moon. In the last two images on the page, the lunar module is in two places, about a quarter of a mile apart. At first, when seeing this years ago, I was thinking that the lander was being moved about by trucking it around. But this was not necessary as they could just delete the one lander, and paste in another to give appearances of taking a different photo. At times, they would change the background to suit the different angle of a different photo, and at other times they got lazy / risky and did not change the background. This example is one of the lazy ones. The mountain background is identical between the photo were the lander is small, and where the lander is large
http://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo2.htmLet me elaborate. The picture with the larger lander would have you believe that it's in the same place as the small one, but taken from a different angle pointed toward mountain E. You are to conclude that the camera (for the large-lander image) is at the center of the right margin of the photo with the small lander. But if this were the case, the mountains would look different between pictures, for the difference in camera angles would be about 90 degrees between photos. Don't just compare the mountains, but, especially, the ground-line nearest the small lander in the top-right corner. That would never appear in the image with the large lander if the camera were on the right margin facing E. Besides, D should be in front of B, yet they are identical between images. Go to the second image on the same page, and see the small dot (inside the small rectangle) that is the lander. One can now see that mountain D should be directly in front of mountain E if someone by the lander is shooting an image toward E. If things don't jibe between images, it's because they could not keep this perfectly together in cut-and-paste operations.
PLUS, one can spot the black crater at the lower-left of both photos. They are virtually identical except that they have made the bottom image look like the camera is a couple of feet higher, making the crater rounder, and the ridge around it less pronounced; they just altered its shape rather than wholly introducing another one somewhere else on the page. In other words, the background and the foreground amounts to the same shot in both pictures, except that they changed much in the foreground to fool us. They then deleted the small lander and pasted in the large one. They never thought that anyone would check both images to see the similarity.
This is Apollo 17. It had a rover vehicle attached to the outside of the lander. Look all around the lander; do you see any proof, in the sand, that they assembled the rover there? No, there are not enough boot prints, not enough smudges, not even any tire tracks moving away from the lander. This is more than lazy, worse than risky; it's pride and arrogance, taking the public for granted.
The U.S. government knows about this. It's been going on since at least 1969. What were they doing before that to deceive us? Ask the perpetrators of cosmic evolution. The page below is related to the one above, and shows the same scene(s) used by NASA, one with, and one without, a lunar lander. Why wouldn't these people feed us false information on eclipses to cover for their 93-million-mile hoax? Of course they would, if they thought they could get away with it.
http://www.aulis.com/exposing_apollo1.htmWhen I was working on their sedimentary-layer hoax in the last chapter, I came across of an earth-like photo said to be sedimentary rocks of Mars. This is the sort of thing that will continue to give the children the wrong reality if the parents are not wise enough to understand that hoaxes are a standard part of the elite's operations. What are they saying with a picture of a sedimentary mountain on Mars? They have decided that we are fool enough to believe that seas once covered Mars. There was a long-winded debate on whether to make this claim. It must have started many years ago, and, finally, after much hesitation, they decided we were fool enough. They really had to judge that correctly before putting it out there. They don't worry about the few doubters.
Imagine how much more gas is needed to slow a ship on the fall to Venus or Mars? Did they really do it, or did they just continue the hoaxes? Mars has been nothing but a long hoax to prove life and water on the planet, all benefiting evolution as much as possible. It won't be long before they claim to find certain evidence of past life up there.
A lander on Mars needs to be computerized. But if it can land on Mars, it can land on earth too. If they had truly sent them to Mars, they would show at least one landing on earth. How could they resist? In fact, there would be a need. They would send it to orbit, then land it here on earth, before trying it on Mars. Am I right? Yes, I am. And they would have pictures, and would show them to us. It means they haven't even gone to Mars at all. There entire space program revolves around a room that controls other rooms that have people who decide what the next hoax will be, step-by-step toward a final agenda. The moon landing may have had the purpose of acting as a stepping stone to sending crafts to Mars for to prove life up there, for, they think, this will murder God. As yet, they haven't come up with a hoax to prove life, though they tried already, that is sure to work with the masses. They will undoubtedly show this past-life form in a sedimentary rock fossil, once they feel confident enough to use an earth-made rock that can pass for a Mars rock. God will hand them their capital punishment. Neil Armstrong is already having it.
