Patrick OCarroll

Primary tabs

Patrick OCarroll's picture
About me: 

Preface

Publisher's Note: 

The official view of the Editor and Publishers of UFO Digest is that The United States of America did land on the Moon in  July of 1969.

 However, it is a well-know theory among many UFO researchers and space historians that the USA did not land on the Moon and the entire Apollo Moon Program was a global hoax, conducted as psychological warfare operation on the part of th NASA and the CIA to insure that the capitalist economiy system should prevail over Communism in the worldwide war fo hearts and mnds in the 1960s & 1970s, and which continues today.

Today, freedom of speech is being assailed, assaulted and challenged across the United States and around the world.  Therefore, in support of freedom of speech and self expression  we happily give vent to the ideas and view of Patrick O'Carroll in regard to the so-called "fake Apollo Moon program."

 

THE APOLLO "MOON" HOAX:

ONE GIANT LIP FOR MANKIND

 

In reality, there was no "Eagle". The Turkey never even left Earth, let alone land on the "Moon" or take off again.

In reality, NASA pulled off one of the biggest Canards of the twentieth century.

 

  1. You can read this article in its entirety (the very best approach), but speed-readers might prefer to skim through the highlighted portions to quickly take in the most important points. Alternatively, you can jump to the summary at the very end which shows 149 quick questions on which you can interrogate NASA.;
  1. There is no such animal as a "conspiracy theory" except in the minds of brainwashed shills. Conspiracy exists and theory exists, but only very rarely do they occur at the same time. Conspiracy never had anything to do with theory, and theory was never even remotely related to conspiracy. An example of a valid so-called "conspiracy theory" is actually extremely hard to find. The NLP-brainwashing term "conspiracy theory" was invented by Tavistock in the mid-1960s to marginalize anyone getting too close to the most topical item of truth at the time, which was of course that President John F Kennedy was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy and on the orders of the London-NY-Axis (the Beast [i.e. the English monarch], the City of London and the House of Rothschild). Conspiracy is the whole engine of history. It is much more the rule than some odd exception. Every family and workplace in the world features multiple conspiracies. All major events in history came to pass as a result of conspiracies. And that continues today, with most of the conspirators well-known and visible in plain sight. Most people in the world are currently participating in at least one conspiracy. The world's biggest conspiracy today is the Fake-News Conspiracy which involves over 90 percent of humanity deliberately choosing to obtain their news from known liars in the mainstream monopoly-media. Pursuits that deal with conspiracy on a daily basis include those of policeman, judge, lawyer, politician, professor, historian, bankster, dramatist, screen writer, biblical scholar, office-worker, TV viewer, newsreader, newspaper-reader, priest, therapist, history teacher, web-surfer … Many people who know that the power-elite deliberately hide information have come to assume that conspiracy is actually the norm. Others want to challenge official cover-ups.;
  1. Let us all be grateful to George Carlin for being one of the first to accurately label these nitwits "the NAS-holes". And because NASA "experts" are really just a bunch of "NAS-holes", this article regrets that it must refrain from dignifying them with the term "scientist". All of NASA's "experts" need to be fired and replaced by proper scientists. This article also prefers to call that whole military psy-op (psychological-operation) by its proper name, namely Project Apollo Hoax, and not by any terms NASA may or may not prefer for it. Although NASA will protest that any potentially satirical tone is never conducive to scientific discussion, it is very unfortunate that NASA already wasted nearly 50 years failing to answer thousands of truth-seeking questions, so that at some point the age of satire began to supersede the age of humble questioning. It is precisely that which is the whole legacy of NASA's notorious "No Comment" routine.;
  1. Project Apollo Hoax is itself a prime example of a conspiracy that brainwashed shills over the years tried hard, but failed, to classify as a "theory". The hoax was really an intelligence test run by NASA to ascertain which earthlings were clever enough to spot their fraud. Nowadays, the fact that Project Apollo Hoax was a fraud is no longer even up for debate. For decades now, forensic proof has been available that NASA never even went near the moon during Project Apollo Hoax. The hoax has long been an established fact. If you have not yet passed the "Project Apollo Hoax Intelligence Test" set for you by the swindling "NAS-holes", you may need to get some updates or change gear soon. Many people who deal with conspiracy on a daily basis are just working at contending or challenging any official cover-up of conspiracy.;
  1. How come the Apollo Hoax worked so well? Because It Is Actually Quite Easy To Convince Somebody Of Something When That Somebody WANTS To Believe It, And Really WANTS It To Be True. Nevertheless, adamant "Apollogists" (that strange tribe that believes Project Apollo Hoax really landed men on the "moon") are at times very sad or irrational people who want to believe "Thunderbirds" is real or simply refuse to even entertain the notion that Santa might not be.;
  1. Question: How has NASA so far kept the hoax going? Answer: NASA has only managed to do so in the English-speaking world, where the debate was framed by the monopoly-media (themselves teeming with CIA agents from the still-ongoing Operation Mockingbird), framed by many CIA-maintained websites such as WickedPedia, and framed by CIA-sponsored tell-lie-vision-shows like Myth Busters that are primarily adapted to notify their viewers "Dear Sheeple, Please Go Back To Sleep And Resume Your Unconditional Acceptance Of The Official-Truth Stated By Your Owners In The London-NY-Axis". Framing the debate means the regime and NASA only permit discussion of those dozen or so questions to which they have ready, yet totally contrived, "answers" to "explain" maybe two-percent of existing objections to audiences who are perhaps a bit less-sophisticated. By contrast, this article pinpoints well over two-hundred anomalies, paradoxes, ambiguities, absurdities and downright errors in the official-truth narrative claimed by NASA and defended by NASA's shills, gophers and by "Apollogist" websites. Decades ago, outside the English-speaking world, many countries noticed that the Apollo movies were a hoax. Nowadays, only 20 percent of Russians and about 40 percent of Germans believe that NASA ever went to the moon. So the NASA deception was more effective in the English-speaking world. NASA was also permitted to lie to the public and to hide facts using smokescreens such as "national security". The number of Americans who believe NASA never made it to the moon now exceeds 20 percent in 2017, and there is great hope that people, especially the younger generation, are waking up and that the US regime will soon be forced to tell the truth. If NASA had ever been compelled to actually scientifically PROVE that it had been to the moon, then the tables would have turned long ago and the "Apollogists" would have been crushed overnight. So far, the public has been forced to take NASA at its word, but thousands of lies over the decades have shaken all public trust in NASA for ever. Now that the internet overwhelmingly backs a hoax, it is only a matter of time before the vast majority of earthlings will be saying "I always KNEW it was a hoax".;
  1. Many observers have claimed that NASA reached the moon but that it deliberately faked all photos and films in order to deceive potential military enemies such as Russia or China. Hence, they claim that NASA used one myth to cover another myth, and that mankind went to the moon but not how the public are being told. Prominent NASA spokesman Richard Hoagland admitted that the Apollo photographs were in fact faked. Hoagland's was a "huge" admission which proved that NASA had finally decided to tell the public what they already knew after shrewdly noticing that it could no longer defend the indefensible. Separately, the founder of the George-Soros-funded Disclosure Project, NASA's Dr Steven Greer, stated that the US regime was forced to hide space-alien craft visible in "real" film shot on the "moon" and that Armstrong and Aldrin, plus their families, were forced to keep this huge secret under pain of death. So Greer managed to plug his very own space-alien agenda into the bargain. But the first issue with this whole argument about faking only to deceive enemies is: Why Not Just Go To The Moon And Tell No One About It? Why take such laborious and ridiculous steps to fake the whole "trip" and then spend billions covering up or papering over the mistakes? A second major issue with this argument is: Where Is The Proof? Would NASA start by describing and proving scientifically how it got through the VARB (van Allen Radiation Belt)? Its claim of spending only an hour or two in the VARB is like claiming the astronauts only spent a short time in the Fukushima core so they are totally radiation-free, or they only spent an hour in a torrential downpour so they are totally dry. If NASA reached the "moon", then would it please provide the first plausible evidence of its "trip"? A third major issue with this argument is of course: Why was NASA caught lying hundreds of other times in areas totally unrelated to Project Apollo Hoax? Why for instance did it lie about astronauts dying in its movie "Challenger Fireball" dated Jan 1986? Finally, a fourth major issue with this argument is: It contradicts what we already know about how the world really works; many alert observers realized long ago that the world is more akin to a system of Organized Crime, being centrally controlled by the London-NY-Axis (the Beast [i.e. the English monarch], the City of London and the House of Rothschild). That implies that the whole "space race" was a con-job to hoodwink humanity and steal tax money. It also implies that the whole "cold war" was a con-job to extract taxes from countries of both eastern and western blocs for about five decades to pay for military apparatus that was probably never even properly tested.;
  1. The Apollo Hoax was one of the biggest swindles of the twentieth century. NASA set out to willfully defraud American taxpayers from the start as it knew all along that a "moon" landing was NOT a goal that could actually be achieved. But NASA was under orders from the CIA and the London-NY-Axis (the Beast [i.e. the English monarch], the City of London and the House of Rothschild) to fake the "moon" landings, as a propaganda tool for the US regime. By naming the program "Project Apollo", NASA may have let slip that the Apollo Hoax was always intended as an extension of the MKULTRA mind-control experiments run by Tavistock, the NSDAP and the NSDAP's successor organization, the CIA.;
  1. Film footage taken inside the capsule on all Apollo-Hoax movies shows a light-blue haze and only a tiny Earth-curvature through the capsule window, but this can be seen when the astronauts were claiming to be thousands of miles from Earth. So NASA was, and still is, effectively claiming that this light-blue haze was visible when the astronauts were supposedly located "in the blackness of space" and that the relatively tiny Earth-curvature was what one sees far away from Earth. Experts instantly recognize that this is total nonsense. If anything, the light-blue haze and tiny curvature are the biggest smoking guns proving that the Apollo-Hoax capsules never even left Low Earth Orbit. In the official Apollo 13 Hoax coverage taken inside the capsule, you can clearly see the bright blue of an earthly sky through the capsule's triangular windows while, in their "live" radio broadcast, the astronauts were at the same time claiming to be witnessing the "blackness of space". So far, NASA has refused to plausibly explain any of this.;
  1. NASA actually reconstructed its "moon"-rock from basaltic meteorite samples gathered in Antarctica, and manufactured simulated "moon"-rock for over three years before it launched the Apollo 11 Hoax, and NASA is still manufacturing it today. An abstract published in 1966 described how NASA was fabricating simulated "moon"-rocks and displaying them at its biggest studios. The "moon"-rocks for the Apollo 11 Hoax came from meteorites gathered on Earth (Wernher von Braun picked the rocks himself) before the Apollo 11 Hoax was staged. In the local summer of 1966-1967, von Braun participated in a US expedition to Antarctica. The expedition was one of the first to systematically search the ice surface for meteorites that were believed to originate from the moon, and many others followed. At the time, NASA claimed this expedition was "only for obtaining reference material". Then, in a ceramics lab, the outer surfaces of the Antarctic rocks were treated with an abrasive to hide the fact that they had in fact fallen through the Earth's atmosphere. The simulated "moon"-rock was, and still is, being dispatched to universities around the world under the fraudulent label of real "moon"-rock. These simulated "moon"-rocks are, of course, totally different from any rocks found on Earth and they were intended to be that way. Thus, geologists are actually telling the truth when they say these "moon"-rocks cannot be found anywhere else on Earth. But of course they cannot, because NASA manufactured them to fulfill that very requirement. In fact, NASA is able to manufacture the simulated "moon"-rock and the simulated "moon"-dust so cheaply that it does not even charge for it. If you order some, NASA will invoice you for transportation costs only. Nowadays, everyone knows that NASA is useless at real science but that it is at least fairly good at public relations. When the European Space Agency's SMART-1 probe was deliberately crashed into the real moon's Lake of Excellence in 2003, it was reported that the minerals it kicked up were different from those in the NASA Apollo "moon"-rocks.;
  1. In 2009, the Netherlands national museum (Rijksmuseum) announced that a "moon"-rock presented by astronauts during their "Giant Lip" Goodwill Tour was just a piece of petrified wood from Earth. The adept researchers from Amsterdam's Free University said they could see at a glance the rock was not from the "moon". But the Rijksmuseum resolved to keep the "moon"-rock anyway as a curiosity. This was an acute embarrassment to NASA, which was very annoyed because it had not given explicit permission to Netherlands scientists to test props from its "moon"-movie-studio. It is really important to remember: If there is one thing NASA does NOT like anyone doing, it is covertly testing its movie props.;
  1. Paul Jacobs was a top investigator who queried NASA about its "moon"-rocks. When Jacobs asked the chief geologist of the US Department of Geology to comment on the authenticity of the "moon"-rocks, the chief geologist just laughed in his face and could not stop laughing. Three months later, both Jacobs and his wife had died of fast-acting cancer.;
  1. The official-truth narrative for Apollo 13 claims that Fred Haise could see the Fra Mauro highlands on 15 Apr 1970. But the Fra Mauro highlands were in total darkness on 15 Apr 1970, so Fred Haise could never have seen them because Fra Mauro just happened to be on the dark side of the moon that day. Hence, NASA was lying and the whole Apollo 13 Hoax really must have been based on a crummy Kubrick script.;
  1. In reality, NASA most likely created the film footage at either the Moonset Studio at Langley Research Center in Hampton Virginia, overseen by Donald Hewes, or else had Stanley Kubrick direct the whole pageant at Elstree Studios London, although several other locations have been conjectured over the decades. Many photographs of the apparatus and equipment used in the movie-studio for Project Apollo Hoax are very easy to find on the internet. NASA showed its fake Apollo craft allegedly circling the "moon" by using a rail-mounted camera which slowly moved toward a rotating Plaster Of Paris model of the "moon". The lunar-module was suspended from a huge traverse crane and was gently lowered while it simultaneously traversed over the said "moon" surface constructed beneath it. NASA claims the Moonset Studio was "for test purposes only" (a likely tale, given the thousands of other lies it was caught telling).;
  1. A film taken in the Moonset Studio at Langley Research Center clearly shows the props NASA was using to fake the sinuous rill called Rima Hadley. Project Apollo Hoax later showed this sinuous rill as if it was really on the surface of the "moon". Subjectively, NASA was perhaps bragging that it could even move mountains. Many researchers have concluded that some NASA insiders were white-hats who were making deliberate mistakes (for instance by showing these "moon" mountains) so as to try to go unnoticed but still blow the whistle on Project Apollo Hoax as a whole, and thus expose it as a mere sound-and-light show. If that is indeed the case, then we need to say a big Thank You to those white-hats.;
  1. In most of the glitzy "moon" photos, the horizon on the surface of the "moon" is visible both behind the astronaut and in his visor. Hmm. But that could never happen on the real moon because it would mean that the size of the "moon" would only have been roughly the size of, say, the "moon"-movie-studio. You can verify this by taking a close-up of someone wearing dark glasses on a beach. If the horizon is visible behind the photo subject, then how likely is it that another horizon is visible in the subject's glasses? The fact that the moon is roughly one quarter the size of the Earth does NOT mean that you can easily see from one horizon to the other as if you were just glancing across a football field.;
  1. A famous 1965 photograph shows Stan Kubrick and Arthur C Clarke strolling through the studio grounds at Elstree London with NASA executives Donald Slayton, Frederick Ordway and George Mueller. Kubrick's "2001; A Space Odyssey" movie was released on 12 May 1968, roughly 14 months before NASA launched the Apollo 11 Hoax. The "2001" movie prepared the public to accept the Apollo-11-Hoax movie in the best traditions of predictive programming. It made timely propaganda about the "moon" and some of the profits from "2001" may even have spun off a special London "moon"-movie-studio for NASA.;
  1. Dr Roel van der Meulen of the Leiden Observatory in the Netherlands said the "moon landings" never happened and were in reality filmed by Stan Kubrick in a sound stage in Huntsville Alabama, soon after he finished "2001; A Space Odyssey". NASA approached Kubrick offering him exclusive access to alien artifacts and autopsy-footage from the Roswell crash site. NASA also threatened to "reveal that his brother Raul Kubrick was heavily involved in the US Communist Party". Van der Meulen claimed that Stan Kubrick wrote the scripts for each of the movies Project Apollo Hoax 11 through 13, but that he was well aware that his viewers would grow very tired as early as the Apollo 12 Hoax. This scared NASA because it probably meant NASA would have to buy time from TV networks instead of networks paying NASA for the privilege. So Kubrick suggested changing the Apollo-13-Hoax movie script to a semi-failure, with NASA "heroically" bringing the boys home safely. At first, NASA objected but then ended up acquiescing to Kubrick's plan. Dr Roel van der Meulen of the Netherlands Leiden Observatory concluded: "The Apollo 13 Disaster Was Actually An Expert Simulation". The final upshot was that the Apollo 13 Hoax succeeded in focusing renewed attention on Project Apollo Hoax so as to keep those tax dollars rolling in for whatever NASA was really spending them on. Others say that Kubrick's deal was different and that it involved the top power-elite (higher than NASA) offering him total freedom to make any movie he desired thereafter (even the highly revealing revenge-movie Eyes Wide Shut for which Kubrick was ultimately murdered).;
  1. On the "moon", the astronauts never managed to do either of the two most logical camera moves in all of cinema history: namely a 180-degree or a 360-degree turn or revolution. That can only be because NASA explicitly forbade the astronauts from turning the camera 180 or 360 degrees as it would have immediately exposed the "moon"-movie-studio and shown up Project Apollo Hoax as a total fraud.;
  1. All color photographs of the equipment used in the Apollo 11 Hoax reveal myriads of fine details to today's computer users armed with powerful software tools. When these computer users zoom in, they see all the cheap foil, tape and curtain-rods NASA was using. One wag listed the "Parts Needed To Build Your Own High-Tech, Scientific, Sturdy, Multimillion Dollar Spacecraft" as: lots of big sheets of cardboard, a big roll of roofing paper, a few old curtain rods, some floodlight holders, an old antenna, a roll of gold foil, lots and lots of scotch-tape to hold it all together in the hostile environment of the "moon" surface. In reality, the Apollo 11 Hoax was a very low-budget movie, and NASA never expected ordinary pedestrians to be able to inspect its sloppy, amateurish work so closely. This of course begs the question: Where did all that big NASA money really go?;
  1. By pure "coincidence", NASA claims that it "lost" all the video footage from the "moon" landings. This was announced after Ron Howard asked NASA for the original telemetry tapes so that he could make high-quality versions for an IMAX movie about going to the "moon". How could NASA lose over two tons of footage? Had this footage been of genuine moon landings, then NASA would have capitalized on it by selling it over and over in the form of film, video, DVD, Blu-Ray etc. NASA's clear motivation for "losing" all video coverage was to spare itself both lawsuits and even further endless embarrassment. "Houston, We Erased The Apollo-11-Hoax Tapes!".;
