If for trivial pursuit they ask, "where did they invent rockets", the common answer today is China. The Far East has been reckoned the fabled hometown for most ancient rocket, and even the old wizards
there did not use them for transportation! Rather they used them for entertainment and celebrations. From the days of old, it was an early discovery that rockets are not naturally convenient as reusable vehicles of transportation, as they are difficult and
dangerous to land, other than where they simply crash, even if they would be used only for one go.
The oldest pictograph letter for rocket combined the characters for fire and arrow, and appeared
perhaps as early as the Three Kingdoms Period (220-280 AD), but these were only fire arrows. The first use of gunpowder, which was a natural precursor to rockets, came much later, probably six hundred years later, in the mid-ninth century from a basic mixture of sulfur, charcoal, and saltpeter. Sometime during the late Tang dynasty (618-907) there was the occasional use of gunpowder for military exploits, when explosive bombs were fired from catapults. During
the Song and Yuan dynasties (960-1368), the military applications of gunpowder continued, and some rudimentary weapons like a medieval "fire cannon", "rocket", "missile" and "fireball" were introduced. So it was sometime by the late tenth century perhaps that
an early mixture of gunpowder had been adapted to arrows to make the very first primitive rockets.
In a battle of 1232 AD, against the Mongols,
who were besieging the city of Kai-fung-fu, the Chinese with some tactical success used bamboo tubes filled with gunpowder attached to iron arrows. With
a clever barrage, they drove the enemy away in confusion, yet rockets were still not so effective overall for military purposes, and were mostly used for entertainment and celebrations as fireworks. If they could make dazzling explosions in the sky, no one
imagined they could have a purpose for transportation; but according to one ancient legend, an otherwise forgotten official named Wan Hoo, sometimes called Wan Tu, would one day attempt a special flight to the Moon by a fantastic rocketship. The legendary
tale would go back to the Ming Dynasty of the 16th century, where it otherwise prevails in a mask of archival obscurity.
In those days, Wan Hoo was another starry-eyed dreamer who wanted to fly
away to the Moon up above in the cloudy river of the sky, but the truth about rockets is that they do not have an easy way to land, since the first tendency for them is only to crash or explode. No one typically lands on a rocket or rocket engine on the vertical,
who wants to travel safely, even on Earth, much less to the Moon!
However, Wan Hoo followed his own advice, and the spaceship that he built was very ambitious, like a demon from the opera, of wicker
and bamboo, over an inner frame of rustic Chinese rebar, with a powerful crablike configuration of 80 powerful Ming Dynasty rockets, and two great sailing kites like dragon wings for added lift.
He subcontracted and insured trained attendants from an employmeny agency for the launch; and on the appointed day of full Moon travel, that he had set by his calendar, ready to go, he finally sat himself down to the Captain's chair, strapped on his fearsome
helmet, and gave the signal for the countdown. The attendants held ceremonial torches and at the last count ran forward to light the fuses. The fuses burned perfectly and great smoke was billowing. It was like a Kung Fu movie and the whirlwind of a cataclysm
when the rockets began to take off like the teeth of a giant fire breathing dragon. When the dust and smoke finally had cleared, everyone looked for Wan Hoo, but he could not be found, neither high nor low.
could not find a trace of him in the clouds or see his vehicle in the sky. Had he been taken away like Elijah on a fiery chariot and a storm? They could see the clear full Moon, but it was far away
like the stars. Had he really gone that far so soon, or had he and his bamboo-wicker crate and rebar been blown to absolute smithereens? It seemed he may have been vaporized. They never knew, but at the next full Moon they drank a starry toast to the memory
of Wan Hoo.
If not for ambitious trips to the Moon, like Wan Hoo's, rocket experiments and recreation continued from the 13th to 15th centuries in China, and from as far away as Italy and Britain.
Dr. de Fontana of Italy, for example, designed a surface-running rocket-powered torpedo for setting enemy ships on fire, and a monk from England named Roger Bacon worked on improved forms of gunpowder that increased the range of rockets. In France, Jean Froissart
discovered that more accurate flights could be achieved by launching rockets through tubes. Froissart's improvements would provide a primitive forerunner of the modern bazooka and panzerfaust; and, besides rockets and fireworks, gunpowder mixtures also spread
as far as India, Japan, and Europe. Through the years the technology gradually improved, until Portuguese explorers introduced effective infantry firearms to Japan in 1543.
Rockets had a revival
as weapons of war when the Hindu Indians used them in damaging barrages against the British infantry in terrible battles of 1792 and 1799. In reaction to the experience, a British artillery expert William Congreve woud later develop the famous Congreve rockets
of the War of 1812. The effect of rockets in warfare even then was not from so much their accuracy or power as much as it was from the numbers used and the surprising mayhem that could be created in a barrage.
Robert Goddard in the twentieth century, all rockets had been fueled with various mixtures of solid propellants. The first flight of a liquid propellant rocket took place under his direction on March 16, 1926 at Auburn, Massachusetss. Using liquid oxygen and
gasoline, the rocket dubbed "Nell" flew up to an altitude of about 41 feet during a two and a half second flight of 184 feet across that ended in a cabbage patch. Even if it was not too glorious for a start, it provided an important demonstration that liquid-fueled
rockets were possible. The launch site is now a National Historic Landmark.
In Europe, Herman Oberth and a young assistant Wernher von Braun developed a liquid-propellant rocket motor in 1929.
Although it lacked a cooling system, it did run briefly. Von Braun would later become famous in German and American rocketry circles for his large-scale designs of the V-2 and Saturn V. In fact, the continuity in the concept and design between the V-2 rocket
motor and the engine of the Saturn V is unmistakable; and the overall flight similarities are remarkable; and the launch capacity of the first was not so far removed from the capacity
of the second.
One of the three main areas of criticism of NASA's false trips to the Moon continues to be focused around the problem with rockets and the great distance away of the Moon. In
the 118 years from the invention of the Foucault pendulum until Apollo 11 was broadcast, supposedly "live" on TV, the world underwent profound changes. Scientific discoveries produced revolutionary results in many fields, and conditions of life were changed
radically by the extraordinary development of the world press, radio, television, and maybe a thousand other things besides rockets. All these influenced society, but throughout the centuries, "one factor has remained constant --- the power of money. Indeed,
the importance of this factor has increased."(1) And like too much money in the wrong hands and in wrong places, the ancient arts of imposture, tricks, and conjuration are as old as the hills and the Moon in Scorpio.
