NASA Fail Compilation

Hey Eric!
Thank you for exposing the globe Earth conspiracy (as well as all connected conspiracies) and for revealing the true shape of our plane of existence. I and I'm sure many others will forever feel grateful for what you have done. Please keep up the good work, we need more people like you.
As for the apollo fails, there are more to come, a lot more
I will try to make regular updates in this thread
Thank you again.

Official NASA Photo from Apollo 17 - AS17-140-21371HR.jpg

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-140-21371HR.jpg

Let's examine this photo... (click thumbnail for full size image)



#1
As you can see in the adaptation I have produced above, the light source beams can easily be crudely traced back to the vanishing point, the location of the light source.
Debunkers cannot claim refraction through the atmosphere (I have seen this postulated as the reason for this phenomenon on Earth).
There is allegedly NO atmosphere on the Moon.
You cannot have it both ways, although Science will tell you so.
You can clearly see the light source is no more than 30ft above the lander, not 90+ Million miles away.
This is consistent with a sound-stage lighting rig.

#2
Lens flare, the lens flare is remarkably similar to that of a studio spotlight, also make note of the 'halo' produced from this lens flare, these 'halos' are only produced in an atmosphere.
It's the same principle as to how rainbows are formed on Earth, the light is refracted and reflected through tiny water droplets in the atmosphere, however in this photo the halo is produced due to the atmosphere and not water droplets.
Also the light casting over the photograph looks artificial. Reproduction of true sun light is near on impossible due to the colour-cast K value (temperature) produced by electric lights. - from Tungsten/Sodium (reddish/orange cast) through the spectrum to metal halide (blueish cast)
In the same way we cannot reproduce the optical accuracy of the human eye, we also cannot reproduce accurate Sun light using electric lights.


In conclusion:

Either the Sun is a mere 30ft from the Moon and the Moon has an atmosphere, or this picture was produced on a sound stage or in an aircraft hangar using artificial light, most probably at Area 51.

I wonder how long until N-ASS-A goes back and fixes these cut and paste screwups...

I could not decide if the green-screen version or the chroma-keyed, NASA style, fake ball Earth version looked better, so added them both

The white bird

Original pic available @ https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6729HR.jpg


In this photograph coming from the magazine #46 of the Apollo 12 hoax mission, we see astroactor Alan Bean being shot while climbing down the ladder of the module and stepping on the "lunar" soil for the first time ever. His hoax buddy, Pete Conrad, has been the first to go out and by the time this photo was shot, he had been walking around for just about half an hour. (photo's timestamp is 115:51:59 and Pete's feet on the ground started at around 115:20:00)

There are at least 4 very odd features visible in this photograph and one in particular retained my attention. I framed it on the pic while letting the others on the back-burner for the time being.



Above is, I believe, what we see lying next to the lunar module, a dead white bird, and I will now explain why.
Apollo 12 was the sixth manned flight in the United States Apollo program and the second to land on the Moon. It was launched on November 14, 1969, that is four months after Apollo 11.
That year there was a popular song aired by many American radios, white bird, authored by " It's a Beautiful Day" band.

"white bird"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM3o5fe6LiQ

From wikipedia: ( @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Bird_(song) )

"White Bird" is a 1969 song by San Francisco rock group It's a Beautiful Day, written by David LaFlamme and his then wife Linda LaFlamme (née Neska).
...
It was first released on the band's 1969 eponymous debut album It's a Beautiful Day by Columbia Records.

The song quickly became the band's signature tune and a staple of FM Album-oriented rock radio.[5] The album rose to Number 47 on the Billboard 200 album chart.[6] Following the popularity of the album track a single version was edited and remixed for radio play, with a running time of 3:02, and released on October 4, 1969.[7] It rose to as high as Number 3 the week of October 18, 1969 on San Francisco radio station KYA

It rose as high as number 3 just one month before the launch of the Apollo 12 hoax mission. That's a pretty neat "coincidence".

From the same source:

The song was also used in the soundtrack of A Walk on the Moon, a 1999 American drama about a married woman's infidelity, including Woodstock Music Festival scenes.

So let's recap, the song "white bird" was not only a radio hit during Apollo 12 but it was also included in the soundtrack of the movie "a walk on the Moon", hmm pretty interesting isn't it?
But wait, there is even more in the lyrics.

White bird,
in a golden cage,
on a winter's day,
in the rain.

White bird,
in a golden cage,
alone.

The leaves blow,
Across the long black road.
To the darkened skies,
in its rage

But the white bird just sits in her cage,
unknown.

