The Strange Story of our Moon

This is a detailed chapter called “The Strange Story of our Moon.” It’s from the great book called, “The Falsification of History,” by John Hammer. Here’s a link if you want to get it.

Just so you know, I spent a lot of time saving all of the pictures (yes I know they are tiny) into this article. I also know that the paragraphs are very long, but this is a book, not something online and book paragraphs are always longer, plus he’s not a professional author, but he did a very good job so far. I think I’ve come across one or two mistakes and that’s good considering it’s a VERY long book.

I learned a fair amount in this chapter that I haven’t heard before from people who go on and on about how we haven’t landed on the moon. Plus, this book published in 2013, so I didn’t have to suffer through him talking about flat earth which I still doing believe in. Even if the earth is flat, the psychosis from people who WORSHIP FLAT EARTH has torn the fake awake community apart.  Many people go INSANE over this topic.

I only judge their behavior, NOT their belief that they think the earth is flat.

I already know they are under DEEP MIND CONTROL and this is just one MORE psyop the evils rolled out both in the mainstream and fake awake communities. sigh

Just a note that supposedly this flat earth topic goes way back hundreds of years ago. I’m very curious if people attacked others back then too. I assume NOT!

In my opinion, the fake moon landing has NOTHING to do with the shape of Mother Earth.

So let’s get to John’s evidence. I appreciate ALL of the hard work he put into this book, it’s very very detailed with loads of his opinions based on what he studied just for each chapter and I’m not even half way through the book yet.

I may upload the chapter about Princess Di. He got me there too. I’d never heard who he thinks was behind her murder.

Just like the FLAT EARTH section of the fake awake community is run by the evils, so is the transvestigation section is run by the evils. I bring this up because the transvestigation section of the fake awake community says Princess Di was a transgender. At the time I thought they were right and they may still be. John didn’t have to put up with the disgusting transsexual AGENDA during the writing of this book.

Not to derail this article, but I don’t trust that area of the fake awake community either.

Some talk down to me as if I’m a moron, and their evidence isn’t good enough for me to see anything one way or another. I determine if someone is transgender more now on whether the female looks more like a man instead of ignoring it like I used to, but again, that does NOT prove someone is a transgender just because they have started looking, sounding and walking like the opposite gender.

The EVILS have destroyed us as Natural Human men and women and THAT is a fact. Here’s my playlist on the destruction of men and there you will find the video about at least ONE of the chemicals the evils have forced on us to CHANGE OUR GENDER!

And yes I know that the evils have way better surgeries then the slave public has.

I would need an expert in skeletons to prove them right or wrong, and of course that scientist or expert would need to be open minded, which is very hard to find.

So let’s move on to the topic at hand…

I’m going to also add another sub chapter of sorts about what the moon supposedly is. Nothing to do with the landing, but needed information nonetheless. Assuming he’s correct.

Yes I know this article is long, probably the longest I’ve ever published and I hope it doesn’t break. Each one of his chapters could be a short book. I told you, he details ALOT, so for anyone who says he’s a liar, BS. I get that the evils can write very long books and throw some lies in there, but this guy is way too detailed. I do wish he would put links in his book. He mentions other authors the odd time, but not enough.

Enjoy

---

The Apollo moon landings 1969-1972

There is a growing band of people that absolutely, firmly believe and maintain that we humans have never set foot upon the surface of the moon and that the entire Apollo moon-landings programme was a well-produced hoax or to be more precise, a not very well-produced hoax by shills and apologists of the outright charlatans and liars of governmental agencies such as NASA in league with the mainstream media.

This section is not meant to follow the standard ‘de-bunk’ of the moon landings that is available on the Internet ad nauseum as much of this material, sad to say, is deliberate disinformation, carefully formulated and set-up using the ‘straw-man’ principle, to be deliberately ‘shot down’ by those who would deceive us and thus ‘prove’ that the conspiracists are way off-beam. Rather, I will try to provide an alternative view of the reasons why the whole scenario is highly unlikely, if not downright impossible. We need to understand, not only how this egregious hoax was carried-out but also, perhaps more importantly and significantly, why it was carried-out.

“[Why do] people cling so tenaciously, often even angrily, to what is essentially the adult version of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy? What primarily motivates them is fear. But it is not the lie itself that scares people; it is what that lie says about the world around us and how it really functions. For if NASA was able to pull off such an outrageous hoax before the entire world and then keep that lie in place for four decades, what does that say about the control of the information we receive? What does that say about the media and the scientific community and the educational community and all the other institutions we depend on to tell us the truth? What does that say about the very nature of the world we live in? That is what scares the hell out of people and prevents them from even considering the possibility that they could have been so thoroughly duped. It’s not being lied to about the Moon landings that people have a problem with, it is the realization that comes with that revelation: if they could lie about that, they could lie about anything.” David McGowan, researcher

Had the very first transatlantic flight in 1919 not been followed-up for the next forty-odd years, would there not have been questions asked and would people not have found it strange or unusual to say the very least? If say, in the 1920s, had someone designed a jet airliner capable of speeds of 600mph or more and then after a short time that technology ‘disappeared’ and could not be re-created, would that not seem to be at odds with commonly accepted logic or reality at all? I submit that it most certainly would and yet this is exactly the case with the so-called moon landings of 1969-72.

Is it not also strange that almost up to the point in time when the alleged moon-landings took place, that the Soviet Union (USSR) had been leading the ‘space race’ by some considerable distance and yet to this day (early 2012) has never either bothered or managed to put a man on the moon. The Russians were the first to launch a vessel of any kind into space, the first to send a living creature into space, the first to perform a manned-space flight, the first to perform a space-walk, the first nation to have two spacecraft in orbit simultaneously and the first to perform a ‘docking’ manoeuvre in space. They also purportedly landed the first unmanned vehicle on the surface of the moon, achieved the first fly-by of the Moon, launched the first craft to impact the Moon, were the first to make a soft landing on the Moon, put the first object into lunar orbit and remain, to this day, the only nation to land and operate a robotic vehicle on the Moon. It should now make perfect sense to everyone then why the Soviets, who were ahead of the US in virtually all aspects of space exploration, in some cases by decades, never landed a man on the Moon or even sent a man to orbit the Moon. Up until the ‘successful landings’ by the Americans, they had been comprehensively beaten by the Russians in every important aspect of the space race. The Soviets had logged almost five times as many man-hours in space than the Americans and yet in the single-most important aspect, the landings themselves, the US had literally almost cruised to victory, totally unopposed. Very strange stuff indeed.

I also believe it significant that no other industrialised nation on Earth has managed to successfully visit the moon – or even attempted to do so, despite the fact that there have been massive, across-the-board technological advancements since the 1960s. I think that it is more than possible that the entire US space programme has largely been, from its first inception, little more than an elaborate cover-story for the research, development and deployment of space-based weaponry and surveillance systems. The compliant media never investigates or even mentions these things of course, but recently de-classified US government documents make clear that the goals being pursued through space research are largely military in nature.

“Control of space means control of the world. From space, the masters of infinity would have the power to control Earth’s weather, to cause drought and flood, to change the tides and raise the levels of the sea, to divert the Gulf Stream and change the climates”. Future US President, Lyndon Johnson, 1959

But if this hoax was perpetrated in almost total secrecy, how was it all kept from the thousands of people involved in the huge project, you may well ask? Please bear in mind that there were only around a hundred very senior people involved in the actual Moon landings hoax itself. Mission Control in Houston as well as most of the men and women who worked on this project over four decades ago, had no idea it was a fake. How was this possible to achieve? Very simply, the Elites who staged this fiasco never let anyone see more than a small fraction of the ‘big picture’. The many thousands involved were only small cogs in a very large machine. Mission control was based in Houston, the launch site in Florida and the engineers, mechanics, computer programmers and assorted other technicians did not normally come into contact with each other, personally. So it would have been next to impossible to work out that the whole sordid enterprise amounted to nothing more than a sophisticated Hollywood production.

Why would the US not return again in the four decades that have elapsed since the last moon landings and why would other technologically advanced nations not attempt to emulate the feat? Could it be that the costs of such a venture would be totally prohibitive as some sources would have us believe? Even in those heady days of the late 1960s and early 1970s, the US was not exactly awash with money. Not only was it fighting an extremely costly, overt war in the Far East, but was also engaged in the covert, Cold War arms-race and yet still spending untold billions on the space-race, so I cannot see that money or lack of it would be a particular issue, especially not over a period of time as long as four decades – half a lifetime.

Also, consider this; the surface-to-surface distance from the Earth to the Moon is approximately 235,000 miles and since the last alleged, manned moon landing in 1972, not one human has been further out into space than 400 miles and very few have gone even that distance. Most space-shuttle orbits take place at around 200 miles from the Earth, the same distance away approximately, as the space-station. So, to put these facts into perspective, in the twenty first century, utilising the best technology that money can buy, NASA is only able to send humans around 200 miles into space, but in the 1960s it had the capabilities to reach an object 235,000 miles away, undertake several orbits of the Moon and then make the return trip – all on a single tank of fuel! Please pardon my scepticism here.

However, what about all the many hours of footage that NASA has of the moon landings and the astronauts on their moon-walks, transmitted back directly into our at the time, state-of-the-art TV sets that now with the benefit of hindsight, look like something out of the nineteenth rather than the twentieth century!? Even in the 1990s it was no simple task to transmit pictures directly from the Iraqi desert during the first Gulf War, so the transmission of pictures from a quarter of a million miles away almost a quarter of a century earlier was a really impressive technological feat, if it happened. Unfortunately, NASA has sadly ‘lost’ all the thousands of hours of tapes of the moon footage, 700 cartons in all.

“The U.S. government has ‘misplaced’ the original recording of the first moon landing, including astronaut Neil Armstrong’s famous ‘one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind’ … Armstrong’s famous moonwalk, seen by millions of viewers on July 20, 1969, is among transmissions that NASA has failed to turn up in a year of searching, spokesman Grey Hautaluoma said. ‘We haven’t seen them for quite a while. We’ve been looking for over a year, and they haven’t turned up,’ Hautaluoma said … In all, some 700 boxes of transmissions from the Apollo lunar missions are missing.” Reuters, 15th August 2006

These tapes represented supposedly the greatest human achievement ever, both in technological and symbolic terms. How could such a thing happen? Surely these are historical records that should have been treated as one of the great human treasures – on a par with such priceless artefacts as the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, the Mona Lisa and the Pyramids. Should such an irreplaceable treasure as these tapes, have not only been copied several times for security purposes, but also have been locked away securely in a fireproof, atomic bomb-proof, waterproof vault somewhere, just ‘in case’? And also would not multiple copies have been made available for educational and/or scientific research and advancement purposes? Obviously NASA and the US government did not feel that they were important enough for any of that.

