Note to readers: This post originally appeared in 2019, and has in it evidence that Apollo 11 was severely under-powered, and had no astronauts or space capsule aboard. It was merely ditched in the Atlantic, its sole purpose to fulfill JFK’s 1961 pledge to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. It does not address the Apollo 12-17, which never left lower earth orbit, but were on some other mission, the supposed moon landings part of what Neil Armstrong called “Truth’s Protective Layers.”
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.
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.
27 thoughts on “Apollo 11: Something went somewhere”
Best argument I’ve ‘heard’
official rebuttal contingency
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.
… I’m leaning more towards “nothing went nowhere”. 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
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.
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.
Perhaps Mathis has other things to do, or he thinks the scam should be easy for anybody with any discernment to see. But I am sure if he does research the subject, he’ll probably uncover numerous red-flags in the storyline – like the fact that none of the prominent investors such as Henry Kissinger and the Devos dynasty (the family that gave us ex-U.S. Education Secretary Betsy Devos) of the company caught on to the deception early on and the fact that its operations were cloaked by tremendous secrecy. And, of course, her documented and possible blood connections to the moneyed aristocracy of the Western world.
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.
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.
I love the factoid about the elevation of cirrostratus clouds. This kind of tangential evidence is great for prying closed minds open. Thank you!
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. He wrote that since his teens (in the early 1870s) “the idea of the all-metal aerostat has never left my mind” 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”. In 1892 he published his designs as Aerostat Metallitscheski (the all-metal dirgible aerostat).
…ever google monster Russian cosmism?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m starting to wonder if there are no “manned” rocket launches. Has anyone seen strong evidence to the contrary?
You and people like you present a real threat in terms of falsehoods and misinformation for the masses via social networking (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc.) … not to mention its influence in the classroom as it pertains to the dilution of the STEM (Sciences, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) educational process resulting in less student interest and the weakening of the job/work base in these fields.
Former research analyst at the Lunar Receiving Laboratory, Project Apollo, 1969-1972.
I have seen in these past years a mass of evidence, which includes this piece which offers solid evidence that the Saturn rocket that was Apollo 11 was
40,00053,000 feet lower than it should have been. It therefore could not have achieved LOE, much less gone to the moon. This is the strongest evidence I have seen.
So your worry about the kids, that they may not be buying the nonsense, rings hollow. I want them to be be skeptical critical thinkers, not part of some groupthink, some mindset that never questions authority. STEM … Stop Thinking Earn Money?
I am not troubled that so many that were part of Apollo were not in on the game. You were moles working in the dark.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed, the ongoing push for the silliest of hoaxes of history dilutes the understanding of real science and engineering.
Isn’t it strange that the topic is avoided like the plague in universities?
Greetings, the first geologist who built a 4D model of a lunar “landing” site. Ouch.
You are really foolish, Tokarski. Please do not send me anymore of your nonsensical replies.
Not sure you understand blogs. It’s complicated. When you comment and I respond, we both get emails. Technology is amazing.
Is it true every last ‘crew member’ was or is a Freemason? Did that trickle down to the support team’s as well. None of the actors portraying space traveler’s would swear upon a Bible that they did indeed make it to the moon. Wearing aluminum suits whist prancing about on the moon. Playing golf on the moon. Driving ‘dune buggies on moon. Planting an American (masonic designed) flag on the moon. TV cameras on the moon. George Lucas, Steven Spielberg & Stanley Kubrick were said to have a hand in the production of one of the greatest frauds of all time.
What we needed in this matter was more than photos and shadows cast carious directions. That was all fun, but most people are not able to trust their eyes and so listen to authority figures. If they say we went to the moon, then we went to the moon. Why trust their own eyes?
What Walsh brought us was hard and cold evidence. That rocket was 53,000 feet lower than it was supposed to be. Even a non-rocket scientist can see that it is not going to overcome gravity, escape the Earth’s atmosphere, and then travel 243,000 miles. It was underpowered. Therefore it is natural to conclude it wasn’t going anywhere but to the drink.
Notice that Mr. Chambers above doesn’t deal with evidence, but merely flouts his authority. He worked for NASA 69-72, case closed. Now his concern is that school children will not look up to NASA with starry-eyed naïveté. But just as we did not go to the Moon, so too will we soon not be going to Mars. Present technology is so much better! Back then they used backlit movie sets. These days they have CGI and immense prowess if faking what we see on the TV screen. And Elon Musk. Mr. Chambers need not worry. The kids will eat it up. Perhaps 20% or more back then did not believe the landings were real. Today I will be it to be less than 5%. Americans these days don’t have good bullshit detectors.
Prove me wrong.
243,000 miles there and then another 243,000 miles back to Earth. Departed July 16th, spent 22 hours on the moon’s surface and returned on July 24. So about 4 days to get there and then 3 days and 2 hours to get back. I’m not buying it.
That and more oddities are listed here.
And a good moment to share the great work of the late Dave McGowan again.
Wagging The Moondoggie – Audio reading:
(Fake death 11/22/15, I should add.)
That is a completely unproven fantasy from Mark Tokarski only based on his death day. The hubris!
I so hope to not die on 9/11 or 10/31, or some internet “researcher” accuses me of faking my death…
The moon not so landing, sounds like the covid not so virus!
You’re such a great writer. I always feel like I’m in conversation with you when I read your work.
It’s clear the Apollo 11 lunar surface pictures and videos couldn’t have been taken on the moon and were faked in studio on Earth. What it doesn’t tell us is if they actually went to the moon in some manner and what actually happened. NASA et al have lied so much about pretty much everything that practically any conspiracy theory that hangs together and is internally self consistent is plausible.
John, usually after a first comment is approved, everything after sails through without interference. I do not know why you continue to go to moderation. Be patient.