Moon Landings: Did They Happen or Not?

Computers, even back then, could handle ballistic computation and needed adjustments to stay on course (there are always errors) but the presence of trained humans makes it even easier: if it goes off course in this direction, steer this lever gently until the drift is corrected. In everyday life we don't write mathematical formulas to walk or run or catch a ball. We use heuristics and experience and it is mostly what these pilots do.

Indeed, especially the last two sentences! McGilchrist‘s books are well worth the read (not only) in that regard.

I find it quite funny and actually telling that our societies at large seem to have little comprehension, acknowledgment and humility to see and cherish that actually the most advanced “things“ around are and will remain human beings. In that regard I find it also quite telling how strong the push to rely increasingly on the next best “advanced“ “technology“ is in order to substitute (or even willingly completely replace!) the most amazing and advanced “things“ in the process, namely, human beings. What could go wrong?
 
Oh geez, I guess Im in for a penny, so here goes.
I’m inclined to add a few comments in this thread again, and it’s not to “prove” anything, but draw attention to the historical and cultural differences of the era in which the Space programs were accomplished.

Although I was a young girl, during the early Mercury, Gemini, and then Apollo missions, I witnessed some pretty amazing life happenings, and remember a lot.
Life was so very different in the late 50’s and throughout the ensuing 60’s and 70’s.

I have also, over the past 35 plus years of my life, spent time hanging out with pilots, aeronautical engineers and military “jet” jockeys.
I married the love of my in the early 90’s, who happens to hold a degree in aeronautic engineering and has completed a successful and accident free career as a Professional Airline pilot.

Over the years, we have also met several of the Canadian “scientist astronauts”, all very brilliant and sincere people.
So, from my observations, I “think” perhaps I have a bit of “cred” regarding the Strong characters and sharp intellects that those early pioneer “astronauts” had to be.

Oh, if you’ve never watched, or heard of the 1983 movie “The Right Stuff”, I’d highly recommend it!
It is a little “ over the top” in a few spots, hilariously so, at times but it nails the competence and masculine brilliance and bravery that embodied the aviation profession at the time.

And I don't know, but I've always assumed that they would've been supplementing the computer power with their brains, doing calcs by hand etc, storing data on paper and entering it into the computer when needed? Maybe I'm wrong.
I DO know, from first hand observations, and even today, no good pilot depends on the electronics completely.
You can bet that everything was done on paper, calculations, equations, everything checked and double checked.
Have you ever seen a E6B? Or, a slide rule?
Every keychain in our house has a little mini one on it, my husband’s handy work, lol.

IMG_1902.jpeg

They were supposed to be able to do EVERYTHING in and around the craft including being able to understand and handle the bigger context of getting from earth to the moon surface and back, manually, and with their own brains, without necessarily needing to use the computers and talk to earth and such
Exactly, every detail manually, with human brain power.
We use heuristics and experience and it is mostly what these pilots do.
Yeah, no, not “mostly” so much, from what I’ve observed.

The pilots are operating a machine, which is hurling through space, and it is not the same as walking or running.
All the steps and stages of flight are mechanical and must be memorized, every procedure, which switch gets pulled, what altitude must be maintained, wind speed factored in, a huge amount of information that does NOT come intuitively in most cases.
Heck, I’ve been a passenger in a jet that did a barrel roll, and without seeing the instrument panel gauge, I would have sworn we were right side up! We were not…
There are so many factors involved, especially flying high powered jets, it’s too easy to get overwhelmed if one little thing isn’t factored in.
Anyways, that’s my couple cents, for what it’s worth.
Heck, I guess I feel that, above all else, these men deserve dignity and respect for all they did.

Why not pop a big bowl of popcorn and if you can find it, watch that movie, “The Right Stuff”, and maybe we all can feel a part of ourselves soften, and find a glimmer of trust…that in spite of all the psychopaths and the lying, cheating a$$holes running this ol World, there are some real Hero’s out here too.
 
Look at the amount of RAM/ ROM …

Nowadays computers use a lot of ram for "things that they may need in future" because getting data from storage such as HDD or some SSD is orders of magnitude slower than from RAM. Also with almost everyone having a lot of RAM majority of programmers see no gain in optimizing to lower that ram consumption.

If they hire best mathematicians and programmers and make them focus on memory consumption then you need much much less memory.

For things too time consuming to calculate on onboard computers - that data could be send to earth using telemetry

This github repo is for apollo 11 computers yes, source code weight over 1 MB of each, but it is so mostly because of comments.
 
Another man who walked on the moon shares part of his story including a touching example of how people can become better human beings:
I'm surprised he didn't use the 'Lunar GP' dust rooster tails as evidence they went to the moon. This paper, published in 2012 goes into great detail but gets it fundamentally wrong.
Wrong camera and wrong frame rate. According to NASA the GP was filmed by Duke using a Maurer DAC, a film camera at 24 fps. The paper says it was filmed with a TV camera at 30 fps which would throw all the calculations off. Perhaps they blundered so badly because they only had some grainy, jumpy video to work with and NASA refused to give them a print of the actual film. Anyway, all the info was there on the mission checklist, including aperture settings, frame rate and shutter speed.
1762072520936.png
1762073528155.png

Still, people cite this flawed paper as proof they went to the moon.
 
Another man who walked on the moon shares part of his story including a touching example of how people can become better human beings:


I'm surprised he didn't use the 'Lunar GP' dust rooster tails as evidence they went to the moon. This paper, published in 2012 goes into great detail but gets it fundamentally wrong.
Wrong camera and wrong frame rate. According to NASA the GP was filmed by Duke using a Maurer DAC, a film camera at 24 fps. The paper says it was filmed with a TV camera at 30 fps which would throw all the calculations off. Perhaps they blundered so badly because they only had some grainy, jumpy video to work with and NASA refused to give them a print of the actual film. Anyway, all the info was there on the mission checklist, including aperture settings, frame rate and shutter speed.
View attachment 113164 View attachment 113165
Still, people cite this flawed paper as proof they went to the moon.

