All Episodes
Previous Next
July 12, 2020 - Jim Fetzer
01:03:34
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax w/ Scott Henderson, Marcus Allen and Randy Walsh
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Real Deal, where I'm extremely pleased to have three experts on the moon landing, or should I say, the faking of the moon landing, here to discuss scientific aspects and proof.
So, to take a look at our general subject, we're addressing, did we land a man on the moon?
To which the answer is emphatically negative.
Well, I have the pleasure of featuring Marcus Allen, who's the editor and publisher of Nexus Magazine, which is just a spectacular venture in education.
I have Randy Walsh, who's a commercial and amateur pilot who has done a brilliant book on the Apollo missions, Hiding a Hoax in Plain Sight with Part 2 forthcoming.
And Scott Henderson, with whom I have done previous interviews about the moon landing, we're going to begin with Marcus on questions about vacuum in space and the like.
Marcus, please take the lead.
Well, thank you, Jim.
It's great to be here and thank you for your kind invitation to appear.
Yes, it was the idea of vacuum as being a problem.
I mean, we all know that there is a vacuum in space.
There are three major problems with getting humans into space.
One of which is radiation.
Maybe we'll come to that and look at that in a minute.
The other is temperature.
The high temperature.
But the main one is the vacuum.
Now everybody knows there is a vacuum in space and basically what that means is there's nothing there.
There's no atmosphere obviously.
So space is a vacuum, and the further away from Earth that you go, the International Space Station, which orbits at about 200 miles up, there's a vacuum surrounding that, but it is nowhere near as high as the vacuum that is on the Moon, or is around the Moon, because it's further away.
There is nothing there.
There is so little Particles of anything, molecules, atoms, are so little that there is no pressure.
And that's the point of it.
Humans are designed to operate in a pressurized environment.
At sea level, we have 14.7 pounds per square inch pressing on us all around.
But we don't feel it, because we have the same amount of pressure inside us as there is outside us.
But the further away we get from Earth, There is less pressure pushing down on us.
So, because we as humans can't survive in a vacuum, we have to take our pressure with us.
So we have a spacesuit, in a spacecraft we have a pressurized environment.
It's pressurized at about five pounds per square inch, which is about the same pressure as you'd find on the top of Mount Everest, about 30,000 feet.
Aeroplanes can fly at about 60,000 feet, at which point there is one pound per square inch of pressure.
Above that it becomes much less.
Now, what is the point about the vacuum being a key to this whole, did we land a man on the moon?
Because we know the spacecraft have a pressure inside them.
Spacesuits maintain a pressure of about 4.8 pounds per square inch.
But outside The spacecraft, outside the spacesuit, there is the vacuum.
Now there are certain items which are severely affected by a vacuum, and one of those items is photographic film.
This stuff.
Photographic film.
For anybody who's only been using digital cameras, this will sound very 20th century and a bit historical, but the point to recall about this is that the whole of the Apollo program was conducted using photographic film.
Now if you put photographic film into a vacuum, there are two things that happens in a vacuum, and one which affects photographic film, this stuff, It's called outgassing.
Because there is so little pressure, the volatile elements in the emulsion, which is what is the light-sensitive material on the plastic backing, the volatile elements outgas, i.e.
they just are removed from it.
In space, the measurement of vacuum is what's called a TOR, named after Evangelista Torricelli, who is an Italian scientist.
He invented the mercury barometer and he is named after him.
TOR is the same as levels of mercury at sea level.
It's 760 TOR, or one atmosphere, or one bar.
There are various things of Ways of describing it.
14.7 pounds per square inch, psi is pounds per square inch, and so on.
The further away from Earth you get, the less there is the pressure.
Now we discovered that photographic film is affected by the vacuum of space.
So how do we know that it's severely affected?
About two years ago I attended a talk in London given by the person who developed the photographic system used on the Hexagon Spy Satellite, otherwise known as KH9.
The Hexagon Spy Satellite used photographic film because prior to the use of digital, that was all that was available to take photographs.
in space of, in this case, Soviet rocket locations, Soviet warships, and it was a very sophisticated camera.
It was a two camera system taking stereo images, but the film was housed on board the Hexagon Spicer, which is quite a large piece of kit, About 60 foot long, 20 foot in diameter, but the photographic film and the cameras were all housed within the craft in a pressurized container.
And when I heard the talk being given, the person who developed the photographic equipment on the Hexagon Spice Line was very proud of what he'd done, and quite rightly too.
It's an incredible piece of equipment.
But he mentioned almost in passing that it had to be pressurized.
I thought, well, why does it have to be pressurized?
And it was then I discovered that it outgasses, the film outgasses, and it then can't be used.
And also the film goes very brittle.
And if you use it even at relatively low pressurized environment, it affects the color balance of the film, which is one of those major problems.
If you're trying to take scientific level photographs you want to get the colour balance right.
Photographic film is affected by the vacuum and the colour balance is shot to pieces.
Why haven't I heard about this before?
Because I've heard about the radiation problem in space and the Valladolid radiation belts and Professor James Val Allen of Iowa University, he was the first one to confirm their existence by the simple expedient of putting a Geiger counter on top of one of the very first American rockets, the Explorer 4, measured it.
