If for trivial pursuit someone asks, "where did they invent rockets", the common answer today is China. The Far East has been reckoned the fabled home for most ancient rockets, and even the old wizards
there did not use them for transportation! Rather they used them for entertainment and celebrations, since from the days of old it was known as an early discovery that rockets are not naturally convenient or reusable as vehicles of transportation. As
they are dangerous and difficult to land, other than where they simply crash, even if used only once, rockets would be a strange and unsafe way to go. To fly by dragon or demons of the air is better, even if one would fly as far away as the Moon.
And how often the beginning becomes the end, and the end returns to the beginning, to make another start. From the middle, like the cycle and the circle, "life comes from the Earth and life returns to the
Earth", but if there was a strong enough wind, perhaps a butterfly also could travel all the way across China in about three days.
From the Yellow Sea to Tien Shan mountains, 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 to launch iron arrows. Not quite bazookas, yet with a clever barrage they drove the enemy away in confusion. However, the rockets were still not
so strategically 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, one could say the myth of space was still young; and Wan Hoo was another starry-eyed dreamer who wanted to fly away, even to the Moon, up
above the cloudy river of the sky; but the truth about rockets is that they do not have an easy way to land, since the prevailing 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 of power parqueted from the opera.
Comprised of decorative and sturdy wicker and bamboo, inlaid over an inner frame of rustic Chinese rebar, with a powerful crablike configuration of 80 powerful Ming Dynasty rockets, and four great sailing kites to open at the right time like dragon wings for
added lift. For the launch, he subcontracted and insured trained attendants from an employmeny agency by Lingshan Mountain; 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 dragon-tooth 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 in a harrowing cloud of a whirlwind of a cataclysm when the rockets began to take off like the teeth of a giant fire breathing dragon. Many hit the dirt, and when the dust and smoke
finally had cleared, everyone looked for Wan Hoo, but he could not be found, whether they looked high or low.
They could not find a trace of him in the clouds or see his vehicle in the sky ascending
to the heavens. Had he been taken away like Elijah on a fiery chariot and a storm? They could see the clear full Moon, but as bright as it was, it was still far away like the stars. Had he really gone that far so soon, or had he and his bamboo-wicker
crate and rebar rocket ship been blown to absolute smithereens? It seemed perhaps that 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.
not for ambitious trips to the Moon, like Wan Hoo's dragon claws, 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 there. 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 so much from their accuracy or power as much as it was from the numbers used and the surprising mayhem that could be caused in a barrage.
Until 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, Massachusetts. 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, even as the launch capacity of the first was not so far removed from that of the second.
The maximum altitude
of the V2 was 88 km, which is about 40% more than the highest altitude weather balloon the BU60-1, which only had 35 more kilometers to go to catch the V2 at its ceiling. All one has to do, therefore, is pack a lunch, if the stratospheric balloon specialists
could get the budgets and publicity program, and maybe they could catch up by hot air -- as helium, hydrogen, or methane -- and reach the Moon that way too.
Neither were that other-worldly, the
rocket or the balloon, and one of the three main areas of criticism involving NASA's false trips to the Moon continues to be focused around the historic problems 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 so much that it seemed there was an overall spectrum shift of some sort, 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 going to the wrong places, the ancient arts of imposture, tricks, simulation as dissimulation, and conjuration to tie it all
together are as old as the hills and the Moon in Scorpio.
With such arcane guile of crafty deception, as if Geraldo or Phil Donahue could get away with murder and a TV at the heights of their
careers, the money lenders, media magnates, and political leaders of "scientific" materialism have taken over the temple and the towns of modernism, and made great profits for themselves of course, if at pathetic and grievous expense to the truth, even going
as far as fake trips to the Moon and Mars and Pluto of outer space, et cetera. Outer space and the spaceship money indeed ... $$$$$$$$$$$$$, and Judeo-Masonic US government debt is in the tweny-odd trillions and counting.
