Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

APOLLO ZERO

As Jarrah White pointed it out in his video "Apollo Zero", Von Braun made a trip in Antarctica before the Apollo missions, so to collect lunar meteorites that could pass for lunar rocks.

Indeed, meteorites fallen into Antarctica, and found in the eighties, show the same composition as the lunar rocks that would have been brought back by the astronauts.

These meteorites could then be splitted into a certain number of "lunar" rocks that could be claimed to have been picked up on the moon by the astronauts.

The advocates of Apollo missions, aware of this argument, reply that the lunar rocks show little holes, called "zap pits", and which would have been made by colliding micrometeorites, which would not be the case with rocks produced by the previously described method.

In fact it's NASA itself which answered this argument, by showing a rock, it claims to be martian, on which Curiosity's laser would have pierced small holes; this stereoscopic view shows the rock before the holes are pierced, and the rock after.

So the answer to the presence of the zap pits is the laser which is able to produce them.
The Apollo advocates still try a trick, by saying that curiosity's laser is a modern laser, and that nothing proves that lasers were able of a such feat at Apollo time.

But the lasers of the sixties were able of doing it; they were able to drill very thin holes into diamonds, and even to cut titane, which is the hardest known metal.
So piercing little holes in rock was certainly no problem for them.

Moreover, the holes we see in the so-called lunar samples seem to strangely have always the same size, like the micrometeorites strking them all had the same standard size...

...Whereas it is more probable that, if micrometeorites were striking a rock on the moon, these micrometeorites would have different sizes, and we would consequently see different sized holes, like on this photocomposition, on which holes of various sizes have been added.

Moreover, only the rocks which are analyzed need to be authentic; it was possible for NASA to add fake rocks to the stock of lunar rocks which would have been brought back by the astronauts, to increase their volume, provided that it would make sure that the latter would never be analyzed, like this lunar rock of the dutch museum, of which NASA was probably not figuring that experts would some day have the idea of analyzing it...to finally realize that it was vulgar petrified wood!

There is even better: Recently, australian geologists have found, in an australian area rich in minerals, a mineral which has the same structure as the rocks which would have been brought back by the astronauts: This means that it is possible to find directly on earth "lunar" rocks.
How much time has NASA been aware of the existence of this mineral on earth?
This probably allowed it to increase its stock of "real" lunar rocks, and to give more to be analyzed to external laboratories.

One of the strong points that the Apollo proponents push forward is that the Apollo astronauts would have put on the moon retroreflectors which are able to send back a laser beam.
They take it as a definitive proof that man has landed on the moon.

The Apollo retro-reflectors are constituded with corner prismatic cubes which have the property of sending back a luminous ray exactly in the direction it came from, whatever the angle under which they receive this ray.
This property allows them to send back the laser beam in a perfect way.

People generally think that the laser operators just aim the laser at the retroreflector on the moon, that it arrives exactly on the laser reflector on the moon, as concentrated as the surface of the retroreflector, and that this one sends back the whole laser beam.
But it is far from being that simple.

If, at a short distance, these retro-reflectors work fine, it is different which a so huge distance as the one which separates the moon from the earth.
As the laser specialists admit it, the laser beam is deviated by atmosphere of more than a kilometer...

...and the laser beam consequently has to be swept so it can find a retro-reflector as small as the one which would have been left by the astronauts on the moon (which has a side of less of a half-meter).

Is the beam was arriving on the moon as concentrated as the reflector's surface, searching the reflector would be a true nightmare and would take an eternity, given the great search surface (in two dimensions!), for the retro-reflector would hardly represent a ten millionth of the search area.
And, even if the laser beam was miraculously managing to find it, it would lose it as quickly, for the atmosphere keeps deviating the laser beam.

This is the graph of points returned from the moon.
The points represents the detection of photons; the vertical coordinate represents the difference of time of reception of the signal, and is graduated in nanoseconds.
The horizontal coordinate represents the duration of the measure, and is in minutes.
In a nanosecond , the lights travels 30 centimeters (the light speed is 300,000,000 m/s), but, as the laser must make a double travel to go to the moon and back, this distance must be divided by two; so a nanosecond corresponds to a variation of distance of 15 centimeters.
We can see that there is a horizontal bar of photons which is more dense for a given value of the vertical coordinate than for the other values of this coordinate, and that this bar is in a "width" of around three nanoseconds; it means that the best reflection is in a range of less than 45 centimeters; that doubtlessly means that the laser beam has met a reflective surface which sends back the beam fairly well.
Because the detection is concentrated in a range of around 45 centimeters, and that the size of the reflector is compatible with this range, the Apollo believers think that it proves that the laser beam has bounced on the retro-reflector, but it is completely wrong: This range represents a variation of distance, and not the width of the surface which is struck by the laser beam and sends it back!
It is impossible to determine the size of the surface which sends the laser beam back from the received echo, ONLY ITS DISTANCE!
The progress which has been made on the laser only allows to measure with more precision the distance that the laser travels, but not the localization and the size of the target which is struck by the laser beam.
We can see that there is a cloud of points on a difference of distance which spans on 120 nanoseconds, which represents 18 meters.
Given the size of the retroreflector, most of these points can only come from the lunar surface, which proves it is able to send back the laser beam.

In reality, the laser beam arrives very diffracted on the moon and strikes it on an area of more than a square kilometer; if a reflector exists in this area, it will represent an extremely small portion of it, and so it will contribute very little to the reflected signal, even if it reflects it very well.

In an article, "The Laser's Bright Magic", published in the National Geographic magazine by Thomas Mellow, the author relates an experiment which proves that a laser beam can bounce on the moon and successfully return to the earth:
"Four years ago, a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available shot a series of pulses at the moon, 240,000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter and were reflected back to earth with enough strength to be measured by ultrasensitive electronic equipment".
So, as soon as 1962, it was already possible to bounce a laser beam on the moon, much before the moon missions, without a retreflector being necessary for that purpose.

However, the Apollo proponents try to save the situation by saying: Ok the points outside the concentrated bar of returned photons effectively come from the lunar surface, but the concentrated bar on the mddle of the graph comes from the retroreflector, for it reflects better the laser beam than the lunar surface itself.

The retroreflector may well reflect the laser signal, but, as it receives only a very small fraction of the laser signal, it can only retransmit a very small fraction too.
And it is not true that two different spots separated by some distance cannot return photons which are seen at a close distance.

This demonstration will clear the misconception that two reflective spots which are separated by some distance laterally are also seen at very different distances by the laser.
Suppose two retroreflectors on a plane which is perpendicular to the laser beam, and which is set at a distance of 1000 meters from the laser gun.
Suppose that one is exactly on the trajectory of the laser beam, and the other one is placed at 100 meters from the first one.
People would tend to think that they are seen at quite different distances by the laser gun, but far from it.
The simple application of the theorem of Pythagoras shows that the second one would be seen by the laser gun at a distance of 105 meters, so with a difference of 5 meters only relatively to the first retroreflector.
And, if the laser gun is at a distance of 10 kilometers, this difference of distance becomes 50 centimeters only.
If the laser gun is placed at a distance of 100 kilometers, this difference of distance becomes 5 millimeters, and it becomes less than a millimeter if the laser gun is placed at a distance of 1000 kilometers to the two retroreflectors.
And the moon is at 380000 kilometers away from the earth!
This means that, if the two retroreflectors were on a plane which is exactly perpendicular to the laser beam, and separated laterally by a distance of 100 meters, the laser gun would see tham exactly at the same distance (the difference of distance would be so small that the laser could not detect it).
What does that mean?
It means that, for a large area of the moon to send back photons which are within a short range of distance, all what is needed is that this area is averagely well oriented toward the earth, i.e. in a plane which is perpendicular to the laser beam.

Of course, such favorable areas cannot be found everywhere on the moon; most times the area struck by the laser will be in a plane which is different from the plane which is perpendicular to the laser beam.
But, if the laser beam is (patiently and systematically) swept over the lunar surface, it is possible to incidentally find such favorable areas.
I am convinced that, before the moon missions, NASA systematically swept the laser beam over the lunar surface to try to find the best reflective areas of the moon, i.e. areas of which the average plane was perpendicular to the laser beam.
After it had found some, all it needed to do was to associate these places with the future landing sites.

Now, could the concentrated bar of photons representing up to three nanoseconds, which corresponds to a difference of distance of 45 centimeters, come from the retroreflector because this difference of distance does not exceed the size of the retroreflector?

If the array of corner cubes is perfectly perpendicular to the laser beam, and the laser gun is placed at 1000 meters from it, knowing that the width of the retroreflector was 45 centimeters, the theorem of pythagoras tells us thet the difference of distance of two extreme corner cubes would only be a tenth of millimeter.
At a distance of 100 km, this difference of distance would become a micron only.
And, from the moon, this difference of distance is so small that it can be considered inexistent.

Of course, the array of corner cubes is not perfectly perpendicular to the laser beam, but the difference of distance of two corner cubes seen by the laser gun is consistently smaller than the distance which seperates them on the array.
If we call D the distance which separates them on the array, H the difference of distance as seen by the laser gun, and a the angle that the array of corner cubes makes with the plane which is perpendicular to the laser beam, we have the relationship: H = D x sinus(a).
If the retroreflector has been correctly oriented toward the earth by the astronauts, the angle a is relatively small, which means that the difference of distance seen by the laser gun should not exceed a couple of centimeters.

But, on the graph of returned photons, the concentrated bar, which is is supposed to come back from the retroreflector, extends on a width which represents 45 centimeters!
And a difference of 45 centimeters corresponds to an angle of around 45� that the array of corner cubes would make with the plane perpendicular to the laser beam (the length in diagonal of the retroreflector is 63cm).
This means that the astronauts would have made an extremely bad adjustment of the retroreflector relatively to the direction of the earth.
But how were the astronauts making this adjustment?

The retroreflector which had been provided to the astronauts was preadjusted so that the array of corner cubes was making with the base of the retroreflector an angle which was equal to the angle that the direction of the earth was making with the local vertical on the landing site.

So, all the astronauts were needing to do was to put the retroreflector on a horizontal surface, and turn it in direction of the earth.
But, how could they make sure that the base of the retroreflector was horizontal without being sure that the ground on which they were putting it was effectively horizontal?

In fact, it was very unlikely that the ground on which they put the retroreflector would be perfectly horizontal, but the retroreflector was equipped with adjustment handles with were allowing to change the orientation of the base relatively to the ground, and to control the horizontality of the base; the retroreflector had a level bubble, I have circled, that the astronauts had to center by manipulating the adjustment handles; when the bubble was correctly centered, the horizontality of the retroreflector's base was achieved.

If the astronauts had correctly made the adjustment, there could be a little angular error, but is is difficult to believe that this error could be as much as 45�, resulting in a difference of distance which could attain 45 centimeters!
But may be the astronauts, who had been informed of the properties of the corner cubes allowing to send back the laser beam in exactly the same direction it was coming from, whatever their orientation relatively to the beam, told themselves: Why bother to orient this thing since it can correctly send back the laser beam whatever its orientation?

But at least we should see something quite regular, and, instead of that, we can see something extremely irregular.
Sometimes the concentrated bar of photons even completely disappears!
It rather looks like it would come from the fact that the laser beam is deviated by the atmosphere, and thus does not always strike the favorable reflective area of the moon at the same place, thus changing the repartition of the returned photons.