So we're all familiar with radiation, but very few people have even talked about vacuum levels in space and how they affect, in this case, photographic film, which was the means by which Apollo missions were recorded and most of the photographs that we've seen of them, this is just one of the photographs, when I started this I had to go and buy a set of postcards like that to see what they looked like because there wasn't such a thing as the internet in those days.
So if photographic film is seriously affected by the vacuum of space, how were these photographs even taken?
Because that was taken on Kodak Ektachrome film Very good film, but it would be affected by the vacuum of space, as we discovered, if it's not kept under a pressurised environment of about one pound per square inch, which is what was the vacuum level in the Hexagon Spy Satellite.
Now, there was another satellite used around this time.
It was called the Lunar Orbiter, not to be confused with the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, which came much later in 2009.
The Lunar Orbiter was It was flown in mid-1960s, 1966-67, and its purpose was to photograph potential landing sites for Apollo on the lunar surface.
There were five of them, five of these lunar orbiter craft, and they used photographic film in the same way that Hexagon Spy Satellite used photographic film.
There's an even more sophisticated Because the photographic film in the Lunar Orbiter was actually developed on board the craft.
Obviously it couldn't return to Earth, it was orbiting the Moon, 240,000 miles away.
It was developed on board the Lunar Orbiter and it used a system similar to the Polaroid system of developing photographic film.
That film was then scanned Transmitted back to Earth and the photograph reassembled on Earth to show what was being photographed.
It was an incredible system.
But again, looking at the design of the lunar orbiter, the photographic equipment carried on board, and all the film carried on board, were housed in a pressurized environment.
One pound per square inch pressure.
It also could maintain a reasonable temperature range within the pressurized container.
So suddenly, this is only two years ago that I became aware that vacuum affected photographic film.
I spent a long time looking at and researching the Apollo photographs.
I was very familiar with the number of photographs that were taken.
And maybe we can talk a little bit about the camera that was used to take those photographs.
But when you discover that The whole business of graphic film is seriously affected by the vacuum of space.
Now, here we have the camera, the famous Hasselblad camera, developed by Viktor Hasselblad of Sweden.
Using photographic film in the magazine, the illustration on the right hand side shows the magazine separated, in this case, from the camera.
It's the silver item on the right and it goes on the back of the camera.
It's a single lens reflex camera, which means that you look through the lens to line up the photograph you want to take.
But, and get this, there is no viewfinder on this Hasselblad.
None of the Lunar Hasselblad cameras had viewfinders.
Because if you're wearing a spacesuit, you can't get your head down close enough.
On a Hasselblad, the viewfinder is on top of the camera.
You couldn't get your head down close enough to the camera to use the viewfinder, so they took it away.
No viewfinder!
The shutter button on a Hasselblad is on the front of the camera, not visible from inside the spacesuit.
The film counter, which tells you if you've taken a photograph, it's the only means of determining if a photograph has been taken, is on the side of the camera, also not visible from inside a spacesuit.
So with all these limitations of use, we have a camera here that is seriously affected by the vacuum of space.
Let's not even worry about the radiation levels, which would affect photographic film as well.
One is familiar with x-ray equipment at airports many years ago, the security, and you're always told to have your camera hand-searched by the attendant, otherwise it would damage the photographic film.
Now, on the left-hand side is the image of what an astronaut would see looking at his camera.
Where it says remove dark slide, the dark slide is the piece of metal that you insert between the magazine and the camera to remove the magazine, because it's a removable magazine.
You can take it off and put another one on.
Where the viewfinder would normally be is where it says remove dark slide, so there is no viewfinder.
And have a look, can you see the shutter button on that camera?
No, you can't.
Can you see the film counter on that camera?
The middle illustration here of the camera, the side view of the camera, the film counter is the middle of those three dials on the left-hand side of the film magazine.
You can't see that from inside a spacesuit.
So, you're wearing what are, in effect, heavy-duty gardening gloves if you're wearing your spacesuit.
You can't wear half a spacesuit.
You've got to wear the whole thing, the helmet, the boot, the gloves, everything.
It's pressurised.
The spacesuit was made so that it would withstand micrometeorite impact, so it's basically armoured gauntlets you're wearing.
You can't feel anything inside those gauntlets, isn't it?
Impossible!
So with all these limitations of use, some of the most defining images of the 20th century were taken.
But not on the Moon.
They couldn't have been taken on the Moon.
They were taken here on Earth under controlled conditions by professional photographers.
And some of them are very good photographs.
This is one of them.
Buzz Aldrin coming down the ladder after Neil Armstrong was on the lunar surface.
And here he is being photographed and he's lit up like a Christmas tree.
You can see where the Sun is.
It's behind him.
So how come he's lit up like a Christmas tree?
Ah!
People will say it's the special reflective properties of the lunar surface.
Rubbish!
The lunar surface has the reflectivity of tarmac.
You wouldn't use the road surface outside your house to fill in the shadow area of a photograph you're trying to take.
No, of course you wouldn't.
You would use something much more realistic.
You would use something like A silvered reflector.
Now one of the other problems we have here, this is a diagram of the shutter mechanism on a Hasselblad camera.
The lenses were made by Zeiss in Germany.
