MOON FAKERY-2

Report #191

August 10, 2010

 

 

This report is about more examples of Moon evidence that becomes highly questionable when one takes a closer look at it as is true of so much of the older Moon science data. This particular evidence comes in two sets. The first set is minor, very subtle and easy to miss, but yet still telling. The second set is much more obvious but still easy to miss depending on the viewer's presumptions about what he or she should be looking for.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5906

The above 1st Apollo 11 AS11-40-5906 image is a wide-angle context scene demonstrating a cable extending from left to right across the top portion of the entire image with its length and position pointed out with yellow arrows. This is the primary evidence I'm reporting on here in this first set. The center dark shadow is of course one of the astronauts taking the picture.

Note that there are various astronaut foot prints disturbing the soil around the cable and that the cable in spots along its length appears to have soil covering it. It is logical to consider that this covering parts of the cable along its length with soil may have been done by the astronauts to weigh down the cable to make the uncoiled cable easier to step over and keep its previous coiled state from being in big loops off the ground and thereby a hazard to footing.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5906

The above 2nd image demonstrates a closer view of a section of the cable in the left area of the image. Note on the left in this image where the cable goes into the ground and the astronaut's boot print appears to have packed down some soil on the cable. However, at that spot on the left also take note of the bright reflectivity of the cable just before it goes in the ground. Now look to the right along the exposed cable. See how the cable clearly throws a shadow on the ground under it indicating that the cable is in varying heights above the ground along that length before it goes in the ground on the right.

Yet also note how very spotty the cable reflectivity is along its length. The question becomes what would cause the cable to be partially obscured in this way when it should be bright and reflective? Is Moon soil adhering to this otherwise slick cable surface even where the cable is not making contact with the ground as demonstrated by the cable casting a shadow? Does it seem odd to you when this characteristic is pointed out? If not, it should.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5906

The above 3rd and 4th images begin to tell the real tale. Where the cable is bowed above the ground as demonstrated by its cast shadows, there is something either partially or totally obscuring sections of the cable that are sticking up in the air and that is true even though the cable should be very visible to us all along its length, especially considering the cable's natural bright white reflectivity.

That obscuring "something" isn't something natural like the soil. Rather it is layers of semi-opaque grainy textured smudge image tampering applications. However, the purpose of the tampering applications was not to obscure the cable, that is just accidental sloppy work and a mistake. The tampering is actually a large wide field designed to cut resolution, obscure the ground itself to either side of the cable, and provide the false illusion of ground. The problem was that it is very hard for the tampering field not to cross over and overlap that thin bright cable boundary as well as the cable's thin dark shadow in places.

When it crosses over the cable putting down a single layer of opaque smudge, the coverage on a given section of the cable is spotty but you can still make out the cable's appearance. When it crosses over two or more times putting down multiple layers, the coverage is more complete essentially removing sections of the cable from view making sections appear buried despite the shadow presence still there as best demonstrated in the above 4th image.

So, if they are going to this much trouble to block out and fake the basic rock and soil terrain itself, what could have been there in the smallest rock and soil geology that would have been so offending to the secrecy types? Could it be something they didn't want to chance our seeing on the Moon's surface close and far? Or, was it to both degrade resolution and at the same time "create" the uniform dull gray look of Moon rock and soil geology but here on Earth?

I'm not going to try tell you why this obfuscation and misdirection was done as I'm not informed enough to draw such conclusions. However, some say and present evidence that we never truly set anyone down on the Moon. I can't directly know for sure about that but what I can tell and show you is that the kind of evidence above and below does exist in the science data and can't just be ignored if we desire truth and then you must draw your own conclusion as to anything beyond that.

Now let's move on to the 2nd set of evidence below. I've briefly reported on this type of thing before but it is significant enough to warrant repeating in a little more detail.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5902

The above 5th image demonstrates what is supposed to be a scene on the Moon during the Apollo 11 mission. It demonstrates an astronaut in full gear in relation to the size of one of the Landing Module's (LM) footpads. This is just to help establish the size scale of the footpad and that it is quite large. Note that the footpad is in a wide shallow inverted bowl shape with an elevated rim and covered with shiny gold foil. That shape makes a good catch system for airborne particles doesn't it.