The americans were not the only ones to have retroreflectors on the moon.
The russians also had their own retroreflectors which were on their lunokhod rovers which would have supposedly landed on the moon.
Normally, the russian retroreflectors should work as well as the american ones, for they also have prismatic reflectors which are able to send back the laser beam in exactly the same direction if comes from.
Yet, they don't work as well.
This is the official explanation for the fact that they were not working as well as the american reflectors:
"The Lunokhod reflectors were aligned to Earth by maneuvering the Soviet-built rovers, thus, yielding alignment less precise compared to that of the Apollo arrays. Since the Lunokhod reflectors are not expected to be as well aligned to Earth (the Lunokhod 2 reflector is likely misaligned by 5� with respect to the mean Earth direction), there may be times when the deviation from normal incidence is higher compared to better aligned Apollo arrays (which likely are within 1� with respect to the mean Earth direction)".

This explanation is completely ridiculous, for both reflectors were equipped with corner cubes which are able to reflect the laser beam in exactly the same direction it comes from.
This means that the retroreflectors work the same whatever their orientation relatively to the earth's direction.

And, if the Apollo astronauts had really adjusted the retroreflectors so precisely that there was only 1� difference between the perpendicular to the plane of the cells and the direction of the earth, then the difference of distance of the cells should not exceed one centimeter (corresponding to less than a tenth of nanosecond for the laser).

This means that we should not see a concentrated bar which extends up to three nanoseconds on the graph, but a line which is less than a nanosecond.

But, where we reach the summum of ridicule, is that, the way that the astronauts were adjusting the orientation of the retroreflector relatively to the direction of the earth, it is more than unlikely that they could have obtained a precision as low as one degree.
Indeed, when they were turning the retroreflector in direction of the earth, they could not simultaneously look at the earth and the retroreflector, but only separately.
Try to align an object with a target when you can't simultaneously look at the object and the target!
So, obtaining a precision of one degree with a so unprecise adjustment was totally illusory.
And, if we could admit that they could have attained this precision on one landing site by chance, it is more than unlikely that they could have obtained it on all the landing sites!

The reality is in fact much simpler.
If the russians retroreflectors were not as well working as the american ones, it is simply because the americans had kept the best reflective places they had found for their own landing sites, and had given less good ones (i.e. with a plane less perpendicular to the direction of the earth) to the russians to support their own hoax!

Finally, there also are the satellite pictures taken by the LRO (lunar research orbiter) supposing to show the Apollo landing sites.
Like NASA was not able to trick these pictures as it did for the photos of the missions!
These pictures could eventually prove something if they were credible.

But how is it possible that the lander (which remained on the moon) which is consistently wider than high, may give the shadow that we see on the LRO photo of Apollo 11 landing site, a consistently elongated shadow which looks like a poplar?

Normally, the footpads of the Lem, very reflective for being wrapped with gold, should be seen disposed symmetrically around the lander.
Instead of that, they are often seen in an asymmetrical way.
On this close-up of the lander of Apollo 11, we can see three of the footpads, but not the legs they are attached to, whereas we cannot see the fourth footpad but we can see the leg it is attached to!
This is obviously a joke.

And how is it possible that the direction of the sun, evidenced by the lighting of the lunar module, and the direction of its shadow may be outright perpendicular on this photo of the Apollo 14 landing site?

Often the relief we can see on the LRO photos is different from the one we can see on the photos of the mission.
For instance, we cannot see on the LRO photo of the Apollo 15 landing site the hills that we can see on the photos of the mission, and conversely we cannot see on the photos of the mission the craters we can see on the LRO photo.

How is it possible that the lunar module, on the edge of a crater, has a shadow which extends up to the opposite side of the crater?
And why is the lunar module so close to the crater, that it might have fallen into it, whereas it had space enough to safely land at some distance from this one?

Moreover, on the photos of the same mission, the crater is not close to the lunar module, but at some distance from it.

And, since the sun's direction, evidenced by the direction of he module's shadow, shows that two feet of the module, symmetrically placed relatively to this direction, should have been illuminated the same by the sun, why is one of them very luminous, whereas the other one is quite dark?

And then, saying that we can see on the photo the footprints of the astronauts or the rover tracks, whereas the lunar module, much bigger than these footprints or the rover tracks, is hardly a little spot on the photos, is really laughable, and absolutely not credible.
All this shows that the LRO photos are nothing but a comedy, and that those who made them didn't even try to make them credible.

And there is even better.
When we analyze the binary contents of these photos...

...we find that they bear the explicit signature of Photoshop.
This is the unquestionable proof that they have been photoshopped.
Apollo proponents have then argued that Photoshop would have been used to add annotations and improve them.

But NASA didn't need at all to use Photoshop to add annotations; it is relatively simple, and it had an internal tool to do it.

Moreover, it is obvious that it didn't use Photoshop to improve the quality of pictures, when we see the bad quality and defects of some pictures which could have been improved with Photoshop.

You'll find no satellite picture of earth which has been photoshopped!

The Apollo proponents often talk about all the radio amateurs who would have tracked the radio signals emitted by the command module and the lunar module.
Certainly these radio amateurs were very excited if they really believed Apollo was real and the lunar module was really landing on the moon.
But it was only their imagination which mas making them believe that the radio signals they were receiving were coming from the moon.
In reality there was no way they could know how far the signals they were receiving were coming from.

There is no way you can say how far a radio signal is coming from if you have not emitted it.
Only a radar can say how far a target is from it, by emitting a signal and receiving its echo after this signal has bounced on the target, and by measuring the difference between the emitted signal and the received bounced signal.

When the target is a passive target, which is not equipped with an electronic system, the signal just bounces on the body of the target.
But, when the target benefits of an electronic equipement, it can send back the received signal in an active way, with a transponder, which is a device which receives the signal, amplifies it and sends it back.
In that case, the radar signal works much better, and has a longer range.

One of these radar tracking stations is Jodrell Bank in England.
As this radar is located in England, and not in US, this radar is considered as an "independent source" proving that Apollo was real.
However, the radar equipment of Jodrell bank has been provided by NASA, and was controlled by NASA engineers.
So, there is better for an "independent source".

There exists a radar plot made by Jodrell bank which proves the reality of the Apollo 11 mission.
This plot shows the integrated Doppler signal which has been received by the radar station.

The Doppler effect is what you can experiment when a horning car is passing along you: As it goes away from you, the tone of the horn changes and becomes lower; this comes from the change of the soundwave.
This effect is called Doppler effect, and is used by police to measure the speed of cars.

As the Doppler effect measures a speed, and not a position, this signal is integrated in order to give a position; otherwise it would be hardly readable, and would need a zero line to be exploitable.
On the plot of integrated Doppler of Jodrell bank, we would see the maneuvers that Neil Armstrong did to avoid lunar obstacles.
Would this plot save the veracity of the Apollo 11 mission?

In fact, at the location that the landing site of Apollo was, it is the altitude of the lunar module that Jodrell's radar was tracking; it could not follow the lateral moves of the lunar module.

In the first part of the plot, we can see an adjust phase which consists in orienting the radar toward the moon.

The second part represents the tracking of the so-called landing, and ends with a straight line which represents the moment that eagle has touched the lunar ground, and so represents the linear move of the moon relatively to Jodrell bank.

But it makes no sense that making an adjustment of the radar receiver would change the frequency of the received signal that much; in fact, the radar adjustment cannot change the frequency of the received signal, but only its amplitude; and the amplitude of the received signal is not visible on the graph recorded by the radar.

In fact the received signal during the adjust phase could not vary as exaggeratedly as what we see on the first part of the plot, for it would mean that the position of the target varies in an astronomical way!
Especially since this part ends abruptly, and not in a progressive way.
We here have a first anomaly.

Then we a priori have no reference to judge the speed of the maneuvers of the lunar module.
But, if we have no absolute reference, we however have a relative reference.

we can see the slope of the moon's move relatively to Jodrell once that Eagle has touched the moon, and, if we can determine at what speed the moon moves relatively to Jodrell, then we comparatively can deduce from it at what (vertical) speed Armstrong has made his maneuvers.

A program has been made to compute, in a very clever way, and according to various parameters, the moon's speed relatively to Jodrell.
In fact, at time of the landing of Apollo 11, the moon was coming closer to the earth, but, by the fact of the earth's spin, Jodrell bank was going away from the moon, and it was going away faster from the moon than the moon was coming closer to the earth.

A computer program has been made to do this calculation from the various parameters.
This programs takes into account the time it was at Jodrell when Apollo 11 landed.
The program computes the speed that Jodrell bank goes away from the moon (by the fact of the earth's spin), the moon being considered stationary, and then substracts from it the speed that the moon comes closer to the earth.

This program also takes into account the postion of earth on the solar orbit at the moment of Apollo 11.

Finally the program computes that the speed of the moon relatively to Jodrell was more than 400km/h when Apollo 11 landed.
We now know that the linear part of the plot corresponds to more than 400km/h.
By comparing the slope of Armstrong's maneuvers with this slope, we can have an approached idea of the speed that Armstrong made his maneuvers with.
And, if it does not allow to compute these speeds with a great precision, it however allows to realize that he made his maneuvers at more than 1000 km/h!!!
And the LEM would also have descended too fast.

1000km/h!! Do you imagine Armstrong making his vertical maneuvers are more than 1000km/h, just to avoid lunar obstacles?
It's fantasy, pure and simple!
Besides the LEM's engine would have been unable to provide a such acceleration.

And, if we can admit that the last bumps (circled in green) could be justified by the fact that Armstrong would have maneuvered to avoid local hills, on the first bump (circled in red), the LEM was still high enough not be bothered by hills, and never the guidance, which is smooth and regular, would have made a such brutal maneuver.

So this plot is nothing but a big joke, and we may wonder how the NASA engineers who produced it could remain serious when they showed it to the Jodrell english technicians?
May be they couldn't, but explained their attitude by their "joy" of seeing Apollo 11 "land on the moon"!

So we demonstrated in what precedes that, in all the elements of what NASA calls "third party evidence", there is not a single one which is credible, and which might prove anything.
On the other side, we are going to see that the proofs going against Apollo are many, and show it as an undeniable scam; these proofs don't only concern the footage of Apollo (photos and videos), but also the technology of Apollo which is as aberrant as its footage.

Apollo advocates argue that the people working for NASA were very many, and that it is not conceivable that, among so many people (more than 400,000 people, according to them), there would have been nobody who would have exposed the fakery.
But it is a total miconception to think that the whole NASA personel was aware of the hoax.
The vastly greater part of the NASA personel worked on the saturn rocket itself, and this part was the only serious part of the project, and really worked (if even this part had not worked, the project would have had no credibility at all).

After the engineers and operators of the control room normally guided and controlled the saturn rocket, and put it on earth orbit, by using a communication line which was real, a much more reduced team was taking the relay, and was using a second communication line, this time fictitious, to start the fantasy part of the project, the one which was supposed to bring the astronauts on the moon, and make them land on it, and which never really took place; only the engineers who worked on the lunar module and its technology, and have written the technical documentation concerning Apollo, and the actors playing on the fake moonset, were aware of the fakery and might have talked.
Even if it represents a much smaller part of the NASA whole personel, this still represents a certain number of people, and those who support the hoax have to explain why none of them ever openly talked out, and why the astronauts look so genuinely convinced they walked on the moon.
You might think that we have no answer for this?
yes, we do have it, and we are going to give it to you in what follows.

The video "Apollo Zero" of Jarrah White explains us the very suspicious conditions of the accident of Apollo 1, and how it seems very probable that this accident has been intentionally caused in order to shut up the criticisms of the first Apollo astronauts, in particular Gus Grissom, the first man slated for walking on the moon.