  1. The space-shuttle only goes about 200 miles above the Earth. If you picture a globe in your mind with the space-shuttle a half-inch over its surface, then that means the moon is thirty globes away. So the moon is thirty globes away but the space-shuttle is half an inch over the surface of the Earth. NASA is claiming that, in 1969, it managed to go 100,000 percent further than the space-shuttle ever went, and used 1969 technology to do so. But the longer NASA keeps claiming this "moon"-landing hoax to be true without being able to repeat it, the more preposterous the hoax will become. Every major technological accomplishment in history has been repeated well under forty years later. Within forty years of Christopher Columbus setting foot in the Americas in 1492, thousands of other white men had done the same. Within forty years of John Alcock and Arthur Brown making the first nonstop transatlantic flight in June 1919, thousands of other people had done the same. Within forty years of Edmund Hillary reaching the summit of Mount Everest in 1953, thousands of other explorers had done the same. And within forty years of Yuri Gagarin's orbit of the Earth in 1961, many others had done the same. Yet forty years after twelve men allegedly set foot on the "moon" in 1969-72, not a single person or country has done the same, nor even attempted to do so. Does that not seem highly strange and illogical? NASA also claims that no one died in Project Apollo Hoax but its space-shuttle "officially" killed 14 people when orbiting only 200 miles above the Earth. Only three countries have claimed to have ever achieved Earth Orbit: the USA, Russia and China. BUT: The only country that claims to have left Earth Orbit is the USA … using 1969 technology. Hmm. 200 miles and 14 casualties, but 239,000 miles and no casualties. Does that seem odd? It just does NOT make sense unless NASA's older technology is better than its newer technology, meaning that NASA may actually be claiming technological regression. At an emotional level, the USA really wants to believe the nation went to the moon, but that simply can NOT be the case. If the Apollo "trips" were authentic then, by now, there should be daily flights to the real moon as well as moon-bases.;
  1. NASA never gave any credible explanation at all as to how the astronauts could cope with temperature fluctuations on the long journey to the "moon" and back. Space is extremely cold, having a temperature of minus 270.15 degrees centigrade or roughly 3 degrees Kelvin. In space (which means a vacuum or the absence of any atmosphere), the only way heat can be transmitted is by thermal radiation that comes through photons in electromagnetic waves. In the 1980s, the space-shuttle astronauts made a discovery that severely embarrassed NASA, which had to admit the shuttle was "frozen on one side and scorching on the other". This of course raised even more questions about Project Apollo Hoax as alert earthlings realized that the spacecraft would have had a temperature of perhaps minus 50 degrees centigrade just inside its dark side, but maybe plus 60 degrees centigrade or more just inside its light side. NASA deploys bulldozer tactics here and tries to restrict this discussion to the "average temperature inside the capsule", but if my head is in the freezer and my feet are in the fire, why would I care about my "average statistical temperature" when all I want to do is stay alive? NASA really needs to provide some specifics here. How did the astronaut on the freezing side of the capsule keep himself warm? How did the astronaut on the scorching side avoid being cooked medium-rare? Did the third astronaut revive his comrades to preserve their normothermia? If not, then how exactly did NASA solve this particular conundrum? And what did they do if one astronaut needed to sleep? NASA still insists that the Apollo 11 Hoax featured a flying Model T Ford or deepfreeze with an outer shell made of aluminum of one-eighth-inch thickness. If NASA had some great system combining heating and air-conditioning, which was able to simulate "Mild Hawaii" all the way to the "moon" and back in such a thin shell, then should it not release the details of this "system" given that car and equipment manufacturers could still benefit from such high-tech? Or is the real reason why NASA never released this "system" perhaps because it never even existed in the first place?;
  1. On the real moon, micrometeorites rain down all the time at up to 40,000 MPH and on everything and on anyone who happens to be there. This was also corroborated by all the Russian data. However, NASA has never explained how micrometeorites never managed to knock out or kill any of the astronauts, never managed to smash any lunar-module windows, never dented any equipment, or never smashed any cameras. Furthermore, the micrometeorites are not even visible as falling streaks in any of the photos on the "moon". And why did the astronauts mysteriously "forget" being pelted and pierced by micrometeorites while on the "moon"? Why does NASA have no explanation for any of this? Wernher von Braun estimated a 50 percent chance of catastrophic failure every 24 hours after landing on the moon due to showers of micrometeorites which are so lethal that they can destroy the spacesuit or smash the skull of any astronaut on the moon's surface. So von Braun stated the only way to remain on the real moon would be to quickly find a moon-cave to shelter from the very frequent micrometeorite showers.;
  1. None of the photographs of Apollo capsules splashing down in the ocean for the happy-ending scene of Apollo-Hoax movies is at all credible. This is because NASA forgot the one movie-special-effect that might have made those splashdowns even slightly credible, namely an enormous billowing steam-cloud visible for dozens, if not hundreds, of miles around. At the time, the monopoly-media were telling viewers that the capsule was "reentering" Earth's atmosphere at such high speeds that there would be severe friction, thus turning the capsule literally "red-hot". Alas, when a red-hot command-capsule strikes an ocean having a temperature of perhaps 10 degrees centigrade, rigorous science really does demand that the red-hot capsule instantly turn a massive volume of seawater (maybe hundreds of gallons) into steam, just like the enormous flashing of steam you expect when you pour cold water into a red-hot empty stove-pot or drop a red-hot iron into a sink full of cold water. But all photos of Apollo Hoax capsules hitting the water show zero indication of any steam whatsoever. In the Apollo-13-Hoax movie-script, the heat-shield is even credited with saving the day because the reentry angle in Kubrick's movie-script is too shallow and the Apollo-13-Hoax blackout for reentry "lasted 87 seconds longer than expected". Kubrick's poor Apollo-13-Hoax movie-script failed to heighten the tension by adding that the heat-shield might also have been damaged from his hackneyed oxygen-tank "accident". In any case, the most conspicuously absent event, entity or star in all of the splashdown sequences of Project Apollo Hoax movies was one enormous billowing steam-cloud visible for hundreds of miles around. Would NASA please properly explain this conundrum, finally?;
  1. The Apollo-17-Hoax movie shows astronaut Harrison Schmitt kangaroo-hopping on the "moon", except that a wire is clearly visible about 8 feet above his head, which means that he was suspended in some way. The Apollo-17-Hoax movie also shows wires suspending the astronauts during the flag scene. The Apollo-14-Hoax movie shows an astronaut with a wire above his head, betrayed by several momentary glints of light. Clearly, these wires were for simulating the effects of one-sixth-gravity expected on the "moon". In one Apollo-Hoax movie, the astronaut actually manages to slide the flagstaff all the way through the "moon" surface until its remaining visible length is only about 12 inches. In reality, NASA made the "moon" surface using a secret formula based on Plaster Of Paris.;
  1. In the "jump-salute" scene of the Apollo-16-Hoax movie, the still-photographs do not match the TV-camera coverage. In fact, they actually contradict each other radically. This is one of hundreds of continuity errors in Project Apollo Hoax. The TV film of the "Apollo-16-Hoax jump-salute" radically contradicts all the still-photos taken at the same time by the other astronaut (John Young jumps for cameraman Charles Duke, the only problem being that the film and photos show contradictory scenes).;
  1. In the Apollo-16-Hoax movie, astronaut John Young is seen to expose his naked hand by taking off his left glove. NASA Ground Control is heard to say: "After taking a picture of the motor package there, we'd like a picture of that left thumb imprint". But proper scientists know that bare skin must never be exposed to a vacuum environment (such as on the real moon) because the blood would rush to the exposed skin, causing rapid swelling and rapidly resulting in severe injury. It's a pity NASA has no proper scientists.;
  1. Why did NASA ignore the dangers posed to the astronauts by solar flares as any serious concern, solar flares being as unpredictable as earthquakes but much more frequent? Books written by proper scientists state that whenever the sun throws a tiny solar flare out in space, then the amount of radiation is so vast that any astronaut would need six-feet of shielding all around to keep him alive by protecting him from X-Rays (since they diffract), and high-speed protons or ions. Lethal radiation would even apply for a tiny solar flare or a tiny solar storm. NASA was supposedly sending the astronauts outside of the Earth's protective magnetic field and atmosphere for a long time. In his 1992 self-published book "NASA Mooned America!", Ralph René pointed out the high solar-flare activity in the years 1967-73 (when Project Apollo Hoax was running) but in particular the extremely high solar-flare activity in the year 1972, activity he stated "would have fried both Apollo 16 and 17". AL MacKinnon wrote a whole book about solar-flare activity in 1972. One single solar flare during a trip to the moon would have killed everyone on board. Still, NASA keeps insisting it "got lucky" and none of its astronauts were killed despite having zero protection from solar flares. NASA still maintains that it "hoped" no solar flares would occur during its trips to the "moon". But now that we know that such solar flares actually did occur in reality, we next want to know how NASA avoided them. So far, all NASA has ever said to René's powerful contradictory evidence has been "No Comment".;
  1. During the Apollo 11 Hoax, NASA made little mention of the fact that the Earth's sunspot cycle would peak in 1969. Was this fact really so irrelevant to NASA, to the astronauts or to their wives?;
  1. The lunar surface has an average temperature of 108 degrees centigrade, but it can reach up to 130 degrees centigrade. So how did the astronauts manage to remain uncooked and untoasted while strolling around the "moon"? Even the shadow-side of their spacesuits was being bombarded with heat radiation from the sun and from the surface of the "moon". And even if they landed on the "moon" at sunrise on a "moon"-day lasting two weeks, the temperature would have risen above 100 degrees centigrade in just a few minutes. If you add the insulation effect to that, then even higher temperatures, say up to 150 degrees centigrade or even higher, would have been possible inside the spacesuits. We all know that closing the windows of a car on a hot sunny day can bring about unbearable temperatures inside the car which are much higher than the outdoor temperature. Some NASA spokesmen countered that their spacesuits were "water-cooled". But it would be impossible to have a water-cooled spacesuit on the "moon" where the outside temperature already exceeds the boiling-point of water given that there would be nowhere for the heat to dissipate. Why does NASA still refuse to explain how the astronauts remained uncooked?;
  1. The temperature of the lunar surface varies between 108 degrees centigrade (after sunrise) and minus 150 degrees centigrade (before sunrise, although nocturnal temperatures can reach minus 173 degrees centigrade) so how come the Kodak Ektachrome film in the Hasselblad 500 camera did not melt or freeze? Like the spacesuits, the cameras had any protective ability against extreme heat and cold. Eastman Kodak and Hasselblad AB both stated that they had supplied NASA with standard equipment having no special modifications, i.e. they did not do anything special to the products they gave NASA. Yet everyone knows that, at temperatures above say 50 degrees centigrade, heat will cause chemical changes in the photographic emulsions and cause the mechanical parts of the camera to expand, thus loosening the lens and other important components. Extreme cold would render the batteries and the exposure-meter useless and would freeze the film. At minus 80 degrees centigrade, such film would shatter like glass. The X-Rays from the sun would fog the film, while ultraviolet rays would distort the colors. Yet the colors came out perfect. Also, Eastman Kodak stated that their Ektachrome film will melt at 150 degrees centigrade, so how did it survive inside the lunar-module where the temperature must have been like an oven at up to 200 degrees centigrade? Surely it should have been crisp, curled, melted or even worse? Critics of NASA have long pointed out that if you just place Kodak Ektachrome film or a Hasselblad 500 camera in an oven for a couple of hours at 130 degrees centigrade, this experiment is always guaranteed to yield truly disastrous results. So how did NASA ensure that the "moon" holidays were still Kodak Days? Was it perhaps by faking the whole "trip"?;
  1. One photograph was allegedly taken as the lunar-module was coming in to land on the "moon". The only trouble is that the shadow of the lunar-module as seen on the surface of the "moon" just happens to be around 30 times larger than the massive Maskelyne Crater, which is a solitary lunar crater that lies in the southeast part of the Mare Tranquillitatis and has a known diameter of around 15 miles or 24 kilometers. How did NASA get the shadow of the tiny lunar-module to look so crisp and about 30 times bigger than the Maskelyne Crater? This would be the equivalent of the shadow of your Boeing 777 covering the whole northeast corner of the USA, along with parts of Ontario and Quebec, as it approached JFK International Airport in NY. Did NASA maybe place the "sun" spotlight too close behind the lunar-module in the movie-studio? This is totally ludicrous but, if you ask this question, NASA will just pull its "No Comment" routine.;
  1. In many books and articles, the astronauts of the Apollo 11 Hoax were quoted as claiming that they found it difficult to sleep "because of the cold" around the time they arrived on the "moon" but this simply does not add up. They claim they arrived on the "moon" in early lunar morning, just as the sun was rising. We all know that they were in what, for all practical purposes, resembled a metallic oven. When the sun rises on the real lunar surface, it will drive the temperature of the dusty soil up to between 100 and 130 degrees centigrade. Also, the sunlight on the moon is at least 20 percent hotter than on Earth because there is no atmosphere or water vapor to act as a barrier. Furthermore, being in a metallic oven meant that they would have been cooked like sausages in less than 20 minutes. So how could the astronauts claim that they could not sleep in a metallic oven in the full-bore sunlight on the "moon" on account of the "cold"? This has to be a total lie. If you still believe NASA, then place a sausage in an oven at 100-130 degrees centigrade and verify that it will cook in less than 20 minutes. Then think: How could astronauts claim they found it difficult to sleep "because of the cold" when at that time (sunrise on the "moon") they could only, in reality, have been literally cooking inside what was the equivalent of a metallic oven? Inside the lunar-module, the air would transfer by convection from the lunar-module walls and could only have warmed the astronauts up rapidly. Clearly, NASA is lying about this and about its whole contrived "moon" landings.;
  1. In the Apollo-11-Hoax movie, the lunar-module is shown traveling almost horizontally over the surface of the "moon" as it comes in to land. NASA "designed" the lunar-module so that the thruster pushed the lunar-module down, while two rocket-jets on either side propelled it forward. This "design" was therefore like a garden swing except without any crossbar holding it up. If the lunar-module was "floating" on 10,000 pounds of thrust and the side rockets shot off, then how could the lunar-module have flown horizontally without tipping over and crashing? What was the magic aerodynamic principle NASA "designed" for this? NASA says the thrust engine was supposed to keep the lunar-module afloat while two tiny jets on either side steered it. But aerodynamic experts keep asking the question as to what specific mechanism NASA used to keep the lunar-module from spinning out of control and crashing. The lunar-module used for Project Apollo Hoax was built by Grumman Aerospace of Bethpage NY to specifications dictated by NASA. In 1996, James Collier visited Grumman on a fact-finding mission that acutely embarrassed NASA. There, Collier verified that the lunar-module had never even had a single successful flight on Earth but had actually crashed on its only ever test-flight with astronaut Neil Armstrong forced to bail out, almost breaking his neck. Then, after failing its first test-flight on Earth, NASA simply decided to run its second test-flight on the "moon" totally cocksure that it would work. But that is absolutely preposterous. Did the wives of the astronauts agree to let their husbands go to the "moon" unprotected and just test this out? NASA, you have GOT to be kidding me, man.;
  1. We need to drain the science swamp so that we can extract and punish all swamp-creatures who hide behind soviet peer-review censorship and who lie for a living. To discourage "scientists" from lying, one suggested improvement would be for any so-called PhD "scientist" who endorsed the "moon" landings to be stripped of his qualifications forthwith. Given that any schoolboy can prove that the "moon" landings were faked, this would be very fair and it would contribute to protecting the public from fake-science.;
  1. In 1996, in an open letter to Frank Hughes of Space Center Houston (also copied to Allan Needell, curator at the Space History Department), James Collier did provide conclusive proof that Project Apollo Hoax had been filmed on Earth. In his letter, he started off noting that, on the basis of the manifest and weight as a whole, the lunar-rover could never have been brought to the "moon" in the spacecraft because it simply did not fit either on the inside or folded-up on the outside. He then went on to cite some of the major differences rigorous science (alien to NASA) demands between the Earth (having an atmosphere) and the moon (having no atmosphere). One of the differences is that dust disturbed from the lunar surface must jump up behind the lunar-rover and head skyward and then fall back down with roughly the same path and briskness with which it went up in something akin to a perfect and progressive parabolic (or rainbow-like) arc, given that there is no lunar atmospheric wall there to block it. But the sequences of the lunar-rover driving around the "moon" in the Apollo-Hoax movies prove beyond all doubt that it could only have been filmed on Earth. Why? Because the "moon"-dust goes up and comes down just like it would on Earth. The whole sequence shows clumps, clouds, waves, lines and all the earthbound tell-tale signs that the dust is in reality hitting the Earth's wall of thick atmosphere in which it is being suspended. The dust then falls too quickly for the sequence to have been filmed on the real moon. These tell-tale signs should be absent on the real moon where no lunar atmospheric wall is there to cause them. There is no rainbow-like arc in sight in any of the hoaxed movies. The clumps, clouds, waves and lines of dust are the very ones you would expect to see when a dune buggy rides up and down a beach here on Earth, or up and down the movie-studio for that matter. The only explanation is that NASA never even went to the moon. But all it could do in response to James Collier's open letter was to refuse to comment or hang up the phone exasperated. Proper scientists widely applauded James Collier's observations as excellent and very significant work.;
  1. As a generous public-relations gesture, NASA kindly made the operation handbook for the lunar-rover LS006-002-2H available on the internet as a PDF file. There, you can read the operating data-limits for the lunar-rover's parts, bearing in mind that the lunar-rover had no cooling system. For instance, the lunar-rover's battery had a maximum operating temperature-limit of around 52 degrees centigrade whereas the average temperature on the real moon is 108 degrees centigrade. This must be classed as a major design error by NASA. By not even building the lunar-rover fit for purpose, NASA has shown the world that it is not even semiprofessional in engineering. In reality, we need to keep reminding ourselves that NASA is only really specialized in public relations and in the movie business.;
  1. In order to escape the atmosphere of the "moon", NASA designed the lunar-module to use hypergolic propellant, with unsymmetrical di-methyl-hydrazine combining with di-nitrogen-tetroxide to burn and give off dark-red murky opaque fumes. Dark-red opaque fumes were expected from the UDMH fuel and DNT oxidizer, but no such fumes can be seen when the lunar-module blasts off from the "moon" in any of the hoaxed movies for Apollo 15, 16 or 17 (each in glorious NASA color). All Project Apollo Hoax movies are so obviously just "Thunderbirds" movies and NASA is so obviously just lying.;
  1. The next problem was how could the astronauts get in and out of the lunar-module? One overlooked part of the "design" of the lunar-module was that its main door opened inward, making it almost impossible for the astronauts to get out. Also, the area inside the lunar-module was barely the size of two phone-booths, or roughly 24 inches by 36 inches total. This was supposed to suffice for two astronauts carrying suitcase-sized backpacks all the way to the "moon" and back. If it really had, then these men would not have been able to move at all. Frank Hughes of Space Center Houston and Jeffrey Kluger both described how the astronauts could only get out on their hands and knees, and that they were so ballooned up with their spacesuits and backpacks that "they were forced to wriggle and waddle". Clearly, in this artless "design", Grumman had totally failed to cater for user-friendly egress and even ingress. This of course begs the question as to how Armstrong exited the lunar-module so quickly for the "One Giant Leap" scene.;
  1. It would have been impossible for the astronauts to get from the lunar-module into the conical command-module because this section was occupied by the three large reentry parachutes, which ejected from the conical end. This also makes many aspects of the "missing amperes story" (or Kubrick yarn) in the Apollo-13-Hoax movie highly questionable. Also, the Apollo-13-Hoax astronauts started to worry about freezing to death when they lost electrical power. But, in reality of course, the relentless bombardment of the sun's rays on the capsule would have rapidly overheated it to lethal temperatures because, in "space", there is no atmosphere and hence nowhere for that buildup of heat to dissipate. The bottom line here is that NASA should have hired some proper scientists to first check the validity of its movie-scripts.;
