51 years of Apollo 11: The moon (F)lie

Our today's information giant:

Andreas Märki holds a degree in engineering from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich and has worked for over 20 years in the Swiss space industry: So today a competent voice speaks on the subject:

50 years of Apollo 11: The moon (F)lie

I am talking about the official first moon landing in 1969 by Apollo 11.

The boys and girls who stage such deceptions are obviously number fetishists. One of their favourite numbers seems to be 11. That's why I present here 11 pillars.

Why boys and girls? Are there men and women in it?

I don't know, but to express myself in a gender-conform way, I speak of boys and girls. So, no one need feel left out.

Let's go.

Yeah, I'm ready, we're good to go.

1) The Apollo moon landings are considered one of the greatest technical achievements of the last century. How did such a moon landing take place and how many moon landings are said to have taken place? What is the official history of this?

In 1962, Kennedy announced the goal of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely back to earth within the same decade. The United States launched a space program. First, they flew with small space capsules with only one astronaut, then with two-seaters, with which they additionally practiced manoeuvring, in order to fly to the moon with 3 astronauts at the end. In the moon orbit the lunar lander module uncoupled itself with 2 astronauts and landed on the moon. The two astronauts got out, took photos, got back in, and took off from the Moon and flew back to the space capsule, which was still orbiting the Moon and where their colleague was waiting. From there they went back to Earth and they landed in the sea.

There were six successful moon landings in the years 1969-72; a seventh, Apollo 13, did not land on the moon due to a defect. After an orbit around the Moon, the crew returned to Earth safely.

2.) These moon landings are still controversial today.
According to surveys, why do 30-50% of the population question the moon landings, although they are presented by the mass media as a secured historical event?

Two points: First: As fast as space technology was developed for the moon landings, it collapsed again. Its rockets and space capsules went straight into the museum instead of being used again. Secondly: The images that the astronauts claim to have taken on the lunar surface every minute with viewfinderless cameras are far too perfect in terms of image quality and composition. In addition, some images have unnatural features. Emotionally, the viewer then notices that something is wrong, but his attention is repeatedly drawn to details such as a waving flag or possibly missing stars, so that he can no longer see the forest for the trees. The mind can be distracted in this way, but the bad feeling remains. The answer from the gut is then "The moon landings are fake".

3.) What is the most illustrative example that the moon landing of Apollo 11 in 1969 was faked?

In the picture with astronaut Aldrin at the lunar module, the end of the shadow coincides with the end of the moon. If one readjusts the image, one has to cover the background to get the same horizon. This gives rise to the suspicion that the photos were taken in a studio, where one can only see to the end of the illuminated floor and behind it a black wall marks the universe. This suspicion then becomes a certainty in live video: the camera is at Aldrin's head height and you look down on the horizon as steeply as is not possible in a real landscape. Only on a single mountain, such as Kilimanjaro, can one look down to the horizon, but neither on the earth nor on the moon is it as steep as on the live video. Here you would have to see more moon background, which would be perfectly illuminated by the sun. So, the visible "moon surface" of the video image is only the illuminated floor of the studio.

4.) Maybe the cameras on the moon didn't work and NASA just faked the images. The landing could have happened anyway.

In fact, many forgive NASA for these falsified images and yes, the landing could have taken place despite the falsified images. But a mountaineer with a faked summit photo would be blown to pieces. And NASA claims to have done science here. Nevertheless, I like to cite relevant evidence as proof of forgery, such as the rendezvous problem: NASA had never flown a rendezvous at that time, i.e. no spaceship had ever docked with a second one. This manoeuvre would have been needed at the Moon, since the Lunar Module's ascent stage had to dock with the mother ship again after the return from the Moon. To try this for the first time on the Moon, and only with a mounted launch, where the engine jet had no free space to escape, so between upper and lower stage it would have had to exit laterally and burn the bottom of the ascent stage, is too much of a good thing.

5.) But a rendezvous was tested in the preparatory Gemini missions in 1966, i.e. with two-seater spaceships. Gemini 8 was the first time that a rendezvous was successfully carried out, and in this point the USA had also taken the lead against the Soviet Union for the first time.

In fact, NASA reported that Gemini 8 had made a rendezvous for the first time. It would have taken Gemini 8 6½ hours from launch to docking. This would be eight times faster than in the following 47 years, where it always took at least two days. Gemini 11 even claims to have completed the rendezvous in an incredible 94 minutes from launch to docking, 30 times faster than in the following five decades. From this I can only conclude that even the rendezvous of the Gemini missions were only the fantasy of NASA historians, especially when the total time of these missions was too short for a real rendezvous. There is a similarity to the landing of the Lunar Module: This had been rehearsed in advance, but the main rehearsal went wrong, and Armstrong could only save himself by ejecting. I can't believe that it worked on the moon, especially when a landing with the rocket engine ahead was first made on Earth in 2015.

6.) But laser distance measurements to the Moon were also made on the laser retro-reflectors set up by the astronauts. This is a proof of the authenticity of the moon landing. Or were these reflectors placed by unmanned missions?