With arcane guile and blatant deception, the money lenders, media magnates, and political leaders of "scientific" materialism have taken over the temple and the town of modernism, and made great profits for themselves, at pathetic
and grievous expense to the truth, even going as far as fake trips to the Moon and Mars and outer space. Outer space and the spaceship money indeed ... $$$$$$$$$$$$$, etc., and US government debt is in the tweny trillions and counting.
An old rule from common law for jury advisement says "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus", which means false in one thing, false in everything, and that it is fair to say that a witness who testifies falsely to the
court about one matter is not credible to testify about any matter. It is relevant to NASA's rather cosmic propaganda platform, and the fake and very expensive trips to the Moon, Mars, and Pluto, and the outer space of beyond, et cetera. "Falsus ad Lunam,
falsus porro ad Pluto". False to the Moon, false further on to the Plutonian shores, and the excuse they would like to have of so-called "gravity kicks", to explain the absurd logistics supposedly accomplisehd by their m.a.f.i.a. deep space travels, is totally
false, since gravity is not even any kind of lateral force.
However, some people may insist that Judeo-Masonic controlled NASA landed on the Moon as they say, because Walter Cronkite
was at the desk of CBS Evening News during the time of Apollo (1969-1972), and he seemed to believe it too, and sometimes used to do the theatrical voice of the giant horned owl at the Bohemian Grove Celebrations of Care, in California, but that is only begging
the question. To say that some Freemasons landed on the Moon because somebody like Walter Cronkite, who worked for CBS News for more than twenty years, never voiced any doubts about NASA's credibility, or the
Foucault Pendulum at the UN, or the scandals of market and interest rate manipulation from the Federal Reserve Bank, Bank of England, and Libor (London Interbank Offered Rate), is almost to admit that they were up to no good, and telling perhaps the
biggest and most ridiculous lies ever, when it came to telling the truth about not landing on the Moon, etc.
CBS Evening News had been broadcasting since 1948, and if Walter Cronkite did not find
out about it, or say anything about it being a hoax, then it must have been that they were on the Moon 21 years later, because there is no way that they could keep such a thing secret from the public, etc., with so many government employees and CBS TV viewers,
with free access to visit the shopping mall, and to the movies, and to discover the truth themelves! Everybody who can afford to hire a good private investigator, to find out what is going on, already knows that the American financial and political leadership
is not characterized at all by any Judeo-Masonic or international communist conspiracy of malfeasance, criminality, sins against nature, and diabolical miscreantism, and the American TV viewing public is not being manipulated or misled or taken for saps!
Yet the Saturn V's part in the Redstone family of rockets (1953-1975) simply was not that exceptional or different for it to be capable
of conjuring up successful trips to the Moon, where the V-2 before had only flown across the English Channel to bomb London. In fact, analysis of its historical place of development among rockets will demonstrate that its flight envelope was not unusually
advanced at all, not that much more than the Saturn I and IB, and it could not carry men and equipment to the Moon and back. The best ICBM's cannot reach the Moon either, for example, and it was not so much better in 1969 with the Saturn V than it was for
the Space Shuttle program (1981-2011) that followed it, or with the resupply rockets that have been used for the International Space Station today.
The Saturn V was equipped with Rocketdyne F-1
and J-2 engines that were fueled by common rocket fuel and refined kerosene similar to jet fuel. No exotic or super-efficient new fuels were formulated to bring down the fuel requirements, and neither the hypergolic fuel capacity nor any maximum sustained
velocity of the Saturn V would have been sufficient to catch the Moon. Suspicions on engineering grounds of the authenticity of the supposed lunar flights are based on the fact that NASA contractors progressed from producing very weak and unexceptional rocket
engines (NASA first launched heavyweight satellites of 3-4 tons into low Earth orbit in 1964) to incredible record-breaking engines capable of powering manned lunar missions in a suspiciously short timeframe and without a substantial change in design or technology.
And following termination of the "Race to the Moon", the development of these record-breaking engines came to an abrupt end and the technology has not been used since.(2)
NASA astronaut Don
Pettit said the problem in going back to the Moon today is that "we don't have the technology to do that anymore. We used to, but we destroyed that technology, and it's a painful process to build it back up again"; and former NASA Chief Charlie Bolden said
in April 2013, that “NASA is not going to the Moon with a human as a primary project probably in my lifetime.”
A close analysis
of the Saturn V reveals that the velocity achieved for it was significantly lower than that which would have been required to satisfy the actual demands of the stated flight plan to the Moon. In a word, NASA's Apollo record regarding the capabilities
of the Saturn V has been greatly distorted. Even the velocity achieved through the first and best stage was 800/1100 m/s "lower than that required to complete the stated flight plan"(3), even right along the initial arc of separation. Things in space for a
flight to the Moon from there would not get any better but rather would decline steeply.
In various tests, the results obtained from three independent yet mutually interrelated scientific methods
have conclusively demonstrated that the Saturn V's flight efficiency "was substantially lower than expected and substantially lower than stated in NASA documentation."(4) For example, "the Saturn V booster was only capable of launching at least 10 tons of
payload less into translunar trajectory than officially stated in the Apollo record."(5) Reasonable conclusions obtained as a result of the careful analysis and study of the supposed ability of the Apollo 11 Saturn V rocket to place the stated payload into
lunar orbit completely nullify NASA's declared propulsion and fuel capabilities with regard to the missions to the Moon and back.