For what purpose all the secret handshakes from Babylon and the Nile? The all-seeing eye of what?
An old rule from common law for jury advisement and life of the poor says
"falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus", which means false in one thing, false in everything. That way a judge would say 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 outsized propaganda platform, "with multitudes bent toward some flashing scene", 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 accomplished by their
m.a.f.i.a. deep space travels, is totally false, since gravity is not even any kind of lateral force. Yet such charlatans must see it like Voltaire who said, "one must lie like the devil, not timidly, not for a time only, but boldly and always."
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's hoo-joo circle 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 not long
before had only flown across the English Channel to bomb London. Many eminent geocentric researchers have agreed that, in fact, as the thing that it was purported to be, it did not even exist. Analysis of its historical place of development among rockets
and popcorn 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,
even where the capabilities are still exaggerated and kept top secret; and it was not so much better in 1969 with the Saturn V that it was that much better placed than the Space Shuttle program (1981-2011) that followed, or than 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 ordinary
jet fuel. No exotic or super-efficient new fuels were formulated or invented to bring down the massive other-worldy fuel requirements to go to the Moon, 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 landings 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 at least 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
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, at the science-fiction best, "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.
In "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.
Calculations 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 and persistent problems with rockets are that they burn too much fuel, are impossible to build large enough
with sufficient radiation protection to go to the Moon, and do not have the required sustainable velocity, 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, involved in the 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.
It was obvious how quickly the first two stages burned out all their
fuel and could not have had the velocity or capacity to reach the Moon, but then the third and smallest stage supposedly continued on some 239,850 or so miles to land on the Moon. The first stage was separated at an altitude from 35 to 42 miles at an estimated
velocity of 6,214 or something mph. Only some sixteen or twenty minutes later the second stage was separated at an altitude of about 200 kilometers or 125 miles, which left a long, long way to go for deep space travel other than just trying to maintain a low
For all the space exploratortion 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. The Moon is not a loose body like a car on the road but rather within a separate celestial sphere -- at least 30 full Earth diameters away. 240,000 miles, 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, and a round trip of 480,000
miles was beyond 1969 technology, and it remains beyond all the aerospace and aeronautical technology available today.
For an estimate of the Moon's velocity in real time, consider that its distance
from Earth at apogee is about 253,000 miles, and it 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.
As simple as it is, the formula for
angular velocity, v = wr, still makes sense for the celestial spheres and their planets, 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.
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 the appearance 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 extra-terrestial 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.
The real world and make-believe are not the same, of course, although simulation can carry things pretty far, yet interstellar travel is not an activity mankind can accomplish with rockets. Estimates may vary, but NASA used around
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 3 to 4 days, reaching a "lunar orbit" in about 75 hours and 56 minutes.
Coincidentally, if one looks into the details, it has taken an average of 4 days, or more than at least 72 hours and counting, 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. On the same scale of transporation and vehicle employment, it should take about a decade to reach the
Moon with the best rocket today, but Apollo 11 landed in only 106 hours after launch. 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, if it really did have the putative rocket blast, 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. The flimsy contraption, that looked "more like a slum dwelling after a hurricane than
a vehicle suitable for space travel", 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 in whatever ceremony or parade. And certainly not with pilots, therefore, one should know they do not land them on the Moon or Mars for any practical reason either!
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.
It is not within the approval range of any honest safety council. Whatever may be the occurrence, "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 blistering 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 working 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 most often only crash and explode!
Even with the 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, quite limited, in fact, and after flights of only 62 to 97 or 150 miles altitude, SpaceX rockets still have more often crashed and exploded trying to
land than not.
These publicity driven attempts to prove reusability of rockets by landing only add to the proof that what is easiest to know about rockets is that they do not provide safe
airways 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.
Rocket jet exhaust is always dangerous and wildly hot, besides as noisy; and 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 audio. The LEM was as quiet as a church mouse, and 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. It is enough to arouse suspicion, as 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 immediate 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 "flame", as low as 1832 farhenheit, for example, can
create a lava flow.