The page below claims to be showing Mars rovers on Devon, an uninhabited island in Canada. The ground even has a reddish hue.
https://chemtrailsplanet.net/2015/12/19/another-nasa-hoax-mars-rovers-discovered-staged-at-devon-island-canada/A page (http://ctr.concordia.ca/2004-05/nov_04/30/index.shtml) speaking seriously on a Canadian flight to Mars, mentions Dover island:
Fahti Karouia's presentation let him talk about his experience in a simulated Martian environment. "I've been on two expeditions as a member of the MERC," he said. "I spent a month living in a simulated environment in the desert in Utah last year, and I spent another month in Australia this past summer."Karouia says the next MERC expedition will be in Canada, at a simulation base on Dover Island, in Nunavut.
"We simulate the environment as best we can," he said. "We don't go outside with out wearing a suit like we would on Mars."...
They don't ever go outside in normal clothes? That's a joke, right? It's as though the speaker is trying to push the simulation envelope, and goes too far, hoping to put to rest that idea that there is a hoax taking place in Dover. The idea seems to be that NASA, after being caught with rovers on the island, put out the false story that it was doing simulation. Then, it just wanted the story to die off and go away with that in anyone's mind that caught wind of the hoax. You be the judge. Would the Americans need to go to Dover to do simulation? Don't they have a place closer to home? Why did they chose an island without people?
NASA needed Canadian permission to be in Dover, and, therefore, it applied with the false premise of doing simulation exercises. Note that Google's first-, second-, and third-page results for " 'dover island' Marts " have nothing on the Dover-island hoax (I didn't check the fourth page). Google covers for NASA's dirty rump, doesn't it? One day, Google will eat the toilet paper. Googling " 'dover island' nasa " gets diddley-squat on the hoax.
So, knowing now that Dover is in Nunavut, we now want to see the following quote: "Nunavut is the newest, largest, northernmost, and least populous territory of Canada." NASA wanted to go there for simulation? But why? It's obvious, isn't it? One cannot drive to the vicinity of this island. The Dover of Nunavut is not Dover island in Nova Scotia; the latter comes up often in a Google search.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NunavutSomeone could go to Dover and find the very mountains that NASA used for its Mars photos. That's what's at stake here. The less traction this delicate story gets, the better for NASA. You really need to be naive to believe that NASA was way up there merely to do simulations. It is very hard to get up into those regions, all-the-better for keeping anyone from comparing its landscapes to the Mars photos. For the serious hoax-buster, the smaller the island, the better. Got time on your hands? Go to Dover and become famous.
On the page below, there is a Dover island on a map, at coordinates 52°47'00.3"N 90°37'00.7"W. These coordinates are not in Greenland, but in western Ontario. This Dover island is in the middle of North Caribou Lake. However, this lake is not in Nunavut. I can find nothing for Dover in Nunavut. Someone on a NASA-expose sight says that Dover is in Greenland.
http://us.geotargit.com/index.php?qcountry_code=CA&qregion_code=08&qcity=Dover%20IslandIt turns out that Hawaii was the place of choice for Apollo 17. I can agree with the writer of the shatteringthematrix page above:
Now look at this next picture. It's a picture of astronaut Buzz Aldrin [isn't he the one claiming to be a Christian?] taken in Mauna Kea Hawaii in 1969. If you look at the mountains behind him, you'll see it's the same mountain NASA used in faking the picture below it that was used in the Apollo 17 mission. Just look to the right side of the picture and you'll see it's the same mountain NASA photoshoped from the one behind Buzz Aldrin in Hawaii. By the way, I wonder what all the movie production vans are doing sitting behind him?I've compared the Hawaii mountain lines with those in the moon image, and they are identical, from the two low mounds at the far right, up into the large mound(s), and then back down again to the same low scene. Apparently, Buzz, who never revealed the hoax (what kind of a Christian is that?) was in a photo smack at the site of the Apollo-17 hoax, or at least smack where they had taken some background images for the official pictures. That makes sense; the hoaxers were having fun. They never thought anyone would notice with the larger mountain in the background deleted from the moon shot.