"Conquest of the Moon", the world famous rocket scientist Werner von Braun wrote: "It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the Earth to the Moon, but to do this we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an
economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the Earth's gravity, and having traveled all the way to the Moon it must still have enough fuel to land safely on the Moon and then make the return trip
to Earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone but a minimum of three.
have been carefully worked out on the type of vehicle we would need for the non-stop flight from the Earth to the Moon and then the return. The figures speak for themselves: each rocket ship would be taller than New York's Empire State Building (1250 feet),
almost a quarter mile high, and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary or some 800,000 tons."(6)
The basic problems with rockets are that they burn too much fuel, are impossible to
build large enough to go to the Moon, do not have enough velocity and radiation protection, and there are no so-called gravity kicks to help them into outer space, as much as gravity is not a lateral force, and space is 3-D. But for Judeo-Masonic controlled
NASA's Apollo project and the Saturn V, "it's as though the laws of physics were suspended for that interval of time"(7). The three stage Saturn V's height in total was only 281.1 feet, from its three stages, not counting the little space capsule and the lem.
Thus it was 968.9 feet shorter, or 78% less in length, than any one of the three rockets described by von Braun that would be necessary for any successful trip to the Moon and back. The Saturn V also was only 3,000 tons, which is more than 266 times smaller
than it had to be even remotely, even for one out of three, to have enough power reach the Moon.
The real world and make-believe are not the same, and interstellar travel is not something
mankind can accomplish with rockets. Estimates may vary, but NASA used less than 1% of the fuel then in 1969 that it would take to reach the moon today, without even coming back, and they supposedly made the trip there in only 4 days. Coincidentally, it has
taken an average of 4 days for the resupply rocket rides to navigate the depths of space and reach the International Space Station, which is only 220 to 240 miles up in low Earth orbit. That altitude is only .00096, or .096%, which is less than 1/1000th or
.1%, of the way to the Moon. And Skylab (73-79) and the ISS have never been usable as intermediate conveyance stations for relaying further flights into deep space ... much less to the Moon or Mars.
"Horse sense is the fortuity a horse has that keeps it from betting on people". And the Apollo LEM (lunar excursion module) stage of the Saturn V would have killed whoever was in it, trying to land it on
the Moon, as surely as the DCX blew up in a fireball crash explosion in the desert in 1995. Any one who has seen that and other rocket crashes should know. Rockets are not jet packs, and seeing it once is better than being told 1,000 times.
No sane pilot could be expected to safely land the LEM stage of the expedition anyway that he tried. Even if he knew where he was going and made it that far, with the LEM's design, the visibility was less
than poor. It was impossiible. The cheap metal tent enclosure and its showcase blast engines, that could not even safely land at an airport in California, should have cost less than a million or so to build in 1969 Federal Reserve Bank dollars, for an honest
working man's bid, yet they took away 6.9 billion for it. And none dare call it a conspiracy!
The Federal Aviation Administraion and US Department of Transportation do not even land on rockets
at the airport for top bureaucratic brass. And certainly not with pilots, therefore, one should know they do not land them on the Moon or Mars for any practical reason!
A pilot trying to
land by the vertical, coming down directly on 10,000 lbs. of jet-engine-exhaust, burning at up to 5,000 degrees fahrenheit, in an awkwardly angular tent-like craft, with four odd spider legs, and no wings -- and on the Moon -- is not well advised or within
the approval range of any honest safety council. "The science of astronautics is actually built on quite simple principles that we encounter in our everyday living,"(8) and no one safely lands on a rocket engine in the vertical, any more than Wan Hoo, even
on Earth, much less the Moon! To try to land directly by the vertical, descending straight down on combustible jet engine exhaust, with no wings, is far too dangerous and stupid for any sane pilot. The thing and its captain would require better stabilization
that could only be provided by substantial wing support, like a British Harrier jet, for instance.
A helicopter lands safely on the vertical with working blades and no way else. All aircraft need
some effective wings and other safe means for stabilization in landing, like a runway area and wheels, and rockets do not have wings or wheels either. That is why rockets do not typically land. They lack the natural aerodynamic control and glide for piloting
a descent in safe landing, and they typically only crash and explode!
Even with the record breaking Falcon 9 and New Shepherd powered vertical descents of 2016, this is still true. They did better
than the DCX 21 years before, and 47 years after Apollo, but they did not have human pilots sitting on top of them either. They used highly sophisticated electronic guidance systems and have only now made the first very limited demonstrations of the possibility
of reusable rockets. These rockets are small, in fact, and after flights of only 80 to 100 miles altitude, SpaceX rockets have more often crashed and exploded trying to land than not.
recent attempts at reusability of rockets only add to the proof that what is easiest to know about rockets is that they do not provide safe air transportation for a pilot and passengers on top, when and if they would ever feel compelled to land one successfully
in the vertical, since their greatest natural tendency is simply to crash and expode, and rocket jet exhaust is always dangerous and wildly hot.
One of the most peculiar things from the Apollo
missions is that the LEM's roaring descent engine did not make any noticeable impressions on the surface of the Moon, or buffeting sounds on the audiotape. The LEM did not provoke any clouds of dust or burn even the slightest crater ring where it landed, and
the landing pads appeared immaculately placed in all the photographs. There was no evidence of any disturbance whatsoever to the lunar surface, yet "the jet from a rocket engine will move large boulders as though they were being shot out of a cannon",
and burn a wide circle of things up.(10) Rocket blast affects an area, and the LEM should have left a trail of molten dust and exhaust clouds, as it traveled over the lunar surface to its landing, even if it could have been piloted as a jet pack. It should
have dug out a surface impression or left some sort of crater. Temperatures burning at a fraction of the LEM's exhaust, as low as 1832 farhenheit, for example, can create a lava flow.
the 1995 DCX crash, the DCX rocket dug up the prepared landing site so badly that it left a crater two feet deep in compacted gypsum. It tore up the area in big chunks, and finally tipped over an exploded.
when the Apollo craft lifted off to leave the "Moon", the NASA camera footage has absolutely no gas exhaust showing, but only a ridiculous bursting apart of the mylar covering with some cheap-looking sparks. It looked worse than the TV episode from the "Brady
Bunch" where "Peter" made the little model volcano for a high school science project. The little model volcano actually had exhaust, and more evidence of actual operation than the LEM.
The two other main areas of criticism of the supposed Moon landings have been focused around 1.) time composition and artistic anomalies, which include the absurd claim that stars are not visible from the
surface of the Moon, and the strange behavior of the astronauts, and 2.) the deadly radiation and extreme temperatures from the Van Allen radiation belts and beyond, and the deadly hostile environment that prevails on the surface of the Moon.