In 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 and exploded. In some contrast, 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. The same footage appeared briefly in the first of two part episodes of "the Secret of Bigfoot", broadcast 2-1-76 on "the Six Million Dollar Man", to revisit the career of Colonel Austin in a reminiscent video montage with Apollo's return
launch from the Moon as direclty recorded by NASA, with the ridiculous bursting of the mock-up capsule's mylar covering and the cheap fireworks. The clip mixed into the show well enough, fitting there as well as can be imagined from comics and other naive
entertainments. As fun as it was, however, it looked worse perhaps 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 explosive power, 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.) the deadly radiation and extreme temperatures that prevail from the Van Allen radiation belts and beyond, and the deadly hostile environment one should encounter on the surface
of the Moon -- and then 2.) various artistic and photographic anomalies and the strange behavior of the astronauts, and problems of time composition, which include the absurd claim that stars are not visible from the surface of the Moon.
At various times, the Judeo-Masonic controlled NASA administration unit module ($$$) has admitted that they never made it to the Moon in the first
place, because they certainly acknowledge that they cannot go back now, not beyond low Earth orbit, for one, because of the deadly Van Allen radiation belts. The radiation levels in these regions and in outer space are lethal. Sometimes such an admission
is couched in tricky ways, of course, but Charlie Bolden, for example, NASA Chief from 2009 to 2017, admitted as much, saying that "NASA is not going to the Moon with a human as a primary project probably in
A formidable 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
around the Earth. As a protective blanket in the upper atmosphere, they trap countless numbers of radioactively charged particles before they bombard its surface 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 these circles.
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 cancer, if not a quicker death, to be in them and pass through them without substantial lead protection, yet none of the Apollo astronauts developed any
cancer from the expedition, 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. For example, "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
Besides the lack of any shielded enclosure for the astronauts on the lunar surface, and insufficient shielding of the LEM and
command module along the way, 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.
Apollo 17 would supposedly be on the Moon
for three days from December 11-14, 1972, 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 or 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 strangely cumbersome 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.
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 would 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 that could not be allowed
to be introduced into the cabin against preventative safety measures today, which are logistically impracticable, caused so much as a cough.
"Prevenir antes ser prevenido", prevent before being
prevented, Cortes used to say, as he would observe the Moon waxing above the Aztec pyramids of Tenochtitlan. Moonlight, summer moonlight, and the stars' Etruscan argument at solemn midnight would substantiate a god but which one?
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,
presenting serious problems, even with the technology possessed today, then how was NASA able to do it 40+ years ago, and so easily?
At any rate, from as low as 400 casual miles in 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 -- one of them said as thin as a Pepsi can. 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."
the Moon has no atmosphere, life on Earth is characterized by its surface immobility, and protective atmosphere, which provide the greatest benefits of stability and viability for the creatures and objects on it. The Moon does not have these benefits of stable
immobility with an atmosphere, of course, and there is no way NASA astronauts could have an easy or survivable trip to the Moon, when its other-worldly sphere of velocity, and strangeness in outer space, are considered in addition to all the radiation, extreme
temperatures, and the vast distance they would have to travel.
It is not just another joke, therefore, and not mere chance
that the issue of the extra-terrestrial force of impetus driving the moon in its astronomical velocity 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 course, but the supposed "lunar surface" that NASA recorded is always totally fixed and set in place, as much as a garden or playground among any other locations from across the Earth, or somewhere in Nevada.
The controversy over the flag "on the Moon", waving in the wind, in the curiosity of 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 as immobile as Earth, yet also one that sometimes produces a breeze, or vents of
air. Clearly then, they must have been somewhere on Earth, since it 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 too, so why should the Judeo-Masonic credibility
score for Apollo's great distinction be only in videotape and studio recorder more than Italian movie posters?
