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 there the old wizards did not figure
to 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.
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 about the mid-ninth century from a basic mixture of sulfur, charcoal, and saltpeter. And
how often the beginning in the weave becomes the end, and the end returns to the beginning, to make another start. From the middle too, 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 could travel all the way across China too, in about four or maybe five days, if not a week.
They say that it was sometime during the late Tang dynasty (618-907) that there was the occasional
use of gunpowder in 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 perhaps sometime by the late tenth century 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 still were not so strategically effective overall for military purposes, or transportiation, 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 as vehicles of 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 that the myth of space and the great sum total was still young; as plus ultra,
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 simply 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 was in the way of following his own advice, and
the spaceship that he built was very ambitious, like stage and theater, a dramatic demon of power even, parqueted from the opera. The vehicle was comprised of decoratively worked yet very sturdy wicker and bamboo, embellished with little hand carved dragons,
lions, leopards, and furious demons, inlaid over an inner frame of rustic Chinese rebar, with a powerful crablike configuration of 120 most powerful Ming Dynasty rockets: in eight divisions of 15, like monster spider legs, and six great sailing kites to open
at the right time, like dragon wings for added lift at the high altitudes before cislunar space. For the launch, he subcontracted insured trained attendants from an employment agency by Lingshan Mountain, and he had a special ceremonial suit tailored with
a fantastic red cape and red gloves. 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, wearing the fiery red cape and red gloves, and strapped on his fearsome dragon-tooth
helmet, ready to fly, and gave the signal for the countdown.
He was formidable to behold, man and dragon, as the attendants held ceremonial torches and waited at the last count to run forward to light the fuses.
The fuses burned perfectly, flaming hissing wicked sparks, 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 some covered their faces and their eyes, and when the dust and smoke and explosions 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 air ascending to the heavenly skies. 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. In any case, he was gone, in the measure so mysteriously
gone.
Some later began the story that he had become an ant of wisdom on the vault of the sky, and pretended that he could be seen up there if one had a magnifying glass and looked really close. They never really
knew, but at the next full Moon they drank a starry toast to the brave memory of Wan Hoo.
If not for ambitious trips to the Moon, like Wan Hoo's oak and steel dragon claws, rocket experiments and suchlike 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 cylindrical 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, for example, 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 particular power as much as it was from the
numbers used and the surprising mayhem that a flurry of them could cause 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 that looped
about 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 very far removed from that of the second.
The maximum altitude of the V-2 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 V-2 at its ceiling. Between the V-2 and Saturn V, all one has to do, therefore, is pack a lunch, and some cans of V8, if the stratospheric balloon specialists could get the budgets and publicity program to go to the Moon
too. Maybe they could catch up to outer space by hot air -- as helium, hydrogen, or methane -- and reach the lunar sphere that way too. To land on the Moon by balloon should be safer than by rocket any day.
If the question, "how many sides to things are there, even in the most simple proofs?", comes around again, any jet plane is more like a rocket and a rocket much more like a jet plane, at least for the ceiling and fuel between them, than either is like
the Moon or a balloon that is capabale of reaching it. A balloon that could reach the Moon would be different indeed.
However, neither were that other-worldly beyond the jet plane, the rocket or the high-altitude
weather 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 the Apollo 11 TV broadcast, supposedly live on air, 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 nature has remained the same; and one
factor a little beyond it has remained constant too -- the power of money. Indeed, like a superordinate hypernym, the importance of this factor has only increased.-1
If kabbalistic seeds can be found
in modern astrophysics, evolution, iatromathematics, and quantum mechanics, then the talk-shop menu should include high finance as well, to understand the international money economy too; yet to be ruled by money is a special evil. In "On the Heavens"
(Περὶ οὐρανοῦ or De Coelo et Mundo), Aristotle comments about the formation of the Earth, saying, "the fact indicated does not depend upon degrees of size but applies universally to everything that has the centripetal
impulse." Said another way, the fact indicated does not depend upon degrees of size but applies universally to everything that has such a motion, and such a motion also being a question of formation.