And for all the exploratory research money, there is no reason that it should be forgotten that the celestial order and astronomical velocity of the Moon are tremendous, and nothing familiar to conditions
of the Earth, and the Moon has no atmosphere. Life on Earth is characterized by the immobility of the Earth, which provides the greatest benefit of stability, and there is its protective atmosphere. The Moon does not have these benefits of stable immobility
with a protective atmosphere, and there is no way NASA astronauts could have an easy or survivable trip to the Moon, when its sphere of velocity, in outer space, is considered in addition to all the radiation, extreme temperatures, and the vast distance they
would have to travel.
The Moon is about 30 Earth diameters or 60 Earth radii away, and the 200 miles altitude achieved for low Earth orbit represents (.025) or only 2.5% of the Earth's diameter
itself, and a mere fraction of a fraction of a fraction (.0008333333) of the way to the Moon. In other words, the Moon is about 1,000 times further away than they can go with NASA employees. A round trip of 480,000 miles was beyond 1969 technology, and it
remains beyond all the aerospace and aeronautical technology available today.
With the sun and stars, the moon transits in
its orbit, from within the limits of its own sphere, from East to West around the Earth -- clockwise when viewed from above the North pole. It loses on average about one degree to the ecliptic for every two hours, showing that the fixed stars of the constellations,
that are much further out, within the limits of their own spheres, are going much faster. All these stars are going from East to West around the Earth as well, and in about 27 days, 7 hours, 45 minutes, or so, they will have all passed the Moon, and then the
Moon will be back again to another beginning in view of the fixed stars in the background of the ecliptic and deep space. The stars keep passing it up from month to month, through all the years; and one full pass around of the zodiac represents the sidereal
month, simple as it is; and it is not how long it takes for the Moon to orbit the Earth.
Within its degrees of arc, the distance
of the Moon from the Earth and its celestial momentum will vary from the means. Contradicting Newton's theory of gravity, the Moon is not always the same distance from the Earth, which is another sign that "gravity" is not universal. When the moon transits
slower, it loses a little more than one degree to the ecliptic for every two hours. When it transits faster, it loses a little less than one degree every two hours. This is because it orbits from East to West around the Earth, as the stars are as well.
If it were going from West to East, it would be the opposite case. If it went from West to East, as it went faster, going in the opposite direction of the stars, it would then measure more change in terms of the ecliptic, than when it transits slower -- but
the relative change in the Moon's degrees of the ecliptic is caused by the more distant stars traveling faster than it around the Earth.
has reversed the course of the Moon, and gotten all this simple background data backwards, and teaches from error that when it is further away it goes slower, and when it is closer it goes faster. This is a reversal of the facts and contrary to the simplest
interpretation of common empirical observations and even contradicts the formula for angular velocity.
other words, Kepler's Second Law, the so-called "Law of Equal Areas", that "a line joining a planet and the sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time," is false. When the moon and the sun are closer to Earth, they travel slower not faster,
and also encircle less area. When further away, they travel faster and encircle more area. Therefore, the lines of radius joining the sun and moon to the Earth do not sweep out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
For an estimate of velocity, consider that the moon's distance from Earth at apogee is about 253,000 miles, and the moon orbits the Earth in an average of
24 hours and 50 minutes. Consider that the radius of the Earth is about 3963 miles, and the radius of the moon is about 1080 miles. For a ballpark figure of the angular/circular velocity of the moon around the Earth, add the radius of the Earth and that of
the moon to the distance number. At apogee, this number becomes 258,043 miles.
The simple formula for angular velocity is v
= wr, where v is velocity, w in the case of the moon is 1 rot./24.8333333 x 2pi radians/1 rot., and r is radius.
Then v = (pi/12.41666666) x 258,044 miles = "65,288 mph " for the relation of celestial
momentum of the moon, in terms of its orbital sphere at apogee.
Using the formula v = wr for the means and perigee of the moon,
lower celestial momentum, of course, is indicated when the moon is closer to Earth. Besides the logical proof, this is what it looks like too. When the moon is bigger in the sky, it looks like it is orbiting slower, and it seems to wait there sometimes, looming
in the sky.
Consider that the mean distance of the moon is 240,000 miles, then that measure, plus the Earth's radius 3964,
and the moon's radius 1080 is 245,044 miles x (pi/12.41666666) = "62,0000 mph", as it would be in translation of momentous force by the impetus and agency of its sphere, due to celestial acceleration in the means, et cetera.
For velocity of perigee, if the moon's distance from Earth is approximately 226,000 miles, then that plus 3964 and 1080 is 231,044 miles x (pi/12.41666666) = "58,457
mph", representing the velocity of celestial zoom in motion at perigee.
As v = wr relates directly to the logic of distance
equals rate multiplied by time, and velocity equals distance divided by time, the set ratios of the numbers involved in the motion of the Moon around the Earth are against Kepler'sSecond Law. As the time element incorporated within the denominator of "w" increases,
"w" and radius and velocity all decrease, as the property of division by time increases. As time in the denominator gets bigger, the division increases, and this logically reduces velocity, and also the area of sweep covered.
More time means less velocity and less radius. In the ratios' number crunching, as the distance between the Earth and the Moon decreases, the speed also decreases,
other things being equal; and whenever chronos increases, the time rolled away inside the denominator of "w" restricts speed like a governing hammer, decreasing everything from there, and decreasing the overall value of v and r.
The moon's celestial origin of motion is unique and separate from the Earth. Its momentum is as extra-terrestrial as its sphere, and it has nothing to do with Earth's
"gravity" supposedly pushing or pulling it along, or the Earth's density of composition and separate weight of compaction. The Moon and the Earth are separated by vast distances in space and are quite different from each other. It is obvious, without being
said, that they do not compose a simple body. So when the length of the Moon's separation from Earth increases, as it keeps going around from within the velocity of its sphere, it is reasonable and accurate to recognize that speed also increases, as v = (w)r,
and other things remain equal.