Surely this is all absolute and utter garbage? How could 700 cartons of tapes be missing? Perhaps one or two boxes – possibly – but not the entire 700. For a start, they must fill several large rooms and it is therefore simply not credible in my opinion. Could it be that they do not want the tapes to be exposed to any kind of scientific analysis using today’s technology? I believe that that is most likely the real reason and that in itself speaks volumes. This one factor alone carries far more weight than the somewhat trivial ‘flag-waving-in-the-breeze’ and ‘shadows-at-the-wrong-angles’ arguments that serve no purpose other than to distract the attention away from the real issues surrounding this huge non-event.

Reuters also commented that… “Because NASA’s equipment was not compatible with TV technology of the day, the original transmissions had to be displayed on a monitor and re-shot by a TV camera for broadcast.” So what we were actually seeing on our mediaeval TV screens were not ‘live transmissions’ as we were told, but was footage shot directly from a tiny black and white TV monitor and then re-transmitted second hand via the TV stations. All totally different of course to what we were led to believe at the time and subsequently. With this admission by NASA, surely it is not difficult to see how the entire footage could have been faked?

The next issue worth commenting upon is the absolutely bizarre movements of the astronauts in performing their many moonwalks as witnessed on the small portions of footage that still survive. As many sceptics have commented (and proved), if the tapes are played at approximately twice the speed, then these very odd skipping-type movements of the astronauts look extremely similar to normal speed movements on Earth.

So, the simple formula for creating Moonwalk footage is to take original footage of men in ridiculous costumes moving around awkwardly here on Earth, broadcast it over a tiny, low-resolution, black and white television monitor at about half-speed and then re-film it with a camera focused on that screen. The end result will be tapes that, in addition to having a grainy, ghostly, rather surreal ‘broadcast from the Moon’ look, also appear to show the astronauts moving about in entirely unnatural ways. But not, it should be noted, too unnatural. And does that not seem a little strange too? If we are being honest, the average male never stops being a little boy at heart and what red-blooded, macho-male, given the opportunity to spend some time in a greatly-reduced gravity environment, can resist seeing how high he can jump? Or how far he can jump? Or what dramatic somersaults he could perform? So what did the astronauts actually do? They hit golf balls. Yes that is correct, the only method by which they were prepared to demonstrate the lack of gravity on the moon, was to hit golf balls of which it was impossible to accurately judge the distance they actually travelled!

It seems more than a little odd to me that they failed to do anything that could not be faked simply by changing the tape speed? Some athletes here on Earth are able to perform a standing vertical jump of around four feet (1.3m) so I must also confess to finding it rather strange that the astronauts best efforts were only around 12 inches (0.3m). In one-sixth gravity, 10 feet (3m) at least should have been easily achievable, even for the most unfit among us, let alone for highly trained, super-fit professionals such as these young men allegedly were.

Indeed, should the astronauts’ every movement not have been quicker than normal given the fact that there is virtually zero wind-resistance on the moon? If so then, why does all the available footage show only half-speed movement? It is almost as though it was the only way that NASA could think of attempting to represent anything that could be even remotely construed as resembling non-earthly movement. Maybe then it is completely unsurprising that all the original footage has mysteriously disappeared, as being submitted to modern-day technology would expose it as fake in around two seconds flat.

Somewhat worryingly also, it also transpires that it is not just simply the film footage that has disappeared in its entirety, but also the complete set of 13000+, yes thirteen thousand plus reels of telemetry data including voice and biomedical data. All of that information, in fact the entire technical record of all the Apollo moon missions has gone, plus all the design blueprints for the lunar modules, the lunar rovers and the entire Saturn V multi-sectioned rockets. Worryingly that is for us but not for NASA of course as there is now no way at all that the contemporary scientific community could now ever have the opportunity of studying these documents in detail and thus prove them all impossibilities if not fakes of the most naïve kind.

For a short time there was a boost to the case of those who insist that Apollo project is not the almighty fiction that it most definitely is. This came in the form of a promise from NASA to send a probe (unmanned) ‘back’ to the moon to photograph the various bits of detritus left over from the Apollo missions which would prove conclusively that all the thousands of ‘conspiracy theorists’ out there, were all wrong. Sadly for the ‘believers’ though, no such images have ever been publicly forthcoming despite their wild claims to the contrary. Even the Hubble space-telescope was widely touted as being capable of homing-in on the lost Apollo artefacts allegedly spread liberally about the surface of the Sea of Tranquillity, but this too has proved a false dawn. Either the Hubble technology is capable of the feat or it is not, but whichever of these options is fact, there have been no images forthcoming from that source either.

In 2009, NASA announced that its ‘Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter’ had returned the first images of the Apollo landing sites.

“The LROC team anxiously awaited each image. We were very interested in getting our first peek at the lunar module descent stages just for the thrill – and to see how well the cameras had come into focus. Indeed, the images are fantastic and so is the focus”. LROC principle investigator, Mark Robinson of Arizona State University

Unfortunately that has proved not to be the case. The images are in fact not ‘fantastic’ by anyone’s definition and neither is the focus. In actual fact the images are from such a distance that the tiny white dots they show – in shadow also, it must be noted – could be almost anything. Spot the Apollo debris (below).

Subsequent Japanese, Chinese and Indian unmanned lunar probes have also unsurprisingly perhaps, spectacularly failed to provide photographs of the Apollo landing sites.

“There’s no reason to go back … Quite frankly, the moon is a giant parking lot, there’s just not much there.” Val Germann, President of the Central Missouri Astronomical Association.

Strange then is it not that so many space agencies worldwide send unmanned probes there and focus enormously powerful telescopes on the Moon’s surface? What could they possibly learn about this ‘parking lot’ from those distances that the Apollo astronauts did not already discover by actually being there?

NASA also claims that several of the Apollo missions left small laser beam ‘targets’ on the moon’s surface that enable NASA scientists to bounce laser beams from them and which gives absolutely accurate readings of the distance from the Earth to the Moon. Now bearing in mind that these ‘targets’ were approximately the size of a small computer monitor screen, does anyone really believe that the technology existed in the 1960s and 1970s to accurately hit a target of that size with a laser beam from almost a quarter-million miles away? In fact is it even possible today? NASA states blithely and conveniently that there is no technology in existence that could accurately pinpoint the location of the Apollo detritus from the Earth, so how are they able to successfully locate a tiny laser target many times smaller than the artefacts supposedly left over from the moon landings? Nevertheless according to NASA and its many apologists, the fact that these signals are being bounced off these targets on a regular basis, ‘proves’ beyond doubt that Apollo astronauts went to the moon. I think not somehow.

The ‘actual’ Apollo lunar module

One could be forgiven for thinking that the above picture is of a model of a lunar landing module constructed by 10 year old school children in their arts and crafts classes, but nevertheless this is a ‘real’ lunar module allegedly sat on the surface of the moon, photograph courtesy of the Apollo astronauts and NASA. This incredible piece of technology, we are led to believe, actually not only landed on the surface of the moon, but 3 days subsequently, took-off again, flew 70 miles upwards, back into orbit around the moon and successfully re-docked with the command module, which was incidentally travelling at a speed of over 4000 mph at the time, in order that it could then navigate the quarter-million mile journey back across the empty nothingness of space to land precisely where and when it was programmed to do.

The most striking aspect of the photograph above though is not so much how a craft seemingly put together with duct tape, tarpaulin and bits of aluminium foil can perform such technologically advanced feats, but how did it manage to carry all the equipment and accessories that was necessary for it to carry in order to keep two human beings alive for three days in the most inhospitable environment man has allegedly ever visited?

According to NASA’s own data, the lunar modules were only 12 feet in diameter. This being the case, how was it possible to accommodate all the navigational guidance equipment (in the 1960s of course, this would have been extremely bulky) and then there would have been the power supplies, the reverse thruster for landing and the powerful rocket motor required for take-off again? There would also need to be several other smaller rocket thrusters for stabilisation purposes, the massive amounts of fuel required to feed the rocket engines, especially upon take-off to accelerate enough to break-free of the moon’s gravity despite the fact that it is only 1/6th that of Earth. There would in addition need to be plenty of equipment just to sustain life for two people for several days and provide some home comforts such as places to sleep, waste management facilities, food and water supplies, oxygen for three days for two people, the list just goes on and on. The oxygen tanks in the space suits would have also needed a recharge system to enable the surface-walks to take place over a concerted period of time. A back-up oxygen system may also be needed because no chances could have been taken.

The astronauts in addition to all of the above would also have desperately needed an air conditioning system, both in their suits and in the module itself, the capabilities of which would have to be seen to be believed. Consider this; the surface of the moon is subject to some incredible temperature swings. It can be +125pC in sunlight and -170pC in the shade with very little variation in-between these two extremes, so in the sunshine a human would be boiled alive and in the shade would be frozen solid in minutes. In order to cope with these extremes, the space-suits worn by the Apollo astronauts would have had to have technology light-years beyond what we have today, never mind in the 1960s. Also I think it quite pertinent to point out that air-conditioning systems in order to function correctly need a decent supply of air, the clue is in the name really and unfortunately air is a commodity which is apparently in fairly short supply on the moon, last time I checked. An air conditioner cannot possibly work in a vacuum. A space suit surrounded by a vacuum cannot transfer heat from the inside of the suit to anywhere else. A vacuum, as you may remember from school physics lessons, is a perfect insulator and therefore anyone would roast alive in his suit under such circumstances.

But we are not even finished there. The mission would also require equipment to maintain the ‘ship’ and to provide it with essential spares, for emergencies. And then there would be all the testing and portable lab kits that they used to conduct experiments on the moon’s surface plus storage space for all the hundreds of pounds of moon rock that was allegedly brought back and which reportedly sits in hundreds of museums and scientific institutes around the world. The latter visits to the moon were also equipped with the ‘moon rover’. This in itself was over ten feet long with four wheels larger than the standard car wheels of today – how did they get it in, I really do wonder? Well, according to NASA itself, this beast (below) actually folded-up to be the size of a large suitcase! Can anyone with even a semi-functioning brain really accept this abject nonsense?

The Lunar Rover – which, according to NASA folds neatly into a suitcase.