It's a leaf shutter.
The top left-hand picture shows it with the shutter closed, and the right-hand top picture shows the same thing.
They are leaf shutters, so as the shutter button is pressed, those move out of the way.
Now one of the other problems we've got in space, aside from outgassing, is called cold welding.
Cold welding is, as the name implies, welding of metal.
Once you've got a vacuum, what occurs is that the volatile elements, in this case in metals, are literally forced out of the metal, and if any two metals are in contact with each other, they literally weld themselves together.
The volatile element is the same thing as hot welding, where you melt a piece of metal, or melt two pieces of metal, one to the other, and as the metal solidifies, the metals are welded together.
The same effect occurs in space, where you get cold welding.
So you've got this problem of metals, any metal in contact with each other, or pieces of metal in contact with each other, will basically weld themselves together.
So 5,771 images were taken, allegedly, on the lunar surface using this camera, using this lens setup, but nothing went wrong with it.
There were no Shots that were not properly exposed, properly focused.
That's an illustration of the internal mechanism of a leaf shutter within a lens similar to the Zeiss lenses used on the Hasselblad camera.
On many cameras like Nikons or Canons or Pentax or Minoltas, they have curtain shutters, which is a slightly different mechanism within the camera body, which ironically would not be affected quite so much because they're not metal as this is.
So any metals in space, unprotected, and you can't protect the leaf shutter button of a camera because it would interfere with the mechanism and interfere with the working of the camera.
So these delicate pieces of metal are exposed to the full vacuum of space on the lunar surface, which is far greater than any vacuum that is experienced at the International Space Station.
It's about three times the power of the vacuum.
And a vacuum does have a power, even though it is basically an absence of material, absence of matter.
So what we've got, two major problems.
Outgassing of Metals and cold welding of metals.
And yet we have been led to believe that some of the most defining images of the 20th century were taken under those conditions.
This is an illustration of the Hexagon Spy Satellite with the camera, film supply, the lenses, and you'll notice on the right hand side pressure shell is identified.
Because this is what was contained within the Hexagon Spy Satellite to protect the photographic film from the effect of the vacuum of space.
Now, when I heard the talk being given by the developer of the camera system, I specifically asked him a question.
I said, would the same effect of the vacuum of space apply to Apollo?
And he said, yes, of course it would.
It's photographic film.
All photographic film is affected by a vacuum, and especially the vacuum of space.
Now, as a result of that, we've decided to have a look at some of the effects of putting photographic film inside a vacuum chamber here on Earth.
Obviously we can't go to the Moon to do it, because it takes a bit of time and nobody can get there anyway.
Photographic film, bottom left-hand corner, It's comprised of a base material, which is normally a plastic, polyester base, and various layers of photosensitive emulsion on top of it.
Very thin, a few thousandths of an inch thick.
The equipment that was being used produced a maximum torque value of 10 to the minus 3, the equivalent Of 100km, 62 miles above the Earth's surface.
The further away from Earth you get, the torr value of the vacuum will increase.
When you get to the International Space Station, it's about torr 10 to the minus 6.
When you get to the Moon, it's torr 10 to the minus 12.
There is so little there, it's almost impossible to measure any atom in space.
Therefore the vacuum is virtually 100%.
Now on the right there are two strips of film, photographic film, which indicate the effect that vacuum has at that level, tau 10 to the minus 3.
And it affects the photographic film, but more importantly it affects the colour balance of the film as well.
And when a photograph is taken using The film that was within the vacuum chamber, that would be on the right.
The control film was one on the left.
And you can see that the colour balance of the film is shot, completely shot.
And this is tau 10 to the minus 3.
It's hardly, it's just top of the atmosphere.
It's really not very far in space.
You've got the blues are seriously affected.
The greens are seriously affected.
Photographic film is, in many cases, quite badly damaged, quite seriously damaged by the effect of vacuum.
But we've seen, many people have seen all of the images of the Apollo mission, this is Apollo 11, and all the colours are correct.
That could only have been achieved by taking these photographs here on Earth.
Now if anybody can prove that that is an incorrect statement, I want to hear about it.
Because I've been 25 years researching this, and I've yet to have anybody demonstrate to me conclusively that photographic film is not affected by the vacuum of space.
If you can demonstrate that, I'll shut up, go away and do something else.
But in the meantime, what I would say is that photographic film is so badly affected by the effect of vacuum, that the photographs that we have seen Produced by NASA in their thousands, showing the presence of man on the moon, are faked.
They were not taken on the moon.
They could not have been taken on the moon.
And if NASA can demonstrate that they could have been taken on the moon, I want to hear about it.
So far, I haven't heard a thing.
Marcus, I love it.
I mean, you've made many different points, including, you know, with the gloves and the design of the camera, they couldn't focus or frame, and yet every one of these photographs is perfectly focused and framed.
You've made the point that in the vacuum, the metallic parts of the shutter would have welded together.
You couldn't even function the camera.
And then the color contrast is equally damning, because all these photographs are allegedly taken on the moon, show none of the color distortion effects that would result.
From having been taken in a vacuum.
I think that's just excellent, marvelous, further confirmation that we did not go to the moon and we faked it.
Randy, let me turn to you, my friend.