So
it goes, so the wheel turns, with the money power and the question about the evil of being ruled by money. Being ruled by money does not depend upon degrees of size (or actual wealth) but applies universally to everything that has such a motion, namely that
one of greed, since, of course, greed and avarice do represent forms of motion and government. If it is not the size but the spirit of the account, the greedy one, how does it manifest first at the basic practical level of doing business, or conducting public
affairs -- like medicine or war or whatever?
Through the appropriate application of credit and entity operations. It is like a basic rule of nature. To make a thing, they do not apply the credit and entity operations
any willy-nilly way, but as it fits appropriately the credit and entity scheme they have in mind. And since greed is a form of malice, what is really in the minds of such greedy and disgusting people as the money power people ... who have also to some degree
ruined the practice of medicine besides time and space?
Credit, commerce, and collections are as fundamental to nature as progress, as invisible things still are not quite the only realities. The dualities
of what is appropriate to the markets are always so, since any gathering gathers spirit; and like too much money in the wrong hands going to the wrong places, the ancient arts of imposture, tricks, simulation as dissimulation, and the conjurations to tie it
all together, for some con artist's end, are as old as the hills, and the Moon in Scorpio. After all, there always has been a very considerable satanic capacity for miracles, or manipulation of values and experience, for it was surely thanks to tricks
of the devil that Job, for example, lost all his possessions, and his children, and his health. Likewise, since the advent of the "Space Age", it has been due to more tricks, lies, lies, lies, and deception that so much money and misused time have been wasted
on the artificial confusion and dilemma of "space".
It is like Federal Reserve bank catabasis (the journey among dead presidents) and the Judeo-Masonic hustle, and Marxist dialectics
busting loose, to be so prevalent that the hyper-money system of credit and entity operations would own everything. With such an arcane guile of crafty deception, as if Geraldo Rivera or Phil Donahue could get away
with murder and a stolen big screen TV right there on the streets, the money lenders, media magnates, and political leaders of scientific materialism have taken over the temple and the towns. Per modernism and the heights of their careers they have made great
profits for themselves, certainly, 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 corruption and the spaceship money indeed ... $$$$$$$$$$$$$, where Judeo-Masonic
US government debt is in the hundred and forty plus trillions range and counting.
Each taxpayer's share of that debt is eventually growing closer to a million dollars. And for what purpose then all the secret handshakes
other than the scam from Babylon and the Nile of Egyptian darkness? The all-seeing eye of what? If not yours or getting close to yours, then the next neighbor's bankruptcy and the next, on down the line, the cuts assured and reinsured, of course. There goes
the neighborhood.
An old rule from common law for jury advisement and conscience exams in the careful life of the poor says "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus", which means false in one thing, false
in everything. If someone can make a colossal mistake or project a blatant lie in an important matter, it should be feared that he can or may do the same in anything else. 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 fit to testify credibly about any matter.
It is relevant too to NASA's rather cosmically outsized propaganda platform. "With multitudes bent toward some flashing scene", the
fake and very expensive trips to the Moon, Mars, and Pluto, et cetera, and their dubious generalization of outer space and the great beyond fall under a parallel rule, "falsus ad Lunam, falsus porro ad Pluto". False to the Moon, false further on to the Plutonian
shores as well, 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. involved 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),
yet 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 malls, much less look at the Moon or watch 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 with Hollywood and NASA, 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 that 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, in fact, that as the thing that it was purported to be, it did not even exist then nor any more today. 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 that much better than a super balloon or a greatly improved V-2. 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 among things 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 or seen since.-2
As 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 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, even 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 fuel and propulsion capabilities with regard to the missions to the Moon
and back.
Besides the obvious weakness of the Saturn V, NASA has admitted that they still would like to develop a larger rocket system that would allow them to
launch capsules beyond low Earth orbit. 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
In summary, 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 further 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 sustained velocity or capacity to reach the Moon, but then the third and smallest and weakest 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 Earth orbit.
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 a sum entity 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, as another sign of the difference involved in its sphere, 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 perhaps 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 logical sense for the celestial spheres and their planets, ceteris paribus, 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 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 momentum in 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 the motion at perigee.
The real world and make-believe are not the same, of course, except for parallel, 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% if 2% 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 log 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 employments, 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 that 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 the many 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 land
safely 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", was as dangerous as the Three Stooges drunk on Halloween punch, yet 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!
