• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

What Happened On the Moon? - An Investigation Into Apollo

Free episodes:

i have no doubt they went to the moon, i asked for proof they landed
so show me an independent of NASA picture of NASA hardware on the moon.

all you have proven with that link Burnt, is just how much independent hardware is orbiting the moon, and surveying/photographing the moon, BUT still not ONE corroborating photograph, not a single one.
 
Ummm the link shows such pics..sorry we went. .we landed we walked on the moon. Now let me ask something. The Russians knew we went. They congratulated us. Thousands worked on the project. Why has no one ever come forward?

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
 
i have no doubt they went to the moon, i asked for proof they landed
so show me an independent of NASA picture of NASA hardware on the moon.

all you have proven with that link Burnt, is just how much independent hardware is orbiting the moon, and surveying/photographing the moon, BUT still not ONE corroborating photograph, not a single one.
There's no need to go find someone else's picture.

Go to a well-equipped observatory and help them set up the experiment. You can actually activate the laser and see the return pulses...

I don't know what would give you more evidence than bouncing a laser off a reflector on the surface yourself.
 
i have no doubt they went to the moon, i asked for proof they landed
so show me an independent of NASA picture of NASA hardware on the moon.

all you have proven with that link Burnt, is just how much independent hardware is orbiting the moon, and surveying/photographing the moon, BUT still not ONE corroborating photograph, not a single one.
I believe the first picture in the series is verifying that NASA's photo, which was taken with their rover on the lunar surface, is then corroborated by actual terrain of the moon as seen by Japan's Selene. How could NASA know/create the terrain at that time? Why would NASA even bother to attempt to fake terrain when the inevitable future would knowingly yield more detailed shots of the lunar surface and expose any hair-brained scheme to fake a landing. Such a conspiracy breaks down as soon as someone at the table acknowledges an inevitable future that will ultimately prove them to be forgers and fakers. It just doesn't make sense.

History has proven that it has happened with overwhelming evidence; whereas, conspiracist thought to the contrary has yet to yield anything significant to make me scratch my head or think that Kubrick shot it all on a soundstage. Well everything except for that prop rock with the letter 'C' stamped on it. That's obviously Kubrick's doing.;)
christianlogic_image_moon_b.png
 
i could do that with a russian reflector aswell, and they werent hand delivered either.
Marduk, I looked into laser reflector - yes indeed, very convincing of earth hardware on the moon!

Laser Reflectors - Moon Landing Hoax Truth


stated as if theres denial about hardware on the moon.


when you go into 'denial' it is total, its as if the fact the russian reflectors just dont exist, they were there prior to apollo, and have been placed since apollo.

''I looked into laser reflector''
truth is if you had, you would know 3 countries have reflectors on the moon,


and also the moon rock and regolith nasa dispenses in grams here and there, whilst claiming to have kilo upon kilo of the stuff, safely brought back and stored, the ruskies have donated 10 times the amount of regolith to universities et al, for study, and guess what ?.
when nasa regolith is compared to it, it is claimed by several authorities that nasa regolith is completely different, and nothing more than ground down to dust moon meteorite, that went through the process of 'atmospheric entry' to earth .


so not only did they undeniably fake moon photo's, mis-use and mis-label pictures from previous earth orbit's, they passed off ground down meteor as hand collected moon dust.

but hey its a huge organisation, and as jay windley will tell you, these !administrative errors! are made in such a HUGE organisation daily, UNLESS 'THEY' are 'ALL' in on IT, lol ol lol lol etc etc etc.


and lastly, but most important of all, the indisputable fact that they couldnt land, as they didnt have ANY means to land, they couldnt fly it there, the saturn 5 wasnt powerful enough to carry 46 t into orbit and the moon.

only when you can successfully show that those Nobel winning in their field of expertise russian rocket scientist's are wrong about the saturn 5, it is surely imperative to establish apollo's capability to land men on the moon before you start talking about the rest of the moon landing nonsense.


i think they went aswell, but i dont believe they landed not for one second.

for me, it's the weight against the thrust and speed capability of the saturn 5 rocket.