Notice that he says at least once that he has taken a picture (personally on the moon) he presents and we can see in his presentation. There aren’t that many possibilities here: Either he is lying and/or misremembering or he is telling the truth. I have little doubt that he is telling the truth.

Edit: Spelling
 
Last edited:
Pretty big news if these unreleased Apollo 12 images of UFOs on the Moon are real:
Or just milking Apollo for more LOOSH.
Some strange objects were appearing outside the windows of the spacecraft, so the Apollo 13 Astronauts grabbed their Hasselblad cameras and started taking pictures of what they had seen.
They took the hi-res cameras of the day and were trained too take hi quality snaps and they did, allegedly but took the usual blurry UFO photos common at the time?
1762120929819.png
1762121046049.png
But stars! At last, stars! Or maybe its just the photo copier. Maybe they're light ships from Ashtar Command coming to the rescue of their stricken vessel.
 
What percentage of space travel has been faked?
I guess the significant question might be: why fake something when actually doing it makes much more sense? Especially if the PTB's knowledge and access to technology is way in advance of what the public awareness of it is (they would have us all living in The Matrix reality, if they could).

As far as all this 'fakery' Hokey Pokey that's been going on recently? There may actually be some sort of agenda behind it. I can think of two potential ideas why it may happen i.e.:

1. To distract from people finding out that Venus hasn't even been where it is for 5000 years, yet - less than 5000 years to be precise. In fact, distractions may be a serious business, now, for more things than just Space.

2. To be able to suspend people's disbelief, so they can more readily accept 'weirder' stuff, like aliens 'visiting' Earth, for example.
 
BTW, the thing people always say about how un-powerful the Apollo guidance computer was, strikes me as irrelevant. I haven't looked deeply into it all but speaking as a hobbyist programmer of computers of only a slightly newer vintage than that, the specifications of the AGC don't sound unreasonable to me for what it's supposed to have been used for.
Apparently the computer power (or rather lack of it) gave them some cause for concern when attempting to land because alarms kept going off! (the computers couldn't handle it). This was dramatised in the movie "First Man". I enjoyed the movie, but I needed captions because sometimes the dialog was difficult to understand. :-)

 
And I don't know, but I've always assumed that they would've been supplementing the computer power with their brains, doing calcs by hand etc, storing data on paper and entering it into the computer when needed? Maybe I'm wrong. (Their secret use of unknown high tech is an interesting idea though! I know nothing about any of the other hardware, engines and propulsion etc, I just know a bit of stuff about old computers...)
Oh yeah! They did a movie about that too! Computers (as we know them) were in their infancy then. The 'calculators' were human. Movie was called "Hidden Figures" (2016). It was about a group of black women working for NASA in the 1960s.

 
Notice that he says at least once that he has taken a picture (personally on the moon) he presents and we can see in his presentation. There aren’t that many possibilities here: Either he is lying and/or misremembering or he is telling the truth. I have little doubt that he is telling the truth.
I've seen his pictures, some look OK, lens flares are a give away though and his Navy Salute photos are impeccably timed however his camera work in the GP is atrocious. The family photo on the moon would've endured 3 out-gassings prior to its placement on a broiling lunar surface, about 120C, looks rather intact. Seems to be a harbinger of later cheeseball recitals we see in the ISS and SpaceX. By far his most incredulous performance is the Grand Prix. Though rigorously trained in it's use and having it mounted in a bracket on his chest he couldn't hold it steady. Of course, NASA is unsure if he clipped it in to the bracket or held it in his hands.
[Charlie has taken off his Hasselblad so it won't get in the way while he uses the 16-mm camera. The Data Acquisition Camera (DAC) has a bracket mounted on the back which would allow Charlie to mount the camera on his Remote Control Unit (RCU). Apollo 13 training photo KSC-70PC-18 shows Fred Haise with a DAC mounted on his RCU. The character of the 16-mm film that Charlie shot - reasonably steady with John well centered - suggests that Charlie held the camera in his hands.]
Obviously they weren't that thorough in their post mission debriefs, he's still alive they could always ask him. The camera also had sighting rings but he appears not to have used them either. I thought he would've taken more care when filming such a historical event. The original roll of film is kept under lock and key and not allowed to leave the facility so independent analysis which would shed much needed light on the subject is impossible. We do however have some dedicated souls who try their best to analyze the third hand footage available. Link here.
If the measurements taken will be confirmed by reviews and by a possible future audit 10, this would lead to the conclusion that the sequence did not retain its original speed, that the objects captured have different sizes, or that it was not shot in the environment in which the Apollo XVI mission actually took place.
I've met one Duke fanboy, at a fire station, few years ago, a nice young guy, dedicated firefighter. He has paid considerable sums to meet him; have photos taken with him, books signed and even bought the same watch that saved Charlie's life on the moon! He showed me Charlie's autograph in Charlie's book that he appeared to carry everywhere and wanted to show everyone. "Think about it" he said with reverence "the man who signed this book walked on the moon!" I wasn't in the mood to debate but said I was somewhat skeptical as they hadn't returned or got to Mars yet. He replied, "they'll be back soon you'll see!" that was about 5 years ago. I'd imagine almost all the entire audience in that video you shared had a lot in common with this young man. I take everything Charlie says with grain a salt.
 

Attachments

  • 1762167762199.png
    1762167762199.png
    848 KB · Views: 5
  • 1762169765324.png
    1762169765324.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 4
Back
Top Bottom