Please give us your thoughts now about the aspects you'd like to cover.
Sure.
And first of all, I just want to thank you, Jim, for inviting me here today.
I very much appreciate it.
And so for me, following the work of Marcus and others like Scott and yourself, and a lot of excellent points have been raised.
When I started researching this, there were two aspects of the Apollo missions that really stood out for me.
The first one was the Apollo Guidance Computer and its navigation system.
The second was the F-1 engines.
And today I'd like to actually talk about the F-1 engines.
I'd like to focus on that first.
It's really the first part of my book and I focus a lot on that.
So to give a little bit of background to the viewers, the F-1 engines were the most powerful engines ever built and were only used during the Apollo moon missions.
They were never used after that.
That whole program was ended after the Apollo mission, the last Apollo mission in 1972.
So the reason for the F-1 engines is the power.
These engines were developed specifically to lift the enormous amount of weight of the Apollo hardware into low earth orbit and they were needed to get the rocket off the launch pad.
So we're talking about 50 tons of Apollo hardware.
That's including the command service module, the lunar module.
Without the F-1 engines, and I want to emphasize this point, Without the F-1 engines, that could not have happened.
There is no way that they could have lifted that hardware off the launch pad.
And if you can't do that, ergo you have no Apollo missions.
Now the problem actually started in the mid 1950s when the Air Force was actually designing a larger scale rocket engine.
for their own means.
That was eventually taken over when Eisenhower signed an act to implement NASA and then that program was transferred over to Rocketdyne Corporation.
So they took full control of developing the F-1 engine and producing it.
Now, the early studies in the 50s, and I have to give a little bit of background here, because the early studies in the 50s were showing, for about two or three years, serious problems with the F-1 engine.
And the problem had basically to do with its cooling system design, and it was malfunctioning constantly.
So what they were trying to do is, they were trying to get, I think the most powerful rocket at that time was maybe 200,000 pounds of thrust per rocket engine.
And that's the H1 engine, which is the precursor to the F1.
I want to talk about the H1 engine a little later, because that actually is just factored importantly into this.
I just found out some new information.
So they were having some problems with the F1 engines.
And one of the problems, the main problem they were having is, is a thing called the combustion instability.
Now, what that really means is, if I could just give a brief description of any rocket engine.
So you have the engine.
And then you have the fuel injection system, then you have the combustion chamber, and then you have the throat, and then of course you have the nozzle, which we all see when rockets are lifting off, you know, we see the nozzle, everybody sees that.
So what was happening with the combustion chamber, the F1 engines, is the temperatures were reaching so high up to 6,000 degrees Fahrenheit that the cooling system was having a problem maintaining lower temperatures.
Because if you could not lower those temperatures and keep them constant, just the enormous amount of heat produced in a combustion chamber from the explosion of the propellants was going to distort and then eventually lead to an explosion and of course loss of the engine.
And if that engine was of course used on a Saturn V, then you have the loss of the whole mission.
So to give a little brief description is with the F1 engines what they were doing is they were sending propellant.
Another thing about the propellants is to give an idea of the size of this engine.
The propellant they were pumping something like 26,000 gallons per minute of liquid oxygen and over 15,000 gallons of refined kerosene into that engine per minute.
That's a lot of fuel.
That's a lot of power.
And this engine was supposed to have produced a thrust of 1.5 million pounds each.
Now, there was five of the F-1 engines used in the Saturn V. So you have a Saturn V, which is 363 feet tall, approximately 3,000 tons in weight, and the first stage used the F-1 engines.
They used five of them for a total thrust of 7.5 million pounds.
Now, in order to regulate the extreme heat produced in the combustion chamber of the F1 engines, they ran tubes, really small, thin tubes, on the outside of the combustion chamber down through the throat area and into the nozzle.
And what that was designed for was that the engine would send fuel directly through those tubes, A percentage of the fuel, I believe it was 70% of the fuel and propellant was sent through those tubes and that was designed to absorb the thermal energy from inside the combustion chamber through from the controlled explosion to produce the thrust that would eventually be expelled and then to of course push the rocket off the launch pad.
The problem with this is those tubes, those very small thin tubes were breaking down.
And they had serious problems with this.
They were able to actually get a million pounds of thrust out of the F1 engines in the early stages of its testing.
And even with that, they were able to sustain it for maybe a millisecond at most.
And the other thing is that the tubes were breaking down because of the type of material they were using.
So they weren't able to sustain it, and they've had several, they had several explosions in their testing.
Now, they actually admit that they had a 10% combustion chamber instability rate during all testing.
And they also admit, NASA admits, or RocketEye rather admits, that they can't explain what was causing that instability.
All right now 10% is pretty high.
So eventually of course when the Apollo program was brought into fruition by of course JFK when you know there's this famous speech to the United Nations they went they put tons of resources into fixing the problems of the F-1 engines because they knew they needed the F-1 engines to lift the Apollo hardware into low-earth orbit.
So, they needed that 7.5 million pounds of thrust.
Now, I mentioned the cooling system, which is a regenerative cooling system, and the material, it was the material in the cooling system, those small tubes outside of the combustion chamber, down to the throat area, and the nozzle of the rocket that was to regulate the temperature, The material that was used was breaking down.