Dr Stanislav Georgievich Pokrovsky (b. 1959)[191] is a Russian candidate of technical sciences and General Director of the scientific-manufacturing enterprise "Project-D-MSK".[192]

In 2007, he studied the filmed staging of the first stage (S-IC) of the Saturn V rocket after the launch of Apollo 11.[193] Analysing it frame by frame, he calculated the actual speed of the Saturn V rocket at S-IC staging time using four different, independent and mutually verifying methods. With all of them, the calculated speed turned out to be at maximum half (1.2 km/s) of the declared one at that point (2.4 km/s). He concluded that due to this, no more than 28 t could be brought on the way to the Moon, including the spacecraft, instead of the 46 t declared by NASA, and so a loop around the Moon was possible but not a manned landing on the Moon with return to the Earth.[194][195][196][197]

In 2008, Pokrovsky also claimed to have determined the reason why a higher speed was impossible—problems with the Inconel X-750 superalloy used for the tubes of the wall of the thrust chamber of the F-1 engine,[198] whose physics of high-temperature strength was not yet studied at that time. The strength of the material changes when affected by high temperature and plastic deformations. As a result, the F-1 engine thrust had to be lowered by at least 20%. With these assumptions, he calculated that the real speed would be the same as he had already estimated (see above). Pokrovsky proved that six or more F-1 engines (instead of five) could not be used due to the increased fuel mass required by each new engine, which in turn would require more engines, and so on.[196][197][199][200]

Pokrovsky claims that his Saturn V speed estimation is the "first direct proof of the impossibility of the Apollo Moon landing".[192] He says that fifteen specialists with scientific degrees (e.g. Alexander Budnik)[201] who reviewed his paper, of which at least five aerodynamics experts and three narrow specialists in ultrasonic movement and aerosols, raised no objections in principle, and the specific wishes and notes they (e.g. Vladimir Surdin)[202] did have could not change his results significantly even if followed.[203][204] Pokrovsky compares his own frame-by-frame analysis of the filmed Saturn V flight to the frame-by-frame analysis of the filmed Trinity nuclear test (1945) done by the Soviet academician Leonid Sedov who created his own blast wave theory to estimate the then top secret power of the explosion.[205]

See also author's note below.[206] Pokrovsky's findings about the rocket speed were later confirmed by Alexander Reshnyak and Alexander Popov (see below) and his smoke lag method proven to be valid.[207]

Alexander Popov
Dr Alexander Ivanovich Popov (b. 1943) is a Russian senior research associate, doctor of physical-mathematical sciences, and author of more than 100 scientific works and inventions in the fields of laser optics and spectroscopy.[208]

Helped by more than forty volunteers, most of which with scientific degrees,[209] he wrote the book "Americans on the Moon" (2009).[210][211] In it, Popov placed the burden of proof on NASA,[209] and denied all Moon landing evidence, dividing it to five groups:

  1. Visual (photo, film and video) material that can successfully be made on Earth, in cinema studios.
  2. Obvious counterfeits and fakes, when visual material from ordinary space flights on Earth orbit is presented as Moon material.
  3. Space photos, attributed to the astronauts but which by that time could already be made and were made by space robots, including American ones.
  4. Devices on Moon (e.g., light reflectors)—by that time both American and Soviet automatic "messengers" had sent on Moon several tens of similar devices.
  5. Unfounded, unprovable claims, e.g., for about 400 kg of soil, overwhelming part of which NASA keeps safe and gives only grams for checking.
Thus he concluded that the NASA claims on Moon landings are left unproven, and pursuant to science rules, in the absence of trustworthy evidence, the event, in this case the American Moon landings and their loops around the Moon, cannot be considered real, that is, having taken place.[13] He also confirmed Pokrovsky's results for the speed of the Saturn V at S-IC staging time (see above).[212][213] Popov accused the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee of trading the 1970s Détente for covering up the US Moon hoax and stopping the Soviet Moon programme.[214]