Especially since presently NASA also has accidentally 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
The magic circle and 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 cloud of conspiracy over it all, when they claimed
that they could not see stars, or could not remember seeing any, from the surface of the Moon! And all three 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 beyond the pale. 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, from the mountains and the beach; yet Richard C. Hoagland and the NASA sorts still claim stars are not visible from the Moon. Completely false, and ridiculous, this is said only because it has been too difficult to fake pictures
of the stars and planets from the supposed surface of the Moon.
At the Apollo 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."
Back then it used to be Rodney Dangerfield who could not get any respect, and then it became Jupiter in Libra, the same sign as the Moon at the time, and
Venus in Gemini and Mars in Sagittarius. One time Dangerfield said that his wife was afraid of the dark, but since she saw him naked she was afraid of the light too. So it goes. Yet if the stars would disappear from sight at the bar of the Moon, the 360 degrees
of the circle must continue in their form -- even the 360 degrees of the celestial equator as much as before.
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."
What a thing to say. U2 and SR-71 and space shuttle pilots, who are flying
at altitudes much less than that of the Moon's, for example, have reported 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. However, from the Moon or Mars there are no photographs of constellations or planets
wandering through them.
At the time of the supposed Apollo 11 Moon landing, the Moon and Jupiter were both in the first decan of Libra. Jupiter is bright, distinctive, and 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 in the first decan of Sagittarius, as it was at that time for astro-weather
review, then they were not on the Moon. The Moon is about 240,000 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, and many more stars than they could count.
What sort of demonic intermediation exists between or among things if stars become invisible
from the surface of the Moon may be difficult to say, but the astro-weather is not too difficult to research -- not more difficult to calculate than the ephemerides, 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 totally absurd.
Never mind "one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind", since it should be with some sense of disappointment, not only a feeling
of reinforced stupidity, that science would learn from Judeo-Masonic controlled NASA that stars are not visible from the surface of the Moon, not even the bright ones. And it should not be too much to recall either that people may know that there are those
who still suspect Virgil Grissom, America's original astronaut, was more than a little perhaps murdered in the Apollo 1 capsule disaster, because he had become such an outspoken critic of the Apollo project.
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, no matter the
dictadura, no matter the carrot and stick, and faking it was the only way that NASA had to do it, and make that extra space-time dollar.
Less 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". The Lieutenant Colonel 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 fateful 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 an intricate tangle of switches and electrical circuits prone to sparking -- and the hatch door was impossible to operate with any practical 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 hard 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 as in a death trap, 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 for the truth, murder can still add a suspicious part, 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".
Whatever the actual temperature conditions of the Moon, it is safe to say they can be considered rather 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, even depending on location, there is nothing mild or comfortable 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 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 at temperatures as low as 150 F.
say "photography helps people to see", and things have to be themselves. Of course, skill in any such art is aquired by practice not purchase, and if all light has a way, where people really want to see, enthusiasm and perseverance can make all the difference.
There was a pop song in the 1973 charts called "Kodachrome". A catchy little ditty, a guitar picker's rhyme, 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". The piano and drums kept the horns rolling, and the refrain would go, "Mama, don't take my kodachrome away". Well, so special, if one Mama would not take the kodachrome away from NASA, another surely would, where Mother Nature has a voice
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, for example. 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 snap
shots came out as if they were composed picture perfect from a studio set.
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, 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 for Mankind".
As astronaut Pete Conrad said himself during the
Apollo 12 excursion, "Dum dee dum dum dum. Dum dee dum dum dum. Boy, that Sun[spotlight] is bright. That's just like somebody shining a spotlight in your hand. Dee dee; Dee dee. Dum
dum, da dee da dee dum. Dee dee dee. Dee dum dee dum. I feel like Bugs Bunny."
There are enough instances of the sun coming out like a large spotlight,
when reflected in the astronauts' visors during Apollo, 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 of reflection, 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.
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 ones who would know photography
and film that the story does not add up correctly. As Dr. David Groves, a physicist and specialist in image processing, a skilled 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, the professional photographer and 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 supposedly 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, of course, yet from Apollo the shadows at times run at cross angles and then some 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.