  1. In the Apollo 14 Hoax, astronaut Alan Shepard was filmed driving a golf ball hard across the "moon" with the film camera right behind him. Shepard's golf ball is seen to slowly curve off to the right. Of course, this cannot happen on the real moon because a golf ball cannot curve in the vacuum of "space" where there is no air to curve it. As usual, NASA has no comment to explain this. Because NASA is just a bunch of "NAS-holes", its specialty is lying and PR. Its specialty has never yet been real science.;
  1. How did the poor astronauts survive if they had to spend long periods huddling around the rocket engine? How did the astronauts handle the noise and vibration, not to mention the heat?;
  1. All the paperwork for the lunar-module had been "destroyed", so Grumman had none, NASA had none, and the Washington archives had none. But NASA had eulogized the work to invent such a lunar-module as Ig-Nobel-Prize material, and then it goes and somehow "loses" all the precious paperwork. That just does not figure. Why would you "destroy" the blueprints and plans for the lunar-module (and the lunar-rover) if this was one of history's greatest accomplishments? Was this carelessness, or did NASA actually have something enormous to hide?;
  1. Throughout Project Apollo Hoax, the engines used were extremely noisy, even louder than 140 or 150 dB, but they remained totally inaudible in the faked radio transmissions allegedly broadcast by the astronauts. One astronaut is heard to remark "Quiet Ride", but that has to be a preposterous lie. An enormous red flag is the fact that exchanges between Houston and the "moon" all featured a time-lag of zero. Yet, in the late 1960s or early 1970s, any phone-call from Houston to Australia would feature a fairly long time-lag. Hence, the astronauts were probably broadcasting from a makeshift studio next-door. Nixon's call to talk blarney about "heavenly bodies" also had a time-lag of zero. The fact that Nixon never visited Houston during any of the hoaxes tends to indicate that he knew well that it was all being faked but feared a backlash if he ever first overcommitted himself to it and it was then later exposed as having been hoaxed.;
  1. The broadcasts between the "moon" and the Earth could never have succeeded because, in the late 1960s or early 1970s, TV and communications experts were well aware that any broadcast even across the USA required at least one (maybe bread-truck-sized) relay-station along the way so as to boost its signal. But no such relay-station was located along the alleged transmission path between the "moon" and Earth over a much longer path of around 239,000 miles.;
  1. The US Air Force and NASA conspired very closely together to produce Project Apollo Hoax. The US Air Force is actually Hollywood's biggest movie producer, having the largest movie studios and more gear parked in San Bernardino CA than any other moviemaker. That also accounts for propaganda movies like Top Gun, which managed to recruit thousands of terrorists-in-blousons to take part in empire-building and profit-making wars for the London-NY-Axis that had already been planned in the 1970s. Because the London-NY-Axis planned terror-bombing to massacre innocent civilians, it needed to bolster its air force. And that explains why the US Air Force, and not the US Navy or US Army, was predestined to became Hollywood's biggest moviemaker for the London-NY-Axis. A vast, militarized propaganda apparatus is operating throughout the USA's screen entertainment industry, with the US regime working behind the scenes on over 800 major movies and more than 1000 tell-lie-vision titles.;
  1. In the Apollo-11-Hoax movie, how did the camera suddenly jump from inside the lunar-module to the outside, and to Armstrong's left, as he descended the dustless ladder for the "One Giant Leap" scene? Did they throw a camera out the lunar-module onto the "moon" and just hope it landed upright to stand in the exact position required to focus precisely on Armstrong despite its having no viewfinder? Or was the cameraman on the "moon" before Armstrong? In that case, the official-truth history books might need to be revised to name the cameraman as the first man on the "moon"? On the "moon", the astronauts could not have had an easy job lining up the TV-camera to point in the proper direction because it did not have any viewfinder. In fact, the astronauts always needed feedback from Ground Control to set the field of view for any TV-camera. It has always been a major gripe that NASA never properly explained how the astronauts managed to line up the TV-camera so perfectly just prior to the "One Giant Leap" scene.;
  1. In the Apollo-17-Hoax movie, NASA appears to have actually left one cameraman behind on the "moon". It is not clear how the Apollo 17 astronauts launched off from the surface of the "moon" in the lunar-module, while being filmed at the very same time. Who was outside panning the TV-camera up as it ascended and who was doing the first-class job of keeping the lunar-module focused for viewers? And how was that film retrieved and sent back to Earth? If the next Apollo mission retrieved it, then why was it not damaged from the extreme temperatures (108 degrees centigrade) on the "moon"? Furthermore, what happened to the jet-exhaust viewers were expecting from the Apollo 17 lunar-module when it took off? There was none.;
  1. In the Apollo-11-Hoax movie, after the lunar-module has landed but before Armstrong climbs down the ladder for the "One Giant Leap" scene, it is clearly seen that the ladder in the "live" tell-lie-vision simulcast is much different to the ladder shown by all still-photographs of the Apollo 11 Hoax. The ladder in the "live" tell-lie-vision simulcast is much thicker and resembles an extension ladder one uses for painting outdoors, i.e. strong enough to support an astronaut and his backpack on Earth. In the still-photos, the ladder is not only very weak, but its bottom rung is level with the astronaut's hip. This is a major continuity error in the whole Apollo 11 Hoax. It is also powerful evidence that the "live" tell-lie-vision footage was faked in a studio and then simulcast. We really need to reiterate this: The Apollo-11-Hoax film ladder not matching the ladder shown in the Apollo-11-Hoax photos is strong evidence the film was hoaxed. So The Most Famous Movie Scene In All Of Project Apollo Hoax, And The Scene Most Often Repeated In Historical "News" And "Documentary" Programs, Is Very Likely A Total Fake That Was Shot In A Movie-Studio. The "live" TV-footage of the astronauts could not have been live, as alleged by NASA. The footage that was simulcast had jumps and discontinuities which could only have occurred through editing. But the Apollo-11 astronauts only had one TV-camera hooked up to their Unified S-Band antenna, so the simulcast should have been one continuous shot with no edits. Question: Why would NASA stage the footage? Answer: Because it had to, having never sent men even near the real moon because they would have died in the lethal VARB. We also see an enormous design error in the still-photo ladder which begs the question: Why did NASA not design a proper ladder to extend downward almost to the ground to prevent possible injury or death? If an astronaut had trouble bridging the gap between the bottom rung and the surface of the "moon", then a ripped spacesuit or a cracked visor or helmet would have meant almost instant death.;
  1. On the "moon", it was also very hard to line up the still-camera to point in the proper direction because it did not have any viewfinder either. But Ground Control could not provide any feedback on how good the field of view was for the ordinary still-camera because no one could develop the photos quickly enough. How did the astronauts manage to take such professional still-photographs without any viewfinder on their still-camera? In reality, NASA must have hired the very best professional photographers, maybe veterans from Madison Avenue, to shoot truly amazing photos. So ask yourself: Exactly which photographers could have taken those glitzy "moon" photos? Was it astronauts having no viewfinders, or was it in reality proper professionals from Madison Avenue? Surely this question is very easy to answer.;
  1. In April 1972, astronaut Charles Duke of the Apollo-16-Hoax movie brought with him a family photograph (of himself with his wife and two sons) and decided to leave this photo on the surface of the "moon" inside a transparent plastic pouch. With his Hasselblad 500 camera, Duke then took a photograph of this family-photo-in-pouch as it lay on the surface of the "moon" and NASA assigned it the ID AS16-117-18841. But there are two huge problems with photo AS16-117-18841: First, Duke's family-photo-in-pouch did not curl, melt or go on fire while lying on a "moon" surface having a temperature of around 108 degrees centigrade. Second, Duke's family-photo-in-pouch was almost perfectly focused though his camera had no viewfinder. If you want to try this experiment in your own oven, it might be dangerous.;
  1. How did the astronauts adjust the settings of the TV-camera or the still-camera with gloves or gauntlets designed so that they could grip nothing less than about an inch in diameter? They could only have had very dull feeling in their fingertips because the astronauts were wearing pressurized gloves or gauntlets and that would have felt a bit like wearing thimbles. NASA claims the gloves or gauntlets were definitely pressurized but the still-photographs beg to differ by showing unpressurized gardening-type gloves.;
  1. One six-second sequence of the Apollo-11-Hoax "landing" seems to show the camera waiting on the "moon" before the "Thunderbirds"-like spacecraft called the lunar-module arrives. On the other hand, the whole Apollo-11-Hoax movie looks so much like an episode of "Thunderbirds" that it is very hard to tell for sure if the camera preceded the lunar-module or was somehow attached to it. Perhaps the camera was sent out of a secret opening in the lunar-module? Perhaps its focus had been pre-set? NASA has never explained this crucial point.;
  1. In one 16-mm-camera photograph of an astronaut on the "moon", you can see the reflection in the visor of the astronaut's helmet showing a cameraman wearing a black cloak from head to toe, presumably intended to hide him against the black background or sky. But this cameraman is standing at such a level that his camera is about 10 feet up and looking down on the astronaut. That is impossible because all crew members were supposed to be on level ground on the "moon". Why did NASA fail to mention this cameraman hitching a ride to the "moon"? And why was this cameraman not wearing a spacesuit? How was his black cloak made fire-resistant against the lunar-surface temperature of between 100 and 130 degrees centigrade? In several still-photographs of astronauts on the "moon", the shadow of a cameraman wearing no spacesuit can be seen clearly in the visor reflection. Yet NASA has never explained how extra cameramen unlisted in the manifest got to the "moon" and survived without spacesuits.;
  1. NASA claims that a total of 5771 photos were taken on the "moon" during the Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17 hoaxes. But it also claims the total time on the "moon" was 4834 minutes for all these "trips" combined. But that clearly cannot be when you compare the documented activities of the astronauts because it would mean that roughly one photo had been taken on the "moon" every 50 seconds. It just could never have happened. One crucial question this begs is how did astronauts manage to change films? We must bear in mind that the astronauts had their Hasselblad cameras strapped to their chests but their helmets made it impossible for them to even bend their heads to adjust a camera. Their cameras had no viewfinders, so how did they focus? Their cameras had no light-meters so how did they measure the light? With those thick gloves, how did they adjust the F-stop or shutter-speed? Also, the pure-oxygen atmosphere inside the lunar-module would have melted the Hasselblad's cover, causing poisonous gases to be discharged. Why were the astronauts not poisoned by this?;
  1. In all episodes of Project Apollo Hoax (11 through 17), the visors of the astronaut helmets on the surface of the "moon" betray the presence of multiple large studio lights in the "moon"-movie-studio. These lights were the leading-edge technology at the time, and were similar to the floodlights used in Shea Stadium NYC for the final Beatles concert in 1966 before McCartney died. If this had been the real sun reflecting on the convex visors, it would have been tiny, having a diameter less than an inch. But the reflection is huge, having a diameter of up to four inches, conclusively proving that NASA was using at least one studio light.;
  1. The US flag is seen to be flapping in the alleged atmospheric vacuum on the "moon". In reality, this would have been caused by the huge amounts of air-conditioning required in the "moon"-movie-studio. But why has NASA so far refused to give any credible reason for a US flag flapping on the surface of the "moon", particularly in the Apollo-14-Hoax movie? All supposed "reasons" NASA has given so far for the flapping US flag have varied from utter garbage to total nonsense.;
  1. The faked Apollo film footage and still-photographs all show a very dry dusty surface many inches deep. If there is no wind on the "moon" (apart from the wind which continually blew the US flag), then why is there no dust on top of the rocks and boulders too? If there is no wind to blow away the dust, then there should have been dust on top of all background "moon"-rocks and boulders too. So where was that dust and why was it missing? If you ask for an explanation for this, just expect NASA to pull its "No Comment" routine.;
  1. In the Apollo-11-Hoax movie, the lunar-module is shown coming in to land on the "moon" just prior to the "One Giant Leap" scene. But, NASA forgot just one movie special-effect that might have made the scene in which the lunar-module comes in to land at least slightly credible: A vast, billowing dust-cloud when the 10,000 pound thruster blows all those many layers of "moon"-dust like a hurricane from on high. The thrust from the lunar-module's thruster should have blown a huge dust-cloud off the "moon" surface, and this cloud should have gone hundreds of yards skyward and blocked camera visibility for anything from 0.5 to 4 hours. So did NASA just "forget" this special movie-dust-cloud effect, or did it just decide against it since American tell-lie-vision viewers would have quickly lost patience with the movie and switched channels? Of course, NASA feared them switching channels more than anything else because the whole reason behind Project Apollo Hoax was to embezzle 30 billion USD from US taxpayers (equivalent to over 1.5 trillion USD in 2017 terms). Internet footage of a 7,500 pound thruster in the Nevada desert today shows it throwing up veritable tons of dust. In reality, NASA was filming a repeat episode of TV series "Thunderbirds" (produced in 1964, aired in 1965) in its "moon"-movie-studio which everyone knows was made from Plaster Of Paris. Any nagging questions posed to NASA ever since regarding this conundrum (the complete absence from all its movies of vast, billowing dust-clouds when its lunar-module is coming in to land on the "moon") have met with the ancient NASA "No Comment" routine.;
  1. The feet of the lunar-module never showed a single speck of "moon"-dust. This could only happen if NASA never landed on the "moon" in the first place. A proper landing would have caused a billowing dust-storm and a lot of dust would have landed on the feet, on the external ladder, and on the lunar-module.;
  1. Maybe it is high-time NASA was really compelled to testify. One expert proposed sending NASA "experts" to Guantanamo Bay for sensory deprivation to compel them to tell the truth. We need a situation where NASA is scared out of its panties of being sued for embezzlement and fraud. We no longer need the same old situation whereby NASA is allowed to parry and lie with total impunity. Ex-CIA agent Robert David Steel recently called for NASA to have its budget cut by at least two-thirds and then frozen, until all its facilities had been inspected by "independent teams of inspectors general" with the authority to blow open every single door and every single office building being used by NASA. We need such an independent adjudicator before ever again taking any statement made by NASA seriously.;
  1. In the Apollo-11-Hoax movie, after the lunar-module has landed on the "moon" and just before the "One Giant Leap" scene, the shadow of the lunar-module is seen to suddenly sharpen dramatically because NASA staff had moved or switched the "sun" spotlight in the movie-studio. Such a sudden sharpening of shadows within milliseconds could not occur on the real moon, in particular because the sun would have been in its proper place and not just a spotlight a matter of yards behind the lunar-module. One more problem is that Neil Armstrong's shadow is about three times his own height, whereas the lunar-module is roughly the same length as its own shadow, except that the lunar-module's shadow points in a different direction compared to Armstrong's. Armstrong also took one photo of Aldrin in front of the US flag, but the flag has no shadow, while Aldrin and the lunar-module both have shadows. Many have tried to establish whether Project Apollo Hoax was really A Comic Tragedy Or A Tragic Comedy, but so far the jury is still out on this particular question.;
  1. In the film footage on the "moon", there are several sequences in which two astronauts of roughly the same height have different shadow lengths. This is easy to explain. The astronaut closer to the studio spotlight (which NASA keeps claiming was the "sun") had a longer shadow, and vice versa.;
  1. When the lunar-module takes off from the "moon" in the Apollo-11-Hoax movie, it seems as if 1960s movie special effects are being used. Some cinematographers have pointed out that the TV-camera might actually be motionless while a large photo of the "moon" surface is being carried past it. The reason they state this is because the bottom left portion of the "moon"-scape manages to stay in perfect focus for up to 20 seconds, while other portions lose focus rapidly. The sequence also indicates a take-off that used partly horizontal movement, just like "Thunderbirds", but this is a total contradiction to what NASA keeps claiming, namely that the lunar-module took off vertically from the "moon" using a purely linear trajectory.;
  1. Perhaps "Thunderbirds" was really a Tavistock military project specifically designed to support the entire Apollo 11 Hoax. Although the TV series first aired in 1965, the real start of "Thunderbirds" may have been closer to 25 May 1961, when JFK announced the dramatic and ambitious goal of sending astronauts to the "moon" by the end of the 1960s, a deadline NASA claims to have beaten by just over 160 days. Perhaps the Apollo conspiracy was designed as a "positive conspiracy" which people wanted to believe in, i.e. as the exact opposite to JFK's assassination, which was a "negative conspiracy" people wanted not to believe in because it proved that they were really living in a system of organized crime under the London-NY-Axis. The Apollo Hoax may well have been a way for the same power-elite to say sorry for assassinating JFK.;
  1. In private White House conversations, JFK was recorded as regretting that he had ever made his famous we-choose-to-go-to-the-"moon" speech, saying he should instead have earmarked the money for water-desalination projects to provide clean drinking-water to all Africans. That would have been better, but we would still all love to know where NASA really spent all the money it looted from US taxpayers.;
  1. If it had been so easy to go the "moon" then, already in the 1970s, NASA would have been boasting that it had bases on the "moon". Because it is a thousand times more difficult to send men to the real moon than to send men into Earth Orbit, NASA set out instead to temper expectations by stating it would be another 70 years before it went to the "moon". So why did NASA allegedly go to the "moon" before even learning how to do a space-walk? Was it really just because JFK's speech on 25 May 1961 mentioned landing men on the "moon" rather than merely walking in "space"?;
  1. The scientists and experts who labeled the "moon" landings a total hoax included: Jim Fetzer, Ralph René, Bill Kaysing, Bart Sibrel, Jack White, Jarrah White and astronaut Dr Brian O'Leary. The professors who labeled the "moon" landings a total hoax: Prof James McCanney (US), Prof Luke Sargent (US). Prof André Balogh (GB). Prof Colin Rourke (GB), Prof Krassimir Ivanov Ivandjiiski (BG), Prof Takahiko Soejima (JP), Prof Li Zifeng (CN), Prof Federico Martín Maglio (AR). NASA always had a tough time against so many fine academics, so it came to rely more on the CIA-backed monopoly-media to support it instead.;
  1. Aldrin's "moon"-walk exhibited major inconsistencies in lighting, proving conclusively that it could only have been shot in a movie-studio with portions of the set being lit from above, the astronaut lit from behind and the lunar-module lit from the front. This particular paradox has long been dubbed "Lights, Camera, Hoax". Artificial lighting is clear from ALL Apollo Hoax photographs because all subjects are expected to have parallel and never-intersecting shadows from the only possible source of light on the real moon which should be the sun (exactly the same behavior as for sunlight on Earth), yet most photos exhibit shadows intersecting and going in multiple directions, and also exhibit isolated hotspots (which professional shutterbugs call halos). NASA stated that no artificial lighting was taken to the "moon". But such effects could only have been achieved using multiple artificial light sources, so NASA must be lying yet again.;
  1. The sun appears to be originating from a spotlight because there is a halo around it, but there can be no halo where there is no atmosphere. Often, of course, the "sun" appears to be coming from multiple spotlights, which is the only sane explanation for those long intersecting horizontal shadows.;
