There is a lot of information on the 'moon landing hoax'. Equally there is a lot of information to say they went exactly as reported.
Dealing solely with the 1969 Apollo 11 mission, based on new data from 2014-2017, we could now have the last missing clues.
& sort out the miss information, for what it is.
The '69 mission is the most important as it won the 'Cold war'. It could seems like a 50/50 coin toss, to even conceive it was faked. But really it isn't if you know how to process the information decrypt space jargon
The Van Allen Belt
Number 1 all time reasons the Apollo 11 mission didn't happen the way it was told.
In present day we are always seeing images on the TV of the International space station.
When looking at the night sky occasionally if you are in-line at the right time, you can see the 'I.S' passing by with the naked eye... thats because its not as far away as the moon just 249 above earth the moon being 252 thousand miles above earth.
That would tell you, its before the van Allen belt. To say we cant get to space is a ridiculous statement. To say we cant get through the van Allen belt and get to the moon is a logical discussion to have.
There is no doubt sir Patrick Moore R.I.P, when he broadcast the Apollo mission
was also caught within the razzmatazz of the production he was lucky enough to broadcast almost live on the BBC show the sky at night. Had it been a hoax for real for reals, the people that know the real truth would be very few, due to international state security during a 'Cold war', punishable for breaking the story as an act of treason, taken to the street and shot.
NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts
So why don't they use the same stuff they used in 1969,
derrr why so difficult?
The first Dog in space may hold the answer in plain sight?
Laika was a lovable stray, picked up from the Moscow streets just over a week before sputnik 2 was set to launch. She was promoted to the title of cosmonaut and selected partly on her small size and calmness.
One of Laika’s human counterparts in the Soviet space program recalled her as a good dog. He even brought her home to play with his children before she began her space odyssey.
She was the first of 36 dogs the Soviets sent into space, other dogs had gone on rockets before Laika, but only for sub-orbital launches, for Russia and the world as Sputnik 2 was the world’s first 'On orbital satellite', the start of the space-race, -an achievement for mankind and the Americans worse fear. This fear was well founded they fell further behind, all due to a 83 kilo aluminum ball that did little more than beep. But Sputnik 2 did remain in contact with the Russians able to send
Four decades on, the next we heard about Laika, was by an official with the Moscow’s Institute for Biological Problems in 2002:
The evidence was welcomed on home ground at the World Space Congress in Houston, Texas, USA, by Dimitri Malashenkov 45 years after the event.
'The epic achievement, motivated Russia and founded children with dreams they passed down to their children. Laika pin badges were very popular in schools CCCP pride spanned all ages and marked a new hight in the commitment to space country wide. Much like American space achievements did the other side of the space race, just a little later. '
It took 45 years for the state secret truth to be told, to tell the truth about a dog and the Americans also kept the secret.
11 years after the collapse of the soviet union in 1991, old secrets had obviously became nonchalant.
The 1957 flight was meant to test the safety of space travel for humans, as well as being the first satellite for mankind and dog kind alike. But it was always a guaranteed suicide mission for the dog, since technology hadn’t advanced as far as the return trip in '57.
Laika not coming back was uncommon knowledge already to the well read, but in 2002, a new secret was unmasked by Dimitri Malashenkova a Russian official at the World Space Congress in Houston.
Although they had long insisted that Laika 'expired' painlessly after about a week in orbit, the truth was revealed that she died within hours of take off.
“Laika was quiet and charming,” Dr. Vladimir Yazdovsky wrote in a book about Soviet space medicine. “I wanted to do something nice for her: She had so little time left to live.”
Did the Americans know? did they know at the time? quite possibly yes. The first clue was the 2002 evidence released in the USA by the Russians now long term partners in the International space station. International respect of public secrets is speculatively evident, so we may answer another moon believers philosophy... 'if the moon landings were faked.. wouldn't the Russians spill the beans to the world.!!' Apparently not in the good old days. We can presume it makes better espionage leverage to keep the cards hidden, the Russians didn't want the Russian people to know the truth about Laika and if the moon landing was a hoax, how many secrets add up to weigh against the opening of Pandora's box. Vladamir Putin describes the '80s arms race, remarking, 'The mark of a good president, was 'not how many nuclear weapons you have, but how many weapons are not used.'
The First dog in space died because of the van Allen belt,
'There i said it.! '
The first band of the van Allen Belt starts 600 miles from the earth and extends to 3,700 miles from the earth. The second starts 8,100 miles from the earth and extends to 37,300 miles from the earth.
Did Laika enter the Van Allen belts?
This is where it gets tricky, because the real truth would be altered to fit the narrative as a matter of national security for both sides....