But last and definitely not least, the astronauts would have needed power – and lots of it. The only way that the ship and its vital functions could be powered whilst it was on the moon’s surface would be with batteries, likewise anything else that needed a power supply, the life support system, the lights, the communications system, the television cameras and transmitters, the lunar rovers, the suits etc. etc. As it would also not be possible to recharge any of the batteries then they would have needed some pretty huge and powerful ones at that and these all have to be found a place in the severely restricted space on board that tiny module.

It is also important to acknowledge that, unlike the initial launch on Earth, which involved the collective, sustained efforts of thousands of technicians of all levels and the use of many types of peripheral computer and monitoring equipment, the astronauts leaving the Moon had only themselves and some completely untested-in-that-environment, assorted ironmongery, cables and plastic upon which to rely. I personally cannot imagine how uncomfortable and scary it must have felt to be on the surface of the moon for a few days performing experiments and hopping and skipping around the place in a seemingly carefree, happy-go-lucky manner, wondering that if or when the time came, whether that completely untested contraption would actually get me back home all the way from the Moon, or even back the 70 vertical miles to the rendezvous point with the command module. Fortunately though, the completely untested-in-the-conditions-prevailing-on-the-moon lunar module worked perfectly first time and with no need for modifications or last minute hitches, despite the literally, alien environment in which it was being utilised.

Today of course, NASA cannot even launch a highly technically-advanced space shuttle from Earth without occasional disasters, even though they have since modified their ambitions considerably. After all, sending spacecraft into low-Earth orbit (400 miles return) is infinitely more straightforward than sending spacecraft all the way to the distant Moon and back (470,000 miles). It would seem that although technology has advanced immeasurably since the Apollo Moon landings that tellingly, NASA has hugely downgraded its ambitions in space and now has a significantly worse safety record than in the 1960s, despite that downgrade.

In 2005, NASA made this incredible statement:

“NASA’s vision for space exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond, but there is a potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas. …Finding a good shield is important”. NASA spokesman, 24th June 2005

Do they really expect us to believe that it was possible to perform the Apollo missions in the 1960s and 1970s but now, more than forty years further down the line it has suddenly become impossible to leave the vicinity of the Earth because of space radiation? Did the technology to overcome this problem then exist in 1969-72 but has been somehow, inexplicably lost or forgotten or did the Apollo missions not actually take place as described? This statement narrows down the options somewhat, I am sure you would agree. If ‘finding a good shield’ is as indeed important as I believe it most certainly is, then why can they not just simply use the technology that was deployed on the Apollo craft? No-one died at the time and certainly none of the astronauts subsequently suffered from radiation-induced problems in any way that I am aware of.

Lead is the usual method of choice for radiation-shielding, but the issue is that lead is so heavy and impractical for use in anything but static situations on Earth. Attempting to build spaceships with a four feet thick lead encasement is far from practical as the Russians themselves discovered when they calculated that this was in fact the only way that they could penetrate the Van Allen Radiation Belts with a human cargo in the 1960s. Maybe this was why they simply ‘gave-up’ on the race to be first to the moon?

We will now turn our attention to the photographs asserted to have been taken on the moon by the intrepid Apollo astronauts. In actuality the very existence of the photographs is a technical impossibility. Unfortunately it would simply not have been possible to capture any of the images allegedly shot on the Moon in the manner that NASA describes them to have been obtained. In the 1960s, camera technology was very limited in comparison to today’s and the cameras used by the astronauts, Hasselblads, although they were probably the best and most sophisticated on the market at that time, the simple fact is that they were incapable of generating the images claimed to have been taken on the moon, under the circumstances in which they were supposedly taken.

Cameras of those far-off times before micro-chip technology were not very ‘intelligent’, so every function had to be performed manually. The photographer had to manually focus each shot by squinting through the viewfinder and rotating the lens until the scene came into focus. The correct aperture and shutter speeds had to be manually selected for each shot also, in order to ensure the correct exposure time for the circumstances. This also required peering through the viewfinder, to meter the shot. Finally, each shot had to be properly composed and framed, which obviously also required looking through the viewfinder.

The problem for the astronauts was that the cameras were mounted on their chests, which made it completely and utterly impossible to see through the viewfinder to meter, frame and focus the shots. Everything, therefore, was total guesswork and focusing would have been entirely guesswork also, as would the framing of each shot. An experienced photographer can fairly accurately estimate the exposure settings, but the astronauts lacked this experience and they were also doubly handicapped by the fact that they were viewing the scenes through heavily tinted visors, which meant that what they were seeing was not what the camera was focusing upon.

To add to their not inconsiderable problems, they were wearing space helmets that seriously restricted their field of vision, along with enormously bulky, pressurised gloves that severely limited their hand and finger movements. The odds therefore of them getting even one of those three elements (exposure, focus and framing) correct under the prevailing conditions on any given shot would have been exceedingly low and yet, amazingly enough, on the overwhelming majority of the photos, they got all three right.

“For those who don’t find that at all unusual, here is an experiment that you can try at home: grab the nearest 35MM SLR camera and strap it around your neck. It is probably an automatic camera so you will have to set it for manual focus and manual exposure. Now you will need to put on the thickest pair of winter gloves that you can find, as well as a motorcycle helmet with a visor. Once you have done all that, here is your assignment: walk around your neighborhood with the camera pressed firmly to your chest and snap a bunch of photos. You will need to fiddle with the focus and exposure settings, of course, which is going to be a real bitch since you won’t be able to see or feel what you are doing. Also, needless to say, you’ll just have to guess on the framing of all the shots. You should probably use a digital camera, by the way, so that you don’t waste a lot of film, because you’re not going to have a lot of ‘keepers’. Of course, part of the fun of this challenge is changing the film with the gloves and helmet on, and you’ll miss out on that by going digital. Anyway, after you fill up your memory card, head back home and download all your newly captured images. While looking through your collection of unimpressive photos, marvel at the incredible awesomeness of our Apollo astronauts, who not only risked life and limb to expand man’s frontiers, but who were also amazingly talented photographers. I’m more than a little surprised that none of them went on to lucrative careers as professional photographers.” David McGowan, 2009

Despite all the acclaim he has received for his exploits as an astronaut, Neil Armstrong clearly has been unjustly denied recognition of his astounding abilities as a photographer. Some may argue that he clearly was not in the same league as say, David Bailey or Lord Lichfield, but I would disagree. Those two individuals created some stunning pictures throughout their careers, but could they have done so whilst wearing a spacesuit, gloves and helmet and with their cameras mounted on their chest and whilst working in an environment that featured no air, one-sixth gravity, and utterly stupefying extremes of heat and cold? I seriously doubt it.

Even more tellingly, the designer of the particular type of Hasselblad cameras ‘used on the moon’, has publicly stated to all who were prepared to listen that it would be impossible to use his cameras in the way described and under those circumstances, but of course this has not been widely reported and subsequently air-brushed from history. In addition, the film used must have been a hitherto unknown and since-forgotten variety of ‘super-film’ designed to withstand temperature fluctuations of over 300pC and also to withstand the lethal Van Allen radiation on the way home. Even relatively low-level radiation in airport X-ray machines has been known to totally ‘wipe’ conventional celluloid film.

Next, I would also like to ask the question; where are all the stars in the moon photographs? Not a single photograph allegedly taken from the surface of the moon shows even so much as one star in the background. Because of the prevailing circumstances and a single-light source only (the sun), there should have been a vista almost filled with tiny blazes of light, in any direction away from the sun. More stars then you could ever possibly see on even the clearest of nights on Earth because, the moon has no atmosphere to distort and dim the images. This phenomenon is explained away by NASA and its shills as being due to the fact that setting the exposure level to take account of the brightly glaring spacesuits would mean that the stars would be rendered invisible. However, this does not explain why in instances where the exposure was of a much lower level than when taking shots with the bright space suits, that stars still did not show, even on those photos.

For example, the scenes below which are obviously not very well lit, would have required a long enough exposure that would have been certain to capture every star in that part of the sky. So where are they all?

One could also legitimately question why there were no specific attempts to photograph the stars themselves? It would surely have made a beautiful visage, one never able to be seen from Earth and a change from all the pictures of the lander and the rover, moon rocks and mountains etc.

“It’s as if someone went to Niagara Falls and the only photos they brought back were of the car they drove, sitting in a nondescript parking lot.” David McGowan, 2009

In fact the astronauts were asked this very question about the stars at their press conference, post splash-down and the almost disinterested answer came back to the effect that they ‘did not even notice’ the stars in the sky! Did not even notice them – excuse me? It must have been the single-most wonderful sight they saw on the whole trip, the vast, unimaginable vista of all of creation stretched out before them to infinity. That is if they went in the first place, which of course they did not. Amazing is it not how lying is so difficult to permanently maintain? And speaking of the press conference, if you have never seen the footage of this event, the DVD is available to buy at a very reasonable price on the Internet and I would strongly suggest that you track it down and do so. What is so striking and revealing about this is the absolute downbeat demeanour of the astronauts themselves throughout the entire session.

If someone had just completed the most wonderfully uplifting experience and had been on the most incredible adventure ever undertaken by the human race in its entire history, would I be wrong to suggest that they may have appeared happy, elated and exhilarated, flushed with success, even self-satisfied and have a feeling of great achievement that they would wish to share with the world? Obviously someone forgot to tell them this then in that case. I have never seen a more morose, sullen, disinterested, less co-operative bunch of people in my entire life. Anyone would have thought that they did not really go to the moon at all and were resentful of being ‘put on the spot’ and having to ‘think on their feet’ to answer all the awkward, unplanned-for questions they were being asked, including the one about the stars.

However, I think we may all have guessed the answer as to why NASA was so extremely coy about the star photography. Could it have possibly had anything to do with the fact that the moon is at a different angle to the stars in comparison with the Earth, albeit a barely detectable one, given the vast distances involved? And this would then have been guaranteed to constitute proof that the photographs had actually been taken on Earth as it would have only taken one vigilant, enthusiastic amateur astronomer somewhere in the world to find the nearest stars, take a few quick measurements and calculations and the whole thing would have been blown wide-open forever.

There are also issues with the shadows depicted in the photographs taken ‘on the moon’ as is pointed out by many a moon-landings sceptic. Indeed there are pictures that show the indisputable existence of two light sources, totally impossible of course in the case of the photographs in question. NASA itself states unequivocally that the only source of light utilised on the moon, was indeed the sun, so this all begs the question, how can these photographs be genuine?