It was actually called inconel-750.
That was the material.
It's actually a nickel alloy.
And that was breaking down.
And so they were trying to find methods in order to resolve that problem.
Randy, we actually have a video of the explosions.
Would you like me to play that?
Yeah, that'll give people an idea of what I'm talking about.
Um getting out here.
So did you want me to talk through that?
Here goes!
We're ready to perform a long duration test of the F1 engine.
But as the engine ignited and the turbo pumps spooled up, the test came to a catastrophic end when the engine exploded.
It took several more explosive tests before the engineers finally found what was going wrong.
Combustion instability.
This is where the propellants in the thrust chamber burn unevenly and cause enormous pressure swings inside the chamber.
As one area of the chamber fills with more oxygen, it produces more heat, which pushes the flame around in the thrust chamber.
The reason this was so catastrophic in the F-1 engine is because these pressure swings were happening 2,000 times a second, enough to completely rip apart the engine.
At this point the Apollo program was well underway and NASA needed a fully capable engine for the first crewed flights, which were just a few years away.
Yes, yeah, so I mean that that video really sort of spells out the problems that they were having.
So when the Apollo program was developed and put into, when it was enacted, they really had to figure out these problems.
Now They did.
Eventually, they said they overcame the problems by, you know, various things.
For example, installing baffles in the fuel injector system.
I'm going to get to what that really means in a second.
And other various solutions.
Now, When this really started to show was the first two launches of the Saturn V. Now I want to get into the minimal testing of this.
And before I do, there's very one interesting aspect to this.
I mentioned the H1 engines at the beginning.
The H1 engines were used in the Saturn IB and it was a much smaller engine in terms of power and thrust.
Now the H1 engine, there was two of course Saturn's used in the Apollo program, the Saturn 1B and of course the Saturn 5.
The Saturn 1B was actually used in Apollo 7 for it was just a low Earth orbit mission.
Then now the H1 engine produced 200,000 pounds of thrust.
in the Saturn 1B.
And the Saturn 1B, for the viewers who are watching, was a smaller version of the Saturn V, less powerful.
So they had eight engines in the first stage of the Saturn 1B, and each engine produced 200,000 pounds of thrust.
Now what's interesting about this is, is that during the testing phase of the H1 engine, which was as I said precursor to the F1 engine, They had three variations of that H1 engine.
They had first, second, and third, each consecutive engine producing more thrust than the previous.
It was when they got to the second version of the H1 engine, That they realized that they were having the same problems that the F1 engine was having, and that is they used the same system, it was the same regenerative cooling system, the small tubes that were placed outside of the nozzle and the combustion chamber to absorb the thermal energy of the high temperatures which could reach up to 6,000 degrees Fahrenheit.
And so, interestingly enough, the H1 engine was using the same material as the F1 engines for its cooling system, and that was the nickel alloy that I had just mentioned.
So what did they do?
They solved the problem.
And how did they solve it?
They solved it with eliminating the use of the material that they were using for their cooling system in the H1 engine and went back to using stainless steel instead.
And then the engine worked perfectly.
They had some really good data to support that that H1 engine was working perfectly.
However, that wasn't done with the F1 engines.
They had to stay with the original material they were using, which was constantly breaking down due to erosion.
And that's where it sort of rears its ugly head because the first launch of Apollo 4, which was an on-man launch, was supposedly worked perfectly.
But it was the second launch, Apollo 6, where they had serious problems with the F1 engines.
That was the second unmanned mission of the Saturn V.
So that mission showed the real problems that were going on with the F-1 engines.
Everything started going, everything went wrong with this rocket.
If this rocket had had a crew on board they would have had to abort the mission and I mean and I actually have proof of that.
The proponents were saying no that's not true but that is true because what was happening is is the Apollo 6 F-1 engines were firing unevenly because of the combustion instability and because they were firing unevenly They were sending a resonance through the longitudinal axis of the rocket, which was causing a thing called POGO.
So he had a POGO effect, right?
And the POGO effect was so severe, vibrations, a crew would not have survived that launch, which is why they would have had to abort.
And proponents of that of the mission said, no, that's not true.
But I actually found evidence that it is true.
And it's an engineer by the name of George Phelps.
He's a senior project engineer and he worked for North American Aviation and he worked directly on the Apollo 6 launch and he's on record as saying that indeed if there hadn't been a crew on board they would have had to abort that mission or they would have lost a crew.
So they needed to fix that quickly and and fast because they had another launch of the Saturn V in seven months.
So here's where it gets very interesting.
They launch, they claim that they have fixed all the problems of the F-1 engines and solved everything, come up with a solution before the next third launch of the Saturn V, which was a manned launch, and that was Apollo 8.
Now, in seven months, they're telling us that they have solved all those problems, but here's where it gets even more interesting, is that they solved those problems, they claim, without any further testing of the F1 engines.
That is absolutely absurd, to say that they didn't need to do any further testing.
And I might add, even though the static testing they did amount to about 70 hours of static testing, of each F1 engine, the cluster F1 engines together when they do static testing only amounted to 43 minutes.
And even with that 43 minutes, the minimal testing that was done in actual conditions of spaceflight totaled Four minutes.