Besides the evident use of stage wires appearing occasionaly in the strange movement of the astronauts, and
as vertical light pings that become obvious in particular instances in the recorded video, the supposed images of Earth from the Moon are not of 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, since they are used to looking at the Moon from Earth, not the Earth from the Moon. 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.
NASA, however, Francis Bacon was as simple as geocentrism, a man of good sense for all the science, 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" in the parades after Apollo. Years later researchers from Amsterdam's Vrije Universitieit (Free University)
were able to tell at a glance that the oldest rock they had 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 analysis.
The false stone of rather petrified wood had been 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 Immanuel Kant.
at one time for as much as 400 thousand Euros, the item now is merely historical and truly ridiculous. Some stamps are worth more, and 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. From his own sense of context, 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 and 21st 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
"Progress is one, and in it there is no place for truth", and down through the history of the past half
century, NASA's Project Apollo seems to be a peculiar statistical anomaly, almost an archetypal Texas Aggie's sore thumb. It was supposed to be, "truth is one, and in it there is no place for progress or suchwise", yet there are neither any similar events
to confirm or duplicate these purported lunar adventures from so long ago. Even if only taken as a rarity, they still do no appear to stand up to the scientific method any better than heliocentrism or Darwinism.
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 notion 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 exploration initiative was at least 12 billion dollars, a tidy figure, and the President called on Congress to increase the agency's budget by at least another billion.
But, of course, the simple facts are that nobody can make it to the Moon or get past low Earth orbit with any rocket-based propulsion. Therefore, NASA is an old bait and switch shed of heretics in heresy,
and the fool-once-removed routine lost in space. To any man of common sense who prays the rosary in Latin, 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 otherwise might see. As Conrad said, "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, like too much daydreaming about Erica Kane on daytime TV, or the Gong Show in
classic reruns, this sort of thing "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 dishonest
For shame, for example, and Barack Obama, who still says Hawaii and Kenya are the same difference, whatever the reason, 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, Africa, or clips of Arizona or Hawaii, as the choice may be, as they make billions and billions in profits from lies and errors as though they were the truth in
So it goes, and billions and billions in space-time money have been wasted on shadow operators and snake charmers of a Tower of Babel, who cannot even correctly tell which way the Moon
goes around, much less over the Gulf of Mexico or BP disaster in New Orleans, and in what time. Charm can be a way of getting a yes without any clear questions asked, and like so much or otherwise about Judeo-Masonic controlled DC and the Federal Reserve Bank
scam, (and Libor and ICAP), they do not know, understand, or appreciate what the "thing-in-itself" is either, unless it is a big bag of cash in high bills.
As President John Quincy Adams wrote
long ago, without even mentioning anything too much about the Moon, and that it does not rotate, "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." And an international conspiracy of corruption at that, as Antony Sutton, Yuri Bezmenov, Alberto Barcena, and Bill Kaysing noted, over some page of figures to be filed away, that "we know that at
a very high level the Soviet and American governments have been cooperating and working together for a long time. Even the Russian revolution was financed by Wall Street," for example.
An international aspect
about the suspicious atmosphere of Apollo lingers. Another strangeness in the trail of false space gods seeming to lurk at times in the shadowy background of NASA and JPL is the curious links between Jack Parsons, Aleister Crowley, and L. Ron Hubbard,
for example ... and the then even deeper unknown resources of the dark side, and who knows what? Jimmy Page and Led Zeppelin are not Buzz Aldrin, of course, and neither was Warren Zevon, but in the realm of lies and
deceitful popularity who is whose and what is what? Buzz did not know electric guitar or swim Loch Ness, but he did conduct a small religious ceremony dedicated to ISIS in the lunar module "on the Moon". He carried with him Freemasonic emblems and ancillary
materials which he then brought back and, in a quiet ceremony documented with photographs, gave to the Freemasonic Temple in Washington D.C., et cetera.