Moon hoaxers are generally considered kooks by the media.
The media think that they have no argument to sustain their "idiotic conspiracy".
And yet these arguments do really exist, and they even are many.
I here present you with a selection of them, and you must know that there are many more of them.
But I think that this selection should suffice to convince you that problems about Apollo do really exist, and are not simply the fruit of "insane minds".
1) Problems about the earth
If I take a photo of the moon, here is what I obtain:
Then I put a earth of the same size over this moon, and I magnify it 3.67 times, since the earth is 3.67 times bigger than the moon,and I obtain the photo I would take of the earth from the moon:
Now I put this earth on a photo of Apollo, taking into account the angle of view of the Hasselblad of the astronauts, and here is what I obtain on the right of the stereoscopic view, to be compared with what NASA proposes us on the left of this stereoscopic view:
Obvious conclusion: The earth whch appears on the photos of Apollo is way too small to be the real earth such as it would have been photographed if the astronauts had really been on the moon!
There is not only a problem of size with the earth, but also a problem of position.
Indeed, normally the earth moves very little in the lunar sky.
Yet, on the photos of Apollo, it can be proven it moves too much.
First example:
Here is, on a stereoscopic view, two photos on which the earth can be seen in Apollo 11.
You'll notice that the astronaut is not holding his camera straight, but turned instead.
The panel of the lunar module has exactly the same size on the two photos, which shows that the astronaut had not backed up on the second photo, but had only laterally moved relatively to the lunar module.
And, if the astronaut has not backed up, the earth should only move horizontally on the photo; but as the astronaut is turning his camera, horizontally means parallelly to the top side of the lunar module's panel.
On the other side, the earth should not move perpendicularly to the top side of the panel (which represents the true vertical)...and yet it does move perpendicularly, and even consistently.
If the earth had not moved, here is what we should have seen on the second photo: The earth would only have moved parallelly to the top side of the panel, but not perpendicularly to this one.
Conclusion: the earth has moved down in the lunar sky, which is completely abnormal.
Second example: Demonstration of abnormal horizontal move of the earth this time.
In Apollo 17, a photo shows the earth on the left of a hill which is seen in the background, and which would be named "South massif".
On another photo, a good part of the south massif is hidden by the lunar module, but we still see a part of it, and this part is doubly interesting:
- This part is on the same vertical as the earth.
- This part is obviously the right falling edge of the south massif.
Now, if we come back to the first photo, the earth of the second photo is over the right falling edge of the massif, thus at the red position.
This means that, between the two photos, the earth would have moved from the green position to the red one, which is impossible if it was the real earth.
We so have several examples of the earth abnormally moving in the lunar sky, which proves it can't be the real earth.
2) Problems with the sun
This stereoscopic view shows, on the left, a photo of the sun taken near earth's orbit in the Apollo 11 mission, and, on the right, a photo of the so-called sun in the Apollo 12 mission.
One must have some imagination to find that it is the same sun.
The sun of Apollo 12 is much too big, and furthermore it has no rays.
It is a big light spot in fact.
And, even without seeing the sun, just by studying its reflections, it is possible to prove that the sun also abnormally moves in the lunar sky.
(Reminder: The sun moves 30 times slower in the lunar sky than in earth's sky, for the lunar day is one month long).
On this photo of Apollo 15, we can see two reflections of the "sun" I circled: On big light one, and one small brighter one.
If we draw a line passing by the centers of these reflections, the sun is on this line.
There is another photo which has been taken on the left of the previous photo, and, on this photo, we can also see these two reflections.
If we draw a line passing by the centers of the reflections, the sun is also on this line.
Now, I make a panoramic with these two photos, and I draw on this panoramic the lines joining the centers of the reflections which can be seen on the two photos.
These two lines cross outside the photos.
I prolong the lines of reflections above the panoramic I made with the two photos, in order to check where the two lines meet.
They must normally meet on the center of the sun...and we can see that they meet much too high; they cannot meet so high, so far from the top of the photos, they should meet quite lower.
What does that mean?