  1. The astronauts do not seem to jump very high on the "moon", considering its one-sixth-gravity compared to Earth. An astronaut must be expected to jump at least three times higher on the "moon" for the same legwork applied. Or why could the astronauts not jump any higher on the "moon" than you or I can jump here on Earth? Clearly, the astronauts were really kangaroo-hopping on Earth. Some black critics said NASA was only revealing what they knew all along, namely that white men cannot even dance on the "moon". In reality, in order to "demonstrate" one-sixth-gravity on the "moon", NASA was using good-old-reliable wires and slow-motion, with slow-motion still a leading-edge technology in 1969. The use of this amateur technique strongly suggests that, in 1969, NASA never even remotely expected its audience of scammed victims ever to acquire powerful software tools with which they could easily double the film speed on their desktop computer and prove that NASA had faked astronaut motion on the "moon" because, in reality, we can all see that the astronauts are no more leaving the ground than they would on Earth. This particular feature of the Apollo 11 Hoax was one of the easiest of all to spot. NASA probably reasoned it would worry about this particular issue "later", but alas "later" came and went long ago.;
  1. All the Project Apollo Hoax clips that show astronauts throwing objects on the "moon" actually prove these objects were thrown on Earth, with NASA then halving the speed of the film via slow-mo. This is most apparent in the Apollo 16 and 17 hoaxes. Clearly, NASA did not want its scammed victims to see an astronaut simply throwing a ball up because viewers would immediately expect him to throw the ball maybe ten times higher than on Earth for the same physical effort applied. Six times higher would be for the one-sixth-gravity, but even higher still would be for the lack of atmosphere impeding the ball's rise. Because NASA did not allow the astronauts to run this particular experiment, the viewers did not spot the hoax as quickly as they otherwise would have. But if the camera had followed that ball, viewers might have gotten to feast their eyes on the "moon"-movie-studio's ceiling too, given that we all know now for sure that the astronauts could never even have left the Earth.;
  1. Many Apollo still-photographs use the same repetitive background for scenes at very different locations on the "moon". That means that two photographs taken many miles apart on the "moon" actually feature the exact same background while showing different visual subjects or events. What are the odds against the same background repeating at points on the "moon" allegedly several miles apart? This problem, with the same repetitive backdrop, shows the pathetic way in which the photographs were composed and doctored. But why has NASA so far refused to give any credible reason for this? NASA also has whole websites showing "moon" photographs. But these photographs often have backdrop scenes pasted-in or black lines penciled-in where the "moon" background meets the sky, but with the sky then blacked out completely. Such composite photographs are one of the most ridiculous features of Project Apollo Hoax and, over the decades, were one of the easiest ways to spot the hoax.;
  1. NASA has a website for the Apollo 8 Hoax, which shows a photo of the "moon" allegedly taken by astronauts orbiting it. But the date on the photo is the exact same date as when the Saturn V allegedly blasted off the launch-pad to send the Apollo 8 on its way to the "moon". So how could NASA have taken a photo so close to the "moon" on the same day the astronauts left Earth?;
  1. It is now a very well known fact that the Saturn V rocket could NEVER have actually had enough fuel to even leave Earth Orbit, it never had the propulsion power to even achieve escape velocity. Next, how did the small capsule (about the size of a two cars) have enough fuel to go 239,000 miles to the moon and back? If it glided through non-gravity having zero resistance, then how did they steer it so accurately? If they navigated it manually, then one tiny mistake of one degree would have landed them in oblivion.;
  1. Space-rocket and propulsion engineer Bill Wood asserted that the Saturn V could not have operated as claimed, and therefore could not have delivered the lift capability stated by NASA. NASA claimed on paper that the Saturn V had five F-1 engines. But that could not have been the configuration that NASA showed in films of the Saturn V leaving for the "moon". Instead, NASA must have used less powerful engines and simply added fuel to make it appear that the Saturn V was using five F-1 engines. The F-1 engines had been tested at Edwards Air Force Base and were found to suffer from combustion instability, so that shock-waves occurred inside of each rocket's expansion chamber with the shock-waves then resonating mutually until the rocket chamber finally exploded. But the color of the jet coming out of the actual Saturn V in each Apollo Hoax movie was wrong: it should have been white-hot, but instead it was red-hot, meaning that the Saturn V was in reality operating fuel-rich. It is a well-documented fact that, for the Apollo 11 Hoax, the Saturn V actually took off AGAINST the gravitational spin of the Earth so that, instead of harnessing this spin, it managed to lose over 30 percent of its propulsive energy and force by working against the Earth's rotation. NASA did not even have enough proper scientists to get this right.;
  1. Russian scientist Dr Stanislav Pokrovsky carried out a series of rocket speed estimates and concluded that Apollo 11 could never have flown to the moon. His first study showed that the velocity achieved by the Apollo 11 Saturn V was significantly lower than that required to satisfy the stated flight plan to propel the mission to the moon. His second study concluded that no more than 28 tons, including the Apollo 11 craft, could have been placed into lunar orbit (significantly less than the 46-ton payload still being maintained by NASA). Dr Stanislav Pokrovsky's work also reconfirmed Bill Wood's previous claims.;
  1. The Saturn V engines never had the power to escape the Earth's gravity in order to send craft to the "moon". According to CIA-censored WickedPedia, the Rocketdyne F-1 engines of the first stage had an exhaust velocity of 2390 meters per second, or 1.48 miles per second, hence 5352 MPH. But the CIA's WickedPedia also states that the rocket traveled 58 miles downrange and climbed to 42 miles in altitude, where the first stage burned out after 150 seconds. The rocket thus covered a distance of 72 miles from the launch pad. Its speed could only have been 0.48 miles per second, or 1728 MPH, not 5352 MPH as NASA claims. The ascent of the first stage was well within the view of eyewitnesses on land and sea, so the 72 mile distance must be correct. But the official-truth figure of 5352 MPH for the exhaust velocity of the F-1 contradicts observation. If the speed of the rocket was only 1728 MPH at the end of the first stage, it is not clear how the Rocketdyne J-2 engines of the second and third stages could ever have accelerated the rocket to the 24,000 MPH needed to escape the Earth's gravity, even if their exhaust velocity of 9374 MPH really had been the correct value. The suspicion arises that NASA inflated the exhaust velocity not just of the F-1 engine, but also that of the J-2 in its official-truth narrative. In that case, the Apollo rockets could only reach, at best, Low Earth Orbit. NASA still cannot explain how the Saturn V accelerated to 24,000 MPH given all the facts mentioned here.;
  1. The Saturn V was obviously incapable of delivering the full payload. This also explains why the Russians preferred unmanned missions given that such missions had much lower weight by carrying no water, no crew, no oxygen tanks, no spacesuits, no food, no emergency supplies, no cabin seats and less fuel.;
  1. The reticles (or cross-hairs) shown in the photographs are very often covered by the photographic subjects themselves (as if the subjects were add-ins from retouching), but the specifications of the instrumentation NASA claims to have used actually demand that all reticles must overlap all photographic subjects, i.e. be superimposed over the photograph in its entirety. In reality, a photo in which photographic subjects overlap the reticles is a composite of two photos into one, a composite that was strung together in a highly shabby and unprofessional manner. So why has NASA so far refused to give any credible reason for this?;
  1. NASA spokesman Brian Welch claimed that the purpose of the reticles was to gauge distances from the photos. But Hasselblad called that complete nonsense because, in order to measure distances, the photos would have had to have been taken as stereo-pairs giving a stereoscopic effect, but that NASA had used no such stereo-pairs. Hence, NASA did not even properly understand the purpose of the reticles or the benefit they were intended to provide. Some "scientists" they are, eh?;
  1. In cases where NASA claims that the exact same camera was used for color and monochrome photos, why do the color photographs feature reticles while their monochrome counterparts feature none? The specifications of the instrumentation NASA claims to have used actually demand that recticles be shown in both the color and monochrome cases. Why has NASA refused to provide a credible reason for this?;
  1. Although NASA assures us that there is no sound in the vacuum of "space", all kinds of external sounds were recorded on the "moon" during Project Apollo Hoax. In the Apollo-12-Hoax movie, astronaut Alan Bean uses a hammer to pound a flagpole into the surface of the "moon", with hammering sounds clearly audible instead of the total silence expected. In the Apollo-15-Hoax movie, astronaut James Irwin lets slip a cord and allows it to hit the lunar-module but movie viewers can clearly hear the resulting thud sound. NASA claimed that moon-echoes, where the moon "reverberated like a bell for hours", indicated that the moon was hollow. These moon-echoes, it claims, were caused when material was jettisoned and hit the moon, resulting in an artificial moonquake having startling features. But how did NASA hear the sounds?;
  1. There was no independent press coverage of Project Apollo Hoax, although it was billed as a "historical event". It was as if only the "supreme-soviet" itself was permitted to okay reports on Project Apollo Hoax. During Project Apollo Hoax, whatever pictures and sound that got passed to the media were first strictly censored, controlled and previewed by the US federal regime. They were then broadcast and actually remained largely unchecked until the internet arrived around 1995. In 2017, Everyone Knows That Bullshit Is What All Regimes Do For A Living. But, unlike today's monopoly-media, the 1960s still featured some proper independent journalism which the US regime feared immensely. All this censorship, with the lack of an independent adjudicator, has hidden many details worth knowing about Project Apollo Hoax. Very few duped victims realized that the unthinkable, namely A TOTAL HOAX, was not only easy for the US regime to pull off but was actually what transpired in reality. That is now an established fact, despite all the lies told by the monopoly-media and irrespective of the absence of said independent adjudicator.;
  1. When the so-called "C Rock" was pointed out to NASA, it quickly airbrushed one letter "C" originally seen printed on a "moon"-rock lying on the surface of the "moon" and a second letter "C" seen printed in the "moon"-dust. After these two perfectly-symmetrical letters "C" were gone from all subsequent versions of the same photograph, NASA only ever tried to explain away the FIRST letter "C" on the "moon"-rock but provided no explanation for the second letter "C" in the "moon"-dust. NASA also failed to explain what the meaning of the two perfectly-symmetrical letters "C" visible on the original had been. Had the Romans perhaps left a marker to indicate 100 miles?;
  1. The "C Rock" and many other "moon"-rocks in the photographs seem to be rounded (in reality they were of course made of Plaster Of Paris or paper-mâché), but NASA has never answered the burning question, which is: How could rocks on the "moon" ever be rounded where there is no atmosphere, nor wind nor rain to round them?;
  1. The lunar-module used on later Apollo Hoaxes had the exact same specifications as the one used for the Apollo 11 Hoax, so there had been no lunar-module modifications for subsequent hoaxes. This all means that it would have been impossible to carry the lunar-rover vehicle to the "moon" in the same confined lunar-module even if the vehicle collapsed into a more compact form. Or would NASA like to claim that it had somehow managed to make the lunar-rover weightless and invisible during "trips" there and back?;
  1. The lunar-rover vehicle was built by Boeing who, by pure "coincidence", also managed to "destroy" all documentation about it. Shucks, what a "coincidence", eh?;
  1. If the enormous lunar-rover was so "easy" to get to the "moon" for the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 hoaxes, then why was the "Mars" Rover so hugely difficult to get to "Mars" by comparison? Remember, NASA claims the "Mars" Rover weighed only one-hundredth of the weight of the Apollo lunar-rover. Even if Mars is further away, how come the "Mars" Rover was so problematic, but the lunar-rover was so easy?;
  1. Some NASA spokespeople claimed the lunar-rover had no compass because a compass would not work on the "moon", there being no magnetic poles. Others claimed the lunar-rover was fitted with a flashy computer which constantly plotted a straight line guiding the astronauts back to the lunar-module. But, NASA was not satisfied with just two versions, so astronaut Charles Duke from the Apollo 16 Hoax had to go and claim a third version when he stated that, if an astronaut driving the lunar-rover ever got lost, he just followed his tracks back through the "moon"-dust to get back to the lunar-module. Maybe he never saw the denouement of Kubrick's creepy movie "The Shining". So many inconsistencies.;
  1. The onboard computers NASA used in 1969 had less capability than a 2017 pocket calculator. In 1969, computer chips were still in their infancy. The maximum computer memory was 256 KB and that was housed in a large air-conditioned building. Jim Fetzer interviewed a computer expert who stated that the computer that NASA claims to have used for the Apollo 11 Hoax (as outlined in NASA's diagrams) could never have even worked, that it had the computing power of a brick (could do no work for the astronauts) and that it could only have been a dead-weight. Also, in 2017, a top-of-the-range PC requires at least 64 MB of main memory to run a simulated "moon" landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again after the lunar-module has landed on the "moon". But the computer on board the lunar-module in the Apollo 11 Hoax only had 32 KB of main memory. So how did NASA ever get this to work in the first place? Even the claim that the lunar-rover had a guidance computer seems totally ridiculous.;
  1. It could not have been possible to negotiate the terrain on the "moon" in a vehicle, as the lunar-rover did not have the necessary suspension and ground-clearance to negotiate the uneven surface or rocks. Also, the lunar-rover would have had a big problem with traction due to the one-sixth-gravity on the "moon", and it had to endure a rough ride that must have damaged all the delicate onboard equipment. But NASA claims the astronauts enjoyed nothing but smooth rides in the lunar-rover and that no damage was ever incurred to the delicate onboard equipment. If the lunar-rover had actually been moving in one-sixth-gravity, then it would have needed to be twenty-feet wide to prevent it from flipping over on nearly every turn. But the lunar-rover was actually only as wide as an ordinary small car.;
  1. When the lunar-rover scoots across the surface of the "moon" in the hoaxed movies, it seems to get awesome traction despite being on a one-sixth-gravity surface with thick dust and sand. On Earth, pickup trucks carrying zero-load will have very little weight over their rear axle and thus have a bad tendency to swerve or skid from side to side (an effect called fishtailing), so they become hard to control on a sandy or shifting surface, such as a beach. Surely the lunar-rover would have been nearly impossible to control on the "moon" given that its weight would be one-sixth its weight on Earth? Yet, the only thing the lunar-rover seems to have problems with is when those Plaster Of Paris craters cause it to bounce up and down. If NASA has the secret to such great traction in one-sixth-gravity, then why have automobile manufacturers never clamored for it, especially if it would save them money in personal-injury lawsuits? Is that because automobile manufacturers already knew long ago that NASA faked the "moon" landings? If NASA really had such technology and released it, then many hydroplaning accidents would have been a thing of the past, as would have been many accidents caused by hitting soft gravel, sand or even ice.;
  1. While Project Apollo Hoax was still running, the monopoly-media told the world that the astronauts carried a cyanide tablet (sounds very NSDAP, really) for quick death in case anything went wrong and they could not come home. But later on, Eugene Cernan stated he "did not know" what he would have done if the lunar-module had not started as he prepared to leave the "moon" for home. Yet more inconsistencies.;
  1. The lunar-rover had inflatable tires which, if pre-inflated, would have exploded on arrival. But there was no air on the "moon" to inflate them. So how did NASA manage to get the inflatable tires onto the "moon" and keep them inflated? Clearly, NASA is lying again. The Russians built a proper rover having a caterpillar track made of metal, so we at least know that the Russian rover looked authentic. In later hoaxes, NASA claimed the lunar-rover had acquired airless tires (yeah, a likely tale indeed).;
  1. Many mil-intel whistleblowers have testified that the USA and communist Russia were secret allies after 1945 during the "cold war", and that the "cold war" was staged. Both countries actually used their excess funds to invest in population-control and in huge population-control experiments. Hence, the argument that the Russians never objected loudly to assertions by NASA about the "achievements" of Project Apollo Hoax is irrelevant since, after 1945, both the USA and communist Russia were under the control of the very same UN, which spent its time and money building the totalitarian "new world order" for its owner, the London-NY-Axis (the Beast [i.e. the English monarch], the City of London and the House of Rothschild). The USA Russia and were Freemasonic "partners in crime" just as they had been during WW2. Thus, in all probability, the London-NY-Axis simply ordered Moscow to play along with the fakery so as to bolster the credibility of Project Apollo Hoax.;
  1. How could the lunar-rover drive on the surface of the "moon" without leaving any tracks behind? Several of the Apollo Hoax photographs show the lunar-rover as if it had just been planted there with the help of a studio-crane. Hmm. Come to think of it, that movie-studio did have at least one crane. The lunar-rover was said to weigh more than the astronauts. If the astronauts were able to make clear-cut footprints, then why did the lunar-rover fail to leave clear tracks over long segments? NASA also even managed to record the very opposite, with one photo actually showing tracks from the lunar-rover although the same lunar-rover had not yet even been "unloaded" from the lunar-module (even assuming it had ever fitted in it).;
  1. NASA tells us that the surface of the "moon" is very dry and dusty. But if that is the case, then why do those footprints show up so boldly? Dry and dusty should mean you put your boot in the sand and withdraw it to see nothing but sand and a minor cavity. The only surface that would leave footprints that crisp and clear would be damp sand or soil. But damp sand is simply not possible on the real moon, where the average temperature of the surface is 108 degrees centigrade and the vacuum causes the boiling point of water to fall to below 20 degrees centigrade. It is axiomatic that water or dampness cannot exist on the real moon because it would boil away immediately whenever the sun got at it. The real moon is as dry as a desert and you simply cannot leave identifiable footprints no matter how damp your boots might be. The damp footprints shown in Apollo Hoax photographs represent an enormous red flag that clearly indicates (or else proves) that NASA actually took all its Apollo Hoax photographs on Earth. Gravity on the moon is one-sixth that of the Earth's. This means that a fully equipped astronaut in his spacesuit weighing 400 pounds on Earth would weigh about 65 pounds on the moon. But have you seen the depth of that footprint in the "moon"-dust made by an astronaut weighing 65 pounds equivalent? The moon has no water and it is extremely dry because the lunar surface temperature averages 108 degrees centigrade, but can reach up to 130 degrees centigrade. In reality, you simply could not get any of the moist footprints that Project Apollo Hoax tried to sell to the public in so many photographs. Clearly, NASA practiced these footprints by trial-and-error using a mixture of water and talcum powder and then completed them with Plaster Of Paris.;
  1. How come one boot print was stepped on by a different astronaut without its treads or lines even being distorted? Was it somehow set in stone or perhaps left a very long time ago? Did that hardened boot print perhaps belong to Robinson Crusoe?;
  1. In the Apollo 16 Hoax, a pole or flagpole in the "moon" soil was apparently hammered into the "moon" soil without any astronaut ever getting near it. The photo clearly shows that the footprints are all too far from the pole to be consistent with an astronaut placing it there, only consistent with one walking past it. In the photos, footprints are all around the flagpole but never close enough for any Apollo 16 astronaut to have hammered that flagpole into place. The footprint closest to the pole is about 2 feet away from it but also at roughly a 90-degree angle to it, okay for an astronaut walking past the pole but incorrect for facing it to hammer it in. So who hammered that pole in? Shucks, don't tell me it was the movie-studio crew again.;
  1. Some film footage allegedly taken by the Apollo 8 Hoax as it supposedly circled the "moon" got reused. NASA reused the exact same Apollo 8 film for the Apollo 11 Hoax, except that the film had been reversed to run backwards. Whenever questioned about this, NASA just barks back its usual "No Comment" spiel.;