Both the versions of the data agree sputnik 2 traveled, far higher than where the international space station is today, the I.S way before, 351 miles clear of the dangerous radiation bit for human safety.
Sputnik 2 traveled right through the first Van Allen belt 600 miles up at a 33 degree angle of velocity. Depending on which data you read, the pup in space hung out in-between the 2 belts, or went straight into the second belt for a total duration of journey after the atmosphere for 1 hour 15 mins. both sources confirm it didn't come out the other side.
Because of the earths magnetic pull, once the rocket fuel ran out, the satellite simply rotated around the earth first at
33.24 degrees up and then at a decreasing angle downwards due to Kepler's law... until 1 day 5 months later it popped back through the atmosphere and parachuted to earth with a dead dog on board.
So did Laika the first earthling in space Really die in the Van Allen belt?
The answer to that question has two parts. Within language to get out of the atmosphere 'on orbit' doesn't correspond to the phrase 'died within hours' so we can be sure she didn't burn up when exiting the atmosphere. 4 years later, the journey out of the earths atmosphere took 10 minutes, so its safe to say that journey was successful Yay!
1 hour 14 mins into the journey after the atmosphere, when sputnik 2's jet fuel ran out could be defined as 'within hours'
if not before or alittle later. But all the calculations i have made or anyone could make from the data, come up with a definitive answer that the dog did indeed die within the radiation belt, its unclear and contradicting from the evidence which belt, but its verified it was absolutely positively one of them.
There is no way to verify if the poor pup expired from radiation poisoning, except for the phrase the BBC used, who were at the conference, 'She died within hours of take off from panic and overheating'.
Now to examine this phrase, we only get one relevant word, because if you were overheating whilst in the ice cold atmosphere of space you would be panicking too.
Now to examine the effects of radiation: Being exposure to just 2 Gy or more of ionizing radiation effects include red patches, peeling skin, and sometimes blistering. Which no doubt would look like over heating.
And thats where i need to leave the Laika story as the truth has been rewritten as an official narrative, we know that, its simple fact, as the truth, or part truth was proved to be covered up since the events for 45 years and the data for whether the dog died because of radiation poisoning or effects has been deleted from history.
In my opinion the truth is within plain sight.~
The space race was really about one country or the other, dropping theoretical water melons from a place where the other couldn't stop them and shoot them down.
Space superiority to the victor. Starwars.
The Americans sprung into full Alert status, news about the Soviet satellite carrying a dog was stunning enough to trigger an analysis by the US Central Intelligence Agency, CIA. A resulting memorandum entitled "SPUTNIK II, With or Without Dog?" was issued on March 17, 1958.
It stated that although "available evidence does not permit a positive determination that this satellite in fact did carry an animal," the agency officials "believe that SPUTNIK II did carry a live dog."
Russians lined space craft with lead. NASA with Aluminum.
The Russians who were ahead in the space-race, as evident from the newspaper (evidence pictured).
Showed understanding in narrative of the 'Van Allen belts', learnt since Laika, post Sputnik 2.
lined all their spacecraft with lead to protect 'cosmonauts' from radiation. This made the spacecraft heavier, which inturn used more fuel, safety appearing to have slowed them down.
By the miracle of space maths, NASA decided to use aluminum, to protect their astronauts. This made spacecraft lighter, which used less fuel. Its interesting to note the space maths that they used to form this conclusion for guaranteed safety didn't include, plasmaspheres and super fast particles which wasn't discovered till 2014.
Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin (Ю́рий Алексе́евич Гага́рин) was the second earthling and first
human to journey into outer space, when his Vostok space
craft completed an orbit of the Earth on
12th of April 1961.
The Votstok 'Apogee' or if you will 'Highest distance traveled' was 177 miles above the earth. 421 miles short of the Van Allen belt. This may formulate a further clue in the detail of evidence that the Russians were now wise, to the radiation field and where it was and its effects on Terrestrial life forms.
America was loosing the space race as evident from the newspaper articles at the time. Loosing didn't only effect the military, government or space industry, it effected the whole country. The space race was a war, the 'Cold war', loosing wasn't an option. Was it worth faking...
in my opinion, was 9/11 an inside job?
By the turn of the century, The United States was embarking on a robust economic expansion, partly fueled by the freedom of information in a new, Internet world. People remark that the late 50's to 60's were a golden age of new hope and possibilities. people changed, the way people saw the world changed, design changed, from space ships to every angle of society, right into the home. By '69 and the dubious moon landing, normal people could watch live on television for the first time. Anything was possible at the beginning of the new almost golden age of the end of the sixties beginning of the 70's and getting there was a buck up of ideas in the way of productivity .