That means that the reflections cannot have been caused by the real sun, but by a suspended light spot which is above the scene, and which has been moved between the two photos.
Another example of abnormal move of the sun, still more obvious.
Here is a panoramic made with three consecutive photos of Apollo 17 (AS17-145-22160, and the two next ones).
On the three photos, we can see two clear reflections; if we join these reflections wth a line, this line must meet the sun's center.
This means that the three reflection lines should meet on a common point, which is the sun's center.
But, if we prolong these lines above the panoramic I made with the three photos, we can see that the three lines do not meet at all on a common point:
Once more this means that these reflections are not produced by the real sun, but by a suspended light spot which has been moved between the photos.
3) Problems with the background decor
By using the technique of superposition of photos, it can also be proven that the background decor abnormally moves.
Here is a couple of two photos taken in Apollo 17; between the two, the photographer has simply turned his camera, but without moving.
If I superpose the two photos so to try to superpose as well as possible all the elements which are on them, I can manage to well superpose everything, except the background decor which shows a visible displacement.
This shows that the background decor has been moved between the two photos.
Another example, in Apollo 15, this time.
Here is a couple of photos which show a mountain in the background, and, in the foreground, rover tracks which go away.
Between the two photos, the photographer just moved a little.
Here are two views of a road I took; between the two photos I moved a little.
Now I superpose the two photos so that the mountains of the background match as perfectly as possible.
And what do we see? That the two roads converge toward each other, they meet in the background.
Now, I make the same type of superposition with the photos of Apollo 15, that is I try to match as perfectly as possible the mountains in the background.
And what do we see? that the rover tracks, instead of converging toward each other like they should, remain abnormally parallel.
I have colored the rover tracks on this view, so you can see that they remain parallel, and do not converge toward each other.
This can only be explained by the fact that the background decor moved between the two photos.
Now I am going to show you a whole series of chosen examples displaying anomalies.
There are many other ones, but this selection is enough to show you that there are serious problems in the photos and videos of Apollo.
Here are two photos of Apollo 11 which are supposed to show Buzz Aldrin getting out of the lunar module, and starting to descend the module's ladder.
Look attentively: On the first photo, he is small enough to be kneeling inside the tunnel...But, on the second photo, he has notably fattened, at such point that, if he was trying to get back through the tunnel, he could not make it, even crawling inside it.
On these two photos, we can see a same US plaque on the extreme right of the photo.
What is surprising is that this plaque can be seen at the same place on the two photos, and with the same size, though the two photos are taken under very différent angles.
I have taken two photos of a flight of stairs which is supposed to represent the ladder of the lunar module, with a trashbin which is supposed to represent the US plaque (it is not by lack of respect for the US plaque, but because the trashbin is mounted on wheels, and so easy to move).
I have taken these two photos by making a change of angle of view which is equivalent to what we see on the photos of Apollo...and we can see that, on the second photo, the trashbin, which was on the extreme right of the first photo, has moved left, and has also changed size!
This is reality, and what we see on the Apollo photos is fantasy!
Here are two close-ups of the flag on two photos of Apollo 11.
The flag is seen on two different sides; we can even see that the same bit of the starry part of the flag is shaded on both sides; yet, if it is shaded on one side, it should logically be lit on the other side!
The left view of the stereoscopic view shows a very famous photo of Buzz Aldrin which is supposed to have been taken by Neil Armstrong on the moon; we can see on it Buzz with his left arm folded.
You must have wondered why Buzz was folding this arm? Well, you have the explanation of it if you look into the visor (right view of the stereoscopic view); indeed, in the visor, this same arm does not appear folded, but stretched instead, which is contradictory!
It was just to create a joke.
You can see on this close-up that there is no connection between the module's leg and a lateral strut, whereas this connection should exist!
Here is a close-up on a foot of the lunar module in Apollo 11.
Look, it is absolutely incredible,the connection between the module's leg and its foot is practically inexistent!
We can wonder how the module managed not to lose its feet!
Look attentively at this couple of photos taken by a camera which was placed at the top of the lunar module.
