Tuesday, June 5, 2012

The Apollo Moon Landing Fraud: Moon Madness

One of the subjects of this blog is the revelation that one of man's "greatest achievements", the so called Apollo man on the moon missions between 1968-1972 are nothing but a massive lie.   The simple fact is that the criminals in charge of the US Government and NASA knew by the mid-1960's that there was absolutely no way that they could meet President Kennedy's dream of putting a man on the moon by the end of the decade, so it was decided that rather than admit the impossible, they launched a clandestine operation that would fake the entire lunar landings and fool the entire world into the false belief that it was real.

I started my own journey on the road to where I am now when it was revealed to me during my time in University Science classes back in the late 1970's that the entire Apollo moon landing missions were a complete fraud.   It was indeed disturbing to me, a man of science, to find out that what I had been led to believe about man landing on the moon was nothing but a complete lie.   Looking at Project Apollo today, I see a massive fraudulent propaganda stunt that to me is actually an insult to real science!

Over the years I have watched as others have been awakened to the truth about Project Apollo, and many are now writing their own articles in their own blogs about that massive lie.   I just came across one such article, from a fellow blogger named "Citizenfitz", at www.citizenfitz09.blogspot.com, entitled: "Moon Madness" that I want to share here in its entirety for my own readers to view.   I have my usual comments and thoughts to follow:

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Moon madness

"It's easier to fool a man than to convince him he's been fooled." Mark Twain
Yup, they flew this POS to the Moon!

I can understand why some people have trouble accepting that America never sent men to the moon: after all, the US government, along with the MSM, has been very adamant in their claim that America DID go to the moon - as well as very uncharitable to anyone who holds otherwise. And given that the US government as well as the MSM, have never, ever lied, not even one teensy weensy bit, why on Moon would they ever lie about something like that?

Well, I have a theory on the matter: MONEY.  Lots of money!  $$$ billions USD were sunk into the Apollo program. A few $$$ thousand here and there into hands that had never held that kind of cash before would gain the unqualified loyalty of a lot of people. Probably most!  $$$ millions more into certain other hands would have an even more salutary effect. Now add to this the able assistance of a group of people whose nefariousness and love of money is legendary, and who also just happen to control large swaths of the US government, as well as the mass media, not to mention banking. Now add to this all the credulous people there are in the world and you're looking at a situation that's ripe with all kinds possibilities!

As P.T. Barnum famously observed, (although he never actually said it) "There's a sucker born every minute." That was in the late 1800's - nowadays there's a sucker born every second. And for every 60 suckers, a slick con man is born.   We also have this bit of wisdom: "A fool and his money are soon parted."  So, what do we have with the Apollo missions of the 60's and 70's?  All the necessary ingredients for an epic hoax: $$$ billions, greed and gullibility.

Some have argued that it'd be impossible to conceal, let alone pull off, a hoax of such magnitude.  Au contraire! There have been lots of hoaxes foisted off on a gullible public: the Alien Autopsy video, Piltdown man, Java man, the Priory of Sion, the Cardiff Giant, the holocaust, Barack Obama's birth certificate....  There have also been realities that are purported to be hoaxes: the Israelis stealing the organs of people they've killed; and The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, are just two of these.

In a blog like this the problems with the Apollo moon landings are too numerous to go into detail. I'm not getting a cent for any of this after all.   Suffice it to say that in claims of this sort, if one can find JUST ONE fatal flaw in the proposition, then the remainder need not be addressed. 2 + 2 = 4, or it doesn't.  There are no other options. Likewise, the US sent men to the moon or it didn't. Period. If the moon landing proposition contains a fatal flaw then every other argument for or against it becomes subordinate. In the Aristotelian sense this is called the Law of the Excluded Middle. 

The fatal flaw in the moon landing argument is this: there are no blast craters beneath the various LEM's in any of the moon mission photos. 

"So what?" you ask. "The government and media would never, ever lie about such a thing - or attempt a post facto coverup."  Well, my hopeless friend, the blast craters HAVE TO BE THERE. But they're not....