  1. One reporter asked: "Are you really going to stand there all day giving us this 'No Comment' crap?", but NASA just replied "No Comment". Some experts have estimated that NASA invests maybe 1 percent of its enormous budget in its movies, and maybe 2 percent in public relations and perception management. It must be said that 1 percent is actually an exceedingly generous estimate when you consider how very bad all those NASA movies really are. So is the other 97 percent of the NASA budget invested in the "No Comment Department" or what? If not, then where on Earth is all that money going?;
  1. NASA forgot to airbrush out some object suspended in the sky above the "moon" which it also refused to explain. On closer inspection, it is easy to make out ceiling beams too. The spooky suspended object is most likely either a lighting unit in the "moon"-movie-studio or a reflection thereof. Some wags joked that it was a flying saucer that space-aliens had sent to scare NASA off the "moon".;
  1. Even using today's military technology (i.e. disregarding the loads of undisclosed or secretized technology already being deployed by NASA and the power-elite), it is very difficult to achieve an altitude of even 62 miles. Astronaut Gus Grissom was a man of great integrity who was very outspoken about Project Apollo Hoax. On 22 Jun 1967, Grissom held an unauthorized press conference in which he told reporters that the USA was "at least a decade away from even contemplating a lunar mission". NASA murdered him for giving that interview without permission and for being too honest. NASA intended his murder to serve as a warning to all other astronauts to stay in line and keep quiet. Just prior to his murder, he also remarked "how are we going to get to the moon if we can't even talk between three buildings?" and then Grissom famously hung a lemon on the Apollo Hoax Simulator. So just think: Here was a prominent NASA insider who was telling us the truth, namely that Project Apollo Hoax was doomed to total failure. The departure of James Webb roughly 15 months later was a red flag that NASA had major internal strife regarding truth.;
  1. Thomas Ronald Baron was an inspector at Cape Kennedy Pad 34, where NASA murdered Gus Grissom. Prior to Grissom's murder, Baron had written a report documenting NASA's incompetence and the incompetence of its prime contractor North American Aviation. At around the same time, General Sam Phillips (head of Apollo movies for the US Air Force) wrote his own report to Lee Atwood, president of North American Aviation, saying very much the same as Baron. After Grissom's murder, Baron was called before a congressional investigating committee and asked to tell about his experiences. Baron told all, mentioning inept work, mismanagement, total incompetence, flouting of safety regulations, workers drunk on the job and basically sounding the alarm that NASA was failing badly. Four days later, Baron and his entire family were killed in an alleged car accident at a rail crossing near Titusville Florida. If Baron told all and then got killed, it seems VERY likely that he could only have been telling the truth.;
  1. Thomas Ronald Baron also testified that Marvin Holmberg notified him that Gus Grissom and his two Apollo 1 colleagues tried to escape the Apollo Hoax Simulator five minutes before their alleged time of death. This strongly indicates that NASA actually murdered the Apollo 1 astronauts by flooding the capsule with hydrogen-cyanide gas. After the fire, all three astronauts were found wearing their seatbelts which indicated that they were not in fact killed by fire as NASA claimed and still claims, but by a much quicker method such as hydrogen-cyanide poisoning. Clearly, NASA had used cyanide to kill the three astronauts and then used the fire to get rid of the forensic evidence of poisoning.;
  1. Why did the astronauts not take pictures of the stars while they were on the surface of the "moon"? How could they not have seen any stars when all they had to do was turn away from the sun or even just hold up their hand to block the sun's rays? The proper exposure-setting for the camera-iris to photograph the astronauts would have been "mostly-closed" or "almost-completely-closed" so as to compensate for bright sunlight reflecting off the surface of the "moon". Such an exposure-setting would have completely diminished the faintness of relatively distant specks of light, so the black backdrop is fairly plausible. However, the latter does not explain why NASA never took any photographs of the stars separately, i.e. stars on their own with their special star-appropriate exposure-setting. If NASA claims to have taken three automobiles to the "moon", then how come it "forgot" to take a photographic telescope? Had NASA done so, it would have been able to see further into the universe than ever before realized. But because the whole project was a hoax, the alleged presence of a photographic telescope would have forced NASA to invent, sketch and parade galaxies visible from the "moon" but not from the Earth, and such invented galaxies would have been unmasked as fakes by astronomy buffs as soon as more-powerful telescopes became available after the Apollo Hoaxes. That major fear forced NASA to simply shut down any and all discussion of the stars. In their press conference, the astronauts claimed they "could not remember seeing any stars". But, in the non-atmosphere of the moon, the stars look like the headlights of oncoming trains, they are totally in your face. Yuri Gagarin asserted that the stars in zero atmosphere are "astonishingly brilliant". "Not remembering" any stars is so absolutely implausible as to qualify as one of the biggest red flags that indicate a total hoax. Strangely, it was Michael Collins of all people who prompted his colleagues with "I don't remember seeing any" when they hesitated to contemplate whether they were going to tell the truth or not about the stars and the whole "trip" in the press conference. Collins was allegedly orbiting in the command-module, so how could he judge what they saw on the "moon". NASA want us to believe they "forgot" the stars due to "bad planning". Shucks, the stars just slipped our minds, guys.;
  1. The Earth is about 239,000 miles from the moon. The reflected sunlight from the lunar surface is strong enough to illuminate the darkness on the Earth. Thus, anyone close to or hovering just above the surface of the real moon would be blinded by the sheer intensity of light the lunar surface would reflect back. So how come none of the astronauts ever suffered from blindness or eye trouble after their alleged "trips"?;
  1. The lunar-module's descent-engine left no landing crater, although its engine allegedly had a thrust of 10,000 pounds. But it left no burn-crater because NASA forgot to fake one in the Apollo 11 Hoax. That meant NASA had to retain the absence of a blast-crater for all remaining "moon" landings in Project Apollo Hoax and was forced to offer a ludicrous explanation based on zero lunar atmosphere. An impact-crater under the lunar-module would at least have been an indication of a landing on the surface of a "moon" that is supposedly covered with multiple layers of dust. The total absence of any landing crater under the lunar-module is proof that NASA was scamming the public. In reality, NASA made the "moon"-scape from Plaster Of Paris and did not want to ruin all that hard work with an additional impact-crater. Or else NASA ran out of time and was forced to abandon the idea of presenting an impact-crater in its "moon" movie. The fact that NASA's technical drawings show a blast-crater under the lunar-module tends to indicate that NASA just made a mistake.;
  1. Beginning at an altitude of 1,000 miles above the Earth and extending an additional at least 15,000 miles, lethal bands of radiation appear called the VARB (van Allen Radiation Belt). Any astronaut passing through the VARB would have been killed by the radiation or else rendered severely ill within minutes. In order to survive the hour-and-a-half journey through this lethal radiation field so as to reach the moon AND return, a 6-foot layer of solid-lead shielding would have been required between the astronauts and the exposure outside. The Saturn V rocket carried all craft used for the Apollo 11 Hoax, but it was already as big as a battleship. So adding additional tonnage in the form of a lead barrier completely surrounding the astronauts would have made it impossible for the vehicle to get off the ground. NASA was the FIRST AND ONLY agency in history to claim that it actually sent humans through the suicidal VARB field. And the FIRST AND ONLY "mission" NASA claimed this for was Project Apollo Hoax. All other manned missions told the truth on this point, by stating that they had maintained altitudes well below the fatal 1,000 mile altitude and never dared to even go near the VARB. Those included Mercury, Gemini, Soyuz, Skylab and even NASA's own space-shuttle.;
  1. The major fakery in Project Apollo Hoax actually started with the Apollo 8 Hoax because that was the first spacecraft that NASA claims managed to leave Earth Orbit, reach the "moon", orbit it and return safely to Earth. James Webb had been the NASA administrator but he suddenly resigned 7 Oct 1968, just 75 days before the launch of the Apollo 8 Hoax on 21 Dec 1968. This is very conspicuous. Many have conjectured that James Webb really resigned because he wanted no part in lying to the public. He must have been against NASA claiming it could get men through the VARB. And this is why so many experts trace the quantum-leap in dishonesty, fraudulence and downright deceit by NASA to the sudden departure of James Webb as NASA administrator only weeks before the launch of the Apollo 8 Hoax.;
  1. NASA claimed that the astronauts were only in the VARB for two hours per "trip" so it was thus of no serious danger to them. But that is like claiming that you get much less wet in a torrential downpour if you stay in it for less than two hours. Dr John Mauldin stated: "Solar flares or protons can give off doses of hundreds-of-thousands of roentgens over a few hours at Earth distance [25,000 miles]. Such doses are FATAL …". So, clearly, NASA was and still is lying about the real dangers of the VARB.;
  1. The US satellite Explorer 4 was launched on 26 Jul 1958. It carried a Geiger counter in a one-centimeter lead casing. When it was recalibrated, the VARB radiation measured in 1958 was found to be greater than what later occurred in the Chernobyl core when it melted down. Hence, you would have expected some or all of the astronauts to have died or at least to have been sick for months or years after each Apollo "trip".;
  1. There is now absolute proof available that the main stumbling block foiling NASA was in fact the very same lethal radiation field called the VARB. Passing through the radiation of deep space is not just a major problem, it is a complete showstopper which totally prevents human space travel until a solution can be found, not by NASA "experts" but by proper scientists. Beyond the Earth's protective magnetosphere, the deadly radiation of space still renders human space travel impossible. Proper scientists have not yet found a way to protect astronauts from this deadly radiation. NASA will never be able to find a solution to this problem because it can only be done by proper scientists (NASA is just a bunch of "NAS-holes").;
  1. In 2014, a NASA spokesman talked about the VARB and finally admitted: "We must solve these challenges [with VARB radiation levels] BEFORE we send people through this region of space".;
  1. Prof Lawrence Pinsky stated: "The radiation dose received by crews on space missions is not just another nuisance-type problem that just needs to be estimated and tabulated. In planning for longer-duration missions, [the VARB] is one of the major limiting factors and must be a baseline consideration in the design of any vehicle-mission combination where planners anticipate either very long durations or else exposure outside the geomagnetic environment". Thus, the VARB is not just some tiny little problem, it still remains an absolutely insuperable objection.;
  1. In 1998, the US space-shuttle flew to an altitude of 350 miles above the Earth, one of its highest altitudes ever, but still 650 miles below where the VARB (van Allen Radiation Belt) begins. Even at this relatively low altitude, the VARB still had major adverse effects on the astronauts even inside the shielded spacecraft and inside their shielded spacesuits (the suits had shielding of glass-fiber, some aluminum fiber and silicone rubber). With their eyes shut, the space-shuttle astronauts saw flashes of light that they described as shooting stars due to radiation penetrating first the shuttle's shielding, then their spacesuit shielding, then their skulls and finally the retinas of their closed eyes. As a result, "news" network CNN reported NASA's "unpredicted surprise" stating: "The radiation belt surrounding the Earth may be more dangerous for spacewalking astronauts than previously believed. Scientists say the phenomenon known as the van Allen Belts can spawn killer electrons when the Earth's magnetic field changes. These electrons, that are being studied, could have an important effect not only on satellites, as has happened in the past, but could also affect astronauts by creating large doses of radiation that could [adversely] influence their health. The electrons can penetrate through various materials including spacesuits, and can in fact pass through the walls of the space station, and can create high charges deep inside of these objects". In other words, NASA could never have gotten through the VARB field in 1969 without dozens of its astronauts being killed or severely afflicted. The official-truth narrative maintained by NASA is that the Apollo Hoax astronauts were protected by a very thin layer of aluminum. But we all know that, on Earth, a lead shield is given as protection to every patient, even before the tiniest of dental X-Rays. We therefore conclude yet again that NASA is being run by a bunch of amateur racketeers.;
  1. The VARB field has been dubbed God's Electronic Fence, or His way of saying "Thus far, and no further". Indeed, Acts 17:26 confirms: "and God made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the Earth, having determined their appointed times and THE BOUNDARIES OF THEIR HABITATION". Should NASA not have spent more time reading the Bible? Maybe it did and feared being ridiculed, given that Luke 14:28-29 states: "For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him". Unfortunately for NASA, the times of satire and mockery have begun and it looks as if those times are here to stay.;
  1. In an interview with Sheena McDonald of the Beast's Brainwashing Corporation (BBC), the 1994 NASA administrator, Dan Goldin, openly admitted that "mankind cannot venture beyond Earth Orbit, until it can overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation". He managed to say this without making any mention of Project Apollo Hoax twenty-six years prior and was of course never properly cross-examined by such a shill from the monopoly-media. Other NASA spokespeople still officially claim Project Apollo Hoax went 239,000 miles outside of Earth Orbit but alert earthlings spotted this contradiction a long, long time ago.;
  1. In the March 1959 edition of Scientific American, James van Allen stated: "Our measurements show that the maximum radiation level dated to 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour, depending on the still-undetermined proportion of protons to electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 roentgens would have only a 50 percent chance of survival, the [VARB] radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight". Therefore, in 1959, James van Allen himself doomed a real Project Apollo to total failure, so that it had to be replaced by Project Apollo Hoax which NASA ran to scam everyone, but most of all the USA's taxpayers who had to foot most of the bill.;
  1. From its own studies, NASA had in 1959 concluded that the radiation levels on the moon were lethal. This corroborated Russian research with Russian scientists stating that, for a man to survive on the moon while being hit by radiation from solar and cosmic sources, he would have to be shielded by four feet of solid lead. This is yet more evidence that Project Apollo Hoax was just a movie for a psychological-operation.;
  1. Terry Virts, a top NASA astronaut and a commander for the "ISS" affirmed in 2015: "Right now we can only fly in Earth Orbit, that is the farthest that we can go. This new system that we are building is going to allow us to go beyond and hopefully take humans into the solar system to explore, to the moon, to Mars, asteroids, there are a lot of destinations that we could go to and we're building these building-block components in order to allow us to do that eventually". This was yet more proof that NASA had lied about Project Apollo Hoax ever putting men on the "moon". It is also an indication that NASA may be in the course of making a very gradual admission that Project Apollo Hoax was just a lie. If NASA makes statements like these every few weeks for a decade, then even retards will finally pass the "Project Apollo Hoax Intelligence Test". Naturally, the same retards will later claim "But I really always KNEW it was a hoax, and I even said so DECADES ago!".;
  1. In the course of Flight Test 1 of the Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle launched on 5 Dec 2014, NASA inadvertently divulged that it had in fact never gotten any further than Low Earth Orbit.;
  1. In 1999, a prominent NASA consultant and director of the explorations office at Houston's Johnson Space Center, Douglas Cooke, stated he HOPED NASA would make it to the moon by 2100. Cooke was again emphasizing how really difficult it is to land men on the moon and, of course, was implicitly admitting that NASA had actually lied about ever having gotten any astronaut past the VARB in the first place.;
  1. In 2017, NASA still do not have the technology to land men on the moon and return them safely. This may be possible in the future, but such a feat is still many, many decades away.;
  1. In the 1960s, calculated in hours of spaceflight, the Russians were five times more experienced in space than the Americans, but the Russians never even dreamt of putting a man through the VARB. Instead, the Russians were shrewd enough to only dare to send unmanned probes to the moon. On 12 Sep 1959, the Russian Luna-2 achieved the world's first lunar impact. On 31 Jan 1966, the Luna-9 achieved the world's first unmanned soft-landing on the moon. On 21 Dec 1966, the Luna-13 soft-landed on the moon and studied it. On 13 Jul 1969, the Luna-15 crashed on the lunar surface (just one week before NASA faked a "manned soft-landing" on the "moon" in the Apollo 11 Hoax). And on 10 Nov 1970, the Luna-17 placed the world's first rover on the moon. But all successful Russian missions were being sensibly punctuated by some associated failures, which at least tells us that the Russians were being much more truthful than NASA about what they were actually achieving. The big difference was that the Russians were far ahead of the USA but were also documenting their many failures as well, instead of claiming "nothing but successes" as NASA was doing during the entire Project Apollo Hoax. NASA only ever admitted to one single semi-failure, and even that turned out to be a Kubrick movie-script about Apollo 13, a script ridden with occult symbolism and totally obsessed with the number 13. The Russian lunar successes galvanized NASA into trying to level the score. We now know for sure that NASA could not do so legitimately and the only way it could "succeed" in getting men to the "moon" was to totally fake it.;
  1. If NASA actually sent men to the "moon" six times, then why did it find it necessary to fake still-photographs and film clips shot during the Apollo-Hoax movies. NASA actually created most of the faked "moon" landing photographs in the mid-1990s and not in the late 1960s as many were led to believe. But why? Why on Earth is all this nonsense and fakery so important to NASA? Why does it so badly need humanity to believe its totally insane drivel? Why? What is the real reason behind this? We all know that the likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity to which others are trying to prove him wrong. That tends to explain the forcefulness with which NASA and its bosses in the London-NY-Axis continue to lie to the public regarding Project Apollo Hoax. They know it is a hoax.;
  1. NASA owns Project Blue Beam and is being funded and helped in this endeavor by the UN and the UN's owners, the London-NY-Axis. The goal of this project is to implement a New Age religion. Some say that this project will attempt to simulate the Second Coming of Christ using undisclosed technology but that, in fact, the role of heading the new religion will be given to one who is really the antichrist, and that this will usher in yet another totalitarian "new world order". The proposed new and totally ridiculous US Space Corps is intended as a sixth branch of the US armed forces to "defend" the USA from ET.;
  1. Dr Carol Rosin first met Wernher von Braun in Feb 1974, roughly three years before he died. Von Braun confided to Rosin the details of multiple hoaxes that had already been pulled off by the power-elite cabal (which he explicitly referred to as "A Secretive Transnational Power"). One hoax was the secret agenda to weaponize space, which he said was for world control under an oppressive one-world regime. He said the power-elite were moving to take permanent control of the Earth. According to von Braun, space weapons were really intended for controlling the world but would be justified first as a defense against the Russians, next against terrorists from rogue nations, then as protection against asteroids and meteors, and finally against a threat from outer-space (nowadays known as Project Blue Beam). The crucial aspect of this was that von Braun was a top-level insider who knew how the world really works. He said all these publicly-announced threats were all lies. To illustrate that, he stated that, in 1974, nuclear suitcase-bombs were already available, as also were chemical, viral, bacterial and biological terror-weapons against which such space-based weapons would be have been useless anyway. He also stated that, in 1974, the USA already had the technology to build anti-gravity craft and that such transportation systems could already render pollution by fossil fuels unnecessary. However, von Braun never blew the whistle to explicitly state that Project Apollo Hoax had been a fake. What he certainly did do, though, was to reveal the extent of hoaxing by the power-elite. Von Braun clearly implied that the whole "cold war" and the looming "war on terror" were staged events, and that the power-elite were even more than willing to exaggerate bogus threats to achieve greater, nay, total control over humanity. Dr Carol Rosin described these staged events as "cards" the power-elite would play progressively, and this does indeed very much stand to reason given how we know the London-NY-Axis replaced the staged "cold war" with the staged "war on terror" as soon as around 10 percent of people had stopped believing the "cold war" was real. So the bottom line was that von Braun certainly did confirm that the power-elite were EASILY more than able to pull off major hoaxes, and he did at least hint that it would have been a piece of cake for them to fake a "moon landing" too.;