There are many interesting points at the page above. One I like is this:
Hubble is owned and operated by NASA, the one's responsible for faking in the first place, so there is no chance there [of doing moon pictures with the telescope]. In order to cover up for NASA, their paid informers, (PAN's like Phil Plait from Badastronomy), claim that Hubble cannot resolve down to view the landing sites, but how much resolution do they need? Hubble will in fact resolve down to 50 meter's on the Moon's surface, which is more than enough to view the artifacts supposedly left behind. NASA do in fact have very high resolution pictures of the Moon, but do not inform the media because the first thing people would ask is to see the artifacts left behind from Apollo, and, as to be expected there is nothing there.Makes sense. The same article tells us when the speed-of-light test was done on the moon:
In 1946 scientists in the USA managed to bounce a radio signal off the Moon's surface, and were able to calculate [no they were not] the precise distance of the Moon by the reflected radio signal. In the early 60's NASA realized they could perform the experiment more efficiently, and accurately by using a high powered pulsed laser beam...On May 9 1962, (over 7 years BEFORE Apollo 11 supposedly landed on the Moon), a high powered pulsed ruby laser was successfully aimed at the Moon, and reflected back off the Moons surface to provide an accurate measurement of the Moons precise distance from Earth without any reflector being on the Moon's surface.There is no end to the hoax possibilities from NASA simply because they faked the moon landing. If this to you looks like the American people are inevitably going to crucify their government representatives, you are probably correct. In the meantime, they don't want to see their government as a worldwide embarrassment. What they were made to be so proud of turns out to be nothing but money-stealing fakery. All the members of the hoax had their pockets lined with some of this tax money, a great way to keep them from talking. If they talked, the finger would come to point directly at them for participating.
So, why should we believe NASA's light-speed experiment on the moon?
Jack White's Hard Work
If you want hours of entertainment, see Jack White:
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.htmlMy understanding is that NASA committed to a NASA catalogue of moon pictures made available to the public. These pictures came to haunt NASA. First of all, it is problematic for NASA to alter the pictures now that the Internet has made many capable of downloading them to their hard-drives. Secondly, in cases where a viewer suspects that there is a trick being conducted against NASA, one can check the NASA catalogue to discover that the problem image has not been tampered with after all, by a NASA enemy. So, if NASA has one scene with a lunar lander, and another identical image but without the lunar lander in the same position, NASA's own catalogue speaks against NASA irrefutably. If NASA were to start removing all problem images from its catalogue, we would all understand the admission of guilt from NASA.
The page below shows a case where a photo in the catalogue changed slightly. There is a white object between the wheel of the rover that isn't in the same photograph having the same catalogue number. Why remove that rock-like object? It may not have been a rock. Apparently, they took more than one picture of this scene, with fake astronaut in the vehicle (he never moves), from a camera on a tripod. One can see that the shadow directions under the tires suggest at least two studio lights coming in on the vehicle from different directions. Plus, once again, there are no tire-tread tracks in the moon dust. How could they have been that stupid? They weren't. They might have had an important reason for leaving the tracks out. For example, the vehicle didn't run. They didn't bother to sink batteries in it, or they ran out of battery power if they did bother.
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_0.htmlIn the second image of the page above, one can see that Jack correctly spots a bright-white circle in the middle of the "sun," and he's probably correct to say that it's a light bulb inside of a cone-shaped light-reflector that, when bright enough, mimics the sun. He then adds that NASA removed this picture from the catalogue. There was no way to argue against it; the "sun" clearly had a bright spot in the middle. Hurray for Jack for saving the images on his hard-drive, and sifting through them to find the problems. Hurray anytime that good men overcome evil men, no matter that the latter represent the U.S. government.