Note the shadows at 90p to each other

The other contentious issue with the above photograph is the height from which it must have been taken if we are to accept NASA’s implicit assertions, that it was a) taken on the moon and b) taken from a camera mounted on the astronaut’s chest. Was he stood in a convenient nearby crater perchance? And another point about shadows concerns the fact the moon is a world of extremes. Extremes of both temperature and also of light and dark, black and white. Entirely due to its lack of atmosphere, the moon not only has extremely contrasting temperatures in and out of the sun, but this is also true of light and shade. In the sun, the light is utterly brilliant (in the sense of brightness and not in terms of quality!) and yet in the shadows it experiences an almost total inky blackness. However, in the majority of moon photos, the shady areas are anything but black, more of a watery grey colour, which is even more evidence of secondary light sources casting unintended illumination on the blackness. Here is allegedly the first ever photograph taken by human hand on the surface of the moon:

No problem there you may think? But you would be wrong. Leaving out the unlikely fact that it is once again almost perfectly ‘composed’, it shows clear evidence of secondary light sources evidenced by the top of the white bag and the ‘United States’ placard amongst several other examples. Below is probably the most iconic of all the moon photographs purporting to depict Buzz Aldrin as photographed by Neil Armstrong.

There are many issues with this photograph too. Again the composition is almost perfect, Buzz’s spacesuit looks badly pressurised and the depth of field is also lacking, invalidating the reason that NASA tells us that stars are not visible in the darkness of the sky. Then there is the noticeable lack of any shadowing on Buzz’s spacesuit. He is casting a shadow on the ground, but there is no corresponding shadowing of his body. Even here on Earth, that is only possible with a secondary light source.

Next, stars are by no means the only omission from the photographs. Also conspicuous by its absence is any evidence that the module actually landed on the lunar surface under its own power. Surely as a result of the reverse thrust from a 10,000lb rocket engine there would be some sort of sign in the surrounding dust in the form mainly of a massive displacement having taken place, perhaps a small crater or at the very least, evidence of dust being caked on the lander’s legs? Even NASA’s own artist depictions of the landings show these phenomena, so why do the photographs show no evidence of this fact?

As may be seen in the photograph below, not a single trace of any dust displacement whatsoever, exists directly below the rocket nozzle. Nor is there any evidence of scorching or displacement of any of the small moon rocks. The intense heat from the rocket motor should also have turned some of the dust to a glass-like substance and again no evidence of this is apparent.

Now let us turn our attention to the ‘magic’ space suits worn by all the Apollo astronauts. These suits were designed to provide all the elements needed to keep alive their human hosts in the most hostile place that human beings have allegedly ever visited. Not only were they able to protect the astronauts from the searing 125pc heat in the sunlit areas of the moon, but they were apparently also able to revert to the opposite extreme in an instant in order to protect the wearer from the numbingly cold -170pc upon stepping from sunlight into the shade. A supreme feat of technological prowess, I am sure you would agree. In addition to this, they were equipped with life-support systems in the guise of providing oxygen and eliminating CO2 emissions as well as the ability to process both liquid and solid bodily wastes.

The suits would also have to be pressurised in order for the human body to survive and the evidence for this fact is most definitely absent from all the extant photographs of the astronauts in situ on the moon. Had the suits been at all pressurised, then their wearers would have in essence resembled the ‘Michelin man’ in the famous tyre advertisements, but of course that would not have created the same aesthetically pleasing effects for the TV cameras and the huge audience ‘back home’.

In addition to all of the above, the suits also would have had to provide the astronauts with full body armour to protect them from the millions of meteroids from which the moon is under almost constant, relentless attack.

“Meteoroids constantly bombard the Moon. Apollo moon rocks are peppered with tiny craters from meteoroid impacts. This could only happen on worlds with so little atmosphere, such as the Moon. Meteroids are nearly-microscopic specks of space dust that fly through space at speeds often exceeding 50,000 mph – ten times faster than a speeding bullet. They pack a considerable punch …the tiny space bullets can plow directly into Moon rocks, forming miniature and unmistakable craters”. David McKay, NASA spokesman

According to NASA itself then, every single piece of moon rock is covered with these minute craters and show evidence of multiple collisions from these tiny but deadly missiles. So in effect what NASA is saying is that the moon is not a safe place to be, with a constant hail of these minute 50,000 mph bullets raining-down on the surface of the moon and it would only need one, just one to penetrate the ‘pressurised’ suit of an astronaut and there is no way he would be making the return trip home again. Fortunately, none of the astronauts on any of the missions, nor the landing modules, nor the moon rovers were ever hit by any of these dangerous, ever-present ‘space-bullets’.

In 2004 President George W Bush announced that the US planned to return to the moon, but that it would take at least fifteen years to achieve this feat. Pardon me? Fifteen years with 21st century technology and know-how to achieve what took only eight years with 1960s technology – amazing stuff indeed. Of course no-one from the mainstream bothered to ask the obvious question as to why it would take almost twice as long with 21st century technology than it did with technology from 40+ years previously, even with the distinct benefit of having ‘done it before’!

However, US Republican senator, Sam Brownback did express a form of disdain at the President’s statement by showing his disgust as follows… “You’ve got the Chinese saying they’re interested – we don’t want them to beat us to the moon!” Obviously someone else who in the heat and excitement of the moment forgot that of course, it had actually been done before.

“Conspiracy theories are always difficult to refute because of the impossibility of proving a negative.” NASA spokesman, July 2009, in response to the so-called moon-landing deniers

This of course is a truly bizarre statement because of course it is not NASA that is being asked to ‘prove a negative’. NASA is being asked to in effect prove that they DID land on the moon and not that they did not. This should be a comparatively easy task if it did happen. For starters they could make available all the allegedly missing data and film and all the blueprints of the hardware that they say they used to achieve this amazing feat and also provide a credible reason for the fact that most of the photographs they allege that were taken on the moon are provably fake.

One of the major problems that the Grumman, the company who designed and built the lunar landers, team faced was how to successfully insulate the entire vehicle from the intense heat of the unshielded sun not to mention the all-but ignored problem of intense space radiation. The spacecraft would have had to have been insulated almost perfectly because there were huge fuel tanks in there and the fuel would boil if not adequately protected. Also, the huge temperature variations on the Moon would cause the craft to buckle and warp which would be disastrous. It may also have been a tiny bit uncomfortable for the astronauts too. Since weight was a huge issue, heavy heat shields could not be used but as luck would have it, the DuPont Corporation had developed a new material, aluminised Mylar. It was gold in colour and supposedly if it was built-up to around twenty-five layers, it would prove to be an excellent insulator. DuPont’s space-age material can be obtained very inexpensively today and is still a very lightweight material. I wonder why it should be then that we never see spaceships wrapped in it any longer?

Then in 1970, just as the whole world was getting complacent about how easy it was to get to the moon and back having now done it on two separate occasions, enter stage right, Apollo 13.

On the 13th April 1970, Apollo 13 was on its way to the moon for the next scheduled moon landing (the 3rd) when disaster struck. Apollo 13’s command and service modules were allegedly rendered powerless by an explosion on the ship whilst around 200,000 miles from home on the outbound leg of the journey. This caused the three astronauts on board to have to retreat into the lunar landing module, whose functions were still operational, in order to survive. Not only did this allegedly keep the three astronauts alive but the lunar lander’s engine also enabled them to ‘sling-shot’ around the moon using centrifugal force and plot a course back to Earth. However, the Apollo 13 astronauts were then faced with another life-threatening situation; carbon dioxide was rapidly building in the ship’s confined airspace. Lithium hydroxide cartridges were supposed to be available to remove the carbon dioxide, but there was a limited supply of these cartridges in the lander. As luck would have it though, there were additional cartridges in the command module but unfortunately these were incompatible; the command module’s cartridges were square while those in the lander module were round.

So what did the intrepid crew do to overcome this problem? They used duct tape and tubing from the spacesuits, plus an ‘old sock’ according to one of the trio, Gene Cernan, to rig-up a temporary fix and enable the incompatible cartridges to work as normal. It was indeed fortunate that next week’s laundry was just lying around there on the floor. There were no seats in the lander as it had been decided that they would just add unnecessary weight. And also, there was just barely room for two people in the space allegedly now being occupied by three. All three, had this been a real life-and-death situation would have been wearing bulky spacesuits, boots, gloves and helmets. Somehow, they had to co-exist for four days and during that time all that separated them from the extreme hazards of outer space was a double layer of aluminum foil. One microscopic meteoroid or one misplaced foot would result in immediate destruction of the ship and instant death for the three ‘heroes’.

I wonder why it is by the way, that the Apollo 13 astronauts were said to have been very cold throughout their return flight in their allegedly crippled ship? As recalled by Jim Lovell… “The trip was marked by discomfort beyond the lack of food and water. Sleep was almost impossible because of the cold. When we turned off the electrical systems, we lost our source of heat and the sun streaming in the windows didn’t much help … It wasn’t simply that the temperature dropped to 38pF, (4pc) the sight of perspiring walls and wet windows made it seem even colder. We considered putting on our spacesuits, but they would have been bulky and too sweaty … We found the CM a cold, clammy tin can when we started to power up. The walls, ceiling, floor, wire harnesses and panels were all covered with droplets of water.”

Where does one begin to analyse all that? For starters, why were they short of food and water at all? The trip had been curtailed by at least three days and as for the sun ‘streaming in through the windows’, how could the sun generating as it did, around 125pc of heat, not make a significant difference?

And what about the water droplets covering the interior of the command and lunar modules? Would not most of those droplets have become airborne in a zero-gravity environment? Would not the inside of the module have looked something akin to a child’s snowstorm-globe? All utterly preposterous nonsense, I am afraid.

In 1929, the famous German film-maker, Fritz Lang, produced a film by the name of Die Frau in Mond which translates into English as The Woman in the Moon. Did this film provide the blueprint for the ritualistic procedures that were adopted for the Apollo programme? As can be seen in the still-shots below, all of the elements were present; the unnecessary vertical construction of the spaceship in a specially built hangar, the grand opening of the massive hangar doors, the excruciatingly slow roll-out of the upright rocketship from the hangar to the launch pad, the raucous crowds watching the spectacle live and even the now ubiquitous ‘countdown’ sequence. Even the shedding of two stages of the ship was there. In other words, the only elements of the performance that the public ever actually witnessed were all lifted directly from a forty-year-old (at the time) silent film.

Fritz Lang’s technical adviser on the film was Herman Oberth, considered to be one of the three founding fathers of rocketry and assisting Oberth on the film project, according to the Time-Life book To the Moon, was one of his brightest students, nineteen-year-old Wernher von Braun. A decade-and-a-half later, both Oberth and von Braun would be recruited through Project Paperclip (see WWII chapter for more details) and brought to America to work on, among other things, the Apollo programme, whose modus operandi just happened to very closely match that of the very same fake moon-launch Oberth and von Braun had colluded upon forty years earlier.