As mathematics and logic are universal by necessity, it is not mere chance that the issue of
the other worldly force of impetus driving the moon becomes relevant to the catalogue of inconsistencies surrounding NASA's Apollo project (1969-1972). The Moon is marked by extreme conditions, including the sphere of its own tremendous and astronomical velocity,
but the supposed "lunar surface" that NASA recorded is always totally fixed and set in place, as much as a garden and any location from across the Earth, or somewhere in Nevada.
The controversy over the flag "on the Moon", waving in the wind in a zero atmosphere environment, for example, is one of the artistic anomalies that raised alarms of a hoax. Conspiratologists say it is obvious
evidence of some terrestrial ventilation within a movie set, whether from vents or fans, or whatever earthly source. The Apollo flag waving in the wind on "lunar" videotape is suspicious not only on that account, but also because it adds to the evidence that
the NASA moon-mission-surface is never moving at all. It appears as perfectly still as the Earth itself, and it certainly is not moving anywhere within the order of 65,288 to 58,957 mph, much faster than any rockets.
The flag flapping and the resting surface show a moon environment that never moves, yet also one that sometimes produces a breeze, or vents of air. Clearly then, they must have been somewhere on Earth, since the Earth is the one that
is not moving, and that has a breeze. As Bill Kaysing said, "the fact that the flag flaps on the moon, where there is no atmosphere, means that there must have been a little blast of wind out in Area 51
where they filmed this."
And it goes without saying that all the movies made so far have been produced from Earth, so why should the Judeo-Masonic credibility for Apollo's great distinction
be only in videotape and studio recorder?
Especially since NASA presently has also destroyed or lost all their original footage of the faked Moon landings, which were never broadcast "live"
but only played back for TV over Stanley Kubrick video recorder. NASA has lost over 700 cartons or 13,000 reels of original footage that they had claimed were from the supposed Apollo Moon landings; and this includes many of the original photographs and
film that were supposedly taken from the Moon, as well as flight data and original designs of the spacecraft and lunar rover, and too much of the almost preternaturally advanced technology from 1969 to be beyond suspicion.(11)
Howard Beale from the movie "Network" (1976) should have heard about this at once, and the atmosphere of the
Apollo 11 press conference was peculiarly tense and odd, if not downright suspicious. And the astronauts put a seal of Judeo-Masonic idiocy and blatant conspiracy over all of it, when they
claimed that they could not see stars, or could not remember seeing any, from the surface of the Moon! And all three astronauts demonstrated absconding behavior and strange levels of disinterest, if not signs of outright lying.
To say that no stars are visible from the Moon is heinous. If someone was on the Moon, he could see stars and planets all day, and much brighter, whether he was on the day side or night side of Earth. The Moon has no atmosphere, and
the only reason people do not see stars and planets all day from Earth is because of the Earth's atmosphere, which powerfully captures, scatters, and magnifies so much sunlight. If the Earth were like the Moon and had no atmosphere, people could see stars
and planets all day long; yet Richard C. Hoagland and NASA still claim stars are not visible from the Moon. This is completely false, and only said because it has been too difficult to fake pictures of the stars and planets from the supposed surface of the
At the press conference, British astronomer Patrick Moore asked Neil Armstrong, "when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars?" He replied, "we were never able to
see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon. I do not recall during the period of time we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see". And Michael Collins added, "I cannot remember seeing any."
In his 1970 BBC interview with Patirck Moore, Armstrong repeated that he could not see stars from the Moon, saying that "the sky is a deep black, when viewed from the Moon, as it is when viewed from cislunar space,
the space between the Earth and the Moon. The Earth is the only visible object other than the Sun that can be seen. I did not see planets (wandering stars) from the surface of the Moon, although the continents [of the Earth] are clearly seen."
U2 and SR-71 and space shuttle pilots, who are flying at altitudes much less than that of the Moon's,
for example, have reproted being able to see many more stars than from the surface of the Earth, and that they are much brighter. An amazing and countless myriad of stars are visible from low Earth orbit from the ISS, and time lapsed star trail photography
also shows that they are all tracing in circles around the Earth.
At the time of the supposed Apollo 11 Moon landing, for instance, the Moon and Jupiter were both in the first decan of Libra. Jupiter
is a very bright and distinctive star, almost famous. And if they did not see Jupiter, when it was in the same sign as the Moon, or Spica one sign away in VIrgo, or Regulus next in Leo, or Antares one sign away in Scorpio, or Mars next in the first decan of
Sagittarius, as it all was at that time for astro-weather, then they were not on the Moon. The Moon is 250,000 miles away, and considering the length of time that they were supposedly on and around it, and that the depth of three dimensions in outer space
is so complete, they should have been abe to see Saturn and Aldeberan in Taurus also, and Venus in Gemini too, and many more stars than they could count.
The astro-weather is not too difficult
to research, not more difficult to calculate than the ephemrides, and during Apollo 17 the Moon fell behind the fixed stars of the ecliptic from the third decan of Pisces to the first decan of Aries. To think that during that time they did not see Saturn in
Gemini, as it was then, or any of the famous stars that light that part of the zodiac, from Capricorn to Virgo, and that we see from Earth, is absurd or retarded.
Never mind "one
small step for man, one giant leap for mankind", since it should be with great sadness, not only reinforced stupidity, that science would learn from Judeo-Masonic controlled NASA that the stars are not visible from the surface of the Moon, not even the bright
ones. And it should be with great sadness too that people may know that many suspect Virgil Grissom, America's original astronaut, was ruthlessly murdered in the Apollo 1 capsule disaster, because he became such an outspoken critic of the Apollo project.
"Children say that people are sometimes hanged for speaking the truth", and by the time of the fatal accident that took his life, it had become
clear that he would not easily play along with something as ridiculous as a fake Moon landing conspiracy, and faking it was the only way that NASA had to do it, and make that extra spaceship dollar.
than two weeks before he died, he picked a large lemon from a tree in his garden and then hung it on the Apollo 1 capsule to express his low opinion of the spacecraft. "He simply refused to participate in the whole hocus-pocus surrounding the myth of the legendary
Apollo spacecraft", and he had even been so blunt as to call it "a heap of old scrap" with no budget limits, and "a bucket full of screws". He held unapproved press conferences, in which he stated flatly that "quite a number of things are not in order
with this spacecraft," and that NASA was at least a decade away from getting anywhere near the Moon, and that "someone was going to get killed". "If there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it will be me", he had said to his wife.(12)(90)
On the day of the accident, January 27, 1967, the astronauts noticed a strange sour smell in the capsule. The atmosphere inside was 100% pure oxygen, and for some reason the air pressure was many times more
than normal, making it highly dangerous for fire, where the cabin already had a tangle of switches and electrical circuits prone to sparking -- and the hatch door was impossible to operate with any ease. There were many signal communication failures that
day and at one point an exasperated Grissom had asked the control tower, "how are we going to get to the Moon, if we can't talk between three buildings?"