Moreover, an inspector in charge of submitting a report to the US congress exposing the sad state of the Apollo project, a state which was dooming its success at short delay, Thomas Baron, found death in very suspicious conditions, in his car hit by a train.
You can understand that these suspicious deaths were not encouraging the engineers who knew about the fakery to talk out, if they were caring about their lives.
Moreover these engineers were figuring that talking out would very probably not be efficient; an engineer who would expose the project would be expelled from it; NASA could say that he never belonged to the project, that he only wanted to harm it, while the CIA would plan a nice little attempt who would smash him to pieces, him and may be even his family.
Since directly talking out was not only dangerous, but even inefficient, the engineers devised another way, both less dangerous for them and more efficient, to expose the project.

What they imagined was to stuff the project with so many intentional errors, that it would not even be them who would say that the project was fake, but it would be the project itself which would say:"See how I am stuffed with incoherences and anomalies; how could I be real in these conditions, can't you see I am fake?".
The creators of the moon hoax, it is them in the first place; it would not have existed in a so strong way without their initiative.
So, the engineers who were aware of the moon hoax did talk; not in a direct way may be, which would have been inefficient, but in an indirect way, much more efficient!
Do you really think that the moon hoaxers could have accumulated so many errors to show if those ones had not been intentional?
Do you really think that the engineers were dumb and incompetent enough not to even know how to create realistic lighting conditions not showing in an obvious way they were made in a studio?
No, the engineers were very competent, and they did want that the moon hoaxers exist, and be as numerous as possible, so they can deliver them from the nightmare of having been forced to participate to this masquerade.
This also explains why they never made the least effort to defend the project, and that it is amateurs like Phil Plait and Clavius who do it, amateurs who are full of misconceptions.

Like Galileo presented his arguments to stubborn and stupid monks who refused to listen to him, the moon hoaxers present their arguments to Apollo fanatics who also refuse to listen to them, in spite of the excellency of these arguments.

The first reproach which is made to the technology of Apollo concerns the weak power of the onboard computer of Apollo.
How could the lunar module land with a computer which had less power than our modern hand calculators?

The Apollo advocates think to detain the asnwer by saying that the biggest part of computations were made by mainframe computers on earth (IBM 360), and that the onboard computer was only doing secondary tasks.

But there was something that the earth computers could not do better that the onboard computer of Apollo: Guiding the lunar module.
Indeed guiding the lunar lodule was consisting in a loop acquiring the current measures (radar position, acceleration, angles), computation of commands according to these measures, and applying these commands to the guiding system; however, so that the computers based on earth could make the computation from the current measures, these ones had to be transmitted from moon to earth, which was taking, given the distance, around 1.25 seconds: once the computation was made, the computers had then to transmit the results to the guiding system, which was taking a new 1.25 seconds; so finally, between the moment that the measures were transmitted and the moment the commands were coming back, there was 1.25+1.25=2.5 seconds; even if we suppose that the computers on earth were able to do the computations instantly, if the onboard computer of Apollo was able to do the computation in less than 2 seconds, it was doing better than the earth computers, in spite of their greater power; moreover, it would have been hazardous to proceed that way, for, in case of transmission loss, the module would have been no more guided.

And, if the IBM computer was a serious computer, which was really working (fortunately for the Saturn rocket), it was well different for the computer of the lunar module, as we are going to see.

We are going to start with the fixed memory of the computer, the one which was called "core rope memory", and which was containing the guidance program; this memory could not be written, only read; but it would have allowed to encode a great quantity of memory for the time, in a relatively reduced volume (for the time too).
The principle of this memory was consisting in wires which were programming the bits either by crossing or bypassing cores.
This photo shows the prototype card which was having 64 sense lines crossing or bypassing 256 cores, which was allowing to encode 256x64=16384 bits of memory; words in this memory having 16 bits each, this was making 16384/16=1024 words of 16 bits.

In fact, the final computer had 6 memory modules, with each 512 cores and 192 sense wires, which was making for a module 512x192=98304 bits, and 98304/16=6144 memory words; with 6 modules, it was making a total of 6144x6=36864 memory words; that's not bad, but this memory still had to work!

This memory was prepared by female workers who were making the sense wires cross or bypass the cores, according to the fact that a wire was representing a 1 bit for the core (when crossing it) or a 0 bit (when bypassing it).

When we see the impressive number of sense wires which could cross a core, we may wonder how it could work; indeed, the more there are wires crossing a core, and the more the induced current in each of them is weak. With a reasonalbe number of sense wires (up to 8), it may still eventually work, bit with 192 wires potentially passing through a core, a sense wire was receiving only a 192th of the current that a single sense wire could have received, so to say an almost undetectable current.

Now the computer of Apollo was not the only one to use a core rope memory, what the Apollo advocates of course didn't fail to point out.
The other computers using a core rope memory were using it to contain a boot program allowing the computer to start, and these memories did work; and, if we compare such memories with the one of Apollo, they look alike.
So, why could the one of Apollo not work?
Why?
Because there was an essential difference between these memories and the one of Apollo.

Indeed the patent of such memories shows that the wires which were programing the bits, by either crossing or bypassing cores, were not sense lines, but activate lines instead.
They were not receiving a current, but conversely sending it into a sense wire, which was unique; they were sending an induced current into the unique sense wire when crossing the core.

On this photo, the unique sense wire of the core, which receives a full induced current, is indicated with an arrow.
Here is the reason why these memories could work, unlike the one of Apollo, which was conceived "in reverse". .

But incoherences on this memory don't stop there, they go much farther.
The way the cores were activated also shows a serious problem.

Normally this activation should have been done this way, with only an inhibit wire going through each core, like for memories using this technique.

Instead of that, this inhibition was made in an aberrant way which was making that some cores were receiving several inhibit currents, while each one should have received only one.

The fact that there were 192 sense wires crossing or bypassing the cores means that there were 192 wires simultaneously read, which makes 192/16=12 words of 16 bits; but, at a given moment, only a memory word was read, which means that, in each group of 12 bits, one had to be selected among the 12, corresponding to a bit of the currently read word.

This schema shows a part of core rope memory of a printer of the time, which is closer to the way the memory of Apollo was working than the computers of the time, except that it was using the concepts in a normal way which was working.
It shows how the selection of the sense wires was done, and how the selected sense current was amplified in order to get out the currently read bit.

In fact the bit amplifier does not only amplify it; as it is a very short impulse, if this impulse was kept as such by the amplifier, it would be gone by the time that if had a chance to be read by the reading logic, and the read bit would always be 0.

That's why the bit amplifier also stretches this bit, so that the reading logic has the time to acquire it.

It is perfectly possible to stretch the duration of an impulse by using a circuit with a capacitor.

On the printer memory of the time, we can besides see the capacitor, the text of the patent besides says very explicitly that the read pulse was stretched, and was cut after being read; it is not a hypothesis, it is confirmed by the patent.

If things had been normally done, then the reading logic of a bit would have been as shown here: Only one bit would have been activated to be read; it would have been amplified by a single bit amplifier, which would also have stretched it to allow it to be securely read.
The capacitor which is connected on the secondary of the transformer, and which is missing in the memory of Apollo, allows to maintain the pulse after it has disappeared on the primary, and leaves the time to read it.

But obviously, after having started to sabotage this memory for reasons we have already seen, the engineers had to go farther in absurdity.
Instead of doing a normal selection, the engineers were using selection modules which were selecting only 1 in 4 sense currents; theoretically, this module could work, but it had an enormous default: If we analyze the currents which were going through it, we can see that the output current which was arriving on the primary of the transformer communicating with the amplifier was representing only one third of the selected current.
May be that the only sense line of the four which was receiving a current was the one which was selected, but it was still making only 1/48 of the current which would have gone through a single sense line; and as the output current was only one third of this current, finally, on the selection block's output, the current was only representing 1/144th of the current that an unique sense line would have received.
It is obvious that the current reaching the amplifier could be considered almost unexistent, and that the amplifier could not amplify it.

Finally, as the selection modules could only select 1 among 4 sense lines, and that for each bit, one among 12 bits had to be selected, it was thus necessary to have three selection modules for each bit, with an amplifier tied to each of these modules, and a selection on the outputs of these three amplifiers had to be made to output the final bit.
So, to summarize, for each bit, three amplifiers were needed, when a single one would have sufficed if things had been normally done, and with a selected current so weak that it was standing no chance to be amplified.

But you can guess that it would not stop there; here is the schema of the amplifier as shown in the computer's documentation.
You can see that it is much simpler that the printer memory amplifier, when it should amplify a much weaker current.
On the left, there are two branches with two transistors each: each of these branches was amplifying an edge of the bit's pulse.
This amplifier shows several errors which have been circled.

First there is a connection missing between a base and a collector, which means that there is one of the two branches which does not work, and so that one the two pulses's edges was not amplified; it's like the duration of the pulse was halfed!

Then the output transistor, which is used to validate or inhibit the amplifier's output (controlled by a strobe command) according to the fact that the amplifier is selected or not to output the bit, is mounted upside down; it has no chance to work.

Here is the way it should have been connected in order to normally work.

With the output transistor mounted upside down, the bit could not be read correctly, even if all the aberrations we already saw had not been present.

Then to top all this, there was nothing to stretch the pulse (which already was halfed by the previously described connection error), which makes that, even if it had been present, and that the output transistor had been correctly connected, the bit could anyway not have been acquired (i.e. it is always a zero which would have been read).

So, you can see how the engineers had made every effort not to make this memory work.
Each of the described reasons was enough not to make it work, so you can guess what it gives when all the reasons are accumulated!
So, the engineers could officially claim that the name LOL that they had given to this memory was meaning 'Little Old Lady"...

...Officiously, it was really meaning what it usually means, that is 'Laughing Out Loud", and it was a way to say that this memory was a joke memory which was never intended to work!

OK, if the computer had no fixed memory, may be it can be saved by its dynamic memory, that is the one which could be both read and written.
May be it still stands a chance?
Unfortunately, the engineers had made the write current and the read current go through a common part!

Now the principle of this memory lays on the fact that the write and read current are separated, and that one acts on the other one by magnetic induction.

Moreover the read current, which was already not existing, was not even correctly amplified.
This schema is the one of the amplifier of the current which does not exist; it shows transistors mounted in current regulators; the problem is that, if the T2 transistor conducts, it will connect two points which are forced to two very different voltages!
No use to say that it can't work:
Even if the read current had existed, it would anyway not have been amplified.

Sorry, our last hope is falling into the water: Even the erasable memory was not working.
It was a computer without a memory, the only computer in the world which could "work" without a memory!

It is also to be noted that the description of this memory is found in a document dated august 1963, and that it contains plenty of other technical aberrations.
This gives the evidence that the engineers had already started to sabotage the technical documentation in Kennedy's time, and so that it is definitively Kennedy who made the decision to fake the lunar landing, and that this decision was not made later.

The hardware schemas of the computer all show aberrations which would shock any serious computer conceiver, thus confirming the complete inanity of this computer, and the deliberate will of NASA engineers to conceive a completely incoherent computer.

Regarding the operating system of the computer, you can imagine that the engineers didn't intend to make a serious one either, and you would be right, for it is the most delirious operating system which has ever existed, with instructions needing more parameters than they were needing, or less, and a system of program code memory switching which was outright absurd.