In case you were wondering, the two screen-shots above were from the aforementioned 1929 silent film and not from footage of the Apollo 13 ‘near-disaster’. However one could be forgiven for thinking that, given the ‘plot’ similarities.

So, as always, we need to ask the pertinent question, why would they do it? Why would they go to all that trouble just to fake the moon landings and perpetuate this myth for more than four decades? And why and how could so many apparently intelligent people have been fooled by it all?

The most obvious answer and the one most frequently quoted by moon-landing sceptics, is that it was in order for the US to reclaim their national pride that had been stripped-away by the fact of America being solidly beaten in the space-race by the Soviets over a prolonged period of time. While this undoubtedly played a significant role, there are other factors also, factors that have not been explored as comprehensively as they might have been. However, before we analyse these other factors, we need to ask the question as to whether it would even have been possible to perpetrate a hoax on such a large scale.

Firstly, it is true to say that not everyone was deceived by the alleged Moon landings. Although it is not widely recognised today, a significant number of people were more than sceptical about NASA’s television productions of the events. Wired magazine reported that, ‘when Knight Newspapers polled 1,721 US residents one year after the first moon landing, it found that more than 30% of respondents were suspicious of NASA’s ‘trips to the moon.’ And this is highly significant in itself, given that overall trust in government was considerably higher in the 1960s and 1970s, the fact that nearly a third of Americans doubted what they were ‘witnessing’ through their television sets is quite remarkable. But of course without the benefits of the Internet it was much more difficult to share information in those days, especially contentious information which would be filtered by the controlled mainstream media. Real information and statistics were thus not as widely distributed as today.

But of course, all the pro-Moon-landings websites conveniently omit to mention that of the people who experienced the events ‘as they were happening’ that almost 1-in-3 had doubts, a number considerably higher than one would imagine. And also, perhaps needless to say, the pro-NASA apologists fail to mention that 1-in-4 young Americans, still have doubts about the Moon landings today.

Returning then to the question of why such an egregious hoax would be perpetrated on an unsuspecting world, we need to travel back in time to the year 1969. Richard Nixon had just been inaugurated as the US President after the successful elimination of his strongest rival for the Presidency the previous year by the ‘lone-nut gunman’, Sirhan Sirhan (RFK) and his election to the highest office was based largely on his promises of winding-down the hugely unpopular war in Vietnam. However the truth was that the Elite had no intentions of ending the war at all and indeed, the exact opposite was true. His brief from his hidden masters was actually to escalate the conflict as widely as possible, but in order to do so, he needed to bring about a huge diversion, a means by which the patriotic fervour of the American people could be stimulated to undreamed-of new heights and so that they would blindly follow, wherever he may lead them.

Traditionally this tactic has often been facilitated by governments perpetrating short-term, low-risk military ‘sabre-rattling’ of one kind or another, but the huge problem for Nixon was that military entanglements are exactly what he was attempting to divert attention away from.

However, with not a moment to spare, Apollo 11 embarks upon its historic, heroic mission on the 16th July and with the entire American nation if not the world, in its thrall, five days later the lander allegedly sets-down on the Sea of Tranquility. Vietnam is all-but forgotten temporarily and American hearts burst with patriotic pride upon winning the race to the Moon. There is obviously no time to worry about hideous conflicts across the other side of the world whilst Neil Armstrong is taking his ‘giant leap for mankind’.

However, the ‘honeymoon period’ is short-lived as just four months later, in early November 1969, the story of the brutal murder of over 500 civilians in the village of My Lai (The My Lai Massacre) breaks, bringing home to Americans the cold-blooded savagery of the Vietnam war once again. So then, time for another spectacular diversion and Apollo 12 duly departs on the 14th November, embarking upon another perfectly trouble-free lunar adventure before returning ten days later. America is once again mesmerised by its new heroes and suddenly the depressing old war news is off the front pages yet again.

Now let us fast forward slightly to March, 1970. A CIA-backed coup ousts Prince Sihanouk in Cambodia and Lon Nol is ‘selected’ by the US as his replacement. Cambodia then immediately joins the conflict and promises troops for the US war effort and the conflict is then even-further escalated in April when Nixon sanctions an invasion of Cambodia by US infantry forces, in yet another move engineered by the warmonger-in-chief, Henry Kissinger. Nixon has by this time been in office just over 12 months and the war, far from ‘winding-down’, has been substantially ‘wound-up’ by expanding into Cambodian territory.

Enter the knights in shining armour of NASA yet again. However, this next Moon mission was not to be just simply any old Moon mission as it turned-out. Having now had two successful missions go by with consummate ease and without the merest suggestion of a problem of any kind, the US population, not exactly renowned for their overly-long attention spans, had already begun to regard the moon adventures as a little too ‘easy’. And so, what was needed to regain the public attention was a little injection of drama, not to mention extreme mortal danger.

On the 11th April 1970, the next instalment of the saga, Apollo 13, takes to the air. Unlike the first two missions however, the spacecraft fails to reach the Moon due to the unfortunate explosion of an oxygen tank as in the Fritz Lang film previously referred-to. The crew of Apollo 13 is by this time now in extreme danger of dying a horrific, lonely death in the vast emptiness of space. What better attention-grabber could there have been? Indeed, when three Vietnam veterans held concurrent press conferences in New York, San Francisco and Rome on the 14th April, attempting to draw the world’s attention to the ongoing US government-condoned slaughter of the innocents in Vietnam and Cambodia, barely anyone notices. How could anyone be concerned about the fate of Vietnamese civilians, when their heroes are clearly in deep trouble? Fortunately it all ended in triumph yet again as the heroes defied all the odds, patched-up the crippled ship and returned home in a veritable blaze of glory. John Wayne, eat your heart out.

January 1971 saw the trial of Lt. William Calley, charged that he personally ordered and partook in the mass-murder of the inhabitants of the village of My Lai. But on the 31st of the month, Apollo 14 is launched before making, once again a flawless lunar landing. On the 9th February, the team returns, just a few weeks before Calley is finally convicted of murder. By the way, he served a ridiculously and inappropriately short sentence under ‘house arrest’ and none of his superiors were ever held accountable.

Then later in 1971, the New York Times began publication of the infamous Pentagon Papers, revealing American policy in Vietnam to be a complex tissue of lies. Further publication was vetoed by the US Justice Department but nevertheless resumed again in July. This was quickly followed, by the launch of Apollo 15 on the 26th of July. Five days later, yet another perfect-in-every-small-detail lunar landing clearly demonstrates American technological superiority over the rest of the world but the moon-landings were now becoming a little passé for the American people, so a new element was introduced and from then on, the astronauts were able to ride on the lunar surface in their moon rovers. The lunar modules were exactly the same dimensions as they had been all along, but apparently now they had enough space to transport unfeasibly bulky extra equipment to the Moon, with apparent ease.

The triumphant astronauts returned to Earth in early August and the rest of the year passed-by uneventfully. But then on the 30th March 1972, North Vietnamese troops mounted a massive offensive into Quang Tri Province, revealing as lies the statements by the mainstream media that after eight years of bloody conflict, horiffic brutality and massacre, victory was there for the taking. Nixon responded to this attack with deep penetration, carpet-bombing of North Vietnam and Cambodia and also with the illegal mining of North Vietnam’s seaports. And NASA also responded by launching Apollo 16 on the 16th April and on the 27th April, the crew of Apollo 16 once again returned home to yet another hero’s welcome.

Towards the end of 1972, a ceasefire and end to the hostilities in SE Asia looked fairly likely. In October, Kissinger and David Bruce, a member of the infamous Mellon family (of the 13 bloodlines) were secretly negotiating peace terms with the leader of North Vietnam, Le Duc Tho. In December however, the negotiations stalled, but not before Apollo 17 is launched on the 7th December. Whilst the latest group of super-heroes were far away in space however, the negotiations ceased abruptly without the courtesy of an explanation and Nixon through his controller, Kissinger unleashed one last ruthless carpet-bombing campaign against North Vietnam and Cambodia, costing countless thousands more innocent civilian lives.

Five weeks later in January 1973, upon the resumption of the negotiations, a peace agreement was finally announced and within a few days a ceasefire came into effect, thereby officially ending US military involvement in South-East Asia although of course the CIA remained to control and direct the remnants of the conflict, by proxy. All US troops returned home and the Apollo programme, despite three additional missions (Apollo 18, 19 and 20) having been planned and despite the additional funding that would have been available with the war drawing to a close, ends abruptly forever with barely a whimper. All a coincidence? Again, I will leave that to the discretion of the reader.

In addition to restoring national pride and providing a huge diversion from the savage colonial war being waged in South-East Asia, the Apollo programme undoubtedly served another useful function; covert funding of that war effort. Probably needless to point-out, fake Moon landings are by several magnitudes less expensive than actual Moon landings and the vast sums of money allocated to NASA during the Vietnam war-years to accomplish the actual landings was no doubt siphoned-off to covertly fund the war in the Far East, unnaturally prolonging the war as was the aim all along.

As a small postscript to this section it is also worth mentioning the three Apollo astronauts who died for the cause. Virgil ‘Gus’ Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chafee were burned alive during a test procedure in the command module of the Apollo 1 rocket. I believe it to be highly significant that all three were regarded by the NASA hierarchy as ‘troublemakers’ and there is considerable speculation that they did not agree to ‘go along’ with the Moon landings myths. On one occasion, shortly before the tragic fire that claimed their lives, Grissom hung a lemon on a wire coat hanger on the Apollo 1 rocket (picture below) during a publicity photo-shoot and in addition made an unauthorised statement to the press in early January 1967 to the effect that he believed that the ‘Moon landings’ were at least ‘a decade away’, for which he was severely reprimanded. That was probably his death sentence signed and sealed right there and then. Indeed less than a month later all three ‘rebels’ were dead. Shortly before his untimely death Gus Grissom had also said to his wife… ‘If there is ever a serious accident in the space programme, it’s likely to be me.’ How prophetic. Ed White’s wife also died within two years of her husband, allegedly by suicide and Scott Grissom, Gus’s son, a commercial airline pilot, adamantly maintains to this day that his father and the two others were murdered by NASA.

Grissom’s lemon

Of the original astronauts recruited from the US Air Force at the beginning of the space programme, an inordinate number lost their lives in strange, never-to-be-explained circumstances and by such methods as car-crashes, air-crashes and ‘suicides’ among others. In addition to which a gentleman by the name of Thomas Baron who was a safety inspector for NASA and who delivered highly critical testimony and a 1,500 page report to Congress on the catastrophic safety failures of Apollo, only to then be killed along with his daughter less than a week later in an extremely suspicious car ‘accident’. All the copies of his report were seemingly ‘lost’ at the same time too and the one he delivered to Congress was quietly buried with him. If not literally, then certainly metaphorically speaking.

