NASA’s Laughable Apollo Lunar Lander

Video Transcript:

Take a second to honestly observe the following picture and tell me what this looks like to you. If you said a bunch of cardboard, construction paper, curtain rods, gold tape and foil, you would be correct. If instead you said the National Aronotics and Space Administration's highest technological achievement, incapable of being reproduced today, the Apollo 11 lunar lander, then you would also be correct. Most unbiased viewers would assume your average high school art class could construct this contraption without much struggle. But official NASA spokesman and astronaut Don Pettit assures us that actually this 1969 technology is so advanced that even with their multi-billion dollar yearly budget, they cannot for the life of them recreate it now. Now, let me go back to the moon in a nanosecond, Don informs us, but NASA destroyed that technology and it's a painful process to build it back again. Firstly, why on earth would NASA destroy the original Apollo lunar landers? The historic first crafts that landed men on the moon, the supposed most incredible achievements of mankind, and they irreparably destroyed them so that they could not be replicated even after 50 years? Could it be because they didn't want future generations able to visit museums and see these laughable 1960s attempts at high tech looking space vehicles? And what other 1960s technology is so advanced and expensive that it cannot be recreated easily and far better now than way back then? Let's take a closer look at this 1960s spaceship and see what else we can notice. For example, look at the paneling here on the side of the craft. If someone sheet rocked your house looking like this, you would be entitled to a full refund, yet with supposedly the best engineers and scientists in the world on the job, this is the kind of craftsmanship NASA provides. Look at the flimsy haphazard and careless construction materials and methods used. Look at the buckling, warping, and indentations showing how thin the paneling is. What is this thing? A twinkie? No, I'm sure it's some super important and necessary high tech device. Here there are press stubs, and here also has press stubs. But here and here they must have run out so they used gold foil instead. And then over here they must have run out of gold foil because they didn't bother with either. Look over here at the evenly spaced lines of gold foil going down the legs until you get to this point where there is three lines right close together. It must be important because it's the connection point to the other crossbars, right? Let's look at another leg. Oh, nope. On this one they are all evenly spaced the whole way down. No three lines near the crossbar. Apollo 11 Mission Controller Harold Dodin was quoted saying, the skin on the crew cabin was very thin, and that was all done because of weight saving. If you really took your finger and poked hard at it, you could poke right through the outer skin of the spacecraft. It was about the thickness of two layers of aluminum foil. Project manager Thomas Kelly, concurred noting that the skin, the aluminum alloy skin of the crew compartment, was about 12 1,000ths of an inch thick, equivalent to about three layers of Reynolds wrap that you would use in the kitchen. Apollo astronaut Jim Lovell said, whenever I saw a model of the lunar module, it had these rigid sides and looked really strong. Turns out that external portions of the lunar module are actually made up of mylar and cellophane, and it's put together with scotch tape and staples. We had to have pads on the floor because if you dropped a screwdriver, it would go through the floor. Apollo astronaut Gus Grissom even famously hung a lemon on the lunar lander just weeks before the mission started. The dictionary describes lemon being a word used to describe things, especially automobiles, regarded as unsatisfactory, disappointing, or feeble. The lunar lander was never even once tested on Earth, landing here from any altitude before supposedly going and successfully landing on the moon. There, this pathetic cardboard and tin foil construction allegedly fell from lunar orbit at 4,000 miles per hour, then used retro thrusters to slow it down and safely landed without a hitch on the lunar surface. When the astronauts did practice in other training vehicles, three out of five of them crashed, and you can see here how difficult they were to control, even in broad daylight, on Earth in optimal conditions. The idea that the actual lunar lander was never once tested on Earth, but then made a perfect landing on the moon, is one small step for lying free mason's, and one giant leap for brainwashed mankind. This is a 7,500 pound thruster. Look how powerful this is, how big, how much dust it kicks up, and the light it creates. The lunar lander's thruster was even bigger, at 10,000 pounds, and somehow didn't kick up any dust, left no blast crater under the craft, and not a grain of sand on the landing pads, as if it was gently placed down by a crane in a studio. Here we see the lunar lander re-docking with the command module. This is clearly fake and made with props, models, and footage similar to the Hollywood creations of the day, such as Stanley Kubrick's 2001 Space Odyssey, created in 1968, the year before the first supposed moon landing. Look at the jerky, unrealistic motions, and lack of thrusters being used. The craft is just being turned like a Rubik's Cube somehow, all of this supposedly happening as they both orbit the moon at 4,000 miles per hour. Since many people can't believe this is genuine footage, let me assure you, this is actual, official, NASA footage of the Apollo 11 re-docking. And this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to moon landing hoax evidence. If you still believe man has actually walked on the moon, and rovers are rolling around on Mars, please do me, yourself, and the rest of humanity a favor, and watch my following presentation, link in the description box, the NASA moon and Mars landing hoaxes.