  1. Bart Sibrel's 2001 documentary "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon" shows all three astronauts of the Apollo 11 Hoax faking an Earth-view while claiming to be 130,000 miles away from the "moon", or roughly halfway there. This sequence stemmed from raw (or unedited) footage that NASA released by mistake to the documentary crew and showing Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins planning and making a very deceptive film depicting the Earth at a distance (along with a one-foot-diameter picture of Earth and a cardboard-crescent-insert) in order to falsely demonstrate their journey "far from" the Earth and their impossible "survival" after the lethal VARB, all with particularly clear behind-the-scenes audio. At the very same time, the real Earth is actually visible from a different capsule window although NASA never explained to the public why two different Earth views were visible from the exact same spacecraft. An atomic clock at the Goldstone Tracking Station dated the reel to 18, 19, 20 Jul 1969, the very days of the Apollo 11 "trip" when NASA claimed the very same astronauts were starting their orbit around the "moon". It is also apparent that the astronauts are in genuine zero-gravity. But because the real Earth is visible, the astronauts are proven to be no further than Low Earth Orbit, or roughly a couple of hundred miles out. Later that evening, NASA claimed the same astronauts were walking on the "moon". But how could that be when they were in Earth Orbit only nine hours earlier and the "moon" would have been a three-day "trip" away? This provided the First Absolute Forensic Proof that the astronauts of the Apollo 11 Hoax could never have been even near the moon on 20 Jul 1969, and provided solid legal grounds to sue NASA and the US regime for embezzlement, deception and fraud. This absolute proof was obtained on account of a chance mistake by NASA when it inadvertently gave raw or unedited footage to Bart Sibrel's crew. Why all this trickery with the window, the crescent-insert and the Earth-view? If the astronauts of the Apollo 11 Hoax had really gone to the moon, then why would they be faking any part of the "trip"? NASA will of course claim the astronauts were "only practicing", but that is just a big lie we refuse to believe anymore.;
  1. The whole idea of taking 70 mm Kodak Ektachrome film unscathed through three van Allen Radiation Belts was always total nonsense. The whole idea of taking Ektachrome photographs on the surface of the "moon" while you're being bombarded by gamma rays and meteorites was more utter nonsense. Because the photos would have all been fogged on account of the VARB, solar flares and lunar gamma rays. Both the Swedish camera manufacturer Hasselblad AB and the US camera manufacturer Eastman Kodak verified they had done nothing to enhance the cameras or the film, and that the film was just regular Ektachrome. So given that you can fog your own Ektachrome film when you go through an airport X-Ray machine, it seems exceedingly odd that the same film would not even get slightly fogged after passing through the van Allen Radiation Belts and spending five whole days being massively bombarded with gamma rays in and around the "moon". I am afraid this all points strongly to a movie-studio yet again.;
  1. The anomalies from the Apollo Hoaxes included thousands of obviously faked photographs, the lack of damage to photographic material from immense temperature fluctuations, no fogging or discoloration from radiation, no lightning streaks from micrometeorites passing by, no stars visible. Photo AS12-46-6765 was removed from the Project Apollo Hoax image gallery after computer analysis revealed that the NASA "sun" was really a giant light bulb. Conclusion: The photos were obviously taken in a "moon"-movie-studio using artificial lighting. These and hundreds of other anomalies show NASA's claimed Apollo story to be a complete and utter fraud. The vast expanses of "space" over the "moon" look completely black and empty. NASA was forced to leave out the stars because amateur astronomy buffs or keen observers would have been able to discern the inaccuracies all the more quickly, and NASA simply did not have the expertise to map out the stars properly. Normally, on a moon having no atmosphere, you would expect the stars to be a quite a sight to behold. Yet NASA spokespeople refuse to even talk of the stars.;
  1. Each Apollo Saturn V rocket lifted a payload into Earth Orbit. NASA explained that this payload included a functioning lunar-module and command-module, and that these were later sent on a trajectory to the "moon". However, if no "moon" landing actually took place, which is almost a certainty, then it is a pretty safe bet that no lunar-module or command-module capable of functioning as advertised was ever on board a Saturn V rocket during lift-off. Thus, we must wonder exactly what payload was actually placed into Earth Orbit during each Apollo mission. Could it be that these payloads were of a military nature? And lacking congressional support for their plans, perhaps the Pentagon and NASA found another means of achieving their goals. If legislators would not support their vision, then NASA only had to dress their vision as one that would be supported. By igniting the public's imagination with a vision of landing astronauts on the "moon" and returning them safely back to Earth (a goal that conveniently included that of placing a military payload into Earth Orbit), the Pentagon and NASA easily obtained the 30 billion USD funding they sought from the unwary US taxpayers (equivalent to over 1.5 trillion USD in 2017 terms). While TV viewers were watching pre-recorded film footage being simulcast worldwide, in reality a NASA crew was busy sending a new military satellite or spy satellite (or other military capsule) into orbit. So was it really only about space exploration, as NASA claimed, or was Project Apollo Hoax really a deception deployed in pursuit of the unilateral yet unauthorized control of space? If each Apollo "trip" was only for depositing a space-capsule in Earth Orbit, then we can gauge what that space-capsule might have been from its weight because the Saturn V rocket would have shed 97 percent of its weight upon reaching Earth Orbit, with the remaining 3 percent representing the permanent space-capsule NASA must (in all likelihood) have put in Earth Orbit.;
  1. Many aerospace insiders have pointed out that if the Saturn V had really worked, then there would have been no need to replace it with the space-shuttle, which was highly inefficient by comparison. If the Saturn V had really worked properly, then the space-shuttle could have started not in 1981 but about 5 years earlier. It is thus highly likely that NASA is telling lies even about the abilities of the Saturn V. And because the claimed performance of the Saturn V was a hoax, NASA was forced to scrap it and start over from scratch, so it designed a whole new system for the space-shuttle that would actually work, even if the shuttle put up only one-sixth as much payload and cost three times as much to launch.;
  1. Using rocket technology, a manned soft-landing on Earth has NEVER been achieved … EVER. A manned soft-landing means backing up onto the surface without a parachute and using the thruster rockets to slow yourself down. In fact, Neil Armstrong nearly broke his neck trying to land the lunar-module on Earth prior to the 20 Jul 1969 hoax. But today, NASA still claims the only six times in history when a manned soft-landing was achieved using rocket technology were on the "moon", with zero success on the Earth. That is so amazing as to be absolutely beyond belief. It defies technological logic because it normally takes hundreds of tries before you get it right and yet NASA tells us it risked the lives of all those "moon" astronauts to achieve the only six manned soft-landings using rocket technology in all of history. In late 2015, an "ISS" astronaut said in an interview "the challenge is getting past 400 miles; it's the radiation, it's the van Allen Belt - that's the challenge we need to try to overcome before we can try to get to the moon". That sounds very much like more conclusive proof that NASA was previously talking nothing but total nonsense about ever having landed on the moon in the first place. It appears we need to go back to square one and start again by asking either NASA (total liars really) or, better still, asking some proper scientists: Exactly how do you get near the moon, orbit the moon, land safely on the moon, and then take off and get back to Earth? And we mean the moon, and not the "moon".;
  1. Shortly before Project Apollo Hoax, NASA launched the Tetra-A Satellite, which was specifically designed to simulate transmissions coming from the "moon" so that the ground crews could rehearse the "landings" during the many simulations (but also never really know for sure what data were being sent to them). By pure "coincidence", NASA claimed the Tetra-A Satellite "accidentally burned up" in the Earth's atmosphere just before the Apollo 11 Hoax. But, in reality, and just because we know what dirty liars NASA people are, it is much more likely that the Tetra-A Satellite was still secretly in service and fulfilling the very same simulation function during the Apollo 11 Hoax, so as to convince even NASA people on the ground of the "validity" of the data they were receiving and of the Apollo 11 "landings" as a whole. Flight director Gene Kranz of the Apollo 13 Hoax was quoted as saying: "The simulations were so real that no controller could discern the difference between the training and the real mission". And a retired ground-crew member recently admitted: "Our computers could not tell any difference whatsoever between a real or simulated mission to the moon". In other words, no personnel at Mission Control could tell the difference between a simulation and real mission! We can finally see here the most likely actual method NASA used to deceive even its own teams on the ground in Houston, in Cape Kennedy etc. And this is also how it was really quite easy to pull off the hoax, given that the grunts on the ground "did not need to know what they did not need to know". The only thing necessary was for the handful of NASA executives and crooked politicians privy to the big picture to keep their mouths shut. Thereafter, everyone else was a total pushover to deceive. We are dealing with a conspiracy that involved up to 400,000 people. Those who claim that you could not hide such a conspiracy are failing to see that the Tetra-A satellite was duping at least 99 percent of NASA employees themselves for the whole of Project Apollo Hoax. And there were no "independent" tracking stations during Project Apollo Hoax. The only entities which had such capability were the USA's own regime agencies (who had themselves orchestrated the hoax) and countries who profited from keeping the secret. So the US regime and NASA had put the fox guarding the henhouse. Easy, really.;
  1. Because Project Apollo Hoax was compartmentalized with each contractor working only on a small portion of the hoax, that meant that only a handful of NASA insiders could see the overall big picture and only that handful would have known it was all a hoax. Bill Kaysing was one such person, and he was the first major insider to declare the emperor unclad.;
  1. Nowadays, among NASA contractors, the clear general consensus is that mankind has NEVER been to the moon. This can easily be verified by e-mailing the contractors for their opinions.;
  1. If you look carefully at the astronauts in the films and photos, you see many wrinkles in their spacesuits as they walked on the "moon". NASA claims that the spacesuits of the astronauts had 5 PSI of pressure which implies that all spacesuits of all astronauts should have been ballooning out. This would have severely restricted their movements and made the astronauts look like the proverbial Michelin Man. None of the astronauts would have been able to tighten his fists at all. But the film and photos of the astronauts all show the very opposite, i.e. spacesuits which are NOT ballooning out, with the astronauts well able to move flexibly and even able make minor modifications or repairs to equipment. Apparently, NASA decided against showing "Actual Michelin Men" because that would have made for very bad TV and even worse PR. Besides, a Michelin Man just does not look the part of an aquiline, alpha Freemason. The spacesuits also had poor zippers which would have caused rapid air leakage given that even a tiny pinhole will deflate a tire. Besides, how were the astronauts able to focus the still-cameras without any viewfinders? In reality, we must again assume that none of the action took place on the "moon", and that NASA is lying.;
  1. Nexus magazine editor Marcus Allen contacted ILC Dover, the spacesuit manufacturer for Project Apollo Hoax. Allen asked if the spacesuits could be used for radiation-protection at radioactive clean-up sites like Fukushima, Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. ILC Dover told Allen: "No! The spacesuits do not provide any radiation protection whatsoever!". To stop radiation penetration, you are really talking about the molecular density of the blocking material, which typically means multiple inches of both solid lead and solid aluminum for starters. This all means the astronauts had zero protection when they allegedly passed through the VARB and thus could never have survived. Hence, NASA is lying when it claims it sent literally dozens of astronauts through the VARB on the way to the "moon" and back. It is also lying when it claims that that these astronauts stood on the "moon" in spacesuits that provided zero radiation protection. In reality, the VARB would have killed everyone on board, but if by some miracle one astronaut had made it through to the lunar surface, the lunar radiation would have finished him off quite easily.;
  1. One Interpol agent stated that Armstrong and Aldrin actually feared for they lives, and that the CIA was prepared with a "Solid-Medical-Reason Scenario" if Armstrong or Aldrin ever decided to spill the beans about Project Apollo Hoax to proper journalists in the alternative media (these being the only journalists left given that the monopoly-media decided to abandon proper journalism around 1980). So Armstrong and Aldrin must have had quite a tough time all those years, and that helps to explain their reclusiveness.;
  1. The first mention of Stan Kubrick faking the moon landings was made by the great Bill Kaysing in a 1970 interview. Kaysing had worked as a technical writer for Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne and he had a special pass called a "Gray Pass" which meant that he could go to any NASA department and be allowed to see absolutely anything he wanted. Kaysing was one of the few who could see the big picture because he was never compartmentalized off (via the "Need To Know" censorship technique). Kaysing testified that he saw an internal memo which NASA circulated in the early 1960s stating that NASA had a one-in-ten-thousand chance of making it to the moon on its first try. He later authored the book "We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle", which he was forced to self-publish in 1975 and which showed that the 1969 leading-edge technology NASA claims to have used for the Apollo Hoax was much closer to fire-wagons than to spaceships. While Bill Kaysing was being interviewed on live radio, a pilot for a major airline called the radio station and stated that Kaysing must be right because this airline pilot had actually seen the Apollo 11 capsule, the astronauts and their enormous parachutes being dropped from the cargo-hold of a Lockheed C-5 Galaxy while he was piloting a nonstop flight from San Francisco to Tokyo at the very time the monopoly-media were claiming they were due to "return" to Earth. Kaysing also stated that none of the Apollo Hoax documents were classified and yet they were all still unavailable to the public. He also emphasized the importance of exposing Project Apollo Hoax so as to unravel the truth in so many other areas too because, once you finally open Pandora's Box, the US regime would be forced to capitulate and stop hiding behind its sham smokescreen of "national security". This does indeed sound plausible. As soon as an open admission is made that NASA lied and that the whole "scientific" establishment covered up its lies, then they (i.e. both NASA and the "scientific" establishment) would swiftly lose legitimacy and that would bring the whole house of cards down.;
  1. After Bill Kaysing published his book in 1975, he did a live radio interview with Victor Boc on Radio KOME San José California. Halfway through the interview, a helicopter dropped napalm on the radio station, causing the interview and the whole station to go off the air. This was Kaysing's first real indication that it might be perceived as un-American to tell the truth about Project Apollo Hoax.;
  1. Why do so many photographs on the surface of the "moon" exhibit a feature-rich foreground that abruptly terminates in a featureless background? In real life, as any photographer knows, the background never starts right after the subject of interest but continues in perspective for ever. This indicated that NASA had decided to use a Grade-Z-Movie backdrop. So had Stan Kubrick used front-screen projection like he did in his "2001; A Space Odyssey" movie, as so many experts claimed? The front-screen-projection method is easy to spot whenever the background is just as much in focus as the foreground. Movie producer Jay Weidner made several documentaries and authored several articles and books explaining Stan Kubrick's techniques in detail. Kubrick's creepy movie called "The Shining" seems to clearly hint that he did indeed suffer at least one nervous breakdown while filming the Apollo 11 Hoax. In the typewriter scene, close scrutiny of the note typed on the German Adler Universal typewriter (on which perfectionist Kubrick insisted) and its font shows "A-Eleven Work And No Play Makes Jack A Dull Boy" (i.e. not the "ALL Work And No Play …" expected by most viewers) repeated hundreds of times. Clearly, Kubrick was confessing quite noticeably here, with "Jack" representing both Kubrick and the main character Torrance. In another major departure from the book authored by Stephen King, Torrance (embodying Kubrick) actually murders Halorann with an ax, leading many to suspect that Kubrick was confessing that somebody actually died in real life due to some indiscretion or mismanagement on Kubrick's own part. Kubrick also insisted that his dreadful movie Eyes Wide Shut be released on 16 Jul 1999, exactly 30 years after the launch of the Apollo 11 Hoax. This indicates that Kubrick felt guilty and wanted to express his revenge for being forced to fake the "moon" landings by exposing the power-elite's double standards. By pure "coincidence", the movie Wag The Dog ends with the CIA liquidating a director called Stanley for inevitable indiscretions.;
  1. The movie "Apollo 11 Hoax Moon Landing", simulcast worldwide on 20 Jul 1969, may have been Stan Kubrick's most famous movie. But that would mean that Kubrick's most famous movie still remains unlisted by IMDB. When IMDB finally agrees to list it, fans will be itching to see the "Goofs" section for which IMDB is so famous. The "Goofs" section will of course be far longer than for any other movie in history because it was made by a director being subjected to enormous NASA interference. Maybe that is why Kubrick hinted that he had at least one nervous breakdown while filming it. An old Hollywood inside joke about Kubrick's perfectionism went: "In six days, God created the Heavens and the Earth. On the seventh day, Stanley Kubrick sent everything back for modifications".;
  1. NASA claims there are still artifacts on the "moon" having been left behind by many of its astronauts. If there are such artifacts, then they might have been placed there by unmanned missions. Hence, artifacts were never "proof" that NASA sent astronauts to the moon. Also, why does NASA not point the Hubble telescope at the moon to view the artifacts left behind? Or why does it not point other telescopes (those even more powerful than the Hubble) at the moon to show us what is there? NASA owns and operates the Hubble. But, because NASA made the Apollo Hoax, there is little chance it would choose to expose it. In order to cover up for NASA, paid shills like Phil Plait and Jay Windley claim that the Hubble cannot resolve down to view the landing-sites. But how much resolution do they actually need? As it happens, the Hubble will in fact comfortably resolve down to 50 meters on the surface of the moon and that would be more than enough to view the "artifacts" allegedly left behind by the astronauts. Many observatory telescopes exist which should be theoretically able to see any alleged "artifacts" but they have all remain strangely silent, and instead all we get are excuses as to why these observatory telescopes are not up to the task, although we already know they are. In reality, NASA does in fact have very-high-resolution photographs of the moon, but does not want to release them to the monopoly-media because the first thing readers and viewers would ask to see would be the "artifacts" left behind by the astronauts from Project Apollo Hoax (which are either nonexistent or were left by unmanned missions). Overall, NASA does not want folks finding out that it actually swindled trillions of dollars from US taxpayers over the decades and may have diverted the money into implementing a world police state for the London-NY-Axis (the Beast [i.e. the English monarch], the City of London and the House of Rothschild). In this context, the excuses supplied by paid shills like Phil Plait and Jay Windley can only be regarded as paltry fig leaves given by people having ulterior motives. All observatory telescopes theoretically able to see the alleged "moon" artifacts have remained strangely silent and all this keeps begging the question: Why has NASA so far refused to give one credible reason for not pointing the Hubble at the moon?;