The following are facts surrounding the Apollo missions courtesy of apollofake.bravehost.com

“Neil Armstrong is now reportedly suffering with mental illness as a direct result of him putting his name forward as the foundation stone for the biggest lie in history. OR it could be that he has become paranoid by the overwhelming number of web sites, exposing him as a liar.

Rumour has it that Apollo 12 astronaut Pete Conrad was going public about the fake Moon landings on the 30th anniversary back in July 1999. He was killed in a motorcycle accident one week before the 30th anniversary.

It takes the space shuttle 66 hours to reach the International Space Station which is a mere 185 miles above Earth. NASA claim Apollo 13 was 55 hours into its duration from lift off when it encountered a problem at a distance of 200,000 miles from Earth.

President Lyndon Johnson made certain Apollo files classified, with a declassification date of 2026. This is so that those involved in the Apollo scam would be long dead and gone, and no one alive to blame.

In the early 60s NASA officials, realising that a manned Moon landing was totally impossible before 1970, met in secret behind closed doors. It was at that meeting they agreed upon a decision to fake Apollo 11, in the hope they would get to the Moon later on and then shroud the earlier faked pictures with genuine Moon pictures. The reality is they never succeeded with any mission.

Arthur C. Clarke referred to Apollo 11 as a ‘Hole in History’. Historian A.J.P. Taylor referred to it as ‘The biggest non-event of his lifetime’.

NASA had not perfected the lunar landing craft in time for Apollo 11. In 2011 they are still trying to get a rocket to land and take off again, 40 years after Apollo was supposed to have done just that.

Film footage taken inside the capsule of ALL Apollo missions, shows a light blue haze and curvature of Earth through capsule window, when they were supposedly half way to the Moon, and in the blackness of space. This proves that capsule was only in Earth orbit.

Moon pictures on NASA’s web sites are fake, with backdrop scenes pasted. The pictures reveal a black line pencilled in where background meets daylight sky, which was blacked out completely.

The LM used on latter missions, was the same specification as the first mission, ie, no modifications. It would have therefore been impossible to carry the rover vehicle to the Moon in the same confined LM, even if it collapsed into a more compact form.

The lunar rover had inflatable tyres which would have exploded if pre-inflated, and there was no air on the Moon to inflate them. Pro-Apollo ‘nutters’ claim the rover had solid wire mesh tires. Yes, the rover in the museum had these fitted in the mid-70s when they realised pneumatic tyres could not have functioned on the Moon. NASA has had 40 years in which to clear up the plainly obvious mistakes within the Apollo programme. Each time someone brings up a query, NASA corrects it and says nothing, ie, they cannot say why the anomaly was there in the first place. Early close-up pictures of the rover on the Internet have CHANGED since the blunder was exposed on this web-site.

It would have been impossible to have a water-cooled space-suit on the Moon, when outside temperature was already at boiling point of water as there would be nowhere for the heat to dissipate.

The LM was suspended from a huge traverse crane based at Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia and was gently lowered at the same time it traversed over a mock Moon surface created beneath it. Check picture on REALITY site, and Channel 4 video ‘As it Happened’.

Trainee astronauts were also suspended from this huge traverse crane in a horizontal position to simulate reduced gravity. Check picture on REALITY site with the NASA web site picture of Harrison Schmitt tripping up. The unusual high backward leg swing is identical in both pictures.

Film footage allegedly taken by Apollo 8 as it supposedly circled the Moon, is the SAME film used for the Apollo 11 mission, except that film is reversed and run backwards. Look for the ‘tadpole like’ mountain range. What NASA did was to film the mock lunar surface at LRC, traveling in one direction, then reverse camera and film surface travelling in opposite direction.

Film footage showing Apollo missions allegedly circling the Moon, was taken by a rail mounted camera which slowly moved toward a rotating plaster of Paris model of the Moon.

James Lovell was reading from a pre-written script in the simulator when he did the voice over for the above film and referred to the Moon as being ‘essentially grey, no colour, looks like plaster of paris’. The recording was made long before the mission. Listen carefully on headphones, as he tries hard to suppress himself from laughing. Why otherwise would someone on such an important mission find it so comical? The answer is because it was indeed plaster of Paris he was referring to, hence the smirk on the face of Michael Collins after the remark.

The majority of NASA’s fake Moon landing pictures were taken/composed in the mid-90s AND NOT in the late 60s as many are led to believe. This was because suspicion was aroused at the time regarding the limited number of photos available. NASA had to do something rapidly because of the onset of the Internet.

Earth is 235,000 miles from the Moon, yet reflected sunlight from its surface is strong enough to illuminate the darkness on planet Earth. Anyone hovering above the surface of the Moon would be blinded by the high intensity light reflected back.

In the mid-60s, Alan Sheppard was removed from ALL space missions due to vertigo and Meniere’s disease. No one in such a poor state of health would be assigned to such a dangerous and complex mission. He was not even on the Apollo 14 mission, which in itself was only in Earth orbit.

The monitored radio/data signals were either transmitted from Earth and reflected back by bouncing signals off the Moon, or were transmitted via a leased channel. If a valuable source of monitoring equipment was left on Moon, then it would be used today, and not shut down in the 70s.

In a TV interview with journalist Sheena McDonald back in 1994, the NASA Administrator, Dan Golden, openly admitted that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit until they can overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He managed to say this without any mention of the Apollo missions 25 years previously, which supposedly went 240,000 miles outside Earth orbit.
Neil Armstrong has NO mementos or photographs whatsoever from his alleged Moon mission; however he has plenty from his test pilot days. There are no photographs of Armstrong supposedly on the Moon, because Armstrong, knowing the saga was fake, refused NASA permission.

In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256kb and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2008 a top of the range computer requires at least 64Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The computer on board Apollo 11 had 32kb of memory.

When Apollo astronauts were not in space, they were manning mission control communication for other Apollo missions, this was to limit the number of persons ‘in the know’. There were in fact two communication links to every Apollo mission. First was launch control who dealt with communication at lift off and re-entry, however once in Earth orbit communication was handed over to the limited few astronauts manning mission control. Check it yourself on film coverage released at the time. Collins, Duke, Aldrin, Lovell, Shepherd, Schmitt, Cernan etc, are all there on various missions. Lovell himself admitted that there were two communication links to the astronauts.

It would have been impossible for the astronauts to get from the Lunar Module to the conical space capsule, as this section was occupied by the 3 large re-entry parachutes, which ejected from the conical end.

In 2011 NASA still does not have the technology to land a man on the Moon and return them safely. It may be possible in the future, but such a feat is still many, many years away.

Buzz Aldrin believes he has suffered brain damage as a result of his trip to the Moon. He knows very well that he never went anywhere near the Moon and so could not have suffered brain damage in the way he alleges. Aldrin was the only Apollo astronaut who went public and talked about the Moon landings during the 70s and 80s. The guilt, remorse, and stumbling over awkward questions put to him by the media, have put an intolerable strain on him. His psychological damage is the result of keeping it bottled up for 40 years, instead of getting it off his mind. In Aldrin’s book ‘Return to Earth’, he makes a remark that all 6 of them have been made to look fools. Make of this what you will.”

Finally, of course the above list of facts does not come anywhere close to providing a fully comprehensive list or breakdown of the anomalies surrounding NASA’s claims of Moon missions. To do justice to the full list would be worthy in itself of a book of this size, alone. All I can do is provide a brief overview of some of the less well-known aspects and encourage the reader to undertake his/her own further research on the topic.

Stanley Kubrick – 2001, A Space Oddity

I am grateful for all the following information, to Jay Weidner, who amongst his many other talents is a highly skilled photographer.

It has now been 42 years (at the time of writing this) since the first Apollo moon landing. For as many years, there has also been a controversy between those who accept the landings as genuine and those who believe that they were faked. Could what we saw on TV of the alleged missions and landings possibly have been faked by none other than the late, great filmmaker Stanley Kubrick?

In early 1964, Stanley Kubrick had just finished his black satire Dr. Strangelove starring Peter Sellers and was looking to produce a science fiction film as his next big project. Whilst directing Dr. Strangelove, Kubrick had asked the US Air Force for permission to film one of their B52 bombers for the movie, but the Pentagon demurred. The movie, Dr. Strangelove, was about a flight squadron that had been ordered to fly to Russia and drop nuclear bombs on that country and the Pentagon read Kubrick’s script and rejected his request to actually film the inside and outside, of a B52. The reason for this rejection was that Kubrick’s film was clearly a satire on the military and US nuclear policy and the Pentagon did not wish to be held up to ridicule by Kubrick.

Undaunted by this rejection, Kubrick used various special effects to re-create the B52 in flight. When viewing Dr. Strangelove today, these special effects look dated and old fashioned, but in 1963 they seemed very plausible. Could it be at all possible that someone in high places saw these effects and admiring his creativity, decided to hire him to direct the moon landings charade?

After all, if he could do that well on such a limited budget, what could he achieve on a virtually unlimited budget? No one knows for sure how the powers-that-be convinced Kubrick to direct the Apollo landings footage but it is more than possible that he was compromised in some way. The fact that his brother, Raul Kubrick, was the head of the American Communist Party may have been one of the avenues pursued by the shadow government to get Kubrick to cooperate. But perhaps it was simply the payment of a huge sum of money into a numbered Swiss bank account that swung it for them.

Either way, it would appear that Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings in return for two things. The first was a virtually unlimited budget to make his ultimate science fiction film: 2001: A Space Odyssey and the second was that he would be able to make any film he wanted, with no oversight from anyone, for the rest of his life. Except for his last film, Eyes Wide Shut, Kubrick got exactly what he demanded.

It is almost uncanny the way that the production of 2001: A Space Odyssey parallels the Apollo programme, in many respects. The film production commenced in 1964 and continued until the film was released in 1968. Meanwhile, the Apollo programme also began in 1964 and culminated with the first Moon landing on the 20th July 1969. Also, it is perhaps significant to note that the scientist Frederick Ordway was working both for NASA and the Apollo programme and was also Kubrick’s main science advisor for 2001: A Space Odyssey. Once the deal was negotiated, the work began and the most pressing problem for Kubrick in 1964 was found to be how to work-out a way to make the shots on the ground, on the surface of the moon, look even close to being realistic. He had to make the scenes appear to be open and expansive, just as though the film really had been shot on the Moon and not, as it really was, in a film studio.