One of the most amusing things in this system is the so-called "hidden" instructions which were allowing to increment or decrement hardware pulses.
These instructions were uselessly wasting cycle time to count hardware pulses.

And it is still more annoying: When there were temporary parasites on a hardware pulse, the processor was starting to count in a mad way parasited pulses, which makes that it was no more doing its normal work, which was ending up in a jam needing it to be restarted, which was caracterised by the display of an alarm called 1212 alarm, and which happened in the landing of Apollo 11.

In fact there is no other computer (including the IBM computer of the saturn rocket) in which hardware pulses are directly counted by the processor; in all other computers, pulses are counted by external circuits which are read by the processor.
If it had been made the normal way, there would have been no 1212 alarm when the radar was parasited (supposing everything else was working).

Another aberration was that it was up to the user to test himself if a more prioritary task was incoming by inserting in his program code a series of instructions testing the task swapping; asking the user to do himself the task management is a really weird conception of the pseudo multi-tasking computer that the computer of Apollo was supposed to be, and of course a new joke of the engineers, purposed to still more waste processing time.

And the fact of saving the program data at regular points of the program so to allow a faster restarting of the computer in case of computer jam was a new joke, for the periodic saving of data was seriously impacting the "performances" of the computer.

And, about the guidance programs, they are stuffed with errors of syntax and logic, and, of course, they had no purpose; why would the engineers have tried to make them do something useful when they would never be used?

For instance, this subroutine, I have found in a program, filters the accumulator value so that only two values can pass through, these values indexing a table with one of the values outside this table.

And, when they write a program flow describing a logical process, they make it so that it will not be optimised and do useless work, like this program flow...

...That can be easily modified so that it works much faster..to finally do a treatment which anyway is totally useless.

This photo has been taken in 1962.
It shows several hints of fakery (which again shows that the fakery has already started in Kennedy's time).
First the display's background is much too clear; it is a 7-Segment display, and, at this time, as the liquid crystal display was not existing, the 7-segments were luminous, and were needing a dark background to be well visible.
On other photos, the same display shows a black background.

This demonstration shows that a clear background was providing a bad contrast for luminous 7-segments.

And we can also see a cable which is connected to nothing.

A demonstration has been made by NASA to show the use of the AGC.
It reveals plenty of anomalies that we are going to see.

First, if we make a comparison of the display, we can see that it is abnormally clear, whereas, in another video showing its use in the command module, the same display has a black background.
In fact there is a reason for this display to have a clear background that we are going to see.

First, initially, we can see a little suspicious white spot which moves during the initial sequence.
They then move the unit farther back, and this little spot appears no more.
This little spot is a hint, and we are going to see why.

If we closely look at the display, we can see that the digits "35" abnormally vary too much; the remaining part of the display also floats a little, but these digits clearly float consistently more, when they should not, the seven segments always keeping the same physical size.

Then, during the initial sequence, we can see the luminosity of a bar of eights change; it is not a blinking, for if these digits were blinking, the luminosity would completely disappear, it would not simply fade a little.
Again, what we see here is impossible with a 7-Segments display.

Then we can see a sequence in which the display seems to change when the operator presses keys, but it fact it is a trick.
The operator simply waits for the display to change, and then swiftly presses a key so to make believe that he made the display change; that's the reason that he uses two fingers for, so that it is less visible.

So to clearly put this into evidence, the video has been sampled, and here are pictures which talk.
On this sequence extracted from the video, the display has already changed, the '6' has already appeared on the display, and yet we can clearly see the operator press the '6' key just after the '6' has appeared; the '6' does not appear because the operator presses the '6' key, it is the converse; the operator waits for the '6' to appear on the display to quickly press the '6' key and thus make believe he is the one who made it appear when in fact the '6' was already prepared in the sequence to appear on the display.
What do all the hints we gave prove?

They prove that what appears on the display is not displayed by the AGC itself, but is projected on the display by a projector out of the field, which one projects a prepared sequence.
And that is the reason that the display has a clear background, because it is made with a reflective matter which allows to well reflect the image which is projected by the projector.

There is still a last hint of the fakery.
At a given moment, they display the timers with the verb 16 and noun 65.
The upper line (hundredths of hour) displays "00152", and the lower line (hundredths of second modulo 100000) displays "45723".
152 hundedths of hour correspond to 152x3600=547200 hundredths of second.
This means that the lower line should display at least 47200 (between 47200 and 47200+3599=50799)...and it only displays 45723; this makes a difference of more than 15 seconds.
And it is not a bad working of the AGC, it's a joke!

The engineers went up to compare the performances of the AGC, which was not working, with those of the IBM computer of the saturn rocket, which was really working...and their benchmark shows that the AGC was superior than the IBM computer in all tests!
Of course, all the tests they describe are jokes!

How could a computer which does not work be better than a computer which really works?
Especially as the IBM computer was using the 2's complement notation which had already become the rule, whereas the Apollo computer was using the already obsolete 1's complement notation.

In order to make understand why the 2's complement notation is better than the 1' complement notation, the bit to bit addition of negative numbers does not directly give the good result with the 1's complement notation, it needs a correction...

whereas the same addition with the 2's complement directly gives the good result.
The 2's complement is thus more performing than the 1's complement, which explains that the latter has been replaced with the 2's complement!
But why would the NASA engineer would have adopted a performing binary representation for the AGC, when they had decided to conceive it the most absurd way as possible?

To conclude, the AGC was a computer which was more looking like a clown than a real computer, and which was never really conceived to really work.
The lunar module takes a good start with this clown.
But it is far from being over, like we are going to see.

This is the schema of the jet select logic system which was allowing to command the lateral engines, that is the engines which were able to control the attitude of the lunar module, and guide it.
These engines, unlike the main engine, were commanded in "all or nothing", that is to say that they were either activated, or disactivated, but could not be partially activated.
The AGC was computing commands for these engines, by comparing the computed navigation angles with the measured ones; engines were activated or not according to this comparison.

Unfortunately, this select logic shows a whole series of errors, which are described in a video and a website, and which make that it could not work at all.
With this failing logic, even if the AGC had normally worked, it could not anyway have commanded the lateral jets.
The lunar module was thus simply not controllable.
We can wonder how it did to land on the moon in these conditions?

Normally, the AGC should have sent the command to the select logic of the lateral jets according to the schema which is represented here.

Instead of this, the computed commands, instead of being directly applied to the jet select logic system, were modulating high frequency signals, which were then demodulated to obtain the commands to apply to the jet select logic system.
This technique is fully valid, but it is used to propagate in the air the carrier modulated by the commands in aeromodelling, or to control a drone.
Here, the modulated carriers were simply travelling through wires on a short distance, and so this complication was useless, for the command signals could perfectly have travelled in the wires without the need of modulating a high frequency carrier!
This useless complication was a new joke of the NASA engineers, a new hint they were giving.

In the descent module, the tanks were symmetrically positioned, which makes that the thrust was pratically in the module's axis; moreover, the engine could be swivelled so to eventually make an alignment correction.

On the other hand, in the ascent module, there was a consistently excentered tank which was causing a disbalance, and which was making that the engine's thrust was not aligned with the module's center of gravity.

The ascent module would have more needed than the descent module to have the possibility of swivelling its engine to correct this disalignment, but it didn't have this possibility.
The result is that the only way to correct this disalignment was to use the lateral jets, but, as these ones could not be controlled in a partial way, as already said, the correction was made with a series of bursts of activation/disactivation which was making this control discontinuous.

With the low reaction period of the AGC, the consequence was an oscillating move of the lunar module when ascending.
Besides this oscillating move is admitted even by Clavius himself, who defends the Apollo missions.
He could not have denied it, for the NASA engineers point it out in the NASA documentation.

We can see this oscillating move on the video of the lift-off of the lunar module in Apollo 17...Except that this oscillating move appears to be horizontal when it should be vertical!
Anyway, as the AGC could not even control its lateral jets, it matters little!

And, regarding the radar, it is not much better; The engineers had put an integrator in the PLL of the read circuit of the doppler signals of velocity radars, which makes that their reading was working like a yoyo, which means that the reading of velocities was unstable, and so could not correctly work.

Moreover, the Doppler spatial components were aberrantly mixed together, making their reading incoherent.
we can wonder how the lunar module did to land with an incorrectly working radar?

The signal emitted by the command module was containing square radar signals of different frequencies that the lunar module had to send back in the signal it was transmitting to the command module, so that the command module could determine the position of the lunar module.
But these radar signals were suffering a so harsh treatment, that they were standing no chance to be correctly retransmitted!

Let's go on in fantasy, and examine the constituting elements of the communication system of the lunar module.
This is the schema which is proposed for the analog/digital converter allowing to convert into a numeric 8 bit word an continuous analog signal.
Seen from far, it looks like a successive approximations AD converter.
When seen closer, it shows several errors preventing it from correctly working.

This animation shows how a such converter was working on a simplified configuration of 4 bits.
The binary configuration is converted to an analog signal with a net of resistors, and this signal is compared with the analog input in order to successively set the outputs of flip-flops; this progressive conversion is controlled by a timing circuit.

The first error is that the input to convert and the converted output, instead of being fed as two different inputs to the differentiator, and directly connected together...

...Wheras they should have been connected this way to the differentiator.
Just this is enough to prevent the converter from working; but that's not even all.

The converter's outputs are indicated as the outputs of the timing system, whereas these outputs are all null at the end of the conversion...

...Whereas the normal outputs of the converter are the outputs of the flip-flops.

Besides these serious errors, there are other minor errors to nail the converter.
A connection appears reversed.

It should have been oriented this way.

A control intput of the compare signal has no reason to exist in a normal converter.

And a normally unexisting resistor has been added to the net of resistors.

After the AD converter which does not work, comes a numeric signals multiplexer.
Will it work that one?
You can guess that not!

This animation shows how the multiplexer should have worked; control inputs allow to select one among all the numeric inputs, to output it on the multiplexer.

The first stage of the multiplexer is correctly connected, and shows how the other stages should have been connected too...Unfortunately, on all the other stages, diodes which are present on the left of the first stage are missing, and their absence on the other stages makes that the multiplexer cannot work, and will multiplex nothing.

At last, here is the schema of the serializer of the numeric signal, which allows to transform into a train of successive bits the numeric inputs which should have been normally selected, if the previous converter and multiplexer had worked.

This serializer uses a shift register of which this animation shows how it works.

Before being progressively shifted in the shift register, the bits of the currently selected numeric input are loaded into the different elements of the shift register..But the control signal which allows the loading of these bits into the shift register is missing!

Normally, the schema of the shift register should have looked like this, with a control input allowing to load the bits of the selected input into the shift register.

The fact that these bits were not loaded into the shift register makes that the serializer was only shifting zeroes, and so it were zeroes which were transmitted, even if the previous circuits had worked.
You can imagine that, if the communication system was constituted with elements which were all failing, it could only not work!

The comedy goes on with this fantasy frequency modulator.
This frequency modulator is supposed to modulate the frequency of a high frequency carrier with low frequency signals.
It uses a loop called PLL, of which the purpose it to stabilize at best the frequency of the high frequency carrier, so that it does not pollute by its noise the modulating signals.
This PLL compares the signal of the carrier with a highly quartz stabilized signal, and the difference allows to correct the frequency of the carrier, and cancel its noise.

In a normal FM modulator, the stabilized signal is at a very high frequency, and the carrier is directly compared with the quartz signal, and even sometimes the frequency of the carrier is still increased in the PLL to allow a still better correction of the noise.