Some of Jack's spottings are not smoking guns in themselves, but it's good of him to share even the most-minor problems. Once we're convinced of the hoax, we begin to see how it was done. For example, the mountain called, Hadley, on the moon, visible from earth (in telescopes) in what amounts to a top view, was "painted" by a NASA hoaxer, as best he/she could, to show what it would look like from a camera on the moon. But the painter did not do a good job. Page above.
In the page below, there is a motion picture being taken of a jumping astronaut from his backside, and in the meantime a second astronaut takes a still shot from his front side. The two images of the astronaut in the air are supposed to be identical, but they are not. From his front view, there is a triangular thing sticking up from the top of his back pack, and no dust below his feet, two items that are in the motion picture for the same moment of time. It means that they had the astronaut performing this event at least twice, one without a wire to suspend him, and one with a wire attached to the top of his backpack, explaining the triangular piece of that pack pointing up i.e. to where the wire is attached. The photo doctor took out the wire, but neglected to take out the triangular piece. I would suggest that they are using the dummy astronaut (much lighter) in the wire-hanging scene, which came with the ability to hold its arms and legs in certain positions. Note that the motion picture version has the real astronaut no more than about a foot off the ground. Scroll to the last two images on the page, taken a day apart, to see that they just left the dummy standing in the same location (slightly different foot positioning). Note that the ground-raking crew had been out between photos.
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_1a.htmlOrganized mafia with the wink of the U.S. government is not the Italian Mafia, but the Freemasons / Rosicrucians whom have controlled much of the Unites States, with political strings, since its inception. You should never think that America is too big to control. You need simply to control a few of its chief political leaders, and the best way to do this is to get them elected and appointed in the first place. It's a very old game played long before 1776.
In the page above, Jack claims to be looking at anomalies of Apollo 11, and there is a ladder in one of the images that matches the ladder in the Ted Twietmeyer image below. Ted implies that this ladder is on Apollo 11, yet, in the released-to-television shot, the thicker ladder is not the same one. In Ted's page, a comment is made by a pro-NASA buff who implies: of course it's not the same ladder, the thinner one is from an Apollo-15 mission. And that's why I want to address the same thin ladder in Jack's page above, with the photo number A11-40-5862. A11 refers to Apollo 11. This is the ladder with lowest rung three feet off the ground.
http://www.rense.com/general79/apol11.htmWhy did they decide to show the astronaut with the thick ladder when they had the nice thin-ladder photos? The nice ones were taken from the moon, and were not on Earth yet. The grainy ones were taken from the moon camera supposedly transmitting to earth, so they used that one right away. Still, the photo taken at the moon had the thin ladder, and the other camera had the thick ladder. Photos do not lie. They didn't have two ladders at the moon, obviously. It suggests that they were using a typical painter's ladder in rehearsals, and decided to use a scene with that ladder for the television viewers. Afterward, they apparently decided to sweep away (do without) the thick-ladder images. Here is the astronaut coming down the thin ladder on Apollo 11:
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_25.htmlWhy did they cover the legs of the lander with foil? The answer is obvious: they needed to hide the fact that the pads were made with, who knows, maybe pizza plates. If you care to, click over from the page above to the next one, find the pads with gold foil only on part of them, and note that they were clean out of gold foil to repair the ripped-off portions, and used dark foil applied with scotch tape. This lander was all done on the cheap. It becomes clear that the boots of 200-pound men sank into the lunar surface deeper than the thousands-of-pounds lander. Just look at those pads, not a millimeter into the ground, as though this machine were made of cardboard (maybe a little exaggerated) , aside from the little landing that the men used for faking a ladder descent to the moon.
Jack's treatment on Apollo 17 concentrates on how they shifted mountain scenes around artificially. First, they deleted the earth background, and decided on a lunar background. It seems that, instead of changing the moon background as expected, when viewed from different angles, they took the lazy route and just shifted the same mountain shapes around. They had the same problem with objects in the foreground: shifting was needed for every different-angle shot. With thousands of pictures released, we might imagine thousands more that never got released. There was a lot of work in this, and the lazy route could be expected, eventually, anyway. Probably, the same ONE lander was used throughout all missions.