The LEM's allegedly arrived on the Moon's surface weighing roughly the equivalent of a fueled up Bell Super Cobra helicopter.  If any of you have stood beneath a Bell Helicopter when it descends you know what kind of force the downdraft has.  It can knock you off your feet and will blow any dust beneath it far away.  And this with a rotor disk area of approx. 900 sq. feet, from many feet up.

The rocket nozzles beneath the LEM's were approximately 20 sq. ft and stood at very most 2 feet above the moon's very powdery regolith. Furthermore, the exhaust gasses exiting the nozzle would have been approx. 8,000 F.  So...


WHERE ARE THE BLACKENED BLAST CRATERS BENEATH THE LEM's?


Perhaps they're retired and living the good life in Tel Aviv... at American taxpayers' expense.

There are other problems associated with the imposed narrative: Rocketdyne supposedly "losing" the plans for the LEM's. NASA supposedly "losing" the videos of the epic event in human history. The fact that no stars are seen in any photos supposedly taken on the Moon.  The fact that the hatches on the LEM's are too small to allow a man in a space suit egress or ingress. The paid actors sitting around in "mission control".  
 
The same backgrounds cropping up in shots that were supposedly taken miles apart. Why we can't, even with forty plus years of technological advancement, duplicate today what they were supposedly able to do back in 1969. The disappearing/reappearing/disappearing rocks as seen in numerous "Moon" photographs. 
 
The lack of a three to four second radio delay between the astronauts on the "Moon" and mission control on Earth.  The Director of NASA, Dan Golden, in an interview in 1994 saying that before we can go to Mars we need to solve the problem of the Van Allen Belt's radiation. The US flag flapping in the Moon's breeze. The comical, cardboard and Christmas wrapping paper construction of the LEM's....  One could go on almost forever.

Citizenfitz

                                
                         When will you boys be coming back?
 


NTS Notes:  I want to thank Citizenfitz for this fine article, and to welcome him to the Apollo moon hoax crowd!

As Citizenfitz points out here, and what I have said for countless articles, is that the scientists behind NASA have never solved the problems with Astronauts surviving the high radiation levels from going through the  Van Allen radiation belts to reach the moon.  Rather than admit defeat, they decided that they would con the world instead.   It is truly remarkable how billions of the people have been so easily fooled, and the con worked beyond the criminals' wildest expectations!

There will still be those out there that will stick to Project Apollo being real, no matter what evidence is shown to them that proves the contrary.    It does seem that the propaganda brainwashing by NASA has done its damage to many good people, and it will still take years to finally have them awoken to the reality of the scam.

To help those who are new to the reality of Project Apollo being a lie, besides reading my own articles on the Apollo Moon Hoax, I do suggest that you continue your own journey to the truth by watching some fabulous videos by Jarrah White, called "Moonfaker".  These videos are readily available via Youtube.   I  also suggest the articles by David McGowan, called "Wagging The Moondoggie", which give some great insight into the fraud as well.  These articles are readily available as well by just Googling: "Wagging The Moondoggie". 

More to come

NTS





 

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings

http://www.realitysandwich.com/kubrick_apollo

Fred said...

I want to know how the little back packs worked? Supposedly they were to heat/cool the space suits as I have been lead to believe. I have problems with both aspects as there is about a 500ºF temperature swing on the surface of the moon. First cooling, the moon is a vacuum so what mechanism is used for heat transfer? Heat travels by conduction convection or radiation no air means heat must be rejected by means of radiation. Where is the black radiator that would be needed to reject the heat? Inside the back pack? What mechanism carries the heat outside the back pack since we have no air? Second heating the space suit. Did the back pack just have a large battery to heat the suit with? How did they recharge the batteries? Electricity is a poor way to provide heat. If it had a propane or butane canister to provide heat did it also have oxygen bottles as well? Also remember this was before microprocessors and currently accepted control circuitry how did they package this in such a relatively small volume?

Anonymous said...

Foreign governments have radar, and they can use it to follow a trip from the Earth to the moon. If there were no such trip, they would have said.

Same holds on the voice from the capsule on the way and on the moon. Radio direction finders would have shown that it was being broadcast from somewhere else--if it were.

Northerntruthseeker said...

In response to "Anonymous"'s comment... I guess you have not studied...