Once the hatch door was
shut, it would take at least five minutes of labor to open it again. It was only a plugs out test and no engines were ignited, but a horrible fire erupted at the scene from which there was no escape. The three men were sealed inside the terrible blaze as in
a death cabin, and that was the end of Grissom and his two astronaut companions. And Grissom's family and others have voiced strong reason to doubt that the fire was accidental.
In addition to
the higher than normal air pressure, in the 100% oxygen atmosphere, there was a hazardous amount of highly inflammable synthetic fiber carpeting and velcro inside the capsule, breaking safety regulations. Much later a very suspicious small rectangular metal
plate was discovered inserted strangely into the wires of the switchboard. The plate was not one of the usual parts, and it was obvious that it should not have been there, "for its effect was to short-circuit all the cables" and cause a spark that would ignite
a fire. Scott Grissom and others have said that the plugs out test simulation that day was intentionally sabotaged, and "there is no doubt that this metal plate [discovered in the switchboard wires] caused the short that in turn ignited the spacecraft."(13)
Three months after the accident, safety inspector Thomas Ronald Baron testified before Congress that the Apollo program was in such disarray that NASA would never make it to the Moon. As part of his testimony,
Baron submitted a 500 page report that detailed his findings. Six days after he testified, Baron was found dead in Florida in his car which strangely had been struck by a train. Against Florida law, no autopsy was performed, and the body was quickly cremated.
Many think that he had simply worked too hard and collected too much telling information. If not the truth, murder can hurt you, and the 500 page report went missing and to this day has never been found. Bill Kaysing said that he believed Baron was also murdered
"because he had the truth to tell about the Apollo project".
Five years later, Apollo 17 would supposedly be on the Moon for
three days, and include extravehicular sporting activities and aluminum-foil-wrapped go-cart buggy rides, without any appropriate radiation shielding. They were not protected from the effects of solar flares and any other solar particle events on the surface
of the Moon, and there is no film, no photograph, and no video of the Moon buggy being unloaded from the lunar lander. The uncumbersome buggy is said to have been strapped to the outside of the LEM before blast off, and just casually reappears later like it
is in a studio setting, and there are weird pictures of it after "Moon surface" repairs with no wheel tracks in the dust at all, like it had been set there for a publicity shot.
At any rate, from
as low as 400 miles altitude and up, the upper regions of the thermosphere and then the exosphere may have temperatures that range as high as 2000 C to 3632 F, which would have melted the moon buggy and the LEM like an other worldly fondue before they ever
made it anywhwere near the Moon. After all, the LEM was composed only of aluminum alloy, heat resistant glass, nickel steel alloy, stainless steel, and titanium, all of which have melting points below those extremes. The ship would have required at least a
few feet, if not several, of total lead shielding, but that would have made it too heavy, and the only protection it had was a paper thin outer hull of aluminum. As Bill Kaysing noticed, "it is very interesting concerning radiation that the astronauts were
protected by a thin film of aluminum, when here on Earth they put a led shield on us when they take a dental x-ray."
Whatever the actual temperature conditions are on the Moon, it
is safe to say that they are extreme. Some say boiling hot, but others imagine, that with no atmosphere, they should be freeezing cold, yet others agree that whatever they may be there is nothing mild in between. It is estimated that where the sun's light
and radiation are hitting the surface directly the temperatures can be higher than +250 farhenheit. The dark side of the Moon and cold areas, on the other hand, could go as low as -250 F. Either way, if photographic film gets too cold it will crack and the
emulsion will flake off. If it goes to the other extreme, and things get too hot, it will melt, and that occurs in temperatures as low as 150 F.
There was a pop song in the
1973 charts called "Kodachrome". Part of the lyrics went, "when I think back on all the lies I learned in high school, it is a wonder I can think at all", and the refrain would go, "Mama, don't take my kodachrome away". If one Mama would not take the kodachrome
away from NASA, another surely would, where Mother Nature and the irradiated and severe conditions across the surface of the Moon prevail.
NASA, in fact, used basic Kodak ektachrome film, with ordinary
sensitization as it was at that time from the store shelf, with no special emulsion, and miraculosly suffered no probems from the other-worldly temperatures and pressure differentiations, or radiation, yet on Earth doses as low as 5 rem undermine the
transparency of film, and at 25 rem images can be almost totally obliterated. The pictures from Apollo should have been significantly fogged to say the least, if they came out properly at all, since there is an enormous amount of radiation in outer space and
on the surface of the Moon, and x-rays commonly destroy the contrast in film. The photographs from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant after the disaster in April, 1986 were badly fogged, for instance, yet all of NASA's moon pictures came out as if they were
composed from a studio.
The slight alterations that NASA made for the Hasselblad 500 El/70 cameras used on the Moon were not meaningful more than for show, and the cameras even lacked viewfinders, and would have
been almost impossible for astronauts to use and manipulate properly with the awkward pressurized gauntlets they were wearing. There were no oversized tabs on the cameras, and the gloves had very bad feeling on the fingertips, and they could not grip anything
smaller than an inch. Considering all the difficulties and nuisance involved, e.g., also with lenses, filters, and magazines, obtaining the correct exposures from the surface of the Moon would have been practically impossible. And, as Marcus Allen has
pointed out, there is not even one example of bracketing in any of the lunar photography, even where the film was particularly sensitive to exposure, which shows that the pictures were not taken from the Moon. As well the cameras were powered with normal D
cell batteries, which would have lost their charge in the extreme conditions on the surface of the Moon.