Indeed, if the stabilized signal had a frequency lower than the carrier, it would correct the noise of a low frequency component of the carrier, and not the noise of the carrier itself.

What the engineers had imagined to sabotage this FM modulator was to so outrageously divide the signals in the PLL that the resulting frequency was falling under the frequency of some modulating signals (in particular the video signal) with the consequence that, instead of cancelling the noise of the carrier, this PLL was outright destroying the modulating signals.
To summarize, this FM modulator was badly working, incorrectly transmitting the low frequency signals to transmit.

In order to go down to the moon, the lunar module had to take an elliptical trajectory from the orbit of the command module toward a lower orbit from which it would start the powered descent (i.e. using the engine).
The interest of this trajectory is that it was only needing an initial thrust to put the lunar module on it, and once that it was on it, it could go on with its engine off till to reach the lower orbit, and thus save its fuel; the initial maneuver using the engine was called "DOI".

But the principle of this elliptic trajectory, that the lunar module could follow with its engine off, demands that the moon's center be one of the foci of this elliptic trajectory.
If we look for the foci of the trajectory they represent on the schema, we can see that the moon's center is quite far from the two foci.

If we move the moon so that its center coincides with one of the foci, we can see that it would have made the lunar module bump into the moon.
what does that mean? It just means that the ellipse they represent on the schema is much too flattened, and that it should be closer to a circle.

Here is what the elliptic trajectory should have looked like, it is had been correctely represented, that is with the moon's center matching with one of the foci.
Although it looks like a circle, it is still an ellipse, but with a much weaker eccentricity.

This is the table of the powered descent taking the module from the low orbit, reached after the transfer trajectory, to the landing point.
The initial horizontal speed corresponds with the orbital speed of the low orbit.
It is an absolute rotation speed around the moon, that is independent from the moon's self rotation (which is consistently slower than the one of the earth).

In this table, the successive horizontal speeds during the powered descent which are represented on a green background correspond to absolute speeds.
But the two last speeds, represented on pink background, are annotated with a 'b' letter, which means, according to a legend of the table, that they are no more absolute, but relative to the lunar surface.

If the lunar module has an absolute speed equal to the rotation speed of the moon, and in the same direction, it then has a null speed relatively to the lunar surface, which means it is stationary relatively to it, what it must be when landing.

If the two last speeds had remained absolute, instead of becoming relative to the lunar surface, that means that the lunar module would have had in fact a speed null relatively to the lunar surface, for going at the same speed as the moon's rotation, and in the same direction...But these speeds receive an annotation which specifies that they are no more absolute, but relative to the lunar surface.

In fact, the last speed corresponds to a speed relative to the lunar surface which compensates the rotation of the moon, and makes that the absolute speed of the lunar module is then null; but it is not the absolute speed of the lunar module which must be null, but its speed relative to the lunar surface, which is then not the case because of the change of the meaning of the horizontal speed.

And landing with a horizontal speed of 15 feet/s is catastrophic for the lunar module; as the lunar module has no wheels to land, it must be stationary relatively to the lunar surface when landing.
With a such lateral speed, the lunar module is sure to tip over when landing.

There also are incoherences in the descent table: Between the two colored events, there is a difference of time of 6:24-4:18=126 seconds; the altitude rate, that is the vertical speed, varies in a continuous way between 106 feet per second and 89 feet per second (the minus sign indicates that the module is going down).
That means that the speed between these two events is always lower (or equal) than 106 feet per second; if we multiply this speed by the difference of time, we will thus find a distance greater that the loss of altitude between the two events, which gives 106x126=13356 feet.
Yet, the difference of altitude between the two events is 39201-24639=14562 feet; this difference is greater than the maximum loss of altitude we computed, which is contradictory!
There also are problems with the DeltaV, which are explained in a video and a Website, but we have already shown enough problems with this descent to show you that it was pure fantasy, and that it was certainly not corresponding with a real descent of the lunar module.

The engine was quite close to the ground when the lunar module was resting on the ground.
Moreover,as there (still) was no landing area on the moon, and that the ground might be unequal, this still could get the engine closer to the ground; leaving the engine on when landing was very dangerous, and this could seriously damage the lunar module.
This is why there were probes hanging under the feet of the module, and these probes were detecting the lunar ground a little before the module would touch the ground; these probes were then lighting contact lamps which were warning the astronauts of the proximity of the lunar ground, upon what they were supposed to immediately shut off the engine by pressing a stop button.

This schema, which can be found in the NASA documentation, represents the detection circuit of the lunar probes and lighting of the contact lamps.

This schema could have been made secure by making the corrections which are indicated on this modified schema (in particular the added diodes on the bottom, making the two branches of the system work in cooperation).
With these modifications, the two contact lamps would have been lit as soon as one of the probes would have detected the lunar ground, even if any of the transistors had failed, either in short or open circuit.
We then had a fully secure and reliable system.

But the system they show, without these essential modifications, shows serious problems.
The two branches of the system are independent, and, if any of the transistor fails in one of them, the corresponding lamp will not be lit; suppose that the probe of the left branch does not detect the lunar ground, and any of the two transistors of the right branch fails, then none of the contact lamps will be lit, with the consequence that the engine will not be shut off.

Then it was not necessary of use electromechanical relays to lit the lamps with the transistors upon the detection of the lunar probes.

On the other hand, these eletromechanical relays could have been used to directly shut off the engine without a human intervention, which would have been safer and quicker.
Quicker, why?

You have probably all heard about the reaction time of a car driver which makes that he roughly needs a second to react and press the brake pedal after he has seen a danger which forces him to slow down.
This human reaction time of the astronauts was a time which was lost relatively to the fact of directly shutting off the engine with the electronic system.

There were two contact lamps because there was a lamp per astronaut, which were located on the two ends of the command board.
When an astronaut was seeing his lamp lit, he was supposed to press an engine stop button.

This schema shows that, when the astronaut was pressing the stop button, it was not closing a contact, but it was opening it instead; and it is when the button was released, and that it was coming back to its rest position, that the contact was closed, which was then generating an impulse commanding the engine stop.

This animation shows how this stop button was working: When the astronaut was pressing the stop button, nothing was happening; when he was releasing it, a spring was making it come back to its original position, and it is then at that moment that the engine was shut off.
It was adding a new delay for shutting off the engine adding to the reaction time of the astronaut, for the button had to make a complete come and go to stop the engine.
It is even worse, for in the stress of the moment, the astronaut could leave his finger pressing the button, and forget to release it, with the consequence that he would not stop the engine...

...with the result that the landing had chances to end in a catastrophe!
we can again see that the NASA engineers had accumulated aberrations so that everything could happen as bad as possible.

OK, in spite of all these problems, the lunar module anyhow managed to safely land on the moon (let's dream!).
the astronauts get out of the module with their space suit.
Their space suit was using a system of water and oxygen flow with automatic valves regulating the pressure.
however, it could happen that an automatic valve would fail, and in this case the astronaut would be warned by reading an overpressure on his control box attached to his torso.

In that case, the astronaut was supposed to open a valve located at the back of his backpack, in order to release the pressure, and avoid this overpressure to cause an explosion.
The problem was that these valves were very badly located (the astronaut could not see them), and that they were very small, and close to each other; even if the astronaut was managing to reach them, he had every chance to act on the wrong one, or act on several ones in the same time.
Making the access to these valves difficult, not to say impossible, was another joke of the NASA engineers.

The Apollo advocates answer that the astronauts had a valve on their wrist, but this valve could only control the pressure in their suit, and not the backpack, and would not have prevented this one from exploding in case of overpressure in this one.

Moreover, the astronaut had on his waist a CO2 purge valve that he had to periodically open in order to make the purge of CO2.

Everything had been provided for opening the valve: The astronaut just had to pull a ball big enough for him to be able to grab it, which one was attached to a pin which was closing the CO2 valve...Sure, to open it, but not to close it, for, in order to close the valve after the purge was over, the ball was no use, and, as he was not seeing the valve, nor could feel it with his pressurized gloves, putting back the pin into its hole after the purge was practically mission impossible for the astronaut; he could start the purge, but he could not stop it!
He could try to hurriedly go back to the lunar module, if he still had time..or die on the spot!
To summarize, the survival system, far from being secure, was extremely unsafe to use.

All the procedures were absurd.
For instance, in order to reach a landing point, an astronaut was spotting a landing point on a grid which was appearing on the window, was announcing the graduation to the other astronaut, which one was typing it on the computer's keyboard, and was starting a program making the AGC compute the number of times that the astronaut had to act on the joystick; the second astronaut was then reading the computer's result to the first astronaut, who was acting on the joystick as specified by the computer.
And this process was iterated, till...finally the lunar module was missing the landing point, for this process was accumulating so many delays, that it had no chance to work.

Another absurd example: The reticle of star alignment for reinitializing the inertial platform; instead of using the normal way which was consisting in moving a cross over a star, the astronaut was proceeding in two steps, which were consisting in first aligning a straight bar over the star, then turning a spiral till it was over the star; the second part was especially imprecise, for aligning an object on a spiral gives a very rough result, not counting the fact that the field of view which was used was large.

And all the procedures were in the same absurd style.

If the lunar module really managed to land on the moon in spite of all these handicaps, it was certainly helped by Jesus!

The size of the earth on the photos of the missions looks astoundingly small.
The Apollo advocates answer that it is correct, for it corresponds with the theoretical angle of view of the earth seen from the moon.
However, the angle under which we see distant objects is not the theoretical angle under which we would be supposed to see them, and this may be illustrated with photographic examples.

Let's take two chairs, of which one is twice closer to the photographer than the more distant one.
Although it is twice father from the photographer, the second chair does not look twice smaller; it looks smaller of course, but still bigger than twice smaller.

If the distant objects were seen under their theoretical angle of view, the second chair would look this way on this photocomposition, so consistently smaller than on the real photo.

We can also show the example of the Eiffel tower seen from the Montparnasse tower.
If the Eiffel tower was seen under its theoretical angle of view, it would appear as the Eiffel tower which has been artificially added on the right of the real Eiffel tower, that is smaller.
To summarize, the vision tends to compress distances, and make objects look closer than they really are.

Now, if two objects are located at the same distance from an observer, and that one of them is twice taller than the other one, it will also look twice taller for the observer, for the distances are compressed the same way for the two objects.
If the earth had the same size as the moon, then it would appear with the same size seen from the moon as the moon seen from the earth.
But in fact the earth is almost 4 times bigger than the moon (3.67 times).
So the idea is to photograph the moon from the earth, to magnify this moon 3.67 times in order to obtain the size that the earth would have as seen from the moon.
This photo shows the moon photographed from the earth with a camera of which the angle of view is close to the one of the Hasselblads used by the astronauts.
There does not seem to be any overexposure, for the moon's contour appears very clean and regular when closely examined.

Now, let's take the earth, let's superpose it over our moon, and then let's magnify it 3.67 times.
we obtain this.

Now let's put our earth over the photo of Apollo 17 in which the earth is seen, and let's compare it with the original photo on this stereoscopic view.
We can see that the earth we have reconstituted appears to be much bigger than on the Apollo photo!

On this photo of Apollo 17, we can see the earth over the south massif.
The earth moves little in the lunar sky, just a little because of libration.
So the earth should also be over the same point of the south massif when seen from the lunar module.

Yet, we can also see it on this other photo, also taken close to the lunar module.
The south massif is mostly hidden on this photo, but we can however see a small part of it, a part which has been circled, which is just under the earth, and which obviously corresponds with the descending part of the massif.