On the first one the astronaut has his whole helmet and torso lit.
On the second one, he simply lifts his arm, and just this is enough to make his whole helmet shaded and even a part of his torso...whereas the same arm lowered was creating no shade at all on the previous photo!
Look attentively at this photo: Buzz touches the flag with his hand, but the shadow of his hand does not touch the shadow of the flag!
This is a couple of photos of an astronaut who stretches the flag in Apollo 12.
Look at the flag's shadow and a white ring on the ground: Their position's change shows that the photographer turned around the flag and the astronaut who holds it...and yet, neither the astronaut nor the flag show any rotation!
This is a couple of two photos of Surveyor taken at some distance in Apollo 12 (Apollo 12 would have landed close to a Surveyor which would have landed earlier on the moon).
I have colored the same holes that we can see on the two photos, so you can see that the photographer consistently turned around Surveyor between the two photos; as a consequence, Surveyor should show an equivalent rotation.
But, if we make close-ups on the surveyor of the two photos, this one shows practically no rotation between the two photos, at least much less important than it should.
Here are two photos of a tripod (called "gnomon") in Apollo 12.
If we look closer at this tripod, we can see that:
- There are two legs which have close shadows, whereas the third leg has a shadow which is farther from the two other ones.
- Two legs have a shadow which is quite straight, whereas the third one has a tortuous shadow.
The problem is that it is not the same leg which has a tortuous shadow on the two photos.
Indeed, on the first photo, it is one of the two shadows which are close to each other which is tortuous, whereas, on the second photo, it is the shadow which is farther from the two other ones which is tortuous!
New joke!
Look at this photo of Apollo 12; the flag falls close to the ground (and near the pole), but its shadow remains far from the ground.
Conclusion: The flag's shadow has decided that it would not obey to its master!
This couple of photos show an astronaut which is taken by a camera placed at the top of the lunar module, just after the landing.
Here are two close-ups of these two photos: observe attentively: On the second photo, the astronaut has a little lowered his hand, and we can see appear a reflection of the sun on the top of his visor...But this reflection is placed such that the astronaut's hand could not have hidden it on the first photo, which means that this reflection should also have appeared on the first photo!
Here are a couple of photos of an astronaut holding the flag in Apollo 14.
On both photos, we can see the shadow of the photographer on the middle of the photo; but, whereas the shadow appears frontally on the first photo, it appears in profile on the second photo!
Why is this abnormal?
Because, when you take a photo (outside) so that you shadow appears on the middle of the photo, it will always be seen frontally, never in profile!
As I have the eye of the eagle which sees everything, I have noticed something which was hiding under the lunar module; we cannot see it clearly, for it has been darkened...
...but, if we add luminosity in order to see it, then we can clearly see it, and it is...a small red devil!
A close-up on the little red devil after having added luminosity in order to make it appear.
Here is a photo of an astronaut as he is saluting the flag, which has been taken in Apollo 15.
In the background, we can see a hill very recognizable (on other photos), with, on its right, a typical big hole, that which can be easily identified on other photos.
The axis flag-lunar module points toward this hole.
Here is a panoramic which has been made with two photos; on the left photo, we can see the lunar module and the flag (it's the white spot); but we can see that the axis flag-lunar module of the left photo does not point toward the hill of the previous photo (circled in red), but toward another hill (circled in green).
It means that, on the photo of the astronaut saluting the flag, we should not have seen the hill we can see in the background, but another hill I have represented on the right view.
On a photo of Apollo 15 (AS15-86-11600), we can see, on the left, a white chest.
But, if I make a panoramic with two other photos (AS15-87-11818 and next), this chest has disappeared; what happened with it, and what was it containing?
In Apollo 15, a strange photo shows the backpack of the astronaut partially hiding the camera of the rover, whereas the astronaut is behind the rover, and so the camera is closer to the astronaut who takes the photo than the astronaut who is taken on the photo.
It is therefore completely impossible for the backpack of the astronaut to partially hide the rover's camera.
...Which is confirmed by what we can see in the visor of the astronaut who is taken on the photo.