NASA has always maintained that they did not take fill-in flash or any other
artificial lighting with them to the Moon, yet there is clear and abundant evidence of studio or otherwise artificial lighting in many of the photographs; and through computer enhancement analysis, there is even further and irrefutable evidence that there
was, in fact, a lightbulb in the middle of the Apollo "Sun". Jack White, David S. Percy, and Mary Bennett and Straydog Green Magoos Production, for instance, have shown conclusively this outrageous absurdity for what it was in the short film "One Giant Spotlight
As Dr. David Groves, a physicist and specialist in image processing, and photographer and holographic computer
image analyst, said, "the NASA pictures that I have analyzed contain many inconsistencies, a whole core of which have no rational explanation or excuse."(14) Marcus Allen, a famous professional photographer and the publisher and editor of Nexus Magazine, has
said the NASA lunar photographs are marked with obtrusive anomalies, inconsistencies, missing frames, and strange unexplained details, and scenes that were photographed and filmed at the same time do not match, because they were not taken from the Moon
but were staged.
Objects that are otherwise in dark silhouette are strangely highlighted on the shadow side, for example, and there was a fine and peculiar shadow line around the
porch perimeter of the lem. The apparent fill-in-light and detail that appear on the shadow side of Buzz Aldrin in one of the more famous astronaut pictures could only have been revealed by an additional light source. In the pictures of Aldrin descending
the ladder, there is a noticeable hotspot on the heel protector of the right boot that shows there was a well localized source of light behind and to the right of the camera.
sun causes parallel shadows, yet from Apollo the shadows at times run at cross angles and then diverge and converge, showing that there is another source of light within the area of the scene itself. Many of the photographic results from Apollo were totally
consistent with illumination from a closely positioned artificial source of light, and there is also the peculiarity of the "Moon rock" that was clearly stamped with the letter "C" on it, as though it was a stage prop marked that way to be placed in the center.
The strange inconsistencies discovered in the length and direction of shadows, and the fact that NASA's moon was strangely good at illuminating things in dark shadow, and supposedly with no
additional light source, should alert folks who know photography and film that the story does not add up correctly. There also are enough instances of the sun coming out like a large spotlight, when reflected in the astronauts' visors, to close the case without
doubt. When the real sun is reflected in an astronaut's or pilot's visor, it looks small and has spokes that radiate out from the central point, as from a pinpoint of light. An artificial superlight, as from a stadium spotlight, in contrast, looks flat and
much larger, when reflected in a visor, and does not have the same effect with little spears of light.
Besides the obvious use of stage wires appearing occasionaly in the strange movement of the astronauts,
and as pings in the recorded video, the supposed images of Earth from the Moon are not of a credible scale either. From the Moon, the Earth in NASA's picture frames looks the same size as the Moon does from Earth, yet the Earth has about four times the radius
of the Moon. Somewhere they made a natural mistake in not readjusting the magnitude. The Earth should have looked about four times as large from the Moon as the Moon does from Earth, and the Apollo broadcast was not live coverage at all either, with direct
video feed, but rather it was filmed off TV screens during transmissions using videotape machines. The broadcast was not live but rather highly processed and played back through videotape and recorders, using demodulators, scan converters, and magnetic disks
out of Goldstone Communications in California, etc.
The inconsistencies of NASA's record about the effects of Moon dust on a human mission to the Moon are numerous, yet currently
NASA acknowledges that dealing with the problems of lunar dust will require the development of sophisticated new technology, if they will go back to the Moon. Still "no explanation has been provided, of course, for why the Apollo astronauts did not have any
problems with the dust despite allegedly venturing out on multiple EVAs during their alleged missions."(15) While describing what it was like to ride in the lunar rover, Charlie Duke said that "Moon dust was pouring down on us like rain, and so after
a half of a Moon walk, our white suits turned gray.” Yet none of that radioactive dust could be allowed to be introduced into the cabin without safety measures which today are logistically impossible.
During the alleged Apollo 17 mission, the astronauts supposedly took the Moon buggy out on at least three separate occasions, returning each time, by their own accounts, covered from head to toe in Moon dust, which they necessarily
would have brought back into the lunar module with them. Ultimately the hazard would be transferred to the command module when the supposed docking later took place. "Why then is there no mention in the Apollo literature of any health problems arising from
this, or of any problems with any of the delicate instrumentation, or of any problems with any of the door seals?"(16) If the hazardous dust is understood to be so difficult to filter out of habitats, and it presents serious problems, even with the technology
we possess today, then how was NASA able to do it 40+ years ago, and so easily?
Besides the lack of any shielded
enclosure for the astronauts on the lunar surface, there are no space or flight suits available that can withstand the extreme and deadly temperatures, and radiation levels, that characterize conditions in outer space, and on the surface of the Moon. For the
Apollo missions, NASA had nothing more than what were essentially thick linen pressure suits, with glass and aluminum fibers, and silicon rubber. "They certainly did not qualify as adequate protection against any unexpected bursts of debilitating radiation
from any SPE's" (solar particle events like solar flares)."(17)
Even the S1030/S1031 flight suits designed for the SR-71 and U-2/TR-1 airframes cannot serve for trips to outer space and to the
Moon either. Neither could the Skylab A7l spacesuit or the STS-26 and STS-65 series of Launch Entry Suits --- the pumpkin suits. And despite strict medical instructions, the Apollo astronauts did not use the gold visors that were intended to shield their faces
from the radiation, and NASA has admitted that today it does not have any suitable material available for making spacesuits that would be sufficient protection on the Moon.
Through various spokesmen and experts as scientists, astronauts, and administrators, NASA has admitted that they never made it to the Moon in the first place, because they certainly acknowledge that they cannot go
back now, and beyond low Earth orbit, because of the deadly Van Allen radiation belts. The radiation levels in these regions and in outer space are lethal.
A show stopper, the Van
Allen belts start from altitudes as low as 275-300 miles and extend in two great rings that account for many hundreds and thousands of miles. They act as a protective blanket for Earth and trap countless numbers of radioactively charged particles before they
bombard the Earth and harm its wonderfully unique biosphere, et cetera. The high energy particle radiation contained in these belts is enormous and can easily degrade satellite components, particularly semiconductor and optical devices, and cause disruptive
background noise in detectors, and errors in digital circuits and electronic charge-up insulators. They also lethally threaten any astronauts and their digital equipment and guidance systems that would pass through them.