That's all the F-1 engines had before they launched the first manned mission of the Saturn V with Apollo 8.
Four minutes.
They claim that four minutes of actual testing and conditions because remember in aviation they do static testing of their engines and they but what they do when they do that and they get the results that they're looking for Then you do a comparable amount of actual testing and conditions and flight conditions.
And we hear this all the time.
Airplanes, Airbus for example, testing each aircraft for several hundred hours and actual conditions of flight before that's certified for commercial use.
But not so with the Apollo program.
So there were a lot of corners cut here and a lot of fast tracking and the argument has been, well NASA didn't have the funding and that the engines were only single-use and every time you use them you'd have to destroy them, they would be destroyed.
Well yeah, but that should not ever circumvent safety.
Ever.
So I went looking for, and this is all information I'm finding out from the official books and from the official sources, so that set me on a path to search for other outside verification of this process and I couldn't find any until I came to an article on the Aulis.com website By engineer Gennady Avchenkov.
He's a Russian scientist and he's a PhD in physics and he studied at Moscow University.
His whole credentials, his background, his bio was listed in the sources of the article he produced.
Now he produced a 60-page article on the uh f1 engines and its performance and his conclusions are startling and they're clear the f1 engines were not performing due to uh due to combustion instability brought on by the breakdown of regenerative cooling system that was installed and the other interesting thing about the f1 engines This was an American-style cooling system that was used and was only used during the Apollo program.
After the Apollo program ended in 1972, it's interesting that NASA ended its use of the American-style cooling system that was used on the H-1 and F-1 engines and turned to a Soviet-style cooling system instead.
And I find that mission very startling myself.
Now, as we know, the F-1 engines work perfectly.
That's what we're told.
So they had 13 missions in all, because one mission was actually used to launch Skylab in 1973, one Saturn V. So we had a perfect outcome.
But here's what I find very interesting and it just amazes me that we get this from engineers and I just was reading a series of books by Eugene Reichel and Eugene Reichel has written, he's a staunch proponent of the Apollo missions and he is, he's written a series of books.
I actually recommend reading them for anybody that wants to get more information on details on the Saturn V launches and the Apollo program.
He made a very interesting observation.
And for those that don't know, his background is he works for the European Aeronautics Defense and Space Company.
They build military and commercial aircraft.
So, an engineer.
So this man knows what he's talking about.
And here's his conclusions about the F-1 engines and the Saturn V. And this is a man, I might want to emphasize, this is a man who promotes the Apollo missions, a staunch supporter of NASA.
But he says this, The spontaneous combustion instabilities never reappeared.
After they fixed them, of course.
Until the end, however, the problem was never completely understood.
To this day, it remains a constant problem in large rocket engines for which an individual empirical solution has yet to be found.
To the disappointment of the engineers, a model was never found with which they could generally overcome the problem.
Now, I don't know about any of you, but that to me is a startling admission that they're saying, yes, we have problems with the F1 engines.
Yes, we fixed the problems with the F1 engines, but no, we don't know what caused the problem that we fixed in the first place.
I'd like to ask my respective panel if that makes any sense to anybody.
Randy, I think you make some impeccable points.
I mean, it's a probabilistic argument.
When they had so many problems with a system they could not diagnose, much less solve.
To claim they solved problems they couldn't even diagnose is absurd.
And the idea they could be successful in launches using this system approaches zero as its probability.
And where I gather two Russian physicists have calculated that the lift That would be provided the thrust from the engines with the configuration of 5F1 on the Saturn would not have been sufficient to escape low Earth orbit.
So it seems to me the physics here is completely contradictory to the allegations made by NASA of successful launches.
I welcome Marcus and Scott contributing any further thoughts of their own.
Marcus?
I think what Randy has identified is a key point to the whole Apollo, as I call it, deception.
The Apollo deception.
Because we're being continually told how successful the Apollo missions were.
From John Kennedy's original announcement back in 1961 to the final use of the Apollo, or any part of the Apollo program in 1975.
When they did the Apollo-Soyuz link-up.
So you've got this strange story of a successful engineering achievement, and it went on for the best part of 15 years, but it wasn't used again.
Now if the Saturn V was such a successful rocket and did what everybody claimed for it, why wasn't it used to launch the Space Shuttle?
It never was.
There was never any connection between the Space Shuttle and the Saturn V. A completely new launch system was developed for the Space Shuttle.
It used external fuel tanks, solid fuel booster rockets.
But if Saturn V was so good, why didn't they just use more of it?
They actually had three of them left over.
There's one stuck outside the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.
Well, it's lying on its side.
Sounds like an admission of failure, Marcus.
Couldn't it be more blatant?
Scott, your thoughts?
Well, Mr. Fetzer, thank you for having me on your show.
And it's always a pleasure to be here with these two heavyweights.
My thoughts on the Saturn V rocket?
In the 60s, of course, okay, they were using Disney magic.
And they don't have that anymore.
And in today's reality, okay, if you look at something like SpaceX, Elon Musk, using it, they're using much smaller engines to overcome all of those
Like the last launch of SpaceX had nine rocket engines on it and the total of the nine rocket engines only produced 1.7 million pounds of thrust which is so basically eight of those engines equal one F-1 engine.