White bird must fly
Or she will die

White bird,
dreams of the aspen trees,
with their dying leaves,
turning gold.

But the white bird just sits in her cage,
growing old.

White bird must fly or she will die.
White bird must fly or she will die.

The sunsets come, the sunsets go.
The clouds roll by,and the earth turns old.
And the young bird's eyes do always glow.

She must fly,
She must fly,
She must fly.

White bird,
In a golden cage,
On a winter's day, in the rain.

White bird,
In a golden cage alone.

White bird must fly or she will die.
White bird must fly or she will die.
White bird must fly or she will die.
White bird must fly

white bird (astroactor?) in a golden cage

the golden cage could very well be a direct reference to the flat Earth's dome.

in the rain.
Launch day for Apollo 12 was November 14, 1969.  The weather at the launch site that day was very poor.  There was considerable rain in the area and a cloud ceiling of only 2100 feet obscured visibility.
http://www.earthtothemoon.com/apollo_12.html

must fly or she will die


Across the long black road. To the darkened skies, in its rage


But the white bird just sits in her cage, growing old.


I could be wrong, of course, but I can't find a better explanation for the presence of this strange white item in the photograph. That's a whole lot of coincidences.
But wait there's even more to it!



Another remarkable feature visible in the photograph is that light reflection on the aluminum sheet covering the landing pad next to our white bird (see pic above). It is remarkable in the sense that only one small section of the landing pad with an irregular shape is illumined while the surrounding is left pitch black. Even stranger is said section has clearly the shape of a feather, a white feather.
But it could be just another coincidence  

If this item is indeed an Easter egg then the message is pretty clear, The white bird never flew.
But this we already knew



The sneaky popper

A third anomaly is visible this time in Alan Bean's PLSS (Portable Life Support System) outer cover. A close inspection of AS12-46-6729HR.jpg reveals the presence of an extra popper that doesn't exist in the rest of the pictures in the magazine.

( Original pic available @ https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6729HR.jpg )


Searching back into the rest of the pictures showing Mr Bean climbing down the ladder returns no trace of the popper.

( Original pic available @ https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6726HR.jpg )


( Original pic available @ https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6727HR.jpg )


( Original pic available @ https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6728HR.jpg )


( Original pic available @ https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6729HR.jpg )




Digging deeper into the same magazine #46 returned no popper as shown in the few examples below featuring the same Alan Bean moments later doing a bit of handiwork with what's described as a landing radar by NASA.

( Original pic available @ https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6788HR.jpg )


( Original pic available @ https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6791HR.jpg )


( Original pic available @ https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-46-6792HR.jpg )


Other magazines confirm the lack of popper as in this other pic of Alan Bean doing handiwork from magazine #49

( Original pic available @ https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-49-7286HR.jpg )


So now that we have established that our popper did not actually belong to the astroactor's PLSS, is it possible that it was inserted by a technician working on the photograph and why? Or was it merely a dust of some sort?

I believe that what we have here is a C letter hiding as the shadow of a popper. Look at the close-up view below and consider how the  orientation of our wannabee shadow is consistent with this of the other popper located just above thus consistent with the orientation of the light rays as they were hitting the PLSS during the making of that shot except this one popper wasn't supposed to exist at all!



But why a C letter? Could be a reference to the word 'clue' and possibly the explanation for the now famous C-rock photograph featuring two perfect C letters that WERE visible in the original AS16-107-17446 made for the Apollo hoax mission #16.



Also keep in mind that 'C' happens to be the third letter of the Latin alphabet and 3 is a very meaningful number for the occultists "working" at the astroactors agency. Also notice the presence of two 'C' letters in both pictures; Two C-shaped shadows made by the poppers in the case of the PLSS and the often (conveniently!!) forgotten second C located on the ground in the case of the C-rock. Two Cs to make a 33? May be two Cs to suggest duality or even correspondence with one below and one above? etc...
Agreed this is just me speculating about the motive but I believe most here will agree that whatever the motive behind that fake popper really was, NASA has yet been exposed for what it's worth ( ).

( Original picture downloadable @ https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-151-23201HR.jpg )

This fail from the Apollo hoax mission #17 is pretty well known but I'm posting it here nonetheless for two reasons. Firstable it didn't seem to figure in the IFERS' catalog up to this point and also because, as far as I can tell, this fail is always presented as part of the first low-res batch of Apollo photographs, never from the recent high definition composites released by the astroactor agency.
As for the context of this photograph, official narrative claims this shot shows the lunar module after undocking the command module and starting its trip to the landing site.
Problem is that increasing the brightness and contrast reveals what appears to be a shadow projection of the module onto the ceiling
Or is it a black hole that we see in the distance?

