Apollo 11: Something went somewhere

Apollo 11 launch
Launch of Apollo 11, July 16, 1969

Few of us remember the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs that led to Apollo 11, the one that landed men on the moon. So mention of Apollo 6 is not going to ring any bells. This mission, unmanned, was a test of the Saturn 5 rocket engines, and was fraught with difficulties. The destination was low earth orbit (LEO), and the entire craft suffered from “pogo oscillations,” or a vibration that would eventually cause mission failure if not remedied. Think of driving down the highway with a bad tire.Eventually the vibrations will cause other failures.

 

Aoollo 6 Randy Walsh is a pilot and certified flight instructor who wrote the article The Apollo Moon Mission: Hiding a Hoax in Plain Sight in Nexus Magazine, behind a pay wall. He quotes Dr. Gennady Ivchenkov, PhD, an Engineer who published a 55-page article on the F-1 engine, of which there were five on the Saturn Five rocket.

… on the picture of the Apollo 6 flight, it is obvious that one of more F-1 motors of the first stage are burning. Kerosene is leaking, catching fire and forming a huge tail of flame and soot.

Indeed there were serious problems that ran deeper than pogo oscillations. It could be that all of the problems of Apollo 6 were the shortcomings of Rocketdyne’s F-1 engines.

I leave Walsh and his copyrighted article there. It is largely taken from chapter two of his book of the same title as his article, which I have on order.  It is available at Amazon. What is far more useful for me is to read between the lines. Walsh is described as a revisionist and avid researcher with an interest in history, aviation, the space industry, and music. I suspect in his writings for Nexus he has gone as far as he can in using the word “hoax” to describe the Apollo program.

The interesting thing is that seven months after Apollo 6, on December 8, 1968, NASA had apparently fixed all the problems, a remarkable achievement given the short time frame they were working. Apollo 8, if you remember, circumnavigated the moon around Christmas time as the astronauts aboard read scripture. I am not quoting Walsh, as he says nothing like this, but as I see it NASA had by that time given up – perhaps the upper echelons of NASA never even contemplated a real moon landing. Apollo 8 was probably unmanned and carried very little weight, making the F-1 engines (if used) more suitable for the job. It probably ditched in the ocean not too long after takeoff. All the rest was made for TV.

In general, says Ivchenkov, “… the F-1 engines produced smoke – they worked and were delivering something to somewhere.” That is all we can know for sure … something went to somewhere.

Phil Pollacia features prominently in Walsh’s article. He witnessed the Apollo 11 take off, the one that put men on the moon. He was a mathematician who worked at IBM for NASA and in the Gemini program. He carried his Super 8 movie camera to Kennedy Space Center that day, and filmed the entire launch sequence. He was not a skeptic, and believed that we landed men on the moon. Now 71 years old, I do not know what he thinks, but it does not matter. His film, at 175 seconds, is a continuous record of the launch. It is hard and objective evidence. (Most of NASA’s footage is separate clips from different film sequences, edited.)

Here is what is critical and key in the Walsh piece: Pollacia’s film shows Apollo 11 breaking through cirrostratus clouds at 105 seconds. Such cloud formations are approximately 26,000 feet off the ground. According to NASA’s record of the launch, at 105 seconds the rocket was at 79,000 feet – in other words, it had not gone even one-third of the distance it was supposed to have traveled.

What is up with that? To this seasoned skeptic, nothing new even though hard physical evidence like this is very surprising. What we watched on July 16, 1969, was a rocket with a lightened payload, under-powered and unable to go far. It took off, ditched in the ocean, everything else a fantasy provided by the TV. (Think about it – picking up the astronauts at sea could have been filmed anytime, even months in advance.) At 26,000 feet at 105 seconds, it was not going to achieve LEO, much less leave the Earth’s atmosphere.

Here is an article by By Alexander Popov PhD and Andrei Bulatov titled Did This Saturn Five Rocket Get to the Moon? Walsh cites both men in his article, and the Pollacia film features prominently. It is not copyrighted. I leave it to the reader to form your own judgments. For me going in I knew the Apollo program to be fraudulent, and JFK’s 1961 words a knowing part of that fraud.  But I think what we have here is physical proof to that effect.


Here are the conclusions of Popov and Bulatov, translated from Russian. The authors’ CV is at the end of the linked article above.

Therefore, based on the results of this study, it is experimentally established that:

1) at the 105th second into the flight the rocket was three times behind the stated ascent rate;
2) at the same time (or more accurately, in the interval of 107-109 sec) the rocket travelled nine times slower than it should have done, according to the NASA record.

Did this Saturn V rocket get to the Moon? Based on these experimental results, it must be concluded that such a slow rocket most likely ended up in the waters of the Atlantic. Moreover, it carried no space craft, and had no astronauts aboard.

10 thoughts on “Apollo 11: Something went somewhere

    1. You have to remember that on Star Trek people aboard the Enterprise went from zero to the speed of light in an instant. How can this be possible? Inertia dampers.

      If they can do it on Star Trek at the speed of light, NASA can do it at Kennedy Space Center at a mere 17,000 mph. Inertia dampers.

      Like

  1. I asked Miles Mathis about the Theranos and Elizabeth Holmes scam. I never got a response. So I assume that must be real. So everything on the news is not fake.

    Like

    1. I had never heard of such a thing … but to see a company rise to instant wealth and then be destroyed could be several scenarios, one of which would be that it was a genuine endeavor destroyed by threatened established enterprises. Rather than rely on MM, why not look into the matter yourself? You are equipped with the same cranial matter atwixt your hearing recepticles.

      Like

  2. Mark,
    My mind was blown several years ago when I realized we had not gone to the moon-
    I mean, I WATCHED IT ON TV!
    How could it not be real?

    And I’m amazed at how many people will defend the moon landings, and space travel, period-
    And will call those of us who don’t believe it
    “Tinfoil hat crowd.” Please!

    My husband’s sister’s father-in- law worked for NASA back in the day, and she will not hear any talk of the moon landings being fake, cause “ he was there.”

    (Sigh) you can’t convince people who don’t wanna be convinced.

    Like

    1. Read the Mark Twain quote upper right on the top of this blog. People do not like to admit they have been fooled. That is they key to this kind of work, the humility to realize that we can all be fooled, not just in the past, but in the present as well.

      Like

  3. I love the factoid about the elevation of cirrostratus clouds. This kind of tangential evidence is great for prying closed minds open. Thank you!

    Like

  4. Why does the official narrrative tell us the metal dirigibles guy is also the rocket equation guy?

    The concept of a metal-clad dirigible airships was again explored in the late 1800s by Russian rocket theorist Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky.[6] He wrote that since his teens (in the early 1870s) “the idea of the all-metal aerostat has never left my mind”[7] and by 1891 he had produced detailed designs of a variable volume corrugated metal envelope airship that did not need ballonets. These were submitted to an Imperial department for aeronautics, which convened a conference to consider it. In 1891 they declined his request for a grant to produce a model, considering the idea “cannot have any considerable practical importance”.[8] In 1892 he published his designs as Aerostat Metallitscheski (the all-metal dirgible aerostat).[9][10][11]
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal-clad_airship

    …ever google monster Russian cosmism?

    Like

  5. I’m starting to wonder if there are no “manned” rocket launches. Has anyone seen strong evidence to the contrary?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s