Yuri Mukhin
Yuri Ignatievich Mukhin (b. 1949), Russian opposition politician, publicist, writer, engineer, metallurgist, manager, and inventor. Author of the books "The Moon affair of the USA" (2006)[215] and "A Moon affair" (2009),[84] and the film "Maximum lies and nonsense" (2010).[216] In his works, he examines the differences between the Soviet and US lunar soil found out by Western researchers, refutes the NASA defenders' arguments, and accuses the US government for plundering the taxpayers' money for the Moon programme. Mukhin states that the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee was blackmailed by the USA that if the USSR denounces the Moon hoax, the US will denounce the Soviet partocracy before his people, revealing that Khrushchev had killed Stalin and Beria


Moon Landings Hoax - WikiSpooks


but again you will just totally ignore the fact that in 1960s american rocketry just wasnt capable of landing men on the moon, and american's orbiting the moon just wasnt spectacular enough for them.
 
Last edited:
i could do that with a russian reflector aswell, and they werent hand delivered either.
''I looked into laser reflector''
truth is if you had, you would know 3 countries have reflectors on the moon,
No need to be that way. Of course I looked. And as I was helping set up the experiment we specifically selected an Apollo site.

There's nothing like helping point a giant frickin' laser at the moon and seeing the return results flash on the 'scope.

My god, I have no idea why there's so much tolerance on these forums for questioning each other's veracity so much.
 
Last edited:
Name calling dose not add to the debate. If you feel you have a issue contact a moderator

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk
 
OK, edited.

My point is this -- going from memory -- the beam spreads out to about 10k or so on the moon's surface which is enough to select your target site.

I'm pretty sure Apollo's had some of the larger reflectors placed. So we used one of them, and because Apollo is cool.

You point the beam, you see the flashing beacon back on the screen imaging the lunar surface. It's pretty damn neat.

Many observatories probably close by if you are in north america have the ability to do this (it's a bit much to do as an amateur). So you can basically go look for yourself that hardware is still there exactly where they said it would be doing exactly what they said it would.
 
but again you will just totally ignore the fact that in 1960s american rocketry just wasnt capable of landing men on the moon, and american's orbiting the moon just wasnt spectacular enough for them.

Energy to put 1kg into orbit = ~3 * 10^7 J.

Energy to put 1kg onto the moon = ~5 * 10^7J.

Saturn V booster = 1 * 10^11J.

Of course ballistic & orbital mechanics involving atmospheres, etc are a lot more complicated but the Saturn V's were very big and kicked out a lot of energy.

To put it in perspective, all the houses in Canada use about 1.4 * 10 ^ 6 J a year.
 
Last edited:
No need to be that way. Of course I looked. And as I was helping set up the experiment we specifically selected an Apollo site.

There's nothing like helping point a giant frickin' laser at the moon and seeing the return results flash on the 'scope.

My god, I have no idea why there's so much tolerance on these forums for questioning each other's veracity so much.

i wasnt quoting you tho was i ?.

Marduk, I looked into laser reflector - yes indeed, very convincing of earth hardware on the moon!

Laser Reflectors - Moon Landing Hoax Truth
 
OK, edited.

My point is this -- going from memory -- the beam spreads out to about 10k or so on the moon's surface which is enough to select your target site.

I'm pretty sure Apollo's had some of the larger reflectors placed. So we used one of them, and because Apollo is cool.

You point the beam, you see the flashing beacon back on the screen imaging the lunar surface. It's pretty damn neat.

Many observatories probably close by if you are in north america have the ability to do this (it's a bit much to do as an amateur). So you can basically go look for yourself that hardware is still there exactly where they said it would be doing exactly what they said it would.


the point is, they didnt need to land to put them there, and the saturn 5 rocket capabilities are now well known, so is apollo only being able to utilise 80% of the thrust.


In 2008, Pokrovsky also claimed to have determined the reason why a higher speed was impossible—problems with the Inconel X-750 superalloy used for the tubes of the wall of the thrust chamber of the F-1 engine,[198] whose physics of high-temperature strength was not yet studied at that time. The strength of the material changes when affected by high temperature and plastic deformations. As a result, the F-1 engine thrust had to be lowered by at least 20%. With these assumptions, he calculated that the real speed would be the same as he had already estimated (see above). Pokrovsky proved that six or more F-1 engines (instead of five) could not be used due to the increased fuel mass required by each new engine, which in turn would require more engines, and so on.