So that's the way they have resolved the problem to date.
By a diminished power plant that couldn't possibly achieve what they claim was achieved repeatedly in the past.
Right, even the smallest engines on the Saturn V rocket were hugely overestimated in their power.
Scott, let me continue with your contributions here.
we have a brief video to start with.
In this photo you can clearly see it there are two objects present.
And in this photo, you can see that those two objects are present and a little closer.
However, in this photo, how are those two objects apart now?
In this overall photo, you can see that our CGI truck has now moved from point A to point B, at least 150 feet away.
This is object A and rock 1.
In this photo, you can clearly see that object A has moved.
And in this photo, you can see that object How is this possible if this photo was really taken on the lunar surface?
Yes, that's one interesting video, I must say. I must say.
The fact that people have argued that it isn't really a truck Um, I don't know how rocks that look like trucks on the moon, uh, can actually move around like that.
Okay.
And I've studied all of the, uh, images from NASA, anything related to that photograph.
And it doesn't matter what angle you're looking at it at those rocks have moved.
And that is the, in Apollo 17, that, uh, that showed up.
And I think as they were faking the missions, I think they got lazier, sloppier, more carefree.
And I do believe that the astronauts were the whistleblowers and they were using those Hasselblad cameras because they were actually a functioning part of their costume, that they were using them to expose the fraud.
of the fake moon landings.
And the one thing that you will see in the photographs is that NASA has always given you that image of what the lunar surface is to look like, right?
The image of the ground, the rocks, everything that should be on the lunar surface.
I don't believe that that's like that at all.
If you realize that the lunar surface is absolutely pristine, untouched, there's no rain, there's no air, there's no wind, there's no ice, there's nothing going on there, and it's simply, other than the meteor impacts, it's just continuously being covered By cosmic dust.
And it's the same cosmic dust we get here on Earth.
And what we collect every year from space will fill a baseball stadium, for instance, right?
And Scott, doesn't this make this image of a wet flag therefore highly anomalous?
Well, yeah.
I mean, if this is an actual set on the moon, and of course you're in a vacuum, And there are no liquids in a vacuum.
That's just a simple fact that you can demonstrate that in a grade nine science class.
In a bell chamber, you can bring water to a boil by bringing down to about 20 torr.
And of course, here you can clearly see that it is, I've seen people argue that that is just a shadow, or that's just the way nylon reflects.
Well, that's not even nylon, that's an official, American flag.
Okay, the nylon on this flag is the red and white stripes.
The blue is moldar and the stars are actually made out of hemp.
And the reason why they're made out of three separate materials is so when you officially burn a flag, the stars of the last ones left are burning.
Interesting.
And tell us about this image.
And of course, this is the poor old rover and these astronauts absolutely just drove this thing to death.
And they were using the same rover for all of the missions.
Actually, they had at least two rovers while they were doing the simulations on set all the time in case one broke down.
And this one is always breaking down.
The, uh, left rear axle has a leak in it and the oil is spilling out everywhere all over the, over the side of the rim, as well as running up to the side of the frame rail as well.
There you can see it.
And then the dirt is sticking to it.
And they very specifically had a nice closeup of this photograph in Apollo 17 here, but they also, Showed this same rover with the same oil leak in 15 and 16 as well.
And of course, again, no liquids in space.
This particular image is one of the more recent little discoveries that we've made.
And the photograph on the left, that's the entire photograph.
So it's showing the location of the rover and the location of the LM.
The image on the right, of course, Up in the top left hand corner there's a very large yellow cart with wheels on it and that image is shooting north on the set and all of the experimental equipment is placed directly to the west which is In alignment.
The sun is coming from the east, so the shadow line is running to the west.
All of the equipment for the experiments were put out to the west, so there's nothing on the north side as far as any additional equipment that they might have had.
And of course that particular cart, that's probably 800 to 1000 feet across the set right there.
It's also using forced perspective because that's at the base of the mountain, which is supposed to be four and a half kilometers away.
But I clipped that out so you can see where it's located on the left photograph in relationship to the leg of the lamb.
Of course we see here tracks and there are many tracks and many different photographs, but it has seemed to me that the surface of the moon, the dust with no atmosphere and no moisture would be like the sands of the Sahara.
That would be impossible for them to retain imprints.
Your thoughts?
That and it wouldn't be any, it would be the same color when you disturb the soil.
Like that's moisture in the soil that's making it darker once the soil is disturbed.
Very good, very good.
Here you have, I think, about the spacesuit and the lack of seals.
Yes, I'd refer to the article on the Hollis.com site where there's a complete article on the spacesuit itself.
This is just simply showing you how the seals are.
And how it couldn't have preserved integrity in a vacuum?
They're showing rubber seals.
They're showing rubber seals and just basically, the clips on these are just like a door latch.
They come out.
They do not compress that seal on there.
Those are simply done for easy on and off when they're practicing in simulation.
And inside the suit, you see that it's, they just have like a foam comfort suit in there.
And to also make it look like it's like they've been ballooned out a little bit.
But there is no pressure suit inside of that at all.
This is showing that they didn't even bother to do the gloves up when they were out on the set doing the final simulation.