A photo shows the rover in unstable position, with its rear wheels up.
And the rover does have its wheels up; for the wheel's shadow would touch the wheel otherwise, which is not the case.
On a photo of Apollo 15 (AS15-82-11155), we can see a very strange footprint of which I show a close-up.
The sole does not correspond with the one of an astronaut's boot.
It must be the one of a moon dweller who happened to be passing by!
Often we can see strange things which are hidden in darkness, and that it is possible to make appear by adding luminosity on the photo.
Here is for instance a photo of the command module of Apollo 15 taken in space.
we can guess something weird on this photo; in order to make it clearly appear, we just have to add luminosity on the photo, and we then obtain this:
We can then see appear what is obviously a copper ring.
I would be surprised if copper rings could be found in the lunar sky!
On a photo of Apollo 15, which is taken from the command module, we can see the reflection of the astronaut's hand who is taking the photo on the glass.
And we can see on the reflection that this hand is wearing a ring.
Only the commander Scott was wearing a ring; the two other astronauts were wearing none.
But, whereas Scott's ring had a black sapphire, the one of the reflection visibly didn't have this sapphire and was brilliant instead, which is contradictory.
A new joke!
In Apollo 16, an astronaut has jumped twice.
He is taken in both jumps by the other astronaut as he is at the top of his jump.
When he is up, the lunar attraction forces him to have a vertical orientation (like on earth).
As a consequence, his legs should make the same angle with the shadow of the lunar module; but it is not the case, this angle is clearly different on the two photos.
On a whole series of photos in Apollo 16, we can see brown spots, which are repetitive, and which look like mud spots which would have landed on the lens of the camera.
If it was defects of the film, these spots would be random, and not identical on all the photos on which they appear.
And they are absolutely identical, which can be observed by making an animation with photos on which these spots appear.
It can't be lunar dust, for lunar dust is dry and wouldn't adhere to the lens.
It is definitively mud spots, and there is no mud on the moon!
This couple of photos show two views of a same rock.
I have made close-ups of the same part of this rock, and we can see something weird, which looks like a sculpted animal, and it is not the same on the two views.
I have put this animal to yellow so you can well see this weird animal which changes between the two views.
Here is a couple of photos of a tripod in Apollo 16.
Here are close-ups of this tripod; on the left photo, we can see its third leg; the one which is farther than the two other ones on the view; on the second photo, taken under a slightly different angle, we can no more see the third leg, for it is completely hidden by a leg of the tripod; indeed, it can only be hidden by the frontal leg of the tripod, and not by the central bar, because of its shadow which is not visible between the leg and the central bar.
I have made a test with a tripod, and look how it should be disposed so that the frontal leg can hide the third leg...And you can see that, in order to be the case; it must be disposed completely differently from the tripod of the Apollo photo.
And, if I dispose my tripod the same way as on the Apollo photo, then you can see that the third leg of the tripod is not hidden, but well visible instead!
It means that, if their tripod is a normal tripod, then the way it is disposed, we should see its third leg as the red line I have represented; the third leg should not be completely hidden.
The conclusion is that, in order for the frontal leg to hide the third leg with the tripod disposed that way, the third leg had to be twisted in such a way that it would make the tripod unstable!
The three legs of the tripod and its central bar meet on a common point, and so it must be the same for their shadows...
These shadows meet outside the photo.
But, if I prolong the shadows of the legs and the central bar outside the photo so we can see how they meet, then we can check that there is one of the shadows which does not meet the common meeting point of the others!
On a photo of Apollo 15, if we make a close-up on the astronaut, then we can observe something weird: Whereas, on the photo, the astronaut has his hands turned outward, on the reflection of the visor, they appear like he had them turned inward instead!
On a photo of Apollo 16, we can see a family photo that the astronaut Duke would have dropped on the lunar ground, so to leave a souvenir on it.
But, if this photo had really been placed on the lunar ground, then it would have every chance to be burned by the sun if not put in the shade.
But there is something which is still more remarkable...