  1. Each Apollo "moon" hoax claimed to set up experiments as part of its "mission" and that objects left behind were "proof" that the astronauts had been on the "moon". But that is total nonsense because any number of unmanned missions could have placed any number of objects on the moon. NASA often cites the Lunar Laser Ranger as "evidence" its astronauts were on the "moon". But because unmanned missions could have placed it there, that is yet more nonsense. It is also a well-known fact that the Lunar Laser Ranger is not absolutely necessary for international wireless communications because it was always possible in any case, even before Project Apollo Hoax, to bounce signals off the moon. On 9 May 1962 (over 7 years before the Apollo 11 Hoax), a high-powered pulsed ruby laser was successfully aimed at the moon and reflected back off the moon's surface.;
  1. On 9 Nov 2009, NASA announced that its Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) got photos of the Apollo-Hoax "landing"-sites. The first photos released were in black-and-white and were a huge disappointment. Even Google Earth does color. The photos looked a bit like an X-Ray of sheets of blotting paper blotched with ink from a fountain pen. But even worse still was that the lunar-module "landing"-site appeared to be around four times too wide in diameter in the first LRO photo dated Nov 2009. It appeared as a white circular blob roughly 35 meters in diameter (compared to the lunar-module's official width of 9.4 meters) and was surrounded by three-and-a-half white smudges, which NASA presumably added to indicate the lunar-module's feet. The parking spot for the lunar-rover was shown as a circular black blob that caused many experts to cringe and shake their heads in disbelief. Most experts judged the LRO images to be bogus. Why was the parking-spot black and circular? And why did they appear as blobs in the first place?;
  1. James van Allen also pointed out how ridiculous it was that the astronauts could ever have taken off from Cape Kennedy. In the 1930s, the German space-program had favored lifting off from the Antarctic. Van Allen verified the good sense of the German approach saying: "Manned space rockets can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles".;
  1. In his 1953 book "Conquest of the Moon", Wernher von Braun stated: "It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the Earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the Earth's gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to the Earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three … each rocket ship would be taller than New York's Empire State Building (1250 feet) and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800 thousand tons". This was Wernher von Braun, the so-called "Father of the Apollo Space-Program", explaining to the world in 1953 why ALL the Apollo Hoax missions as they actually later transpired were in fact a plain impossibility until such time that such an enormous craft (bigger than the Empire State Building could be built. But Project Apollo Hoax used a three-stage Saturn V (an expendable rocket NASA used from 1966 to 1973) which weighed 3,000 tons, i.e. 266 times smaller than it needed to be according to von Braun's 1953 calculation. It has been argued that Wernher von Braun wrote the above words before the invention of the three-stage Saturn V, and that its invention invalidated his 1953 statements. But that is not the case because the sheer size of the craft NASA needed to reach the moon would have been hundreds of times bigger than the Saturn V and its payload spacecraft combined.;
  1. Werner von Braun also stated that, for man to get to the moon, a space station would FIRST have to be built and THEN a specially constructed spaceship would have to be launched from that space station before even setting out for the moon.;
  1. Arthur C Clarke was a 33rd-degree luciferian-Freemason and child-rapist who moved to Sri Lanka to pursue his depraved lifestyle with impunity. He is credited with being a "huge genius" for inventing the geostationary satellite by writing about it in one of his short stories. But, to NASA's total dismay, revered so-called "expert" Arthur C Clarke referred to the Apollo 11 Hoax as "A Hole In History".;
  1. Renowned historian AJP Taylor described the Apollo 11 Hoax as "The Biggest Nonevent Of My Lifetime". At a public lecture to some 200-300 listeners, PhD astrophysicist Prof James McCanney acknowledged that the 1969-1972 "moon" missions were "A Gigantic Hoax".;
  1. Award-winning cinematographer David Percy stated: "All the photos [in Project Apollo Hoax] were faked and taken on Earth".;
  1. On 28 Jul 2005, Prof André Balogh of the Beast's astronomical society stated: "The problems NASA is having with the space-shuttle show the true reality of space travel in Low Earth Orbit. Visions of manned space travel to the moon, to Mars and beyond are still pure science fiction".;
  1. John Lear stated that the only gas giant in the solar system is NASA.;
  1. In a C-SPAN interview dated 19 Jul 2012, astronaut Buzz Aldrin stated that a moon called Phobos circles Mars once every seven hours and it has its very own monolith (like in Kubrick's movie). But this idea of a monolith on a moon of Mars has to qualify as total nonsense, or else Aldrin was growing senile when he decided to share his factoid. Why? We must remember that, like all astronauts, Buzz Aldrin was a senior luciferian-Freemason. This makes it much more likely that he wanted to promote the creepy "2001" story by fellow-Freemasons Arthur C Clarke and Stan Kubrick and, more broadly, the whole luciferian agenda. It must be remembered that Buzz Aldrin was a fraud who devoted his whole life to deceiving humanity. We must bear in mind that the "2001" story had little to do with space but everything to do with Freemasonry.;
  1. In his "Bad Astronomy" blog, Phil Plait wrote: "In a sense, the astronauts were truly risking their lives to go to the 'moon' because solar flares are not predictable".;
  1. Prior to each Apollo-Hoax movie, the astronauts never had any tension in their voices or their movements prior to taking off. It was as if the astronauts were all going on vacation to Honolulu, and not heading off on a terrifyingly dangerous journey to the "moon". It is most likely they did not dread the journey because they secretly knew it was just another routine trip into Low Earth Orbit (or else because they were already well aware that studio-filming of the hoaxed movie was already "in the can"). Afterwards, during the post-flight press conference, the astronauts actually looked guilty, sad and reluctant.;
  1. Whenever NASA launches a satellite or a space-shuttle from Earth, most of the launch-craft have first-stage and second-stage rockets and thousands of gallons of fuel, but that is only for launching them into Earth Orbit, perhaps two-hundred miles up. Each craft is launched from Earth via a specially-constructed launch-pad. Yet NASA expects us to believe that anyone can just hop off the "moon" without much fuel or any of the other paraphernalia it clearly required for a proper lift-off from Earth. Even with moon gravity at one-sixth that of the Earth, NASA has never managed to make its blast-offs from the "moon" seem at all credible or plausible. We really need some proper reason here as to why no specially-constructed launch-pad was ever needed to lift off from the "moon". Apart from all that, the blast-offs from the "moon" also resembled the usual "Thunderbirds" movies so poorly faked by NASA.;
  1. Based on a statement by Wernher von Braun, the moon may actually have about 64 percent the Earth's gravity and the current official-truth narrative supported by NASA may be a deception based on the wrong science. The current official-truth version is based on inserting an assumed mass for the moon into Ike Newton's "law" of gravitation that yields the moon's gravity as 1.622 meters per second squared, versus Earth gravity of 9.780 meters per second squared. That indicates that gravity on Earth is about 6.03 times gravity on the moon. But in July 1969, Wernher von Braun told Time magazine "At a point 43,495 miles from the moon, lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of the Earth, then some 200,000 miles distant". In other words, he let the truth slip about the neutral point and this was later reasserted by the crew of the Apollo 17 Hoax. At the neutral point, the forces of attraction of the Earth and the moon are equal. According to the Bullialdus-Newton Inverse-Square Law, we can calculate the relative gravity if we know the radiuses and the respective neutral points. So, radius of Earth R(e) = 3,960 miles, radius of moon R(m) = 1,080 miles, distance from the Earth's center to the neutral point X = 200,000 miles, distance from the moon's center to the neutral point Y = 43,495 miles. Hence the moon's surface gravity [let's call it G(m)] relative to the Earth's surface gravity [let's call it G(e)] is described by the formula G(m) / G(e) = Re²Y² / Rm²X² = (3,960)² (43,495)² / (1,080)² (200,000)² = 63.586 percent. But NASA never thought to confirm that one-sixth-gravity was what their astronauts really measured or experienced, or whether the 64 percent gravity predicted by the Bullialdus-Newton Inverse-Square Law had actually been the case.;
  1. By insisting that mankind went to the "moon" in 1969, NASA is claiming illogical, bizarre and farfetched fantasies to be true. But rocket technology could not have surged from small V2 rockets to giant Saturn V rockets in only 30 years. That would be like saying that, in only 30 years, aviation technology jumped from the Sopwith-Camel biplanes in 1918 to Concords. It just does not happen that way. And it just did not happen. NASA is lying, but NASA's big lie is one few intelligent observers believe anymore.;
  1. How come NASA decided to risk human lives rather than first sending an animal around the "moon" and afterwards maybe to the "moon"? If "Lassie" had been lost to the many risks of radiation, micrometeorites, solar flares etc., then even the pet-loving public would have understood. Why would NASA decide to send several men to the moon before it even knew for certain that it was safe? Even though the US regime at the time was headed by genociders Kissinger and Nixon, you would still surely expect that they feared a public backlash from losing humans in "space"? Or was this plainly the real reason they decided to fake it? Because they knew it was impossible? Or because they knew it was too dangerous?;
  1. NASA is a private military corporation (DUNS® number 003259074) which has largely failed to masquerade as a civilian organization. The corporation was formed in 1958 by Psych Eisenhower with the task of scamming the US taxpayers and preserving the status quo. Its biggest mistake was to immediately declare the existence of the VARB (van Allen Radiation Belt), which was to become the greatest nemesis of its most famous hoax and the biggest proof that NASA faked the Apollo 11 "moon" landing and simulcast a movie worldwide on 20 Jul 1969. NASA could have used electrogravitic propulsion for the space-shuttle (thus boosting its speed enormously) but instead it chose to use outdated technology (which it also gave the Russians free-of-charge, with the shuttle debuting in Russia as the Buran). NASA has scammed the public for decades.;
  1. In the 1950s, Thomas-Townsend Brown worked for the US military in Project Winterhaven and discovered (and named) the field of electrogravitics. It is thus possible that NASA already had electrogravitic technology in the 1960s, but it is very probable that it had it by the 1980s. Many mil-intel whistleblowers have stated that the power-elite are creating a "breakaway civilization" for themselves and that the field of science has actually split into two different versions, one for the power-elite and their "black projects" (a version both advanced and secretized) and another slow-moving version for ordinary pedestrians. The true leading-edge of technology, the whistleblowers claim, is between decades and centuries ahead of what is released to ordinary consumers. That would mean that NASA is actually MASKING proper leading-edge technology from the public, and that its true mission was changed to giving the public false views of reality. The whistleblowers state that a secret space-program is in existence, and that the top NASA insiders have been promised their place in (or "admission tickets" to) the "breakaway civilization" so as to better motivate them to lie to the general public, and that these top NASA insiders no longer really care if they get caught lying because the power-elite intend a massive culling of the world's population to below 1 billion in the coming decades anyway. Ben Rich, second director of Lockheed's Skunk Works, also revealed: "Anything you can imagine, we already know how to do". Furthermore, the US military's top brass are also privy to the secret space-program and to the power-elite's agenda, and have got their "admission tickets" too.;
  1. On 10 Sept 2001, one day before the London-NY-Axis attacks on NYC, Donald Rumsfeld admitted to a 2.3 trillion USD "un-documentable adjustment" in the Pentagon and stated that, for one year, NASA had an "un-documentable adjustment" of 500 billion USD. This should make all US taxpayers very angry given that NASA really used this budget to make really shabby, low-quality movies and to talk utter nonsense as a PR cover. By design, neo-con Rumsfeld timed this report's release to the day before the NYC attacks by his masters in the London-NY-Axis (the Beast [i.e. the English monarch], the City of London and the House of Rothschild) since he was confident that the massive 11 September story would easily bury it for them.;
  1. Although the US military claims that the HAARP program has been shut down, its Alaska HAARP facility is still up and running. The USA first deployed covert weather weapons in Vietnam in 1967, for instance to increase rainfall over North Vietnamese positions. Documents written by NASA reveal that so-called "climate change" was largely brought about using the same weather-weapons program. That makes NASA complicit in the alarmist climate-change scam being run by the London-NY-Axis as a guise for creating a world tax system to feed the world's greedy central-banksters and transfer all wealth to the one percent (as always happens with private central banking), this being part of the London-NY-Axis agenda.;
  1. luciferian-Freemasons love astronomy, numerology and geometry, and also the sadistic mockery of their victims. This final aspect mentioned, the sadistic mockery of their victims, explains why they took special delight in launching Project Apollo Hoax. Sirius is crucially important in luciferian-Freemasonic lore. And Sirius was at its zenith when the words "The Eagle Has Landed" from the Apollo-11-Hoax movie were simulcast worldwide on 20 Jul 1969. This was in the "dog days" of the summer of 1969, these dog days so named because they occur at the rise of Sirius (also known as the dog star). The sun was conjoined with Sirius on 4 Jul 1776, when the USA's Freemasons declared independence. The sun was also conjoined with Sirius on 4 Jul 1848, when the USA's Freemasons laid the cornerstone for the DC Monument, a ceremony representing George Washington's apotheosis or elevation to the status of a godhead revered in luciferian-Freemasonry. The Washington monument is 555 feet tall but, rest assured, because by pure "coincidence", it has an extra 20 percent or 111 feet below ground level, so its total height is actually 666 feet. The extra 111 feet were a "fortunate coincidence" that helped to restore luciferian "normality".;
  1. How do we know for sure that Freemasonry is luciferian? Because the writings of top Freemasons such as Albert Pike and Manly-Palmer Hall made this admission abundantly clear and also expounded in great detail about how the Freemasonic godhead is in fact lucifer.;
  1. All astronauts wear mission patches full of occult and luciferian-Freemasonic symbolism, but maybe none more so than the Apollo crews. The names of the missions and craft are almost always those of ancient gods or astrological signs; they always use complex Sacred Geometry (the secrets of which are guarded jealously by luciferian-Freemasons themselves). Why was it "the Eagle" that landed on the Moon? Eagles have long been used to symbolize the crown chakra. Many mission patches feature the caduceus, serpents, eagles and other occult symbols. The STS-58 patch shows a snake coiling up a pole with a V under it on one side, and a caduceus on the other.;
  1. In reality, there was no "Eagle". The Turkey never even left Earth, let alone land on the "moon" or take off again. In reality, NASA pulled off one of the biggest Canards of the twentieth century.;
  1. NASA men are luciferian-Freemasons of the 32nd-degree or higher. It would appear that they are also involved in the drugs business because the states in which they have a strong presence (Florida, Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona) also became the biggest drug states. An inordinate number of NASA members and astronauts are (or were) openly luciferian-Freemasons, and many of them came from luciferian-Freemasonic families. It is likely that even more astronauts and key NASA men are affiliated with the luciferian brotherhood too, but are (or were) not that open about their membership. C Fred Kleinknecht, a top NASA executive at the time of Project Apollo Hoax, was later the Sovereign Grand Commander of the Council of the 33rd-degree of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of luciferian-Freemasonry of the Southern Jurisdiction; James Webb, the second NASA administrator, was a 33rd-degree luciferian-Freemason; Buzz Aldrin was a 33rd-degree luciferian-Freemason of Montclair Lodge 144 in NJ; Gordon Cooper (Mercury 9, Gemini 5) was a 33rd-degree master luciferian-Freemason of Carbondale Lodge 82 in Colorado; Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14 Hoax) was a 33rd-degree luciferian-Freemason of Artesta Lodge 29 in New Mexico; Donn Eisele (Apollo 7 Hoax) was a luciferian-Freemason of Luther Turner Lodge 732 in Ohio; John Glenn (Mercury 6) was a luciferian-Freemason; Gus Grissom (Apollo 1, Mercury 5, Gemini 3) was a master luciferian-Freemason of Mitchell Lodge 228 Indiana; James Irwin (who lied about walking on the "moon" in the Apollo 15 Hoax) was a luciferian-Freemason of Tejón Lodge 104 in Colorado Springs; Walter Schirra (Apollo 7 Hoax, Sigma 7, Gemini 6, Mercury 8) was a 33rd-degree luciferian-Freemason of Canaveral Lodge 339 in Florida; Thomas Stafford (Apollo 10 and 18 Hoaxes, Gemini 7 and 9) was a luciferian-Freemason of Western Star Lodge 138 in Oklahoma; Paul Weitz (Skylab 2, Challenger) was a luciferian-Freemason of Lawrence Lodge 708 in Pennsylvania; Neil Armstrong, Alan Shepard, William Pogue, Vance Brand, and Anthony England all had fathers who were luciferian-Freemasons too (and we all know how heavily luciferian-Freemasonry is into bloodlines, it really loves you after three generations).;
  1. Interestingly, rock-band the Police was one of the first bands to feature three members like the plenum of a Project-Apollo-Hoax movie. Their "Curious Copeland Conspiracy" featured Daddy Copeland as a CIA agent (Miles Copeland Sr from Birmingham Alabama), Mommy Copeland (Lorraine Adie) as an agent of the Beast's mil-intel, brother Miles Copeland Jr as an American entertainment executive who founded IRS Records and managed the Police, brother Stewart Copeland as Police drummer, and finally brother Ian Copeland as Police booking agent and hype specialist, who founded Frontier Booking International (FBI). The cover of Police album Zenyattà Mondatta features the three simians each showing the Eye-Of-Horus Motif, which had been used in the album covers and photos of countless artists who were card-carrying followers of luciferian Aleister Crowley. So, by pure "coincidence", their ventures were called the Police, FBI and the IRS. When they had a hit with the unsubtle lyric "giant steps are what you take walking on the moon", maybe they were hinting they had inside-knowledge about Project Apollo Hoax but were not allowed to share it. But this curious conspiracy does help us more clearly discern why, in Jul 1986, bassist and lead singer Sumner decided to get a permanent divorce from the oppressive Copeland Five.;
  1. Although NASA and the monopoly-media reported that the Challenger blew up in Jan 86, at least six of the seven Challenger astronauts are still alive in 2017. Ellison Onizuka now goes by Claude Onizuka and claims he is his own "identical twin". Challenger pilot Michael J Smith never even bothered to change his name and is now a professor emeritus at University of Wisconsin-Madison. SC McAuliffe is now law-professor SA McAuliffe of Syracuse University. Challenger commander Frank Richard Scobee is now the CEO of Cows in Trees Ltd. Judith Resnik is now a law-professor at Skull & Bones University (sometimes called Yale). Ronald McNair now goes by Carl McNair and also claims he is his own "identical twin". No one knows why the seventh astronaut, Gregory Bruce Jarvis, did not opt to be his own "identical twin" too, or what he went on to become after "dying" along with all the other astronauts in the "Challenger Fireball" movie. The well-known shuttle-name hoax can be abridged as: "The ENTERPRISE called COLUMBIA [pseudonym for the USA] will ENDEAVOR for the DISCOVERY of ATLANTIS and all CHALLENGERs shall be destroyed". Given that space-shuttles Challenger and Columbia were destroyed, that may mean the USA is next slated for destruction in the Grand Plan of luciferian-Freemasonry.;
  1. The Jehovah's Witnesses were invented by Freemason Charles-Taze Russell, who stated that the world would start to end on 2 Oct 1914. luciferian-Freemason Jack Parsons was born on 2 Oct 1914 and he founded Jack Parsons Laboratory (JPL, also called Jet Propulsion Laboratory by NASA). Along with L Ron Hubbard (Scientology inventor), Parsons conducted the spooky "Babalon Working" rituals, designed to invoke the Thelemic goddess Babalon onto Earth. From all this, it seems very likely that the luciferians at the very top of the London-NY-Axis (the Beast [i.e. the English monarch], the City of London and the House of Rothschild) really did intend Project Apollo Hoax as a psy-op (or psychological-operation) to hoodwink humanity. In any case, those creepy luciferians are certainly up to something.;
  1. NASA appears to worship some kind of pagan god and, by pure "coincidence", its main logo includes a serpentine tongue resembling a T so that the NASA logo seems to spell out the word "satan", or at least that is the overall subliminal impression. NASA is obviously working directly for the London-NY-Axis (the Beast [i.e. the English monarch], the City of London and the House of Rothschild).;
  1. The name "Apollo" was chosen because it signifies "lucifer" to the army of luciferians working for Chatham House (RIIA), the CFR and the top of world politics. The UN flag also depicts the nations of the world encircled by the laurel of Apollo. Everyone knows the UN is a private corporation that was founded by dedicated luciferians who were working directly for the UN's owners, the London-NY-Axis.;