In the article "Radiation Belts Around the Earth", in the March 1959 issue of Scientific American, Dr. James Van Allen wrote that "our measurements show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10
and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle
to space flight."
Cosmic ray intensity and the radiation levels in the Van Allen belts and outer space are so concentrated that they represent a sure recipe for terrible cancer, if not a quick
death, to be in them and pass through them without substantial lead protection, yet none of the Apollo astronauts developed any cancer, even though none of them had sufficient protection. It seems difficult at times for people to appreciate the serious hazards
to health and operational instruments that prevail in outer space. "The results from Explorer I, launched January 31, 1958, were so puzzling that instrument malfunction was suspected. High levels of radiation intensity appeared interspersed with dead gaps.
Explorer III succeeded fully, and most important, it carried a tape recorder. Simulation tests with intense X rays in the laboratory showed that dead gaps represented periods when the Geiger counter in space had been choked by radiation of intensities a thousand
times greater than the instrument was designed to detect. As Van Allen's colleague Ernie Ray exclaimed in disbelief: 'All space must be radioactive!' ".(18)
Unlike NASA, however, Francis Bacon was a geocentrist who wrote that "age appears to be best in four things: old wood best to burn, old wine to drink, old friends to trust, and old authors to read". Age would also account for itself
well in the qualities of petrified wood, which is what NASA made the absurd mistake of giving the Dutch for supposed "Moon rocks". Years later researchers from Amsterdam's Vrije Universitieit (Free University) were able to tell at a glance that the old rock
in question was indeed a suspicious specimen and unlikely to be from the moon. The facts of the conclusion were borne out by meticulous tests. "It is a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone," said Frank Beunk, a geologist involved in the investigation and
The false stone of petrified wood was given to Willem Drees, a former Dutch government leader, during a global tour by Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, the
three Apollo 11 astronauts, following their supposed trip to the Moon. J. William Middendorf, the former American ambassador to the Netherlands, made the official presentation to Mr. Drees and the unusual piece was later donated to the Rijksmuseum. "From
such crooked wood as that which man is made of, nothing straight can be fashioned", said Immanuek Kant.
Although it had been valued at one time for as much as 400 thousand Euros, its value
now is merely historical and truly ridiculous. Today the petrified wood "lapis lunae" continues on display as a mere curiosity, where thousands have visited the museum to take a funny look at what an extraterrestrial moonstone might look like. And so it goes.
In one of the earlier published versions of Bill Clinton's autobiography, "My Life" (2004), he mentions NASA's project Apollo. He writes briefly about the "wagging the dog" experience that has characterized
some historical part of American mass media, and its manipulation and social control in the 20th century, et cetera.
"The next six weeks in Hot Springs were more intersting than I could have
imagined. I worked one week helping a sixty-seven-year-old man put up one of Jeff's pre-fab homes in the small settlement of Story, west of Hot Springs. The old guy worked me into the ground every day and shared a lot of his homespun wisdom and country skepticism
with me. Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the Moon, beating by five months President Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the Moon before
the decade was out. The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it had happened. I said, sure, I saw it on television. He disageed, he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that "them television fellers" could make things look real that weren't.
Back then I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on television that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time."(19)
Down through the history of the
past half century, NASA's Project Apollo seems to be a peculiar statistical anomaly, almost a sore thumb. There are no similar events to confirm or duplicate these purported lunar adventures from so long ago, and they do no appear to stand up to the scientific
method. In January 2004, in a speech delivering remarks about US Space Policy, George W. Bush declared the goal "to return to the Moon by 2020, as the launching point for missions beyond." He proposed sending robotic probes to the lunar surface first,
to be followed with a human mission, "with the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods of time." His remarks included the idea that lunar exploration could lead to new technologies or the harvesting of raw materials that might
be turned into rocket fuel or breathable air.
"With the experience and knowledge gained on the moon," he said, "we will then be ready to take the next steps of space exploration: human missions
to Mars and to worlds beyond." Yet he failed to acknowledge the simple fact that NASA has the Moon going the wrong way, and in the wrong time, in the first place, and cannot get past low Earth orbit of a few hundred miles. The proposed funding for the new
explotration initiative was at least 12 billion dollars, and the President called on Congress to increase the agency's budget by at least another billion.
The simple facts are that nobody can make it to the Moon or get past low Earth orbit with any rocket-based propulsion. NASA is an old bait and switch, and the fool-once-removed routine lost in space; and the level of warped deception,
fraud, delusion, and disconnection from reality in the Judeo-Masonic dominated society is sick and harmful not innocent. How will corruption and bribery not blind the mind, darken the soul, and harden the heart? When a foolish and cynical deception
is believed, it will twist things and blind those who could otherwise see. "Extortion turns a wise man into a fool, and a bribe destroys the heart."
For the pleasure of the
circus and fantasy trips to outer space "can prolong ignorance and corrupt the conscience".(20) For such is the power of vain fascination, de spectaculo, that its seed "contrives to prolong a willing ignorance, and bribes knowledge into playing a
For example, Barack Obama proposed an annual $17.7 billion dollar budget for NASA in 2013, and that was an amount that would
leave the agency funded at its lowest level in four years, according to sources familiar with the budget proposal. He said how much we should all appreciate that NASA supported a "vibrant and coordinated strategy for Mars exploration", of course,
when the supposed Martian deserts are only in Bolivia, Australia, or Africa, and they make billions and billions from lies and errors as though they were the truth.
The billions and billions in
space money have been wasted on the operators of a Tower of Babel who cannot even correctly tell which way the Moon goes around the Earth, much less over the Gulf of Mexico or BP, and in what time. Like so much about DC and the Federal Reserve Bank scam, (and
Libor and ICAP), they do not know, understand, or appreciate what the "thing-in-itself" is unless it is a big bag of cash in high bills.
As President John Quincy Adams wrote, "Freemasonry is deceptive and fraudulent.
Its promise is light but its performance is darkness. Masonry ought forever to be abolished. It is wrong, essentially wrong, and a seed of evil, which can never produce any good."