...If we make a close-up on this photo, then we can see that the younger boy, the one with the red sweater, has his right arm consistently longer than his left one, and even longer than the ones of his elder brother!
A new joke!
Apollo fans generally try to explain the problems with shadows directions by the fact that the uneven relief would deviate them.
But, on this photo, the camera's shadow and the wheel's shadow are outright perpendicular:
I dare them to reproduce this!
Normally, here is what we should have seen: The camera's shadow oriented like the one of the wheel (or vice versa).
Here is an animation which has been made with consecutive photos of Apollo 17 (from AS17-133-20295), which ones are taken as the rover is driving forward on the lunar ground (the frontal camera is not turning).
On this animation, I have circled holes which can be seen on the successive photos...and we can see that these holes, instead of shifting in the direction that the rover is going, shift in a completely different direction, almost a perpendicular one.
It's like the rover,instead of normally riding, was laterally sliding on its wheels!
Here is a couple of photos of the flag and an astronaut saluting it.
Between the two photos, the rover and the lunar module shift right relatively to the flag; this is the indication that the astronaut who takes the photo has shifted right between the two photos.
I take a photo of my bike before cars, then I shift right, and I take a new photo; as I shifted, the bike moves left relatively to the cars which are behind, but, as its angle of view has also changed, it also shows a rotation, although I didn't touch it; it is the change of angle of view which causes this rotation.
I can also manually turn my bike, so that it shows no rotation between the two photos; the manual rotation compensates then the optical one.
It means that the flag, as it is seen under a different angle on the second photo, should show a rotation like on the right photo that I modified to make it plausible.
The fact that the flag shows no rotation on the second photo, whereas the photographer shifted, is a clear anomaly.
It is not the only anomaly in the same style.
Others can be found, still more elaborated, like on this series of photos (from AS17-134-20509) of which I made an animation.
What we can see is that:
- The lunar module moves right relatively to the hills behind, because the photographer moves left as he takes the photos.
- The flag moves still more right on the photo, which means that it does not only move right relatively to the hills behind, but also relatively to the lunar module, because it is closer to the photographer than the lunar module.
If we make a close-up on the lunar module and the flag in this animation, we then can see that:
- The lunar module shows a clear rotation along the animation, which is normal since its angle of view changes by the fact that the photographer shifts left.
- On the other hand, the flag which should show a still more important rotation than the lunar module, for it is closer to the photographer, shows practically none, at least much less than it should.
A new trick playing on the angle of view!
On a photo of Apollo 17 (AS17-134-20453), the solar battery appears to be broken; how can the rover work with a broken battery?
This stereoscopic view shows two photos of a probe of which we can see the handle, placed before a rock.
Which is surprising is that, on one photo, the handle appears to be in plastic, and that, on the other one, it appears to be metallic.
How can the matter of this handle change from one photo to the other?
This couple of photos of Apollo 17 shows a rock taken under two clearly different angles.
But, whereas the rock shows a clear rotation between the two photos, there is a part of it, that I colored in red, which shows no rotation at all, when it should show the same rotation as the one of the rock it is a part of.
This animation made with the two views of a rock clearly shows the problem, and gives a weird impression.
A new joke!
If we make a close-up (represented on the right view of the stereoscopic view) on the visor of the astronaut of the photo of Apollo 17 which is represented on the left view of the stereoscopic view, then we can observe something which is extremely weird: The astronaut who is taking the photo, and whose the reflection appears in the visor, has obviously no backpack; how does he manage to breathe on the moon?
May be is he currently making apnea?
On a photo of Apollo 17, we can see a clip which is attached to the mudguard of a rear wheel; this clip projects a shadow which is weird.
Indeed, instead of the shadow we can see on the left view of the stereoscopic view, the shadow which is obtained should rather be the one I corrected on the right view!
On this photo of Apollo 17, the parabolic antenna which is located on the top of the lunar module has a shadow which is exaggerately big, not corresponding to its actual size.
This is a photo of the command module which would have been taken from the lunar module.
To start with, the command module has a strange attitude on this photo.
But this is not the most surprising thing; what is most surprising is that we cannot see at all the service module behind the top cone, whereas the command module is in bias.