Laser distance measurements to the moon were first made in 1962, seven years before Apollo 11, by sending a laser pulse to the moon and measuring the time until the backscattered light could be detected. With the laser reflectors left behind by Apollo 11, about 1000 times more light would have had to return than if the naked surface of the Moon had been illuminated as before. But this 1000-fold amplification has never been measured, one could only measure as much light as one could expect from the naked moon surface. In other words, there are no laser retroreflectors on the moon, and the stories associated with them, the moon moving 3.82  0.07cm/year, are fictitious. These stories, however, sound good, cannot be disproved in any other way, and will amaze even the expert.

7.) Then the astronauts involved would have lied all their lives. They wouldn't have been able to get through that!

In fact, the astronauts must have had a hard life after so many lies. It all began a few weeks after landing, when they gave their first press conference after the quarantine. They looked as if they had been shown the consequences of what to expect if they said something wrong. Armstrong shied away from public appearances after that. But for the 25th anniversary he was invited to the White House and gave a speech to students who had also been invited. He said that the truth was hidden under layers of protection that needed to be removed. He never mentioned the moon landing. What do you think he would have said at the 50th anniversary celebration? By the way, most Apollo astronauts were asked to swear on the Bible that they walked on the moon. No one took the oath; Buzz Aldrin even mauled the reporter with fisticuffs.

8.) Someone would have informed the press or published such results on Wikipedia!

I've heard that sentence many times. But with this example I can show how Wikipedia systematically deletes everything immediately that does not fit into the mainstream concept. Wikipedia as a software platform is well done. All changes can be traced and there is a discussion page where you can make suggestions and ask questions. Wikipedia has a serious disadvantage: The authors are anonymous, and so a large organization can take control of individual topics without being recognized. I have experienced myself how an article on Apollo image fakes, which I placed in Wikipedia based on a study by the University of Warwick, was immediately deleted with completely inaccurate arguments, and I, when I resisted, was banned as an author. Several Wikipedians were at work in a coordinated manner. They behaved as if they had been paid for their work. Wikipedia often has excellent articles on technical topics, but there is strict censorship on sensitive topics.

9.) It's like a conspiracy theory. Is there a connection with other conspiracy theories?

Many topics on which one wants to suppress a public discussion are labelled "conspiracy theory". A conspiracy is when several people concoct a secret plan and then carry it out without acknowledging it. So, 9/11 is definitely a conspiracy: Either Bin Laden and his henchmen conspired or then another organization did it. Here, however, the word "conspiracy theorist" is only applied to those who question the official version. And this version speaks of two towers collapsed by airplanes and a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which is said to have collapsed as a result of a fire in the basement, just as only a building collapses when it is blown up. Speaking of number three, the third man at Apollo was Michael Collins. He had back disc problems in 1968, was operated on and had to wear a neck brace for several months. After his recovery in late 1968 he was nominated for Apollo 11. This shows that only one actor was needed on earth.

10.) Did people talk about conspiracies before 1969?

I quote from a 1961 speech by Kennedy to newspaper publishers: "For all around the world we face a monolithic and unscrupulous conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means to extend its sphere of influence - infiltration instead of invasion, coup instead of elections, intimidation instead of freedom of choice, guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system that has compelled immeasurable human and material resources to build a tightly knit, highly efficient machine linking military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political endeavours. ... It is waging the Cold War, in short, with a warlike discipline with which no democracy could ever hope or wish to compete.
... I ask for your help in the colossal task of informing and alerting the American people. Because I have complete confidence in the response and commitment of our citizens once they are fully informed ..."

11.) Is this to be regarded as proof that there are one or more covert organisations pulling strings in the background and also controlling, for example, the US government?

Yeah, Kennedy calls a spade a spade. And if it weren't for these covert organizations, I don't see any reason that the moon landing wouldn't be openly discussed and that 9/11 couldn't be fully investigated either. Someone has to pull the strings in the background, where the democratically elected US government prevents such events from being uncovered. So, this somebody also controls the US government and works against the welfare of mankind.
It seems that topics about which one does not want public discussion are called conspiracy theory.
If the moon landing, considered the mother of all conspiracy theories, is only a phantom, then what about her children?
Don't let your common sense talk you out of it. Look even more closely at topics labelled conspiracy theory. The knowledge you just imparted puts you above this ridiculous labelling.

You can find the whole story with all the references in my book "50 YEARS APOLLO 11 MOON-(F)LIE.

Way to go! Today's info giant Andreas Märki has thus brought 11 topics to the point in no less than 663 seconds. 7 times he was within the time limit and only just overdid the other columns with 11 seconds. The jury would like to thank and congratulate him on this top performance!

The true power of the info giants lies in the creation of this information!
Kla.TV and its viewers will be happy if there are more info giants soon, who summarize their knowledge crisply and briefly.
We are looking forward to hearing from you!

The speaker makes the text documents available to our audience as a download file below this broadcast.

Further information giants: www.kla.tv/infogigant
Registrations for Info-Giants: kontakt@klagemauer.tv
with subject: Info-Giant
Series on this topic: www.kla.tv/NASA

from anm.
Sources/Links:
Buch: 50 Jahre Apollo 11: Die Mond-(F)lüge (von Andreas Märki)