Unfortunately the same wasn't the destiny of Russia. By the turn of the century
Russia was emerging from the collapse of the Great Soviet Union. The feared KGB was apparently dissolved, The Russians themselves were now attempting democracy, but their economy was in shambles and the future of their legendary space program looked worse than uncertain. In many respects the fact the first man in space was Russian, was reserved for the small print, the first dog in space was labeled barbaric the achievements remained behind the iron curtain as the victor had the right to write the tale.
Worth faking a moon-landing for, if it 'couldn't' actually be done at the time?.... or maybe worth attempting
without 100% sure you can get your astronauts back to earth safely and so will have to replace the toasted humans explorers with actors for the benefit of the Disney effect.?
I will leave it up to you to decide.
Science - Science Replaced
with Science Faith.
In England since Sir Patrick Moore's death in 2011, his cosmic broadcasting role has been filled by professor Brian Cox.
Sir Patrick Moore, presenter of the BBC program the sky at night which ran from 1962 to 2011.
^ Prof Brian Cox explains we got to the moon because Penicillin... ok Brian, get a new brain.
When Brian is tormented enough on the moon landings via twitter or social media, he lashes out, normally tweeting about his factual trolling of the weakest answer.
^^ we answered why the Russians wouldn't have exposed the truth already buzz lightyear.
When really pushed, he retains from giving his own facts I'm not sure he has his own facts, what he does is post the following document then pretend he isn't listening (like a baby)...
^^ click for link to BRAEUNIG.US paper^^
The counter evidence to this fopunkt.com moon hoax article, can be found at braeunig.us (link there ^^) its why this article has been written, to level up the playing field concerning the moon landing in 1969. To most people this would seem the pièce de résistance, because it has lots of maths and makes it really complicated.
The amazingly Fun thing with maths though for which braeunig.us bases its entire claim to superiority on, is that any rogue 0.0001% calculated wrongly, can change everything, especially if the number comes from a place overlooked.
Braeunig.us wrote that article before NASA released new evidence in fact two months earlier and hasn't edited it since. (its even a htm page and not a html page which is a clue he is a dinosaur.)
If we knew all the maths concerning the van Allen belt, why did NASA's launch Van Allen Probes on August 2012 to study the region. A paper on these results appeared in the Nov. 27, 2014, issue of Nature magazine. Reporting on new findings of the plasma sphere, an impenetrable barrier
Important new data from NASA HERE:
Shri Kanekal, the deputy mission scientist for the Van Allen Probes at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland and a co-author on the Nature paper. "This is completely new. We certainly didn't expect that."
If traveling to the moon was that easy and calculable, why have we not been there since the 19th of December 1972? The craters on the moon were caused by asteroids, there must be raw minerals to gather worth the trip. The notion theres no reason to go there is dodgy right?
Other evidence the moon landing was faked
images from NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) in 2012 confirm that the flags are, indeed, still there 'mostly'. All but one of the six flags left by American astronauts in Americas manned lunar career remain standing 40 years on. According to an analysis of the shadows they cast on the surface of the moon. Guess which is the one flag not still visible?
We also must examine the shadows a second:
4.Lack of stars.
If Fig#1 the flag picture, was an image on earth, as we all know from personal experience, there will be stars, all the way to the horizon when the sky is dark. Earth has an atmosphere so sometimes the stars sparkle doesn't pass through and they start higher. The moon has little atmosphere to speak of, so it doest make sense from experiences we already understand.
This tells us 1 of 2 things. The photos were edited before putting out and the editor was a novice with the contrast controls... or like we suspect, putting the stars in the right place, would open up more skepticism, as eventually someone would say, 'hey Orion doesn't look like that from the perspective of the moon, its categorically in the wrong place', with tens of thousands of other potential errors, its more likely they just left it out at the 11th hour.
3. the Lunar module the astronaut came to the moon in and subsequencially returned to earth in, didn't create a crater, or effect the dusty moon surface in any way when landing from a great distance but the astronaut foot prints did?
2. The fact none of the astronaut will swear on the bible they were the ones that went to the moon is suspicious.
The most common debunking of this, forms around the astronauts being scientists and so don't believe in god.... but thats not the case. Buzz in particular, has a deep faith and belief in God.
Which may explain why he will not swear on the bible, and gets extremely angry when asked to, even when offered $5000 for the simple task.
What kind of person wouldn't put the skeptical to rest, by doing a tiny simple thing within their own belief?
Does it look real?
Landing on the Moon :July 20, 1969
A trip to the moon 1902
NASA engineer admits they can't get past the Van Allen Belts
Neil Armstrong Would Not Swear on a Bible that
He Walked on the Moon
NASA Astronauts Refuse To Swear
They Went To Moon - Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin,
Ed Mitchell + 6More
Science in Action #355: Earth's Radiation Belt (1959)