First, the transceiver that was used on the Apollo missions was an S-band transceiver that was NOT picked up by any ham operator, or any other radio operator. The only receivers on earth that were capable of receiving the signal were NASA's own antennas and equipment...How convenient.

Second, when it comes to radar, do your homework...Radar is an electromagnetic signal that dissipates over distance. The size of the CM/LEM contraption if at 240,000 miles was some 75ft long, and therefore had a very small surface area for reflection of any radar signal. Of course radar has been bounced off the moon's surface, but you are talking about an object some 2104 miles in diamater, with a much larger surface area, and therefore much much easier to see with a strong radar signal....

You are welcome any time to view your comments anytime... I do love to debate the naysayers and use practical science and logic to show them the way....

Also, take the time again to look at the evidence... One other major article that blows Apollo out of the water is of course, Jack White's photo expose on the Apollo lie at www.aulis.com

NTS

Anonymous said...

Re: "The only receivers on earth that were capable of receiving the signal were NASA's own antennas and equipment...How convenient."

That is a total fabrication. A band is merely a frequency, and anyone with radio experience can tune a radio to any frequency. So dream on about NASA having radio technology that other people and other countries could not read. It is baloney.

Anonymous said...

Re: radar not being possible.

Not only was it possible, it was done, and observatories around the world saw the modules as they were on their way.

"The Soviet Union monitored the missions at the Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment".[24] Vasily Mishin ("The Moon Programme That Faltered."), in Spaceflight. 33 (March 1991), pages 2–3 describes how the Soviet Moon programme lost energy after the Apollo landing.

The missions were tracked by radar from several countries on the way to the Moon and back.[25]

The NASA Manned Space Flight Network (MSFN) was a world-wide network of stations that tracked the Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Skylab missions. Most MSFN stations were only needed during the launch, Earth orbit and landing phases of the lunar missions, but three "deep space" sites with larger antennas provided continuous coverage during the trans-lunar, trans-earth and lunar mission phases. Today, these three sites form the NASA Deep Space Network: the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex near Goldstone, California; the Madrid Deep Space Communication Complex near Madrid, Spain; and the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex, in Tidbinbilla, near Canberra, Australia.

Although most MSFN stations were NASA-owned, they employed many local citizens. NASA also contracted the Parkes Observatory in New South Wales, Australia, to supplement the three deep space sites, most famously during the Apollo 11 EVA as documented in Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia[26][27] and portrayed (humorously and not quite accurately) in the movie The Dish. The Parkes Observatory is not NASA-owned; it is, and always has been, owned and operated by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), a research agency of the Australian government.

Several other Australian sites which are no longer part of the Deep Space Network were also involved in relaying Apollo lunar transmissions. The deep space (lunar) tracking station was originally Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station. Carnarvon Tracking Station was one of the smaller and more numerous MSFN sites used primarily to support the near-earth segments of Apollo missions, though it also relayed data from the ALSEP lunar surface experiments. Due to its location on Australia's west coast, Carnarvon played a special role in the Apollo trans lunar injection and atmospheric reentry phases. Deakin Switching Centre routed the Apollo television broadcasts.[28]

It would have been relatively easy for NASA to avoid using the Parkes Observatory to receive the Apollo 11 EVA television signals by scheduling the EVA at an earlier time when the Goldstone station could provide complete coverage.

MaryC said...

Some people think that the moon landing must have been genuine or else the Russians would have exposed it.Well, firstly, the Cold War was as phony as the current "war on terror" is. Secondly, the various intelligence agencies are in cahoots not to reveal each other's scams.

Northerntruthseeker said...

Fred... I have talked with experts in thermodynamics and they also have concluded that the PLSS backpacks were an impossibility, primarily due to how they contained and expelled the massive heat buildup by being in a constant 250 degree fahrenheit environment. There should have been a method of radiating the excess heat into the vacuum, but the only available method was via water absorbing the heat and then releasing it into the vacuum via steam... But we see absolutely NO steam discharges in any of the videos from the fraud PLSS packs...

That alone should have signalled to the most ardent supporters of this fraud that something is amiss... But NASA has always banked on the ignorance of the public to scientific fact, and sold them this laughable project.

NTS

Northerntruthseeker said...

As Mary C has pointed out, the entire scenario about the Russians backing up Project Apollo as fact is a complete lie.