Now imagine the LM coming down for a landing on the Moon's surface at this location with the braking decent thruster on the underside of the craft at its center between the legs and footpads pointed downward and burning away to slow the decent and blowing up a cloud of dusty soil as the thruster nozzle nears the surface. In debriefing the astronauts after the mission, it was confirmed that the Moon soil was very fine and powder like and that the final come to a rest position of the LM thruster nozzle was only about 1 foot off the ground.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5864

The above 6th image demonstrates what the braking decent thruster nozzle looks like, where it is positioned relative to the outer legs and footpads, and how far off of the ground it is. Note there appears to be very little in the way of obvious ground raying evidence of the force of the thruster against the ground. Neil Armstrong at this LINK at 109:26:16 made this very observation in his debriefing statements after the mission as well as comments as to the Moon's fine powdery surface at 109:25:08.

So why would the Moon's soil be so loose, fine, and powdery like dust relative to Earth? It's mostly because in theory the Moon has no atmosphere and so it has no protection from space born objects flying into it. That means that it gets a constant pounding of small and larger space objects and this pounding over thousands and millions of years creates a finer and finer ground up powdery soil that on the Moon is called regolith.

Likewise the Moon is only 25% the size of Earth and current science tells us that the Moon's gravity is just 16.7% that of Earth's gravity. In other words, once the Moon's fine powdery regolith is kicked up by the descending LM landing, there's not much reason for it to settle down any time soon. So, after the landing, the astronauts remain inside the LM for a while before exiting and use that time preparing.

The point being that the LM decent thruster nozzle firing until landing is achieved with the nozzle opening only a foot off the ground in the last moments is going to logically spray a lot of regolith out to the side horizontally across those multiple outer landing leg footpads and there is going to be a cloud of dust raised that must eventually settled back down in the LM area. So those shallow bowl shaped footpads are logically going to have at least a fair amount of visible regolith soil trapped in them.... right? Well its seems the answer to that is actually no as far as the visible evidence goes!

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5918
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5926

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/frame/?AS11-40-5926

As you can see in the above 7th and 8th images and despite all logic and reason, the Apollo 11 LM footpads are ultra clean and free of any regolith or dust of any kind. In addition to the overall bowl shape, look at all those many folds in the gold foil covering that footpad. Every one of them whether larger or smaller is a catch system and none has a speck of dust in them or in that overall footpad bowl shape that I can see. Looks like it just came out of a clean room lab doesn't it and yet it is suppose to be on the Moon landed in loose powdery regolith soil kicked up by the decent thruster with all the implications that come with that.

Some may be considerably disturbed by evidence like this and the implication direction it obviously takes and criticize me and others for bringing such old information to light. Years ago I even had a NASA scientist and a friend of Author C. Clarke tell me that bringing up such old evidence just wasn't "fair." Now I'm a generations old born and bred citizen here in the USA and I'm proud to be an American just as any of you would be in your countries. In my opinion, it is most definitely one of the best countries in the world.

However, as with all countries or any one of us individually, the USA is not perfect and there is always plenty of room for improvement. Making room for truth and dealing with it is an essential part of that improvement. After all, we're suppose to be adults here and not kids floating along in shallow fantasy anymore.

If there is subterfuge here at official level going all the way back at least into the 1950s and 1960s planetary exploration, then we need to know it and even more important try to understand the reason for it. Obviously, if there has been subterfuge going on here for so long, then someone back in those initiating days felt the subterfuge was worth the risk of compromising truth and it may not have started out just for the benefit of a few even if it later may have evolved into that with a life of its own.

If there has been and is currently subterfuge, the question becomes what is there about the Moon that someone feels so compelled to conceal via such massive long term measures? Did we or did we not land people on the Moon in those early Apollo days? If we didn't really land there, then why not? The questioning is reasonable and legitimate as is the need now to know.

There are still people alive from that time that lived the Apollo program years and at the very least likely flew close over the Moon's surface gazing down at....what? They know the truth but due to the relentless march of time they will not be around much longer to give us the straight of it via their own direct observations and reactions. They may have been good soldiers back in that time decades ago to adhere to their orders and do their patriotic duty as they saw it then but this a new time of change with new needs. The secrecy can no longer hold as it has and will fall.

If they've lived a lie and insist on continuing with it in this time in spite of the current clamor for truth by so many, their place in history and legacy will be tarnished forever as dupes of a system gone very wrong in serving its own self oriented ends.

, Investigator