Energy to put 1kg into orbit = ~3 * 10^7 J.

Energy to put 1kg onto the moon = ~5 * 10^7J.

Saturn V booster = 1 * 10^11J.

Of course ballistic & orbital mechanics involving atmospheres, etc are a lot more complicated but the Saturn V's were very big and kicked out a lot of energy.

To put it in perspective, all the houses in Canada use about 1.4 * 10 ^ 6 J a year.


In 2007, he studied the filmed staging of the first stage (S-IC) of the Saturn V rocket after the launch of Apollo 11.[193] Analysing it frame by frame, he calculated the actual speed of the Saturn V rocket at S-IC staging time using four different, independent and mutually verifying methods. With all of them, the calculated speed turned out to be at maximum half (1.2 km/s) of the declared one at that point (2.4 km/s). He concluded that due to this, no more than 28 t could be brought on the way to the Moon, including the spacecraft, instead of the 46 t declared by NASA, and so a loop around the Moon was possible but not a manned landing on the Moon with return to the Earth
 
you might find this interesting, want to see an identical moon backdrop, here on earth, google earth is your friend.



pq507cc89c.jpg




also keep in mind the real pictures of the moon mountain range taken from chandrayen show the range to be jagged like mt everest, and not weather smoothed like the hawian range used in the fake studio moon backgrounds.
buzz-and-hill.jpg


There is not a precise match as you will see BUT the overall shape and the slopes of the main hill are VERY VERY close and the proportions are too while, take note of the two hillocks to the right of the main hill. You will see that the two hillocks to the right in the Mauna Kea photo are, again, almost a precise match in terms of proportion, relative distance from main hill AND their slopes are just about identical. Now, if a photo was taken of these hills in Hawaii/Mauna Kea from just a slightly different angle, it is very possible that you could end up with a precise match. IF a matte artist was employed by NASA, then that artist would have had to have taken out the other background hills in the Mauna Kea pic and, just as easily, may have just ever so slightly made adjustments to the hills we see in the moon photo for any possible numbers of reasons. But to have two photos related to NASA (Buzz and the hills of Apollo 17) which are so close to identical is one HELL of a coincidence.

Apollo 17 landed in Hawaii! | Earthlinggb's Blog


its no exaggeration to say theres literally 100s of photographic examples of fakery.



just so many
On these three photos (AS11-40-5897, AS11-40-5898, and AS11-40-5899); Armstrong takes three photos of a metallic plaque fixed on the ladder.

Apollo11_7.jpg


Apollo11_7.jpg


Apollo11_8.jpg






PlatesShow.jpg
 
Last edited:
In 2007, he studied the filmed staging of the first stage (S-IC) of the Saturn V rocket after the launch of Apollo 11.[193] Analysing it frame by frame, he calculated the actual speed of the Saturn V rocket at S-IC staging time using four different, independent and mutually verifying methods. With all of them, the calculated speed turned out to be at maximum half (1.2 km/s) of the declared one at that point (2.4 km/s). He concluded that due to this, no more than 28 t could be brought on the way to the Moon, including the spacecraft, instead of the 46 t declared by NASA, and so a loop around the Moon was possible but not a manned landing on the Moon with return to the Earth
A few problems...

You'd have to spoof all of the ground telemetry to fake the half energy lift off... but this is how they told everything where to point the cameras.

But then the cameras would be pointing in the wrong spot.

And if the lifting power of the Saturn V was half of what was advertised, how did it lift the 77t skylab into orbit.

Rough orbital mechanical math (I'm no rocket scientist) says that it had the power to lift ~80-90t into orbit to get ~45t to the moon and back.

So skylab fits with a margin of error.

Or was skylab faked too? It was imaged with amateur ground telescopes and the russians docked with it too, didn't they?
 
Back
Top