The entire Soviet Union was financed via wall street bankers from 1917 onward. The entire Cold war was a complete sham that cost the US some 5 trillion dollars in defense spending...

And about the Soviets listening in on Apollo... Again, you have not done your homework very well...Jarrah White has already exposed the fraud of nations listening into the S Band Apollo transmissions in his Moonfaker series.... But again, why bother with that information, right?

Nations viewing Apollo all the way to the moon via radar? wow, that would have indeed been one heck of a feat considering that radar picks up reflections off of objects surface area... Again considering the distance from the Earth to the Moon as some 240000 miles, and the so called Apollo CM/LM contraption being about 75ft in length (or a bit longer), that reflected signal from such a small target would have been astounding to pick up....Not saying it is impossible with hyper sensitive equipment, but it was never done...

Radio signals on the other hand are received by the antenna on the craft and then fed through amplification in the onboard transceiver....It also transmits a signal back at a much higher level than any reflected radar bounce back to Earth....

I do believe that you are mixing up radio signals and radar signals in this circular argument, and trying to justify radar instead of radio in your approach...

One other fact about the Soviet Union... besides the fraud cold war, we must not forget that their entire Space program was full of fraud... all the way from their phony Yuri Gagarin flight of 1961, to their walk in space (actually done in a water tank) in 1965, and their Zond5 1968 circum-lunar flight that contained an onboard tape recorder (they were going to claim falsely to the world that they were the first to put a man into lunar orbit, but were exposed).... Gee, I guess its more of a game about "I wont squeal on you if you dont squeal on me" type of dance between two supposed "enemies"....

Note to all readers: I do also recognize the writing style of this "anonymous" commentator, and I will not get into arguments with him... He has been into other Apollo Hoax sites before, and I will not be his blog of the day to attack by getting into petty bickering..

So in short.. If you want to argue about radio signals, go to the Moonfaker exposure of the fraud behind it, and stop wasting my time here...

Odin's Raven said...

Here's a website using a different approach which also suggests fakery. They claim that 'reversed speech' of the astronauts confesses to the fraud.
http://ken-welch.com/Reports2/Moon.html

Fred said...

NTS
I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering while I don't consider myself an expert in thermodynamics I certainly understand all the basics. When I post on blogs and address an issue that explores an advanced understanding of scientific principles I try to present my ideas in such basic terms that those that do not have the back ground that I do can understand what I am trying to present. The magic back packs popped into my mind some time ago after I had watched a series of the alternate views on the space flights. Those videos got me thinking and I did a little studying to see what temperature range would have to be addressed for survival on the moon. Then I tried to find out how the magic back packs actually worked and became curious about it and I could find nothing that would satisfy my questions, and given my back ground I assume it would be easy to figure out "IF" they actually work as they are purported to. I never thought of using water as a heat rejection method =[

Fred said...

NTS
I thought about a few things and I wanted to address them to you. First you posted "a constant 250 º F environment". Well that really is a little misleading, the moons surface is a vacuum and actually cant contain heat because there is nothing to hold it. All temperature in a vacuum is derived from radiation which means when the wave hits the temperature probe it turns into heat and that is what you are actually measuring. So basically if you go into a shadow it is really cold and if you are in the sunlight it is really hot. That was the whole scenario that got me to thinking about how they could over come such a wide temperature swing. All I could come up with was a closed loop system with a black body radiator to expel the heat with. I never thought of water because with out even crunching the numbers I don't think you could carry enough for the system to be effective for more than a few minutes until you run out of water. The second thought was the release of the steam was not seen, that seems perfectly normal. You have to think of a vacuum not air, when you see steam or fog in air it is supersaturated or above 100% relative humidity. Steam released into a vacuum would dissipate immediately and even at the discharge nozzle you might only see a faint trace or possibly nothing. Now mind you we are still on the same page but in matters such as this I am quite a stickler for accuracy because you know as well as I you have one tiny inaccuracy and ergo that means your entire premise is wrong. I will have to check out the shuttle missions I have a feeling the only time they left the shuttle to work outside it was on the dark side of the earth. Heating a space suit I can easily understand but cooling it opens a whole new can of worms and to do both in such a tiny volume 0_o Be well