The moon-landing hoax often evolves in the same way as false-flag operations. As soon as someone with a large readership (or even small) comes out with a major crisis in the publicized photos, the leaders of the hoax produce faked images to explain away the problems. For example, as soon as Jack exposed the following problem, NASA came out with an image showing what it claimed to be the rover packed on the opposite side of the lunar module from where Jack was talking about. This story is on the page below. It starts off by Jack showing tire tracks on the ground before they unpacked a large package on the side of the module. Talk about having a bad day. Perhaps someone in charge of going through the thousands of photos was getting brain tired, and allowed this one into the catalogue, not realizing that the rover was still packed on the side of the lander.
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_23.htmlClicking over to next page has the rebuttal against NASA. It shows that the module was first shown beside the package that Jack was talking about. If the rover was on the opposite side, they would have put it together there. Secondly, the point is well made that no NASA photos ever show the rover taken off the module or assembled beside it. The reason is obvious: they never took it off the lander, and they did not assemble it beside the lander. They had a truck deliver it to their earth location, and they decided to forego faking the assembly of the thing on stage.
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_24.htmlIn the page above, note the size of the package that Jacks speaks on. It's too short for the rover fully assembled. There never was any rover parts in that big bag, but they put the bag there to make us think that the rover was in it, all folded up. Look (page above) at the two photos showing four tightly-folded wheels on a square frame at what looks like the factory where the rover was made. Look at the short size, perfectly square, and just right (in size) to fit into the package that Jack speaks on. It can be seen that all four wheels unfold on hinges (two wheels fold away from the other two), thus making the vehicle longer. The same frame in the moon rover can be seen in the unit at the factory.
It appears that these two images of folded buggy were part of the more-ambitious part of the original NASA plan, to publicize them, to make us think that the rovers were packed, just as we see them, in the bag on the side of the module. But when someone released an image with the tire marks before it was unpacked, NASA had to change its story, and claim that the rover was not in this package, but rather on the other side of the lander. The photos for all three lunar missions showed the module sitting beside Jack's opened package for a reason. It was the best that NASA could do to feign bringing it to the moon. The writer at Aulis is very correct to say that such an historic event as getting a rover to the moon should have been photographed in the assembly stage. But NASA has produced not one photo. Where did they have the rover's batteries? Certainly, they are not part of the factory scene that we see.
It's clear that this was not an electric vehicle, at least not one in working condition, or we would have seen tire tracks with it. I happen to have solar panels purchased nearly a decade after 2000; solar panels in the 1970s were not yet as efficient. You needed more of them to re-charge batteries than what my system uses. Not only do I not see batteries on the rover, but no place where sufficient solar panels can be attached. I have four batteries two feet tall and eight inches wide that can power a circular wood saw for about 40 minutes only before needing to be re-charged. The tool gets weaker steadily when running out of "juice." I assume the rover uses more power than such a saw. Without solar panels on the rover, the batteries would be useless fast.
What is that antenna doing on the rover? Did this vehicle really have enough electrical power to send a camera signal back to earth? For how long?
I need to use eight panels to recharge the batteries over more than one full-sunny day, and these panels take up 16 x 4 feet of area. As you can see, the rover has nothing of such area in solar panels, and moreover there are no panels facing the horizon. They say that they were on the moon while the sun was low to the horizon to minimize heat, but then there are no solar panels on this vehicle facing the horizon. The only thing I saw resembling solar panels was on the floor of the vehicle, facing straight up to the sky, virtually useless for recharging batteries with a low sun. We have no choice but to believe that they made-do with a set of batteries (under the seat?) that were not rechargeable. If this was an electric buggy to begin with, for earth purposes, then it likely plugged into an electrical outlet for recharging.
The next chapter, to my amazement, finds what looks like the bottom of the speed-of-light hoax, and how they first created a false experiment (as per James Bradley) to get it.