On the first photo, the earth such as it is seen on the second photo, that is over the right part of the south massif, has been added...And we can see that the gap between the earth of the two photos is very important, much more important than libration would allow.
Simple logic so says it is not the earth we see on these photos.

On this stereoscopic view showing two photos of Apollo 11, we can see the earth move vertically in an important way relatively to the lunar module.
Is it normal, is it due to the move of the photographer between the two photos?

In this real photographic demonstration, the photographer moves laterally on the left between the two photos, but without moving away from the garage; the consequence if that the top of a building in the background moves horizontally on the photo, but not vertically; we can see the same part of it on the two photos.

On the other hand, on this new photo, the photographer has this time moved away from the garage, which can be seen by the fact the the garage's door is now smaller than on the previous photos, and this time we can see a more important part of the building in the background, it has also vertically moved.

On the left Apollo photo, the panel of the lunar module has exactly the same height as on the right photo, which shows that the photographer has not moved forward on the second photo.
The lunar module looks higher on the second photo, but it is not because the photographer has moved forward (otherwise the panel would look higher, which it does not), but only because the astronaut has turned his camera between the two photos, and turning the camera, unlike moving, does not make a distant object move relatively to another one on the photo, but makes them move the same way, which means that the gap separating them remains the same.
It means that the earth should only move parallely to the module on the second photo, but not perpendicularly to that one; yet it does move perpendicularly, and even a lot!
This is a flagrant proof that it is not the earth we can see on these two photos, but a fake earth the fakers have moved between the two photos, like they moved it in the previous example.

On this photo of Apollo 15, quite known, we can see two reflections caused by the sun, a little brilliant one, and a second lighter and bigger one.

If we join the centers of these reflections with a line, this line indicates the direction of the sun, which means that the sun is necessarily on this line.

On the adjoining photo, we can also see these two reflections, and we can also obtain the direction of sun by joining the centers of these reflections with a line.

On this real photo, we can also see a brilliant little reflection caused by the sun, and we can see that it is very close to the sun; this little brilliant reflection is always close to the sun, never far from it.

It means that, if we make a panoramic with these two photos, and that we prolong the lines of reflections on the two photos, these two lines should cross just over the photos, for the sun must not be far from the little bright reflections.

Yet, when we prolong the lines of reflections on the panoramic, we can see that they cross much too high, putting the sun at an unreal location.
What does that mean?
it means that these reflections are not caused by the sun, for the sun could not have moved as much between the two photos in a so short time...especially since the sun turns 30 times slower around the moon than it does around the earth.
It can only be a projector which caused the reflections, a projector which would have been moved between the two photos!

An earth and a sun which abnormally move in the lunar sky, do you find this normal?

Here are now some selected examples of incoherences, but there are many other ones that this video is too short to present.
On this famous photo of Apollo 11, supposed to show Buzz Aldrin on the moon with his left arm folded, we can very well see in his visor that this left arm appears stretched instead.
The folded arm is so an hint which is revealed when the visor is examined.

On this stereoscopic view of an astronaut photographing the other astronaut saluting the flag in Apollo 14, the shadow of the astronaut is correctly oriented on the first photo, for you can see by yourself that, when you take a photo with the sun in your back, your shadow appears on the middle of the photo, and always facing it, never in profile.
On the other hand, on the right photo, whereas the photographer's shadow also appears on the middle of the photo, his shadow abnormally appears in profile, whereas it should still appear facing, like in the other photo.
This is an undeniable anomaly, and of course wanted as such by the fakers who much played with the photographer's shadow.

On a whole series of photos of Apollo 16, we can clearly see mud spots on the lens; and it is definitively mud spots on the lens, and not defects on the film, for these spots are perfectly identical on the photos, as this animation shows.
The dry moon dust could not adhere to the lens without water to fix it, for it would glide on it, and so it is definitively mud from earth and not lunar dust, a new hint left by the fakers.

And, on this photo of Apollo 16, the shadow of the camera and the one of a wheel of the rover indicate directions of the suns which are outright perpendicular!

This photo is supposed to show a family photo of the astronaut Duke that this one would have left on the moon...on the moon, in full sun, at more than 100� celsius on the lunar surface!

And look at the small boy with the red sweater; he has an exaggeratedly long arm, much longer than his other arm, and even longer than the arms of his elder brother!

On this close-up of a photo of Apollo 15, look how the hands of the astronaut appear in the visor: They appear like he was turning them inward, whereas, on the photo, he is turning them outward!

Look at the landscape which is moving on this series of Apollo 17 that have been put into an animation.

We have colored two holes you can see move on the animation, and they shift, not like the rover was normally riding...

...But like it was laterally gliding on its wheels!

Look at these two photos of Apollo 17 of an astronaut near the flag.
The way the rover and the Lem move relatively to the astronaut and the flag show that the photographer has moved on the right between the two photos.

On this stereoscopic view, the bike represents the flag, and the photographer moves on the right on the second photo.
The result is not only that it moves relatively on the left relatively to the cars behind on the second photo, but also that its orientation changes, it shows a clear clockwise rotation.

Here is how the flag should have been seen on the second modified photo: also showing a clockwise rotation.

Another example in the same style.
Here is a series of photos in Apollo 17 taken by an astronaut who progressively moves on the left.
As the Lem is closer to the photographer than the hill in the background, the lem moves on the right relatively to the hill.
And, as the flag is closer to the photographer than the lem, the flag moves on the right relatively to the lem.

A close-up on the Lem shows a counter-clockwise rotation of this one along the animation, which is logical since the photographer moves on the left.

Logically, as the flag moves as much relatively to the lem as the lem does relatively to the hill, it should show a twice more important rotation than the Lem along the animation...but it is far from being the case, it shows practically no rotation!

The photographer who is seen in profile in the visor of the other astronaut appears to have no backpack; how can he survive in these conditions?

This stereoscopic view shows two views of the rover, the other astronaut, the flag, and a hill in the background.
As we can see less ground on the second photo than on the first one, we might deduce that the latter is taken closer, but it is tricky! We also see more of the lunar sky on the second photo, which means that the photographer has not moved in fact, but only turned his camera.

Let's make a superposition with the two photos, adjusting them so to try to superpose as perfectly as possible the high gain antenna (shaped like a reversed umbrella), the astronaut and the flag; as we can manage to well superpose them, whereas they are at different distances from the photographer, it shows that the photographer has not moved between the two photos, otherwise this superposition would not have been possible; but then, why are the hills in the background not also perfectly superposed?
Answer: because it is a simple decor which has been moved between the two photos.

At last, this photo of Apollo 17 shows a strange photo of the command module supposed to have been taken from the lunar module.
Why is it strange?
Because we can't see the service module on it, this cylindrical part which is behind the conical part.

Yet, on a photo of Apollo 14, on which we can see the command module in analog conditions we can see it in Apollo 17, the service module is well visible.
Then why is it not possible to see the service module on the photo of Apollo 17, whereas the command module is a little more in bias, if we consider the ratio between the smallest radius and the greatest one?

The same that there are very often pairs of photos which contradict each other, the videos are systematically contradicted by the photos which are taken at the same moment.
Here is an example with the sequence of Cernan coming back at the rover, whereas Schmitt is already near it.
This stereoscopic view shows two photos of the rover taken by Schmitt.

The first one shows Cernan small in the distance, for he still far from the rover.

On the second photo, we (almost) can't see Cernan, for he is hidden by an item of the rover, in reason of his small size, which is due to the distance, and we can see the rover's camera full facing the high gain antenna.

But, on the video taken by the rover's camera at the same moment, we can see that the camera is well on the left of the high gain antenna, and passes it only after Cernan has reached the rover.
It is contradictory!

Another contradiction beween videos and photos; this animation shows a sequence of photos of Schmitt taken by Cernan, as he is near a big rock, called Tracy rock.

But here is what we can see on the video.

This stereoscopic view shows the contradiction between what we can see on the photos, and what se see on the video: The astronauts are on opposite sides of the rock between the photos and the video.
Again, the photos contradict the video.
And it's just two examples!

But the fakers also sometimes give direct hints, like this video in Apollo 14, in which we can see a doll briefly pass before the camera.

Or still this video in Apollo 15, in which we can see a cable weirdly shaken before the rover's camera, whereas the rover is still, and nobody is on it.

And also this video of Apollo 17, in which we can see a strand agitated before the astronauts; an Apollo advocate tried to claim that it was just a hair on the film, but it does not look like a hair, and, even if it was the case, this "hair" would not disappear at some moments behind the astronauts.

There are sometimes shrewd hints, like on this photo of Apollo 15 on which we can see, in the reflection of the window, that the astronaut's hand wears a ring; then, the only astronaut of the mission to wear a ring was the astronaut David Scott...

But the ring that we can see in the reflection of window has a brilliant on it...when the Scott's ring had a black sapphire!

And this sequence is absolutely hilarious: They say in the dialog that, in order for the video to be clear, it was needing the high gain antenna to be correctly oriented toward the earth, whereas, on the video, we can see that it is seriously shaken, which means that, during this sequence, it was certainly not remaining well oriented toward the earth; in spite of this, the video remains quite good!

Concerning the so-called demonstrations proving they are made on the moon, they are laughable and easy to debunk.
We will only cite the demonstration of the hammer and feather in which, if we sample the images of the fall of these two objects, we can see that there are duplicated images, which is evidenced by a progress bar which has been added; these duplicated images artificially change the timing of the fall, and make believe that it happens at lunar speed.
if the duplicated images are removed, the hammer and so-called feather fall at earth speed.

There also are the examples in which an astronaut does not respect the transmission delay with the earth, and starts speaking too soon, thus giving the evidence he does not talk from the moon.

Like this example in which Cernan starts answering too soon to Parker, realizes it, and starts a second time, respecting this time the transmission delay.

And also this example in which it is Schmitt who answers too soon, and he must even restart two times.

The technical documentation of the lunar rover shows it was not viable.
This one is described in detail on a website, and describing all the problems would be too fastidious here.
Just know that the rover's navigation system was a real mess, and didn't allow the astronauts to securely orient themselves.

Just see this damaged battery on a photo of Apollo 17.
How could have the rover worked with a such battery?

The Alsep, that is to say the unit which was containing all the measure instruments, and was allowing to send the measures toward the earth, was no more working.
Its technical documentation shows that it obviously never sent anything toward the earth; the obvious errors it contains are also described in detail on a private site.

Besides, see what it looks like on a photo of Apollo!
How could this joke have sent anything to the earth?

And the way the Alsep's antenna was oriented toward the earth, by taking as a reference a moon/sun system, was uselessly complicated, and the described adjustment was certainly not giving a better result than if the antenna had directly been oriented toward the earth.
Especially since, when we see the antenna on the photo, it seems obvious that the adjustment system was a monobloc whole which certainly was allowing no adjustment.
What is hilarious is that, in the Apollo 17 mission check list, after adjusting the reference system, the astronaut had to orient the antenna with angles equal to the...coordinates of the landing site divided by 10!!!
It is as much more absurd that these angles have absolutely nothing to do with the coordinates of the landing site!
We are here in the utmost absurdity!

This photo shows the co-called measure plots made on the moon.
In fact these plots contain incoherences that we will not detail here, and are described on a website.

After having docked to the command module, and the astronauts of the lunar module had come back into the command module, the lunar module was sometimes sent crashing on the moon.
Its trajectory was making it crash on the moon almost horizontally, with a very weak angle, as confirmed by the NASA documentation.

