LEM: The Lunar Lander

Just months before this historic landing a prototype Lem was flight tested in Alington air-force base. A NASA camera recorded the test flight Neil Armstrong struggles to control the aircraft, then approximately 300 feet the Lander flies wildly out of control, at the last second Armstrong ejects, and floats to safety.
If the Lander was so unstable to fly in the controlled environment here on earth, then how could the lem lands 6 times flawlessly in the Alien environment of the moon?

Ralph Rene (Scientist):
"The Lem had a single engine mounted that Santorum then they had a little push jets, thruster jets couple of on top, this was suppose to control their attitude as they came down well at a secret the instant you moved your tail in that cabin an inch, you would change the load pattern, it would begin to tilt and it would start that thing spinning."

Brain Welch (NASA spokesman):
"The arguments that have been raised on sort of those who believed that the lunar landing were a hoax are very elaborated and they have to be to support a.. um.. a theory like this. In the end there is one set of evidence that there is refundable (check/spell/meaning) that they are foot prints, boot prints still on the lunar surface. "

But Conspiracy Theory say the foot-prints themselves are suspicious.

Bill Caisy:
" To have a powerful rocket engine blast the surface of the moon blasting away all the dust and then find foot-prints surrounding the lunar lander that to me would be an impossibility."
 

Photo after photo reveals that the lunar surface surrounding the Lem is covered with the foot prints, but Caisy says is there something more difficult to explain.

Bill Caisy:
" the fact that there is no blast creator under the Lem is one of the most conclusive pieces of evidence that I find supporting the hoax."

In fact, no sign of the blast creator was visible for any of these six lunar landings.

A lem specialist Paul Fjeld says that he can explain why the lunar nozzle left no crater when landing on the moon


Paul Fjeld (NASA LEM specialist):
"The amount of thrust that you need the coming out of the decent engine about 15200 pounds of thrust and all that it just push dust away. There is no burning anything like that."

The NASA's own scientific illustrations clearly depict the blast creator.

Bill Caisy:
" And there is another point, if they truly landed on the moon the dust would have been descended on the lunar Lander, on the foot pad, and we find not a trace of dust on the foot pads. When I discovered that alone I said No way of my Lunar Lander landed on the moon"
 

Could it be the Lem was just a prop on a giant lunar movie set?

Bill Caisy:
"When Armstrong said that one small step for man and one giant leap for mankind, the foot print that he made could have been easily made in Area 51"

Caisy Points out that the Lem's departure in the lunar surface was even more suspicious.

Bill Caisy:
"In the footage of the Lem stage going up what you don't see is an exhaust flume coming out of the rocket engine nozzle"

A Sequence shot of Lem's Departure from the surface of the moon to space. There is not any flame from engine nozzle

Bill Caisy:
" whatever we see, we see the a sound stage suddenly popped up without any exhaust flume was so ever is jerked up by a cable"

Is this evidence of the conspiracy, was the government capable of such a massive cover up?

Brain Welch (NASA Spokesman):
"To propose that this was all faked in a hoax they have to say that every piece of evidence that the every physical scientific test that one could offer to support the reality of Lunar Landings they have to say that the all of those were faked"

Bill Caisy:
" I would say that my conviction that Apollo was fake was really not according to one specific piece of evidence but it was cumulative, these whole things was fake"

Is this evidence that the Apollo footage is actually faked? A sequence shot in controlled environment here on earth?

Challenges and responses

The presence of deep dust around the module; given the blast from the landing engine, this should not be present.

• The dust around the module is called regolith and is created by ejecta from asteroid and meteoroid impacts. This dust was several inches thick at the Apollo 11 landing site. The regolith was estimated to be several meters thick and is highly compacted with depth. In an atmosphere, we would expect a rocket engine to blast all the surface dust off the ground for tens of meters. However, dust was only removed from the area directly beneath the Apollo landing engine. The important observation here is "atmosphere". Powerful engines set up turbulence in air which lifts and carries dust readily, far beyond the engine itself. However, in a vacuum, there is no air to disturb. Only the actual engine exhaust's direct pressure on the dust can move it.

The launch rocket (Lunar Module ascent stage) produced no visible flame.

• Hydrazine (a fuel) and dinitrogen tetroxide (an oxidizer) were the Lunar Module propellants, chosen for their reliability; they ignite hypergolically –upon contact– without a spark. Hypergolic propellants happen to produce a nearly transparent exhaust. Hypergolic fuels are also used by several space launchers: the core of the American Titan, the Russian Proton, the European Ariane 1 through 4 and the Chinese Long March, and the transparency of their plumes is apparent in many launch photos. The plumes of rocket engines fired in a vacuum spread out very rapidly as they leave the engine nozzle (see above), further reducing their visibility. Finally, most rocket engines use a "rich" mixture to lengthen their lifetimes. While the excess fuel will burn when it contacts atmospheric oxygen, this cannot happen in a vacuum.

The Lander weighed 17 tons and sat on top of the sand making no impression but directly next to it footprints can be seen in the sand .

• The Lander weighed less than three tons on the Moon. The astronauts were much lighter than the Lander, but their boots were also much smaller than the Lander's pads. As pressure is what makes the 'dent', and is force over an area, you make the pressure much smaller by making the area a little larger. An example would be driving a car (heavy) on sand, then getting a person (light) to walk on the same surface. You will often find the depth of tracks to be about the same.

 Home
<< Back | Next Page >>

Participate and send us your views