Eventually Kubrick settled on doing the entire project with a cinematic technique called Front Screen Projection. It is in the use of this cinematic technique that the ‘trademark’ of Kubrick can be seen all over the NASA Apollo photographic and video material. What is Front Screen Projection? Kubrick did not invent the process but there is no doubt that he played a huge role in perfecting it. Front Screen Projection is a cinematic device that allows scenes to be projected behind the actors so that it appears, in the camera, as if the actors are moving around on the set provided by the Front Screen Projection.

The process became possible when the company 3M invented a material by the name of Scotchlite. This was a screen material that was made up of hundreds of thousands of tiny glass beads each about 0.4 millimetres wide. These beads are highly reflective and in the Front Screen Projection process the Scotchlite screen would be placed at the back of the soundstage. The plane of the camera lens and the Scotchlite screen had to be exactly 90 degrees apart and then a projector would project the scene onto the Scotchlite screen through a mirror and the light would go through a beam splitter, which would pass the light into the camera. An actor would stand in front of the Scotchlite screen and he would appear to be ‘inside’ the projection. Today, Hollywood directors use green screens and computers for special effects, and so Front Screen Projection has gone the way of all obsolete technology. But in its day, especially in the 1960s, nothing worked better than Front Screen Projection for the realistic look that would be needed both for the ape-men scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey and the faked Apollo landings.

If one watches 2001 on DVD today, it is possible to actually occasionally see the ‘seams’ of the screen behind the gyrating apes. Kubrick was performing Front Screen Projection in such a grandiose fashion that the technicians were forced to sew together many screens of Scotchlite so that Kubrick could create the vastness needed for the ape scenes to be believable.

While watching 2001, with the scenes of the ape-men one can see the signatures of Front Screen Projection everywhere. It should be emphasised that the sets that surround the ape-men in the movie are real. There are ‘real’ rocks surrounding the ape-men albeit probably papier mache, but behind the fabricated rocks on the set, the desert scene is being projected via the Front Screen Projector. One of the ways in which one identify that the FSP system is being used is that the bottom horizon line between the actual set and the background Scotchlite screen has to be obscured so that the line remains unseen. Kubrick’s tactic was to strategically locate rocks and other artefacts near the bottom of the scene in order to hide this ‘joint’ line.

Just as a stage magician needs the hidden pockets in his suit to hide the mechanisms of his tricks, so too Kubrick needed to hide the mechanism of his trick behind the carefully placed horizon line between the set and the screen. It is this signature that reveals, not only that NASA did fake the photographs of the Apollo missions but also how they faked them.

NASA photo clearly depicting the fake horizon line

One can see that there is a slight uprising behind the LEM, which is hiding the bottom of the screen. Also notice that even though everything is in focus in the background, there is a strange change in the landscape of the ground immediately above the ‘horizon’ line. This is because the photo of the mountains being used on the FP system has a slightly different ground texture than the set. Indeed, this ‘fingerprint’ is also consistent throughout many of the Apollo images.

However, not all lunar-surface shots use this process. Sometimes the astronauts are just standing on the set with a suspicious, completely black background. The early missions used the Front Screen Projection system only when they had to, but as the missions continued and they had to look more professional, Kubrick began to perfect the process.
Although it is possible to see the Front Screen Projection process on every mission, the seriously revealing images are in the later missions, namely Apollo 14, 15, 16 and 17.

Here are some images from Apollo 17:

That astronaut is driving the lunar rover parallel to the screen and the rover is only three or four feet away from the Scotchlite. Please note how the tyre treads just lead to nowhere. Actually, they are going to the edge of the set.

In the above photo, the astronaut is about six feet in front of the Scotchlite screen. Please also note how everything is in focus from the rocks and pebbles close to the camera all the way to the crystal clear ‘mountain’ behind the astronaut. Another huge impossibility among many impossibilities.

There is a stark difference in the ground texture between the set and what is being projected onto the screen. One can almost count the number of small rocks and the granularity of the ground is clearly seen on the set, but once we get to the screen on the other side of my line this granularity disappears.

This next image is interesting. When first viewed one is sure that they are looking across the vast unbroken lunar surface from beginning to end. With the Earth rising, it is truly a stunning shot.

But sure enough – a close examination reveals the set/screen line once again. Again, please note the change in the texture of the ground immediately on each side of the line. The little pebbles and dust seem to disappear behind the line.

What this means is that it is virtually impossible for two objects that are far apart in the lens of a 70mm camera to be in the same plane of focus. One of the two objects will always be out-of-focus. Filmmakers like to use depth of field because it creates soft out-of-focus backgrounds that are visually very pleasant to the human eye.

While watching the ape-men scenes at the beginning of 2001, one can see that everything is in focus. Whether it is the apes, or the far away desert background, they are all in focus. This is because the Front Projection Screen on which the background desert scenes are projected is actually not far away from the ape actor. In reality the Scotchlite screen containing the desert scene is right behind the actors just as the Scotchlite screen is right behind the astronauts in the Apollo images. So whatever is projected onto that screen will usually be in the same plane of focus as the actor-ape or the actor-astronaut.

This depth of field is impossible in real life using a large format film like 70 mm. Keeping everything in focus is only possible if everything is actually confined to a small place. It may look like the ape-men are somewhere in a huge desert landscape but in reality they are all on a small set in a studio. Similarly it may look like the astronauts are on a vast lunar landscape, but actually they are on a small confined set. Because of the vastness of the set and because he needed it to look like it was not done on a sound-stage, Kubrick had to sew several Scotchlite screens together. It was only when he had created a large enough Scotchlite screen, was he then was able to get a large enough background image that would look expansive enough to appear to be the surface of the moon or a desert four million years ago.

The process that created the desert backgrounds in 2001 is exactly the same process that created the lunar mountains backgrounds for the Apollo missions.

Maybe this is why NASA suddenly lost all of its lunar images. Maybe this is why NASA recently admitted that they ‘accidentally’ taped-over the original high-resolution tape of Apollo 11. Maybe this is why Neil Armstrong, ‘the first man to walk on the moon’, does not ever participate in the celebrations and anniversaries of the moon landings and maybe this is why we have never gone back to the moon.

As previously stated, many researchers have pointed out the different angles of light on the surface of the moon. Because there is only one light source (the sun) how can there be multiple shadow angles on the moon? If the shots were actually taken in the bright light of the sun, two individual shadows should be at the same exact angle. Yet they are not. Why? Simply because Kubrick used studio lighting, but why would Kubrick make a beginner’s mistake like inconsistent shadow angles, being the supremely accomplished film-maker he indeed was? I believe that Kubrick did this intentionally.

One thing that we may be sure of is that some part of Stanley Kubrick wanted everyone to know what he had done and that is surely why he left behind clues that would explain who did it and how.

But also we can see that Kubrick used the faking of the Apollo moon missions as an opportunity to make one great film and because he had negotiated a deal where no-one would be given oversight on the film, Kubrick was allowed to make whatever movie he desired. Knowing as he did that no-one would object to his anti-Hollywood methods, he created the first abstract feature film, the first intellectual movie and the greatest esoteric work of art in the 20th century.

The president of MGM at the time in 1968 publicly admitted that he never even saw a rough cut of 2001: A Space Odyssey during the entire four years of production. Does that sound like the manner in which a head of a major studio would normally conduct his business? 2001: A Space Odyssey was one of the most expensive films ever made at that time so does it even seem remotely possible that no-one at MGM even cared to check-on the ongoing development of the film?

If so, it is a virtual certainty that 2001: A Space Odyssey is the only film in MGM history where the executives who funded the movie never oversaw the film’s evolution. So why was there no interest in this very expensive endeavour? Because MGM did not fund 2001, the US Government did. Outside of the Front Screen Projection evidence, which I believe conclusively proves the fraud of the Apollo landings, there is much circumstantial evidence that would lead us to draw the conclusion that Kubrick directed the filming of the Apollo missions. For instance, in the original release of 2001 there were many credits thanking NASA and many of the aerospace companies that worked with NASA on the moon landings but unsurprisingly, these credits have since been removed from all subsequent prints of 2001. For those old enough to remember, in the original credits Kubrick also thanks a vast array of military and space corporations for their help in the production and as these are the very same corporations that supposedly helped NASA get the astronauts to the moon – one has to wonder – what kind of help did they gave Kubrick? And for what price?

In Kubrick’s film Wag the Dog; Dustin Hoffman plays a movie producer hired by the CIA to ‘fake an event’. His name in the movie is Stanley and he mysteriously dies after telling everyone that he wants to take credit for the ‘event’ that he helped fake. Stanley Kubrick died soon after showing Eyes Wide Shut to the executives at Warner Brothers and it is strongly rumoured that they were very angry about the contents of the film. They wanted Kubrick to re-edit the film but he refused point-blank.

Warner Brothers subsequently admitted that they re-edited the film after Stanley’s death and before release contrary to their agreement with Kubrick that he would have sole editorial discretion. To this day, WB still refuse to release a DVD of Stanley Kubrick’s cut. Not only is this a direct violation of the agreement that Kubrick had with Warner Brothers, but it also means that there will probably never be an un-edited version of this film. It really does beg the question as to what was actually removed from the original.

And finally, Eyes Wide Shut was released on the 16th July 1999. Stanley Kubrick insisted in his contract that this was to be the date of the release. The 16th July 1999 is exactly 30 years to the day that Apollo 11 was launched.

Natural or Artificial Satellite?

Ask yourself, what do you really know about our nearest neighbour?

Here are some stunning facts to start with:

The Moon’s diameter is EXACTLY 1/400th of the diameter of the Sun and stands from Earth at EXACTLY 1/400th of the distance from the Earth to the Sun. Not 399.5, not 400.5 but EXACTLY 400. How improbable are both these facts when taken individually, let alone together?

This is the staggering fact that enables a total eclipse of the sun to occur – nothing else. If this ratio had varied even slightly then total eclipses would not occur.

And also, equally incredibly the Moon’s ‘day’, is exactly equal to its ‘year’ ie. its period of rotation on its axis is EXACTLY equal to the time it takes for it to circumnavigate the Earth, hence we never see the far side, it is ALWAYS pointing away from the Earth. This time period on Earth is known as one month.

The staggering statistics continue…

The ancient human civilisations developed and utilised a unit of measurement which has today come to be known as the ‘megalithic yard’ or MY for short. It is based on 366p to a circle, sixty minutes to a degree and six seconds to a minute. This sequence generates a second of arc on the Earth’s polar circumference that is 366 megalithic yards long.