Consequently, the plots of the horizontal components of the crash should have been much stronger than the one of the vertical component, whereas it is the converse, as we can see!
New incoherence!
We are starting to get used to it!

The astronauts seem really convinced they walked on the moon.
Is it compatible with all the jokes we can see them do on the videos?
It seems hardly credible, but it can be explained by the fact that it is not them who can be seen on the videos, but actors replacing them.

Indeed if we compare Cernan's voice...

...with the one of the actor who replaces him in the videos, we can spot a clear difference.
There is in Cernan's voice, a strong Chicago accent which cannot be detected in the actor's voice.

And, in none of the videos, it is possible to recognize any of the astronauts who are supposed to be on the moon.

These actors who were going down a "lunar hill" like they were skiing...

Or who were giving hints, like here where an astronaut makes it on purpose to miss the bag that the other astronaut is holding, and spills "lunar dust" on the ground, so that, by timing the fall of this dust, we can see that it is falling at earth speed, and not lunar speed.

It was indeed important to keep the astronauts under control and not to leave them alone, and that's why they certainly did not remain alone in a command module orbiting the earth.

It seems obvious that they never left earth.
The saturn rocket which was leaving the earth was containing no astronaut.
They had remained on earth so they could be controlled.

And, in the command module falling into the ocean, these are not the true astronauts who were taken out of it, but mannequins instead.
See this astronaut who is hauled to be taken back.
See, in this slowed down sequence, how his legs are thin, look like sticks, and how he is unable to keep his head straight.
He is still wearing his helmet, whereas he could now remove it, so that we cannot see he does not have a human face.
He definitively is a mannequin.
The command module had been dropped from a plane at high altitude, in order to make believe it was coming from space, and was coming back from the moon.

But the astronauts would necessarily have noticed it?
Yes, certainly, if they had been in normal conditions.
But it was not the case.
It is not for nothing that the CIA had made LSD tests and the possibility of using it to control human beings and make them do and believe anything.
These experiments have been made to have a later use.
And they were used to condition the astronauts and make them believe they had walked on the moon.
Photos in Apollo 17, existing in the lunar surface journal, seem to confirm this hypothesis.

Photo AS17-163-24111.

photo AS17-163-24112.

photo AS17-163-24114.

Notice the protuding vein on Evans's forehead.

photo AS17-163-24126.

photo AS17-163-24127.

photo AS17-163-24142.

Notice the protuding vein on Schmitt's forehead.

This explains the psychological problems of some astronauts after the missions (in particular Buzz Aldrin).

And the weightless demonstration sequence in space, how was it made?
By using a special procedure in a plane?
No it would not have been practical, only very short sequences could have been shot, and it would not have been simple to join them.

The true answer is: Water.

If we attentively look at the Buzz of the demonstration, we can see that he probably wears a mask, and this mask may allow to hide a breathing system.

The first hint is the irregular rotation of the box.

If we attentively watch, we can see that the box oscillates, which would not be the case in a weightless environment, in which the absence of friction would allow to make the box spin faster, in a more regular way.

The way that the box goes up after the spinning demonstration is typical on an object going up in water, and does not look like at all an object moving in a weightless environment.

But the most decisive sequence, and which proves in an undeniable way that the sequence is really happening in water, is the sequence in which the fake Buzz pushed a water droplet downward, and this one after having briefly gone done, suddenly "changes its mind", and starts going up instead.

It's because, in fact, it is not a water droplet, but an air bubble in water, and it is the Archimedes push which changes its trajectory and finally makes it go up.
If it really had been a water droplet in a weightless environment, after the fake Buzz pushed it downward, it would have gone on going down, it would have had no reason not to do it, with no force to change its trajectory.

So there is absolutely no doubt that the weightless sequence was shot in water.
Besides it seems that NASA was reserving a swimming pool to make "tests" under water.
We now know what "tests" it was about!

The origin of the moon hoax very certainly goes back to the flight of Yuri Gagarin, and we are going to see why.
Yuri Gagarin is a russian cosmonaut who would have been the first man to go to space on April 12th 1961.
But did he really go?
What follows allows to have serious doubts about it.

Some days after the so-called exploit of Gagarin, articles started to appear in american newspapers, criticizing his exploit, and outright calling it "the red hoax".
So, what were saying these articles?

They were saying that Gagarin had said he was flying over South-America only one quarter of an hour after he took off, whereas he needed at least three quarters of an hour to reach it.
In other words, he claimed flying over South America whereas he still was in full pacific ocean!

Gagarin said he could clearly see the russian meadows and farms whereas he still was at an altitude of 200 miles.
At this altitude, he was standing no chance to see them.

In order to illustrate this, here is a google map of France taken at this altitude. On it, we can see several departments of France; it is more than obvious that it would be illusory to distinguish a meadow or a farm on it.

Gagarin said that he had a nice view of the earth through a porthole...wheras the chief of the russian programme has said to the press that his cabin had no porthole, only slits.

Gagarin did not come back on earth in his cabin, but in parachute; he would have ejected himself in full flight.

Whereas his cabin was crashing far away on the ground, and was completely destroyed.

It is little probable that Gagrin could have ejected himself from his spatial cabin; at the speed it was going, it is more than certain he would have been killed.
It makes no doubt he has been dropped from a plane, and came down in parachute to make believe he was coming down from his space ship.

There are plenty of other hints which prove the hoax; like the fact that he could be seen under four angles in his cabin, whereas this one was only containing two cameras.

Before this avalanche of incoherences, a representative of Illinois, Pucinski, urged Kennedy not to accept the russian exploit as such, and to demand explanations for them.

Kennedy did nothing such, and immediately congratulated Krutschev for the russian exploit, which one of course jubilated.

The flight of Gagarin happened in full preparation of the invasion of Cuba by the bay of pigs.

We know that this operation ended with a complete disaster.
The CIA, furious, accused Kennedy to be a traitor.

There exists a detailed account of this operation; when you read it, you can see that the CIA was right to call Kennedy a traitor; for, strangely, the day that followed the so-called russian exploit, the attitude of Kennedy regarding this invasion visibly changed, and he started to give clear signs that he would make this invasion fail.

Eisenhower himself blamed Kennedy for the failure of the operation.
Kennedy did not even contest it, declaring he was bearing the responsibilities of a captain.
So, why would Kennedy have made this invation intentionally fail?
This question cannot be dissociated from the other question to know why Kennedy had so easily accepted the russian space hoax, when it is obvious that he had been warned the same day by NASA that his flight was fake.
In fact the programmed failure of the invasion of the bay of pigs is very logical if you consider that, by letting this operation succeed, Kennedy would have diminished the value of the gift he was making to the russians by accepting their fake space exploit.
By making it fail, he was much to the contrary reinforcing the first gift.
But Kennedy certainly did not make these gifts gratuitously, it is more than obvious that he was expecting a counterpart for them, and even an important counterpart.
But what could be this counterpart, so important that he could even come to act as a traitor?

The answer to this question, he gave it 6 weeks later, when he made his famous speech at the american congress, in which he declared he wanted to send a man on the moon before the end of the decade, and make him safely come back.

Before the end of the decade, with the primitive technology of the time?
Had Kennedy lost his mind?
When the dangers of a such enterprise were known, than Van Allen had already discovered the lethal radiation belts, and that the NASA engineers were planning to make unmanned tests at least till the eighties?
How could Kennedy be so categorical?
Did he really want to make this exploit, or only make believe it had been done?
And, if he wanted to make believe this exploit had been done, the silence of the russians would contribute to give credibility to it.
Only, in order to obtain the silence of the russians, this one had to be bought.
So, do you start to understand, or do you need a drawing?

Of course, if the lunar enterprise was not honestly done, it was important to shut up all those who would be tempted to speak out.
Kennedy put Von Braun at the head of the project; but it was not only for his competences that Kennedy had put Von Braun at the head of the project.
He could have put an American engineer at the head of the project, which one would have used Von Braun as an adviser.
But an american head of project would certainly not accepted to play Kennedy's game if he had been asked to organize a trickery.

Von Braun was a scrupleless NAZI, we could call fanatic, who used labor slaves to build his deadly rockets he was dropping on London, slaves that he treated in an inhuman way who moved Speer himself, which one asked more human conditions for the workers, that Von Braun purely and simply ignored.
Prisoners testimonies indict him in a very clear way in the genocide, accusing him to have passed near piles of corpses without showing the least emotion, to have participated to executions, and to have himself tortured prisoners.
It is more than certain that Von Braun would have been hanged in Nuremberg if his technical capacities, wanted by the americans, had not saved him.
The CIA protected Barbie himself, that the french had to capture themselves to put him on trial.
Kennedy, by putting him at the head of the project, was making sure that Von Braun would shut up the rebels and would faithfully obey him, unlike an american head of project who would not have hesitated to expose the maneuvers of Kennedy.

The crisis of the cuban missiles moved the entire world in 1962.
The russians would have put missiles on the cuban soil, pointing at the United-States, and ready to fire at any moment.
It was believed that a nuclear war was at verge, that Kennedy's self-control would have avoided.
But was this threat real, or were we hidden something?

In order to give credibility to this threat, Kennedy produced photos which were supposed to show nuclear missiles on the cuban soil, and the preparation of the nuclear aggression.
But there was no other source to confirm this threat.
The pentagon said it was not informed of this threat, the secret agents on place had seen nothing and were informed of nothing.

Only Kennedy seemed to be well informed; and was able to produce photographic proofs.
We have found an article on the web, entitled "Cargoes of conflict", by a canadian author, originally american, Michael Bradley, who asserts that this crisis was a comedy orchestrated in concert by Kennedy and the russians, which one would have then allowed the russians to blackmail Kennedy, which the CIA could not tolerate, which was explaining the reason of his assassination and also of his brother Robert.
You may think he was probably crazy?
After having read this article, we closely examined the photos of the crisis which are available in the US national archives, and what we have discovered on this photos is absolutely stupefying, and completely confirms the surprising statements of this author, who besides seems to be well informed.
It's that way: All Kennedy's photos show obvious anomalies, proving them as a clear hoax; these anomalies have been described in a video and on a website, and we'll simply show a selection of these ones.

This is the photo numbered 31 of the crisis.
On the left, we can see the ship "Joseph Kennedy" stopping a foreign boat for inspection.

Effectively, it does look like the Joseph Kennedy ship...

With a difference however: we can see on the ship of the cuban photo a strange dark shape which does not belong to the real boat.

This is the photo numbered 32 of the crisis.
It is supposed to show the russian "Grozny" ship.
We can see a chimney smoke on an extremity of the boat.

We found on the web a model of this ship made by a russian amateur; it is an exact replica of the real boat.

There is a problem however: On the russian model, the chimneys of the ship are not on its extremities...but on the middle of this one!

This is the photo numbered 34 of the crisis.
It is supposed to show a russian submarine of class B52, that an american helicopter would have forced to surface.

Of course, we have looked on the net for the photo of a true B52 submarine, so to compare this one with the one of Kennedy's photo.

From far, the two submarines look alike...

...But, if we concentrate on the turret of the submarine, we can see that there is on the turret of the submarine of JFK's photo a hole through which we can see the sea, and which does not exist on the real russian submarine!

This is the photo numbered 40 of the crisis; there are several anomalies on this photo...

...but the funniest anomaly is the shadow of the reconnaissance plane which takes the photo...which is seen across!

And, on this photo numbered 45, we can see a group of russian trucks trying to hide under a tree.

The russians sure knew about the art of camouflage, LOL!