Embarrassingly bad.
And here's another shot of the back of the suit.
The zipper doesn't even go all the way to the top.
There's a good inch or more space there.
Where there's no way you could pressurize these suits at any given time.
And the fact that the top ring from the bubble helmet is attaching to the white part of the suit means that that part has to be pressurized.
And that is the biggest thing about the spacesuits themselves, right?
If you had an inner pressure suit, your head has to be involved in that as well.
So if the bubble helmet is attached to the white part of the suit, then it's the white part of the suit that has to be pressurized.
Marcus, I'd like you to comment on the presentations of Randy and of Scott, and then I'll ask the others to do the same.
I think what they've both done is very valuable.
Very important work.
I think what Randy has done, and he's not even discussed the navigation system or the impossibility of navigating using the equipment that was allegedly in the command module, I think is very valuable.
There are other websites and other people doing equally valuable investigation in different areas.
There's a French computer engineer called Xavier Pascal who's doing some really quite remarkable work in terms of looking at the way the Apollo Guidance Computer was constructed.
Because we're always told that famous phrase, oh there was no more computing power on the Apollo command module than you've got in an electronic calculator.
Well, that may well be true.
They were using slightly different methods of operation.
But if you start looking into the ability of the Apollo Guidance Computer to actually guide anything, you'll find it doesn't have any.
It can't do it.
Because it's got no memory.
It doesn't know where it is, unless it's being told where it is.
It doesn't know where it's going, because nobody's told it where it's going.
So it can't actually do any operation on its own.
Which is a bit of a strange thing, because it's got to navigate across 240,000 miles, and then back again.
And then it's got to land back on Earth.
And we haven't even covered the problem with the heat shield.
Yes, yes, yes, yes.
into the S atmosphere, which has to be very, very precise. - Yes, yes, yes, yes.
Randy, your comments on Marcus and Scott? - Yeah, actually, I've had the opportunity of following Marcus's work for several years, actually, before I even wrote my own book.
And I've been sort of keeping tabs on what he has come up with.
And I was, you know, that was very helpful to me in terms of looking into my own research.
And so when I when I wrote my book, I finally had the honour and opportunity of connecting with Marcus.
And so I was quite impressed with what he has revealed over the last couple of decades.
I'm going to be talking about Marcus and his work in book two.
And then, of course, Marcus introduced me to Scott Henderson.
And I was learning things there that I hadn't really focused on before as well.
So I was very impressed with the information that both Marcus and Scott are producing now in terms of the vacuum effects on film.
That brings up a whole new area of research.
And I don't think that's really ever been done before.
I know NASA has reports on it.
Actually, Scott sent me one.
I plan on reading that, maybe for a book three.
I might actually get more into that.
But that opens up a whole new area of research because that has, you know, we're talking about mad missions.
outside of 200 mile limit uh around the earth and that has never actually been tested it just went did it and that was it they said it worked perfectly um uh so i mean it was it was interesting that there was one scientist that wasn't it wasn't uh James Van Allen it was somebody else after him who was asked by a journalist Um, was it safe enough to go through the Apollo, uh, sorry, the Van Allen belts and back?
And his reply was just baffling.
I mean, it was just the most condescending I've ever heard when he said, well, it must be safe because they went there and back and there was no harm.
And that, that was his, his corporate response to that.
Begging the question.
Yes.
Your comments on, on Marcus and Randy.
Well, I, I'd like to follow up a little more on the vacuum.
If you pull slide eight up and we'll have a look at that.
Just a quick, just a quick... Yes, I think that was on the plastics that we didn't actually comment on.
Yes, we didn't really take a look at that.
Yeah, I know.
And... Yeah, there it is.
right this is this uh the work that was done uh between the early 1990s till about 2005 was done by a team of people Joyce Deaver was leading that.
There's 56 articles she's written on effects of vacuum.
This is an image of non-metallic materials coming out of a vacuum chamber and the maximum of course they could pull is a torque value of 10 to the minus 6.
And on the left side, on the top left side, are the are the original before they went into the chamber, and the other ones are showing the effects of the non-metallic materials.
Some of these materials in here are what are compiled in making photographic film, polymer acetates, Teflon, and Mylar, and all of them are damaged from the vacuum on it.
And like I said, she has 56 Articles out online that you can download and view the damages on it.
One of the other effects that they were looking at in there was UV radiation in it.
And the articles she has on that further damage it when they're exposed to that.
And of course, when you're outside of the Earth's atmosphere, you don't get any diffusion of that.
You're in the direct and you're getting the full spectrum of the sunlight.
Right, which is much harsher on materials.
So that's all I'd like to say about that with the vacuum part of it.
And they're still finding that out and they're still testing for that finding new, new and more anomalies when they're testing for the vacuum of space.
Well, I can't thank the three of you enough for your additional and ongoing investigations, where we expect to see more of Marcus Allen, Randy Walsh, Scott Henderson.
You're doing great work, a scientific expose of the fraud, one of the greatest hoaxes in world history.
Alas, we did not go to the moon.
It's one more in a series of mass illusions where you three are among the champions at exposing the full dimensions of the hoax.
This is Jim Fetzer, your host on The Real Deal.
▲
Export Selection