Applying these principles of megalithic geometry to all of the planets and moons in the solar system, it was found that only the Sun and our Moon produced precise round-number results, a fact which is truly astounding and about as far from being the result of pure chance as it is possible to be.

The Sun is almost a perfect sphere. NASA quotes a best estimate of the circumference of the Sun as 4,373,096 km, which converted into megalithic geometry gives one second of arc as being 40,003.8 MY. This represents an accuracy of more than 99.99% to a round figure of 40,000 MY. Given that the NASA figure is based on a best estimate, it is not unreasonable to assume that 40,000 MY is yet another significant figure in the sequence.

Similarly, the moon is also close to being a perfect sphere and NASA’s own figures specify a circumference of 10,914.5 km which converts to one second of arc, being 99.9MY. Given the irregular surface of the Moon and the small variation of the MY as +/- 0.061cm, again it is not unreasonable to conclude that we are dealing once more in significantly round numbers.

The Moon is also turning at a rate that is almost exactly 1% or 1/100th of that of the Earth and in addition, the Moon is also travelling around the Earth at a speed of exactly 1km per second which now brings into play the metric system itself. The metric system we know today was developed in France in the late 18th / early 19th century and has thus existed in its present form for around two centuries only. However, it is known to be based on an almost identical system of measurement developed by the Sumerian people several thousand years ago. In our modern metric system the circumference of the Earth at the poles is exactly 40,000 km. This is not a massive coincidence by any means, but simply a case of how the system was derived, the exact distance around at the poles being divided by 40,000 in order to determine the exact length of the kilometre and all the other sub-measurements being determined as direct derivatives of a kilometre.

There is another interesting correlation between the Moon and the kilometre. The distance from the Earth to the Sun measured in Sun diameters is precisely 109.2 at its farthest point and also the distance across the Sun’s diameter is 109.2 Earth diameters. When we also add to this curious pattern that the circumference of the Moon is 109.2 x 100 km, a very strange co-incidence becomes apparent. Or does it? Can this extraordinarily unlikely series possibly be a co-incidence or is it something more than that?

Taken in isolation any one of the above relationships may be considered a co-incidence, but there reaches a point whereby when the co-incidences become too frequent that we realise that there simply must be something else going-on here.

The complete mathematical message in the Moon – Earth – Sun relationship is as follows:

366 – The no. of rotations of the Earth on its own axis in one Earth year.

366 – The no. of megalithic yards in one second of arc of the Earth.

366 – The percentage size Moon to Earth.

366 – The no. of lunar orbits in exactly 10,000 days.

400 – The ratio of the size of the Moon to that of the Sun.

400 – The no. of kilometres the Moon turns on its axis each day.

400 – The no. of times the Earth rotates faster than the Moon.

400 – The number of times further away from the Earth than the Moon, is the Sun.

40,000 – The no. of MY in 1 second of arc of the Sun.

40,000 – The no. of kilometres the Earth turns on its axis in one day.

40,000 – The no. of kilometres around the polar circumference of the Earth.

109.2 – The ratio of the size of the Earth to the Sun.

109.2 – The number of Earth diameters across the diameter of the Sun.

109.2 – The no. of Sun diameters across the Earth’s orbit at it furthest point.

10,920 – The diameter of the Moon in kilometres.

27.322 – The sidereal days in 1 lunar orbit. (27.322 x 4 = 109.2)

27.322 – The percentage size Earth to Moon.

The chances of these numbers occurring randomly by chance are literally trillions to one against. So if my contention is that the precise relationships between the Sun, Earth and Moon are not purely chance then there must be a ‘guiding hand’ of some description behind it all.

It may be surprising to note that no matter how much technology develops in the next ten, one hundred or even 1000 years, the human race will never, ever be able to stand on an alien planet and watch something that over the millennia has in equal measures both fascinated and terrified the inhabitants of the Earth, a total eclipse of the sun. This is because Earth is most probably unique in experiencing total eclipses as they only occur because of a probably unparalleled, breathtaking, apparent co-incidence and that is that it has a moon at EXACTLY the right size and distance that EXACTLY obscures the light from its star, when conditions are exactly right.

However, this has not always been the case. Around 4.6 million years ago, give or take a few millennia, the Moon was much closer to the Earth than it is in its present position. And given the fact that the Moon is still receding from the Earth, then it can be logically argued that total eclipses are only going to be visible for a finite period of time. The Moon is a finite size as is the Sun, for now anyway and disregarding the fact that over the next several billion years it will swell to almost 10 times its current dimensions, swallowing all the nearest planets and rendering the Earth completely uninhabitable, long before that happens. So, given this fact, there is a fixed period only, whereby total eclipses can occur as the Moon will always be the same size but as it slowly but surely recedes, its visible size in relation to the Sun will be smaller and thus total eclipses will be gone forever.

There is also something else rather strange about the Moon. It is 1/3 of the size of the Earth, a huge ratio for a moon in relation to its host (in fact by magnitudes the largest such ratio in our Solar System) and yet it has only 1/81 of the Earth’s mass. Had the Moon been composed entirely of Earth-type rocks, with the same gravitational pull it currently has then it would have had to have been much, much smaller, more on a par in fact with many other moons scattered liberally around the giant planets, Saturn, Neptune and Jupiter. And instead of being consistent, the gravity on the moon is subject to significant regional variations.

The fact that total eclipses are only able to occur now, at a time when the human race is sophisticated and technologically developed enough to recognise and study this fact is actually almost incredible. Some so-called experts will tell us that ‘this is just the way it is’ and that it is in effect ‘no big deal’ or a simple co-incidence, but I beg to differ somewhat. I believe strongly that it is more than significant when co-incidence is piled on top of co-incidence and numbers and sequences fit like the proverbial glove in instance after instance that does I believe point toward some kind of ‘guiding hand’ carefully leading us into the future. I am not invoking belief in a Christian or other mainstream religion’s deity by that statement, simply speculating with what even mainstream science is now coming to regard as being more likely than not and that is that we and the Universe itself must be the product of some intelligent designer.

A recent, interesting discovery by astronomers is that in alien Solar Systems, the giant, gaseous planets such as our own Jupiter, Neptune and Saturn are all much, much closer to their parent star than is the case in any other example in our known ‘neighbourhood’. It would therefore appear that the incidence of the larger planets being the furthermost planets from the sun is unique, as far as can be presently ascertained. It is also a fact that were Jupiter not more than five times distant from the sun than is the Earth, then intelligent life itself probably could not exist on Earth. This is due in no small measure to the fact that Jupiter fulfils the important role of protecting the inner planets from errant objects entering the Solar System from deep space and thus bombarding the smaller planets with deadly debris. Because of Jupiter’s extreme size and thus its huge gravitational pull, any object entering its vicinity will be inextricably dragged-in towards the planet and effectively neutralised by collision with the giant body. For example in 1994, the comet Shoemaker-Levy was famously seen to be destroyed in exactly this manner causing a collision which created a fireball larger than the Earth itself. Had S-L managed to find its way past Jupiter and into the inner Solar System, it could have been absolutely disastrous for life on Earth.

All the above facts, I believe speak volumes. The chances of such random measurements, circumstances and facts occurring naturally are almost infinitesimally small and therefore it is not unreasonable to consider firstly, that the Moon is an artificial construct and secondly, that a guiding hand was present in designing our space-neighbourhood to offer maximum protection to our fledgling species aeons ago when life first began.

If the message contained within these measurements had been present in some electro-magnetic radio communication from outside the Solar System then the Search For Extra-terrestrial Intelligence group, otherwise known as SETI, would have wasted no time in claiming that they had at last found proof of other-worldly intelligence. So, if we accept that there has been an intelligent intervention in our past in order to facilitate our development into a technological society, could it have been an Alien race of beings planning our destiny, possibly the same ones who seeded the planet originally or indeed a spiritual presence that was responsible?

I cannot answer that question definitively, but merely present the above facts as worthy of further consideration and research or at the very least ‘food for thought’. One thing of which I am certain however is that there is far more to know about the Earth, Sun and Moon’s relationships than is ever given credence by those who control our thoughts and proscribe a ‘reality’ that is almost always at odds with the truth.”

---

Okay, so this wraps everything up.

---

The only way to win this war is with US!

People can shirk their responsibility in all of this which is just cowardice, but every day you can always choose to REALLY wake UP and fight with a Warrior like me or someone else to Help Save Yourself, Humanity, and our Mother Earth. ACTION!

Truth, Spirituality (nothing to do with the psyop known a religion), shedding your childhood trauma, becoming a mature adult, and then taking responsibility for yourself HAS to be done.

I know it’s hard because the evils control us, but it HAS to be done. If we all start to do it, this war WILL BE OVER. We have the POWER to stop them, but you have to play your part.

The key is learning who you are with everything else stripped away. Truly look in the mirror.

Learn how to love and respect yourself and then help others. If we all help one another, that’s sharing the workload.

Build alternative communities based on FREEDOM and Truth. Do it together outside of the evils’ mafia governments. It’s the ONLY way.

https://ourfreesociety.com/community

It’s our negative energy they feed off of. So long as we aren’t United and Strong, they can control us. We need to be United and Strong and FIGHT BACK by taking ACTION, NOT just accept what is going on. This is NOT a movie!!!

Both parts have to be done AND people have to STOP WORSHIPING MONEY.

The evils use money as a WEAPON. Money shouldn’t be used to judge others by their WORTH. Anyone who thinks this way is controlled by the evils and is harming Humanity. Yes we need it in THEIR system, so that’s why you need to break FREE from their evil MATRIX.

This war can ONLY BE WON BY US, not some deity or Human. That’s where the psyop religion comes in – SALVATIONISM.

They want you to NEVER grow up and fight them. They want you waiting for someone or something ELSE to save you so they have free reign to kill us while you wait, wait again, wait some more until YOU ARE DEAD.

Here’s my alternative therapy page. I hope you read and bookmark it. https://ourfreesociety.com/alternative-therapy-courses/

There’s NO SHAME in admitting you have issues. WE ALL DO.

It’s when you don’t care and don’t work to rid yourself of them (this doesn’t happen overnight, it’s a work in progress) that I have a problem with that because you refusing to not do the work affects ALL of us, not just YOU.

With tough Love

Michelle
The Our Free Society Warrior Alliance
I hope you learned something.

Never make Authority your Truth… make Truth your Authority

The definition of insanity is blind obedience and doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Culture teaches us that only the police have the right to defend.

If You Resonate With This Article, Please Share It With Others

And if you can support my work (there are different options), it would be much appreciated. If not, I understand.