And these are just some examples; all Kennedy's photos are the same style; Missiles of unequal sizes when they should have the same size,or strangely shaped, undersized missiles (one of the photos shows a russian missile parading in Moscow in the aim of showing its big size), russians not trying to hide themselves, and even giving obvious signs of their presence, guns pointed in all directions save the one of the reconnaissance plane...
Everything has been made on these photos to decredibilize Kennedy...And yet everybody was fooled.
Nobody closely examined the cuban photos (except the russians of course), for nobody figured he could have played a so pervert game.

The americans have been scared by this nuclear threat, and prayed Kennedy to make everything to peacefully solve this crisis.

Kennedy played on the register of fear to grant the russians everything they wanted without losing his popularity, and even increasing it.

This crisis allowed the democrats, who were then receding, to win the mid-term elections.
On the moment, Kennedy thought he had made a smart maneuver.

The russians, in a first time, denied having put missiles on the cuban soil, and asserted only have given the cubans defensive weapons.
In a second time, they finally accepted to play Kennedy's game, for they saw their interest in it.
First they were making a very advantageous deal, for, against the removal of imaginary missiles, that is nothing, they were obtaining the removal of missiles pointed at them in Turkey, and also the payment of reparations to Castro for the failed invasion of the bay of pigs.
But in fact, they were obtaining much more!
Indeed, what do you think would have happened if the russians had exposed Kennedy's hoax, and had proven to the americans that they never put a single missile in Cuba?

It is not necessary to be a great genius to guess what would have happened to Kennedy.
And Kennedy absolutely wanted to be a president when Apollo would come to its conclusion (that he was expecting even closer than 1969).

In other words, Kennedy had offered the russians a golden occasion, the one of being able to blackmail an american president, and to make him do all their wishes, under the threat of revealing a scandal which would have doomed Kennedy.

Don't forget that Kennedy wrote a letter to the british prime minister, Mac Millan, to urge him not to help the french to make the atomic bomb, for he was fearing that the french would provide the west german with nuclear weapons...which would have allowed them to resist to a communist attack!

Indeed, there was at the time a great friendship between french and germans, and the french were ready to give the germans a protection against a communist invasion.

Fortunately, the french had talented scientists, and could do the bomb without the british or american help.

Isn't it hypocrite from Kennedy to try to leave west germany defenseless against a communist invasion...

...After having made a beautiful historical speech in Berlin, in which he was stating he would protect them from communism?

At the time, the theory of dominios was prevailing in US; this theory was promoting that, if a country was falling into the hands of communism, by domino effect, other countries would follow; this is why no effort should be spared to prevent a country from falling into the hands of communism.
The americans had dedicated much effort for South Korea not to be invaded by North Korea and had managed it.
They were ready to do the same efforts to prevent South Vietnam from falling into the hands of North-Vietnam.

In 1961, Kennedy, who was sharing this view, and who was not blackmailed by the russians yet, had sent elite soldiers to South-Vietnam, in order to train South-Vienamese for the war.

The president of South-Vietnam, Diem, was representing the soul of South-Vietnam's resistance against the communist North-Vietnam; the South-Vietnamese peasants were trusting Diem, and under his leadership would have fiercely fought against the North-Vietnamese, making counter-guerillas against their guerillas.Johnson was full of admiration before Diem, that he was calling the savior of South-Vietnam.

Under the fallacious pretext of a buddhist protest, Kennedy set up a coup d'�tat against Diem, which not only overthrowed him, but also murdered him.

Johnson published an article in an american newspaper, stating that the coup d'�tat against Diem was a serious mistake, compromising the chances of South-Vietnam to resist to North-Vietnam.

This catastrophic coup d'�tat resulted in a total disorganization of the South-Vietnamese resistance, and made it unable to resist to the attacks of North-Vietnam, which forced the americans to intervene themselves in a last desperate attempt to save the situation.

But the North-Vietnamese were not making a conventional war to which the americans were accustomed, and in which they could have had the military superiority.
They were making a guerilla, in which they were retreating each time that the americans were trying to counter-attack.

Not knowing how to end this war, the americans made carpet bombings which had no other effect than alienating the South-Vietnamese, without impacting the north-Vietnamese.

This useless war was steering more and more protest.

Apollo was welcome to try giving back moral to the americans, and instill trust into themselves.
Finally Kennedy's hoax had had some use.

And finally this war ended up in a dead end, with plenty of young americans having died for nothing, or being handicapped for life.

If Diem had not been eliminated by the forced treason of Kennedy, who had no other choise but obeying the russians (unless he had courage enough to confess everything, and confront the anger of his fellows)...

The partition of Vietnam in two blocks would have been possible, like it was in Korea.

So, the obsession of Kennedy to use the moon as a means to reach his goal, and to become the most popular ever president of the united states...

...led him in a spiral of maneuvers and manipulations which caused his loss.
The crisis of the cuban missiles sealed his fate; from this moment, he ceased to have the possibility to go back, as the russians were holding him between their hands.

In this photo, taken in his last visit to NASA, one week before his assassination. he was probably dreaming about his future lunar triumph...

But there also were moments that he was realizing that it would end badly for him, moments of intense despair, like on this photo taken in the same visit, on which he can be seen with crossed arms, typical position of defense, with an expression of distress over his face.

Stop looking for the reasons of the assassination of JFK; from what precedes, they are plain clear; the CIA had to eliminate what it was considering a state danger.
It was a conspiracy involving the highest instances of the state.

This assassination, which surprised and moved everybody, with a scapegoat, in the person of Lee Harvey Oswald, who didn't have the occasion to defend himself, and who asserted that he was himself a patsy, becomes fully logical once you are fully informed about Kennedy and his weird maneuvers.
"He who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind", such could be conclusion of this assassination.

And finally, the one who reaped the glory of the lunar adventure, it is not Kennedy, but Nixon.
The paradox is that, if Nixon had been elected instead of Kennedy in 1960, Apollo would probably not have existed, for Nixon would never accepted to make the insane maneuvers that Kennedy did not hesitate to do.

About the russians, they had to be kept silent.
The americans covered up the russian lunar programme like the russians did it for the american one.
It was the game of: "I cover you up if you cover me up".
he russians never put any robot on the moon, they didn't have the technological capability of it; the french reflector which was to equip their lunar rover is sleeping in a russian cave, and never sent back a laser beam to earth from the moon.

Moreover, the americans could also seal the silence of the russians by providing them with crops the russians were needing, and delaying enough the delivery so to be sure that the russians would not be tempted to talk once they would have them in their possession.

Recently, a dutch modest movie producer, S.G. Collins, made a video on Youtube, in which he seriously states that the americans had had in the sixties the technological possibility to send men on the moon, but not the one to fake the lunar missions; this video had a resounding success, has been most praised, whereas it is full of lies and deceptions.

It is more than obvious that NASA used Collins to make its propaganda; the latter coul not personally possess all the material he is showing in his video, it is NASA which provided him with this material.

This video is nothing but a string of lies.

Collins claims that NASA only had old-fashioned cameras to film the landings.

...Whereas magnetoscopes were already existing, even if they were still expensive, bulky, and not affordable to common people.

He also claims that the videos are continuously filmed, and that a camera of this time could not have continuously filmed for so long, but there are plenty of discontinuities in the Apollo videos which contradict this statement.

If we were to hear him, it was enough for the saturn rocket to lift off so that the astronauts could be sure to land on the moon; whereas lifting off from earth is the easiest part of the mission, and the real difficult part was to land on the moon (supposing that the astronauts could stand the radiations and extreme temperatures).

At last, Collins dares say that the moon hoaxers have sold their souls in order to believe in the hoax.
we don't sell our souls, we just defend the truth.
It rather seems to us that it is Collins who has sold his soul by accepting to be the tool of NASA propaganda.
Collins even dares call the "patriot act" a conspiracy (saying us it is legitimate to believe in this "conspiracy") whereas it is nothing of a conspiracy.

we can only complain the engineers who have been forced, against their will, and under the threat, to participate to this sad masquerade.

When we look at them, it is obvious that they have difficulty to hide their shame, with their downcast eyes, and lowered heads.

And, on this photo of the conference of Apollo 17, if it is not shame and sadness we can read on the faces of these men who were forced to make the lunar masquerade work, then what is it?

It is very difficult to make the Apollo worshippers hear the voice of reason, so much they are fascinated by the extraordinary lunar adventure,
Mark Twain was saying that it is easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled.
Apollo is a perfect illustration of this.

Of course, you may decide to refuse to listen to those who believe that Apollo is nothing but a huge scam, and go on considering them kooks, with the ridiculous little tin foil hat over their heads.
we have been so much insulted, that one insult more or less does not make any difference.

But consider that Galileo has also been considered a "conspirator" in his time, that had to be shut up.
Indeed, how men of this time could accept that the earth would only be a little planet in the universe, when it was so reassuring to think that it was the center of the universe?
One century after his death, Galileo was still banned.
Now, he is universally admired and accepted, and the pope himself presented him excuses for the way he had been treated by the church.

Zola has also been considered a conspirator to claim that Dreyfus, "aggravating" circumstance (for the time) a jew, would have been the victim of a trap set up in the bosom of the french army, a conspirator who had to be shut up and punished for his arrogance.
Now, nobody doubts any more that Dreyfus was innocent, and Zola has become a symbol of the battle against injustice.

And, if in the time of the third reich, someone had dared tell the germans that their beloved leader was making people die in gas chambers and crematoriums, he would have been considered a conspirator, and would have had to face hard consequences; now it is those who contest it who have to face consequences.

So, those who currently consider the moon hoaxers stupid people, laugh, laugh, because it won't last.
One day, it will be those ho still believe in Apollo who will be represented this way.

You can decide to go on keeping blinders and not face the truth, you can go on dreaming that man walked on the moon in the sixties, and to think that those who contest it are retarded fools who are refractory to science...

...Or you may decide to at last open your eyes, and to see the enormous amount of evidence which shows Apollo...

...as the greatest crime ever perpetrated against science, a true offense against the scienific world.

And then, like us, you'll raise an accusing finger against the NASA and CIA, and you will say:
"We have enough with your lies, we want the truth, NOW"!

Important links:

Link to the image gallery of the lunar missions
This is the magazine of photos of Apollo 17 in which I found the strange photos of the astronauts
Link the video library of Apollo 17
Link to an article showing that "lunar rocks" can be found on earth
Link to the main page of the NASA technical documentation
Link to the LM handbook
Link to the CM telecommunications system
Link to a document describing the descent of the lunar module
Link to the documentation of the AGC
Link to the operating system of the AGC
Link to the CM program
Link to a patent of core memory of a normal computer
Link to a patent of core rope memory for a printer's module
Link to the technical documentation of the lunar rover
Link to the NASA document describing the ALSEP
Link to the radar plots of Jodrell bank supposedly showing the descent of Apollo 11
Link to an article of an article of an American newspaper explaining why the exploit of Gagarin is fake
A link to the detailed report of the invasion of the bay of pigs showing a change of attitude of Kennedy regarding this invasion from April 13th
Link to an article explaining how Kennedy concocted the pseudo crisis of the cuban missiles, and why it caused his fatal fate, and also the one of Robert Kennedy
Link to an article showing that the soviets issued no threat against the americans
Link to the site of the US national security archive with the photos of the cuban missiles crisis
A link to an article of Johnson published in a newspaper, and in which he says that the order to overthrow Diem was a mistake
Link to an article which explains why the myth that Kennedy would have wanted to disband the federal reserve is wrong