Something strange happened at the end of the second Apollo 15 EVA (extra vehicular activity). While David Scott was taking a few shots of his hoax buddy James Irwin at the flag, a wheel print left by the lunar rover mysteriously decided to transmute itself into a set of foot prints.  
The first picture, AS15-92-12447, was shot after 148:55:33 ( shooting time-stamp of AS15-92-12444) and before 148:56:32 when AS15-92-12448 was made so that both pics are spaced by a time interval of no more than 59 seconds and certainly much less considering that 4 photographs total were made inside that short interval.

( Original picture downloadable @ https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-92-12447HR.jpg )


( Original picture downloadable @ https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-92-12448HR.jpg )


Notice the red frames in the two pictures above and notice how in a matter of just a few dozens of seconds at most, the wheel prints marked with the orange arrows, got raked out of existence and fresh foot prints (marked by blue arrows) have made an appearance in the stage.

Below are the zones of interest magnified by a factor 2 with a contrast level slightly increased.
Before


After


Notice how the region formerly containing the wheel prints seem to have been raked. But for what reason and how did they manage to do it so quickly inside their A7LB Spacesuit in such a hostile environment?
Even more intriguing is the fact the fresh foot prints are going from James Irwin to the raked area before going further stopping at David Scott in the background but another set of fresh foot prints is actually visible in AS15-92-12448HR.jpg on the left. That other set shows more foot prints going the other way so that we have identified a round trip path from and to both astroactors and passing by the raked zone as illustrated in the pic below.

Identified flows of foot prints


Is it possible to tell which astroactor is more likely to have made the trip? Well considering the size of their astrorake (see pic below) it is very likely the photographer, David Scott, did it otherwise we would see the rake near James on AS15-92-12448HR.jpg. There was simply nowhere to hide it.

Below pic shows an astrorake used to take fake lunar samples (pic from Apollo 16 but models are identical)


So in all likelihood, David Scott (or a NASA technician standing by) noticed the wheel print after the first shots were taken; He grabbed an astrorake and came to clean the prints then probably decided to fix something on James Irwin's spacesuit and finally made the trip back to his original position before taking the next shots of the series. This in only a few dozens of seconds. That's about the time such operation would take on Earth, isn't it?
but on the Moon, how credible is it?
That short video shows how easy it was to rake the lunar ground with that damn cable on their back in that damn suit.  

Great find blob!

blob,
I would have to disagree with the first post being a dead bird, it merely looks (in my opinion) like a piece of sticky tape that was obviously used to construct the cardboard and tinfoil lander, this most likely fell off when the lander was carried on to the set.

Your other two posts are excellent though and clearly show NASA for the frauds that they are, excellent work my friend!

On the supposed Apollo 17 mission to the Moon and within 65 hours of alleged take-off...





When embarking on such a dangerous mission which would last 12 DAYS, of course the main priority is to shave within 65 hours of take-off.
If people cannot see NASA and the Apollo hoaxes for the frauds they are, then we as a species are truly fucked!

FL@T-E@RTH wrote:blob,
I would have to disagree with the first post being a dead bird, it merely looks (in my opinion) like a piece of sticky tape that was obviously used to construct the cardboard and tinfoil lander, this most likely fell off when the lander was carried on to the set.

Your other two posts are excellent though and clearly show NASA for the frauds that they are, excellent work my friend!

Thank you friend, you could be right about the sticky tape (you definitely are about the tinfoil lander ). I can't prove the white bird theory beyond any reasonable doubt but considering the amount of coincidences seemingly supporting it, I thought it was worth exposing it here anyway. People will make their own mind.

By the way, that very photograph from Apollo hoax #12 we are talking about contains other interesting anomalies, one IMHO being undeniable proof of manipulation. I will present them shortly ( done: see "The sneaky popper" update in the original post )
Keep up the good work!

Following is a well known (and pretty good IMO) fail from Apollo 15 that was missing in IFERS' catalog.

During the second EVA of Apollo hoax mission #15, David Scott took two very interesting pictures of the Station 7 sample site, namely AS15-86-11670 and AS15-86-11671, with just a very small offset between each in order to give a stereoscopic effect if viewed simultaneously, one image for each eye.