A pilot trying to land by the vertical perpendiculation, 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 in the identity and difference and its pilot 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 or 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 controls 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. The frequency of success is still insufficient, however, and these rockets are small, quite limited,
in fact, and after flights of only 62 to 97 or 150 miles altitude at maximum. SpaceX rockets still have more often than not crashed and exploded trying to land.
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 noisy as Hell; 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 well 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 supposed 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 part of two related 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 directly 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 perhaps not that much better than the scene in 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 field operation effectiveness than the LEM.
Besides the insufficiencies of rockets, 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 in the missions, 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 units module program ($$$) + ($$$) has admitted inadvertently 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 admissions are couched in tricky or perhaps oddly nonchalant ways, but Charlie Bolden, for example, NASA Chief from
2009 to 2017, admitted as much, of course, saying that "NASA is not going to the Moon with a human as a primary project probably in my lifetime."
However,
they say they still entertain goals of going beyond low Earth orbit one day and are still testing and proving systems that would be required for space exploration. They would like to develop a next generation spacecraft that would allow them to send people
and equipment through the upper regions of atmosphere but have to solve serious challenges that still remain first.
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 into space altitude around the Earth. As a protective blanketing 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 significant
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 for showtime, 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 four 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 or any cancer later.
"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, winter moonlight too, and the stars' Etruscan argument about the seasons at solemn midnight would
substantiate a god or at least a sum total 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?
The unfathomable
data and the Museum of the Difficult-to-Believe, and NASA no more made it to the Moon, or the celestial aura, than it, the Moon, made the sea or them who are consubstantial in so much error and deceit or madness. Even
Sancho Panza and Don Quixote would have exercised better caution, good sense, and virtue, who both knew well to keep the navigation peg on Clavileño always safely adjusted: for swift as he was, if they flew too high into the upper regions of atmosphere,
they would be roasted alive and burnt all to cinders and bits.
At any rate, more suo suo motu, ipso mos geometricus universali, et cetera, 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 well 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 lead shield on us when they take a dental x-ray."
Whereas the Moon has no atmosphere, life on Earth is
characterized not only by its surface immobility, but also its 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 a life-giving
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 astronomical sphere of its own tremendous 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.
Nevada. Viva Las Vegas or Area 51 and Elvis and all his imitators ... also on the Moon. Since if NASA and Area 51 were on the Moon, so was Elvis and everybody else. If by diverse means to experience the same end, the same
Moon, or the same state, the human footprint is just what it is, and if they were there then so were you.
"Homo sum et nihil humani a me alienum puto", said Terence. Nothing in the world not to do
for hope, all falling back into one, yet the controversy over the flag on the Moon, waving in the wind, in the curiosity of a zero atmosphere environment, is one of the artistic anomalies that raised alarms of a hoax. Conspiratologists say it is obvious evidence
of some terrestrial ventilation within the area of 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 in present circumstances 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, where the astronauts put
a seal of Judeo-Masonic idiocy over it all, when they claimed that they could not see stars, or could not remember seeing any, from the surface of the Moon! Another little cloud of conspiracy comes again and all three demonstrated absconding behavior and strange
signs of disinterest, if not levels of outright lying.
To say that no stars are visible from the Moon is beyond the pale, since one can and does see them from there too, the Moon, if one is on Earth at the
same time. 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, of course, and the only reason people do not see stars and planets all day
from Earth is because of the Earth's atmosphere, which so powerfully captures, magnifies, and scatters 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 as it is, 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 by eye without looking through the optics -- uhh, I do not recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see". And Michael Collins added, a little
awkwardly too, "I cannot remember seeing any."
Collins himself did not land on the Moon. He allegedly piloted the command module and spent a total time in lunar orbit of six days and four hours. Armstrong and Aldrin
allegedly spent 21 hours and 36 minutes on the lunar surface, which means Collins made 18 orbits alone while Armstrong and Aldrin were on the Moon. They would say that Collins saw the dark side of the Moon roughtly 27 times over six days and four hours. Who
could imagine sitting for that long in such circumstances and not remembering seeing any stars?
Blame fate for any confusion among the stars or what to say about them, but back then it used to be Rodney Dangerfield
who could not get any respect, then it became Jupiter in Libra, the same sign as was the Moon at that time, and Venus in Gemini and Mars in Sagittarius. One time old man 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 the view.