The service module is this cylindrical part which is behind the cone of the command module.
Normally, the command module being seen in bias, the service module should be partially visible, like on this photo I modified; I may have exaggerated it, so to well show its presence, but what is sure is that it should not be completely hidden.
So you can compare, there is another photo of the command module taken in bias in Apollo 14, and on the latter, we can well see the service module; so there is no reason we should not see it on the photo of Apollo 17, especially since, on the photo of Apollo 17, it is still more in bias than on the photo of Apollo 14!
We have seen several cases of couples of photos contradicting each other.
But there are other contradiction cases.
Indeed all the videos and photos which are taken in the same time systematically contradict each other.
I am going to show two examples, but there are many other ones.
Here are two photos which are supposed to have been taken by Schmitt, whereas this one has already returned to the rover, and that Cernan is going to join him.
On the first photo, we can see Cernan in the distance, still small on the photo, for he is still at some distance from the rover.
On the second photo, we can almost not see him, we just see a little of him, but he is mostly hidden by an element of the rover, for he is still small because of the distance.
On the other hand, we can see the camera of the rover, the one which takes the videos, and we can see that it is facing the high gain antenna (the one which is shaped as an inverted umbrella).
But, on the video that the camera is filming, unlike what the second photo shows, the camera is not facing the pole of the high gain antenna, but is on its left instead, and only passes it after Cernan has returned to the rover.
We so have a disagreement between what the photo shows and what the camera films.
Second example of contradiction between photos and video.
At one moment, in Apollo 17, the astronauts are near a big rock, called Tracy rock.
The photos show Schmitt on one extremity of the rock.
He picks up the gnomon to take it back to the rover.
Indeed, the rover in on the opposite extremity of the rock on the photos.
Important detail: The camera which films the videos is on the rover.
Why is this detail important?
Because, on the video, we can see that Schmitt is not on the opposite extremity of the rock, but on the same extremity as the one close to the rover.
And Cernan goes to the other side of the rock than the one he is when he takes the photos.
This means that the video and photos which are taken in the same time contradict each other, are in total disagreement!
And, for all the other videos, it's the same: they also systematically contradict the photos which are taken in the same time.
There are even some direct hints of the trickery which are sometimes given.
For instance, in Apollo 14, we can see a puppet briefly pass before the camera; it passes very swiftly, one must have to be attentive to notice it.
In Apollo 15, we can suddenly see a white cable fall before the camera; yet, there is absolutely no reason for this cable to fall that way, for there is currently no astronaut near the rover.
And, in Apollo 17, we can briefly see a strand be agitated before the camera, and, what is still more surprising, is that it passes behind the astronauts and not before!
There still are other hints which are given in the videos, which show that they can in no way have been shot on the moon.
For instance, in Apollo 17, at a given moment, Schmitt must pour "lunar dust" in a bag that Cernan is holding.
He seems to be a little clumsy, and makes the lunar dust fall outside the bag; but in fact, it is absolutely not clumsiness, it is absolutely intentional, so that, if we measure the time that the dust falls on the ground, we can see that is falling at earth speed, and not lunar speed.
You have undestood by now, I think; those who were in charge of faking the lunar missions have intentionally left plenty of hints of the trickery, because they didn't want to be the obedient accomplices of the criminals who were forcing them to fake the missions.
The engineers who conceived the technology of Apollo did the same.
They intentionally created an insane technology, which was standing no chance to work, so that those who would study it later could see that it was making no sense, and that there never was a decent technology allowing to make a lunar module land on the moon.
There is not a single electronic interface in the whole technical documentation which does not contain an intentional error.
It is a completely absurd technology.
First, the engineers conceived a completely delirious computer.
Certainly the technology of the core rope memory was existing in that time, and even used in some computers.
But there was a very important difference between the core rope memory of Apollo and the one of the computers which were using it:
On the computer of Apollo, the wires which were programming the bits, by either crossing of bypassing cores, were sense lines, while, on the other computers, they were activation lines instead.