( Original picture downloadable @ https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-86-11670HR.jpg )


and its Stereo companion

( Original picture downloadable @ https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-86-11671HR.jpg )


In the bottom right corner of these photographs we find four footprints total with one among them being clearly not the typical footprint left by the so-called Moon-boots (    ) as illustrated by the following picture showing an x-ray made of James Irwin's right Moon-boot along side a complete view of a left Moon-boot sole from below.

( Original picture downloadable @ https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/IrwinRbootsm.jpg )


As the next picture hopefully helps establish, the mysterious footprint is unequivocally different from one left by a Moon-boot; The width, number and orientation of the stripes are just irreconcilable with the model designed for the Apollo astroactors.



So, who made that print if not an astroactor?

Another picture from Apollo 17

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-137-20979.jpg



Picture of the replacement fender taken at about 143:46:34 by Gene Cernan, just before driving off from Station 2. Jack Schmitt is already seated. The dust-coated- originally-blue Traverse Gravimeter is mounted on the back of the Rover just above the replacement fender. Gene took this photo, in part, to document its condition after the 9.1 kilometer drive out from the LM and, in part, to document his handiwork.

Only one thing wrong with this photograph, there are NO tyre tracks on either side of the Rover's rear wheel
Yet more proof of NASA's bullshit.

From Apollo hoax mission #15: NASA reports at 167:38:54,
Dave has driven the Rover out to the VIP site so that the worldwide television audience can watch the launch..
Then about 10 minutes later, at 167:49:38, three consecutive shots were made of the Rover at it's final parking place.
I merged the three pics into one to show the absence of tire print anywhere near the Rover even though well-formed boot prints are visible next to it. This of course contradicts the official narrative and proves that the Apollo missions were staged.

( Original picture downloadable @ https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11901HR.jpg )
( Original picture downloadable @ https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11902HR.jpg )
( Original picture downloadable @ https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-88-11903HR.jpg )



a close-up view of the rear side

I always knew the Moon landings were faked, but just browsing NASA's archive is truly eye-opening.

Here from Apollo 14 I have overlaid the 2 images side by side for analysis.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9305HR.jpg

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/AS14-66-9306HR.jpg





Check out the difference in the size of the 'alleged' Sun
LMFAO

Also in your pics there is the problem of the crosses that appear to cast a shadow on a second layer behind (original photograph?). Smells very fishy, like botched compositing work may be.
Any idea what else it could be?

lizardking wrote:Posted by Joe on 04/18/2015

Found this new video on YT and thought I'd share as I thought it was pretty good .

NASA already explained the space bubbles, so this video was not at all necessary.

We're going to Mars, right? Well, those bubble are Martian farts.

Jeez, don't you even science?

Because in space, no one can hear you scam.

Here we have another undeniable proof that the Apollo 17 mission was staged. Two photographs, coming from magazines #134 and #147, show the tinfoil lander from about the same angle with a vastly different background.


In the first photograph, Jack is seen doing some useless handiwork near the tinfoil covered space junk. Notice the distance between the junk and the group of rocks on the right and the apparent size of the mountain in the background.

( Original picture downloadable @ https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20435HR.jpg )



In the second photograph, Gene is seen driving the rover in between Jack and the LM. The group of rocks on the right side is now farther away from the lunar module and the top of the mountain in the background appears much lower.

( Original picture downloadable @ https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22527HR.jpg )



This, of course, is possible if and only if the lunar junk was displaced between these two shots.
Not only that but it also proves the massif in the background is really much closer than anything told in the official story.

Excellent work blob, great example.

Thank you CSP
You may like that other great and famous fail.
During the Apollo hoax mission 15 something weird happened (again), one of the astroactors seems to have inadvertently kicked into the ACME box filled with nitroglycerin.

original downloadable @https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11056HR.jpg
original downloadable @https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11081HR.jpg

Yet more wonderful work blob, well done!
NASA
Never A Space Assignment

"Test 2993", I almost died from laughing

They mock us since 1958, that's 58 years, so I guess we should be mocking 'em more often. And mocking is a good way of exposing.

Just google "Synthetic Biology for Recycling Human Waste into Food, Nutraceuticals, and Materials"...
Well, I do hope they'll end up eating shit one day. Literally.

Oh my... Is this coprophagy a NASA reference to their occult origins involving Jack Parsons, Ordo Templi Oriente, and Aleister Crowley!?

ABalancedKarma wrote:

Just google "Synthetic Biology for Recycling Human Waste into Food, Nutraceuticals, and Materials"...
Well, I do hope they'll end up eating shit one day. Literally.