Aldrin had to agree with Collins and Armstrong, of course, about how black the sky was was, that it was deep black
with no stars seen but a sort of "velvet sheen". However, 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 may exist between details or aether among stars, if they become invisible from the surface of the Moon, may be difficult
to say or assess, but the astro-weather is not too difficult to research. Not more difficult to calculate than the ephemerides, and during Apollo 17, for example, 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 the decree of destiny should be that stars are not visible from the surface of the Moon, not even the bright ones. Yet Collins wrote in his book "Carrying the Fire", "my God the stars are everywhere", as he recreated his experience, and
continued, "above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady. Of, course, I know that a star's twinkle is created by the atmosphere, and I have seen twinkle-less stars before in
a planetarium but this is different, this is no simulation, this is the best view of the universe that a human ever had".
And it should not be too much to recall either, as difficult as the subject
is, that people may know that there are those who still suspect, more than a little perhaps, that Virgil Grissom, America's original astronaut, was murdered in the Apollo 1 capsule disaster, because he had become 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. No matter any secret soviet-style dictadura, no matter the carrot and stick, faking it was not for him, 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". In addition, the Lieutenant Colonel held unapproved press conferences, in which he said things,
like stating 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". And he later told his wife that "if there is
ever a serious accident in the space program, it will be me".(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. And 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 for Grissom and his two astronaut companions. After the catastrophe, 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. Careful to say that he did not suspect NASA itself so much, as "soviets" infiltrated into NASA, 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 rather 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, but just some sort of motive, murder can still add a suspicious part to anything; 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.
At any rate, WikiLeaks has released a telling compilation of cut scenes and background work obtained in actual NASA film of the Moon landing in Nevada Area 51 that shows
how staged it was. They say photography helps people to see, and remember what they saw, and things have to be themselves. Of course, skill in any such art or computer generated fakery 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.
It is common knowledge that NASA has huge green screen facilities with stage wires and harnesses
and everything needed to fake micro-gravity and "space" at Michoud movie studios and assemby. 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 in his professional opinion 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 natural 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.
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 ones who would know about 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, 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.
The 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.
Unlike 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 well account for itself also 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.
Although valued 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 and experience, he writes briefly about the "wagging the dog" atmosphere 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, a unifier up up up and away, 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
nonsense", since the truth's best relation is to the infinite, yet neither way are there any similar events to confirm or duplicate these purported lunar adventures, from so long ago, even for all the other people who have been to the Moon too themselves,
or touched the sky at whatever expense. Even if only taken as a rarity, to be so bold as to catch the Moon in the Lunar sphere, they still do not appear to stand up to investigation of the scientific method any better than heliocentrism or Darwinism or monkey
business.
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 in the instance 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 becomes 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, too much 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 part."-21
For shame, and Barack Obama, for example, 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 disguise.
It has been estimated that NASA's Michoud Assembly Facilities process up to one third of the value of Federal Government payroll at over 200 billion dollars every two weeks. So it goes, and billions and billions in space-time money have been wasted
on shadow operators, space movies and photoshop, 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 the BP disaster in New Orleans, and in what time. Charm and money
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, Bill Kaysing, Ralph Rene and others have noted. Over some pages of figures and accounts to be filed away, through research "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 media aspect involved in heliocentrism, relativity, and scientific materialsim, if not
kabbalah, lingers about the suspicious atmosphere of the Apollo project. Another strangeness in the trail of false space gods and lying entities, that may seem to lurk at times in the shadowy background of NASA and JPL, is the curiosity of social links
that were 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? Rosemary's Baby, Cagliostro Paganini, Jimmy Page, and Led Zeppelin are not Buzz Aldrin, of
course, and neither was Warren Zevon or the Werewolves of London, but to know the deep void of space 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, or smoke doobie and shoot
smack with the shadows at Boleskine, but he did conduct a small religious ceremony dedicated to ISIS in the lunar module "on the Moon". He carried with him Freemasonic emblems, hot stuff and ritual ancillaries, which he then brought back and in a quiet ceremony
documented with photographs gave to the Freemasonic Temple in Washington D.C., et cetera.