While these lines were receiving a current in the memory of Apollo, these lines were sending a current into an unique sense line in the memories of other computers.
And it makes a very important difference.
And, even if there were existing some memories (ex printer memory) in which the bit lines were used as sense lines, they were working in such a way that only a sense line was receiving a current.
The problem of the core rope memory is that there were too many lines which were receiving an induction current when a core was activated.
And the current which goes though each sense line which receives it is divided by the number of sense lines which receive the induction current.
If there are too many lines which receive the induction current, this one may become so small in each of them that it can no more be detected and amplified.
And this is not the only problem of this memory; the amplifier of the sense line also shows several anomalies which make that it cannot work normally, and there is not even the capacitor on the ends of the secondary of the transformer which can be found on other memories, and which allows to maintain the pulse, which otherwise would be too short to be read.
And the erasable memory does not work better either.
On the schema, the write and read circuit share a common part, which is a total heresy, since they only communicate by induction and must not touch each other.
And, like for the core rope memory, the amplifier of the sense line of the erasable memory also shows a major default: When a transistor is activated, it would connect two points forced to two very different voltages, which of course cannot work, and intended as a joke!
How can a computer which has a memory which cannot work do its job?
And all the rest of the computer is in the same absurd style: The instruction set is delirious (with instructions to count hardware pulses!), and the programs are full of errors of logic and syntax.
Normally, the lateral jets (which were working in "all or nothing", which means that they could only be activated or not activated, but nor partially activated) should have been controlled via a logical combination of the couples of positive and negative translation and rotation commands (some examples shown on this drawing).
But what we see on the interface of command of the jets is quite different, we see something completely illogical, nothing to do with a normal interface.
Moreover, it is made still more absurd by the presence of electromechanical relays which are commanded in such a way that they are always pulled to the ground, whatever the commands applied to them.
This means that, even if the computer had worked, it could not anyway have controlled the RCS (lateral jets).
That makes the lunar module doubly uncontrollable.
Like it was enough, the ascent module of the LEM had a big problem, with an excentered fuel tank which was shifting the center of gravity from the line of thrust.
This was making that the RCS had constantly to correct the torque created by the disalignment of the center of gravity; this was generating a swaying move of the lunar module, and also wasting the fuel of the RCS.
Well, this of course considering that the LEM could control its RCS.
But in fact, as we have seen that the LM was incapable to control its RCS, the LM would have crashed shortly after having lifted off!
According to the technical documentation of the LM, the radar could not work either!
The landing procedure was abnormal too.
Indeed, when the lunar probe was detecting the lunar ground, an electronic interface was activating transistors allowing to shut the engine off.
If it had been made normally, this interface should have directly shut the engine off.
Instead of that, it was just lighting lamps, and the astronauts, upon seeing these lamps (one for each astronaut) had to push a button which was allowing to shut the engine off.
But this human interaction was adding a delay for shutting the engine off, which was totally useless, and could have been avoided.
What increases the absurdity of this procedure is that the button that the astronauts had to push to shut the engine off was not acting when pressed, but when released; in order to shut the engine off, this button didn't just have to make a simple come, but a full come and go!
This was adding a new delay for shutting the engine off.
With all theses added delays, there was a non negligible chance that the engine would not be shut when the LM touches the ground, with consequences which might be catastrophic (as the engine was quite close to the ground when the LM is resting on the ground).
The table of the powered descent contains several anomalies, but the most notable anomaly is that, when the LM is close to the lunar ground, instead of behing stationary relatively to this one, it still has a lateral speed it will not have the time to null before touching the ground.
And, as the LM has no wheels, if it has a lateral speed when touching the ground, it is sure to tip over!
The way to designate the landing point was also absurd, and, with this way of designating it, the LM was sure to miss it!
The ball which is attached to each leg of the lander should have completely filled the socket of the footpad; instead of that it was consistently smaller than the hole of the socket; but, if it is smaller, it means that it can get out of it; there were wires securing the connection, but these wires were not very strong and would not have withstood an important shock.
A new absurdity which makes doubt the project was serious.
Some other visual problems.
The engineers say that, in order for the video which is filmed by the camera of the rover to be correctly transmitted toward the earth, where it was watched, the high gain antenna had to be correctly oriented toward the earth, and they show this video to go with this comment:
You can see that, on this video, the antenna (of which we can see the shadow) plays the gig, and certainly does not remain correctly oriented toward the earth, and, in spite of this, the quality of the video does not suffer from it, and remains the same all along the sequence, which is contradictory with what the engineers said.
This is supposed to be a sequence which would have been filmed as the command module is orbiting the moon.
We can see the earth move up above the lunar horizon.
In fact, what makes the earth go up is the fact that the command module orbits the moon.
If the command module was not orbiting, and remaining stationary relatively to the moon, the earth would not move above the lunar horizon.
But, if the command module is effectively currently orbiting the moon, then we should see the moon holes shift on the lunar ground...yet, you can see that they don't actually shift.
This sequence is therefore wrong.
Here is a sequence of the landing of Apollo 17; just before landing, the lunar module is still in horizontal attitude, then it suddenly switches from a horizontal attitude to a vertical one and descends to land.
Why does this make no sense?
Because, when the lunar module is close to the lunar surface, at reduced horizontal speed, it does not have a sufficient horizontal speed which would allow to create a centrifugal force which allows to counter the lunar attraction, and it has no wings either to carry it, and it is so obliged to have a vertical attitude to be able to counter the lunar attraction with its main engine; it cannot have a horizontal attitude.
The sequence which is shown on the left view of the stereoscopic view is taken as the lunar module is close to land on the moon. The shape we see on the lunar ground is supposed to be the shadow of the lunar module, and so must move with it.
The problem is that, if you well observe, we can see holes on the lunar ground which erratically move in all directions; this would mean that, instead of landing in a regular normal way, the lunar module would land completely in zigzag, a little like what I show on the right view of the stereoscopic view, which has obviously no sense; in reality, the lunar module would never land this way, which has every chance to end with a overturning.
This is the final sequence of the liftoff of the lunar module of Apollo 17, when it leaves the moon to go back to the command module (filmed from the camera of the rover).
we can see the lunar module go back down, and start to make a strange horizontal sinusoid.
In fact the lunar module was effectively making a sinusoidal move as it was ascending, because of an excentered fuel tank, which was forcing the lunar module to constantly correct its trajectory, but this sinusoidal move was vertical and not horizontal.
The problems which concern the survival system are simple to understand.
In the backpack of the astronauts, the pressure of the hydraulic circuits was regulated by automatic valves.
But it was possible that an automatic valve would become defective.
That's why the astronauts had a control box on their torso, which was allowing them to make pressure checks.
When a pressure was becoming abnormal, it was the indication of a defective automatic valve, and then the astronaut was supposed to act on a manual valve to avoid the overpressure, and prevent it from becoming dangerous and explosive.
But the problem was that these manual valves, instead of being convenient to use, were located and the bottom of the backpack, so not easy to reach for the astronaut, and also quite small and close to each other.
This makes that the astronaut could hardly reach them, and had every chance to act on the bad one, or act on several ones in the same time.
So everything was made so that it would not work fine, and that the backpack had a non negligible chance of exploding!
There is still better:
On the bottom of their torso, the astronauts had a CO2 purge system, that they were starting by pulling a ball.
This ball was attached to a pin which was blocking the exit of the CO2; by pulling the ball, they were removing the pin, and the CO2 purge could then start.
It means that the CO2 purge was easy to start for the astronaut.
Yes, it was easy to start, but the astronaut not only had to start the purge, but also had to stop it, when it was over.
Yet, the ball which was attached to the pin was only allowing to remove it, and not to put it back in place.
It means that, to stop the purge, the astronaut had to take the small pin between his fingers, and insert it into a small hole he could not see, nor could feel it with his big pressurized gloves!
It means that stopping the CO2 purge was practically impossible to do for the astronauts!
If things had been normally done, it should have been as easy for the astronauts to stop the CO2 purge as to start it!