  1. NASA is regularly mocked as the "National Academy of Space Actors", as "No Astronauts Should Apply" and as a bunch of "NAS-holes". It has succeeded in massive decades-long hoaxes where it has literally mooned the USA and the whole world. Additionally, as further proof that the "cold war" was in fact staged and yet another total fraud, the Russians and Chinese have played along for decades with the fraudulent stories spewed by NASA, with nary a peep of contradiction out of them, and they continue to do so to this day. When was the last time these ostensible enemies (Russia or China) contradicted the official-truth spouted by the USA's monopoly-media regarding anything, even false-flag attacks committed by regime-terrorists from western mil-intel agencies? Or does the idea of Russia and China actually working together with the USA to corral the world's populace into worldwide collectivism under the UN sound like such an "extraordinary coincidence" after all? After all, the UN officially states that China is its model state or the template it wishes to implement for all countries and, after all, the UN constitution is a virtual copy of that of communist Russia and of the Marxian Manifesto.;
  1. In 1969, the whole Russian establishment knew for sure that the "moon" landings were faked. In Jul 1969, US newspapers reported that employees of Russia's embassy in Washington DC had declared the landings a hoax, but this story was quickly buried. Some say the Russian communists blackmailed the Nixon regime for favors and, in return, played along with the "moon" hoax. Too many facts confirm this. For instance, in 1972, the USA sold one-quarter of its grain crop to communist Russia below the market price (with the USA's wheat subsidy reaching 47 cents a bushel in Aug 1972). If the Russians had accused NASA of fraud, then the US may have exposed Russia's dirty secrets in revenge. But between 1969 and 1977, the Russians had the Lunokhod which could have easily inspected "moon" landing-sites and called the USA's bluff on Project Apollo Hoax. But blackmailing the USA would be much more effective and profitable. Just a few Lunokhod photos of the "landing"-sites NASA claimed as "genuine" would have done the trick. Most diplomatic negotiations between nations take place behind closed doors and only a filtered version is ever reported to the public. This means that many secret deals between nations are going on all the time and no one is necessarily told about them. They often have clauses to cover up each other's crimes. We know from mil-intel whistleblowers that one such secret deal actually made the USA and communist Russia partners in crime throughout the staged "cold war", in which a Hegelian Dialectic was deployed to produce the synthesis of a totalitarian "new world order" and the 1945 polarized map of the world was largely conserved by means of the policy of "containment", created by Chatham House (RIIA) which ordered both sides to jointly adopt it in 1946.;
  1. The day after the Apollo 11 Hoax, Thomas Paine (who was then the NASA administrator) was heard telling intelligence officer Robert C Seamans that the Chinese were currently alleging that the USA faked the mission with the aid of radio-communication signals bounced off the moon. If China (in 1969 not yet that experienced in space technology) knew that Apollo 11 had been a hoax, then it must be assumed that Russia knew even sooner.;
  1. On 18 Dec 1969, the New York Times, mouthpiece journal for Chatham House (RIIA) & the CFR, carried the article "A Moon Landing? What Moon Landing?" by science-reporter John Noble Wilford. This report suggested: "the Apollo 11 'moon' walk last July was actually staged by Hollywood on a Nevada desert".;
  1. The 1971 Bond movie "Diamonds are Forever" was significant because Ian Fleming was still alive and being kept abreast of developments by his own mil-intel contacts. In the movie, fictional MI6 tuxedo-assassin James Bond stumbles in on a private movie-studio faking a "moon" landing, featuring rounded "moon"-rocks and astronauts moving too slowly to catch Bond, who then smashes out of the studio in a moon buggy which just happens to be a cross between the lunar-module and the lunar-rover used in Project Apollo Hoax. Without doubt, this Bond scene was more whistle-blowing on a very grand scale.;
  1. On 15 Feb 2001, "news" network Fox (often stylized Faux) gave NASA an enormous headache by broadcasting the documentary "Did We Land on the Moon?", which called Armstrong and Aldrin nothing but frauds and stooges for the US regime. It alleged the whole thing had been staged inside a film studio on a US military base in the Mojave Desert. Furthermore, it claimed the astronauts spent the entire "mission" in a film studio either at Area 51 in Nevada or at Norton Air Force Base in San Bernardino California, and were later dropped by parachute from a military transport plane over the Pacific.;
  1. From color films inside the spacecraft, we know that the astronauts brought a high-resolution color video camera with them on their Apollo-11-Hoax "trip" to the "moon". So why did they "forget" to use it for what NASA billed to be one of the greatest events in history? Why use such low quality for this "most historic event"? Unless of course, you have something to hide. Was it because they felt that a poor low-definition monochrome film would look "more realistic"? Of course, a poor low-definition monochrome camera would also be better at concealing awkward details, such as actor wires or studio props, whereas a color film would have let the cat out of the bag that NASA had actually faked it all. So was that why they left their high-resolution color video camera on board?;
  1. Why do the attitude-changes and rotations carried out by the lunar-module (or its ascent stage) look so mechanical? And how come they occur so instantaneously? It all looks too much like "Thunderbirds".;
  1. The radio signals and data signals monitored may have been transmitted from the Earth and reflected back by bouncing the signal off the moon. They may have been transmitted via a leased channel. Or they may have been transmitted from the Tetra-A Satellite or from the "moon"-movie-studio. And if NASA really left such valuable equipment on the "moon" as a Lunar Laser Ranger or other paraphernalia it keeps claiming, then why did NASA stop using this valuable equipment it left on the "moon", or why is it not still using it today? Why does NASA keep insisting that it shut it down in the 1970s?;
  1. How come, in the Apollo-Hoax photographs, the shroud over the descent-engine of the lunar-module looks as though it had never been heated above room temperature even though this shroud was designed to deal with exhaust temperatures of up to 1482 degrees centigrade?;
  1. During the original live broadcast in the state of Western Australia, viewers and newspapers there reported seeing a Coke bottle in the Apollo 11 "moon"-dust. This was because Western Australia received a unique version of the live coverage not broadcast anywhere else. This was yet more proof of monkey business in Project Apollo Hoax.;
  1. During the Apollo 17 Hoax, NASA shot numerous films on the "moon" but none of the Apollo-17-Hoax films show Harrison Schmitt at "Tracy's Rock". Yet, the most popular still-photograph of the whole Apollo 17 Hoax was Schmitt at "Tracy's Rock". So did Eugene Cernan decide to switch off or not use his TV-camera at "Tracy's Rock"? This was another continuity error that badly embarrassed NASA, these discrepancies between the film shot by the TV-camera and the still-photos shot using the Hasselblad 500. NASA overlooked this blunder and decided the best "strategy" was its good-old "No Comment" routine.;
  1. Despite numerous photos being taken on the surface of the "moon", not one of them shows the Earth in the void of space. The famous "Earthrise" photograph was not taken from the surface of the "moon" and it is a clear fake which NASA attributes to astronaut William Anders during the Apollo 8 Hoax. NASA claims that, in Dec 1968, one of its "Thunderbirds"-like deepfreezes circled the "moon" and became known as the Apollo 8 Hoax. Still in 2017, the inexistence of a single photo of the Earth from the surface of the "moon" would appear to be very poor planning on the part of NASA because most earthlings would have loved to have seen JUST ONE such photo, which would have become an enormous hit and a historic exploit.;
  1. In the 1990s, thousands of computer users examined the "Earthrise" photograph in Adobe Photoshop. By simply increasing the exposure level, they could clearly see that NASA had actually pasted a rectangular "Earth" poster onto the background of its 1968 photo to make a composite, thus proving that not even the celebrated "Earthrise" photo had been genuine. Anyone is welcome to adjust the exposure level and prove this for himself, and thus also prove yet again that NASA is really a gang of racketeers.;
  1. It has proved an acute embarrassment to NASA that the famous "Earthrise" photograph also had a massive sizing error. Over the decades, thousands of experts have pointed out the massive sizing error, stating that the Earth seen from the "moon" should be at least four times bigger in the sky than the moon seen from Earth. Recklessly, NASA never thought to show a bigger Earth in its faked "Earthrise" photo or in the faked "Earth-view with cardboard-crescent-insert" which the three Apollo-11-Hoax astronauts were caught filming on 18, 19 and 20 July 1969 (as shown in the 2001 documentary "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon").;
  1. Nowadays, many photos of the Earth released by NASA are proven to be obvious copy-and-paste jobs, with the exact same cloud pattern repeating multiple times over the oceans. So if NASA can so easily fake pictures of Earth, how hard would it be for NASA to fake pictures of other planets? If you photograph the underside of your frying pan, you just might make a more realistic "Jupiter" picture than NASA ever did. NASA is a Photoshop specialist that loves to blur and hide objects from existing images, loves to create fake galaxies and stars, and is of course totally addicted to producing movies of events that never even happened.;
  1. NASA issued one image of "Jupiter" in 2014 and another in 2016. It had added CGI auroras to the north pole of the 2016 "Jupiter", but NASA forgot to change the cloud-cover over the whole planet "Jupiter" for the two-year interim period. So was NASA claiming that the clouds had not moved one inch in two years? Or is NASA really running an intelligence test to find the earthlings who are clever enough to spot its hoaxes? Regrettably, it seems that, only a minority of earthlings manages to catch on to pass this test.;
  1. NASA has scammed the public for decades. On 8 Dec 1990, NASA claimed its Galileo spacecraft had accomplished an "Earth flyby" except that the film NASA released was easily proved a poor fake because its alleged "twenty-five-hour footage" of a spinning Earth actually featured no cloud movement whatsoever over the Earth for the entire twenty-five-hour period. This was such an obvious "blunder" that many experts reiterated that NASA could only be running some kind of extravagant intelligence test to see how many earthlings were able to spot what could only be deliberate hoaxes. Regrettably, too many earthlings keep flunking these NASA intelligence tests.;
  1. In 2015, NASA released a video purporting to be of the "moon" passing by the Earth. The hype went: "actual satellite images of the far side of the 'moon', illuminated by the sun, as it crosses between the DSCOVR spacecraft's Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) and telescope and the Earth, a million miles away". But how could a tiny camera 1.3 million miles away from the Earth take a perfect series of photos of the Earth without a single shift in position? Remember, NASA simultaneously assures us that the Earth spins at 1000 MPH and orbits the sun at 66,600 MPH. Also, the clouds on Earth did not move (a common "feature" of NASA photos). Also, the "moon" failed to cast any shadow on the Earth's surface. And there was not a single star in sight (which is an old NASA tradition). Clearly, NASA was pulling yet another hoax. But who spotted it?;
  1. Astronaut Neil Armstrong's sister, Natasha Armstrong-Warner, stated that Armstrong only went to the "moon" when he was high on the LSD that NASA gave him.;
  1. Astronaut Neil Armstrong actually refused NASA permission to release any of the still-photographs of him on the "moon". This is because Armstrong had a conscience and did not approve of scamming the public with pictures actually taken in the "moon"-movie-studio. Armstrong is said to have suffered from mental illness in his later years and he was notorious for his reclusiveness. He clearly felt guilty about having put his name to such an enormous historical hoax. He may also have become paranoid by the overwhelming number of websites exposing him as a liar, because it must unfortunately be conceded that Armstrong was indeed a liar, albeit a reluctant one. Was Armstrong buried at sea because he feared someone might tamper with his grave, had it been on land?;
  1. On the 25th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Hoax in 1994, Neil Armstrong made a cryptic speech at the White House in which he stated: "There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers". Clearly, he was hoping the US regime would soon tell the truth about Project Apollo Hoax because that might encourage those whom the hoax had caused to lose hope. In 2005, Armstrong stated "I guess we all like to be recognized not for one piece of fireworks but for the ledger of our daily work". Here, many felt he was belittling the Apollo 11 Hoax as "just a piece of fireworks", and that he was implicitly stating that the Apollo 11 Hoax was really just a showbiz firecracker-exhibition, and that he had never in fact really gone to the moon. His cryptic statements do seem to imply this.;
  1. On 9 Sep 2002, Buzz Aldrin was lured to a Beverly Hills hotel on the pretext of being interviewed for a TV show on the subject of space. When he arrived, Bart Sibrel and a film crew accosted him and demanded he swear on the Bible that the "moon" landings were not faked, insisting that Aldrin and others had lied about walking on the moon. Aldrin was forced to refuse because he knew that the "moon" landings had been hoaxed and that Sibrel was right. After a brief confrontation, in which Sibrel called Aldrin "A Coward, And A Liar, And A Thief" (on reflection a fairly balanced, accurate and truthful statement), Aldrin punched Sibrel in the jaw, and this was filmed by the crew. Aldrin's unwillingness to swear was yet more powerful evidence he had never been to the moon. Tellingly, the vast majority of astronauts to whom Sibrel gave the same challenge actually refused to swear on the Bible that they had actually walked on the moon.;
  1. In Bart Sibrel's 2004 documentary "Astronauts Gone Wild", Buzz Aldrin is again cornered by Sibrel. But when Aldrin cannot think of any good reply to Sibrel's probing questions, he just states dejectedly: "You are talking to the wrong guy. Why don't you speak to the NASA administrator? We were just passengers, we were guys going on a flight". With these words, Aldrin was saying he had been "on a flight" (but that flight may never have been to the moon) and his excuse also sounded so much like the classic "only-following-orders" excuse or "only-doing-my-job" apology. Careful speech analysis would seem to indicate that Aldrin was making an implicit admission that the Apollo "trips" did not go to the moon but that this was not his call, i.e. that the whole hoax was the work of the very top of NASA (administrator accountable).;
  1. Rumor had it that Apollo 12 astronaut Pete Conrad wanted to go public about the faked "moon" landings on the thirtieth anniversary of the Apollo 11 Hoax in 1999. But, by pure "coincidence", Conrad was killed in a motorcycle "accident" only days before the anniversary.;
  1. In later life, Apollo-15-Hoax astronaut James Irwin became a Born-Again Christian, and Lee Galvani asked Irwin to tell the truth about Project Apollo Hoax, gradually making some inroads into Irwin's conscience. So Irwin contacted Bill Kaysing but suddenly seemed to regret the phone-call, because he asked Kaysing to instead call him at home that coming Friday in Colorado Springs "because their line might be tapped". When Kaysing called Irwin, he learned that Irwin had died of a "heart attack" that Thursday, one day prior to his returning the phone-call.;
  1. World celebrity illusionist Uri Geller said NASA "crudely faked all the Apollo 'moon' photographs".;
  1. Astronaut Dr Brian O'Leary stated: "Regarding Apollo, I cannot say 100 percent for sure whether these men walked on the moon". He also commented: "If some of the film was spoiled, it is remotely possible that NASA may have shot some scenes in a studio environment to avoid embarrassment". These are major statements because they come from an astronaut who worked on the Apollo 11 "mission".;
  1. During the 1986 Challenger Commission on the space-shuttle disaster, the eminent physicist Richard Feynman found that the analysis, claims and methodology given by NASA was consistently incorrect. In a lengthy paper, Feynman made several observations that seem remarkably applicable to the NASA of 1969 too. He wrote that NASA "exaggerates the reliability of its product to the point of fantasy" and stated that NASA "owes it to the citizens from whom it asks support, to be frank, honest and informative. And so that these citizens can make the wisest decisions for the use of their limited resources for a successful technology, Reality Must Take Precedence Over Public Relations; Because Nature Cannot Be Fooled". This was so embarrassing to NASA that it was forced to relegate it to a mere appendix within the Challenger commission's final report. One thing Feynman actually failed to highlight was the even bigger lie NASA had told about astronauts actually having died in its "Challenger Fireball" movie, which was of course totally false. So NASA even managed to degrade Feynman's reality, if only temporarily.;
  1. During Project Apollo Hoax, NASA claimed to have landed six out of seven COMPLEX "manned" craft on the "moon", thus claiming an 86 percent success-rate (or over 90 percent if you count the Apollo 13 Hoax as only a semi-failure). After Project Apollo Hoax, twenty-five SIMPLE unmanned craft were sent to "Mars" but only seven succeeded, i.e. a lower but far more realistic 28 percent success-rate for "Mars". How likely is it that the USA, a country whose citizens seem to really crave happy endings, wanted so badly for Project Apollo Hoax to succeed that US citizens were willing to swallow the entire deception hook, line and sinker, just because President Kennedy had wished it to into reality?;
  1. Project Apollo Hoax had simply too many things which could have gone wrong. Apollo consisted of millions of individual components, all of which had to function perfectly. In addition, there had to be eighty particular distinct operations or segments. In other words, the booster had to separate from the command-capsule, the lunar-module had to be turned around and connected to the command-capsule etc. All kinds of things had to work correctly, and work with perfect timing. And all kinds of things were apt to go wrong. But using the mathematics of probability, if five things must go right and each of them has a 64 percent probability of succeeding, then the probability of all five going right is actually lower than 11 percent. Alas, that is what we call REALITY. And that is precisely why Project Apollo Hoax could never have happened in reality. Furthermore, the probability of seven separate "trips" bringing all the astronauts back has to be extremely slight. Besides that, we all know that Murphy's Law applies in reality, and that nothing new in technology ever works right the first time. And that is why all the earthlings who already passed the "Project Apollo Hoax Intelligence Test" already know that Project Apollo Hoax was all just a big movie.;
  1. In Aug 1987, space-shuttle astronaut Sally Ride wrote a report titled "Leadership and America's Future in Space" stating that IF NASA was given enormous funding, then it would be able to land men on the moon by 2010. This is yet more indication that Project Apollo Hoax never even went near the moon. NASA was basically admitting that it needed another 23 years to get men on the "moon" for the seventh time, and yet it claimed it had gotten men on the "moon" six times after JFK simply called for it.;
  1. In the "ISS", NASA astronauts are regularly caught wearing scuba tanks and snorkels in the "ISS" coverage NASA itself releases. This has led many investigators to ask why NASA needs equipment to prevent drowning, and whether they were faking the "ISS" (dubbed international swimming station) using facilities on Earth? Suspiciously, female "ISS" astronauts all perm their hair vertically to "simulate" zero gravity, except that the perms go horizontal whenever they look down, instantly highlighting the swindle. Suspiciously, no necklace ever goes vertical like their faked perms do. Insiders have confirmed that NASA is only able to simulate zero gravity for a maximum of 30 to 40 seconds. A lot of evidence has surfaced indicating that NASA is faking the "ISS" using computer-generated imagery (CGI), harnesses, green-screens and a nice big swimming pool. NASA actually does its "space walks" in the Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory near Johnson Space Center Houston, but it claims this is "for test purposes only" (a likely tale when we already know what dirty liars NASA spokespeople are). Normal airplanes reach zero gravity over 33,000 feet. NASA has become notorious for using this trick for "simulating" (or faking) the "ISS".;
  1. On live TV, astronaut Chris Cassidy accidentally admitted that NASA was currently filming the "ISS" from a plane flying in US airspace ("… across the United States from where we are talking to you right now").;
  1. NASA published a picture of the "ISS" taken from 250 miles above the Earth's surface, but also published the background photo too, onto which it had pasted an image of the "ISS". Unfortunately for NASA, the background photo was proven to have been taken from only 6 miles above the Earth's surface and NASA critics had discovered yet more fakery. This was one of very many occasions when NASA experts proved that NASA experts were lying and that many NASA experts are nothing but professional liars.;
  1. NASA has failed to properly explain the sound of roaring jet-engines clearly audible in all full-motion scenes filmed inside the "ISS". Could it be that airplane thing again?;
  1. Whenever a space-shuttle landed, the sound of roaring jet-engines was plainly audible too. But NASA always failed to properly explain this. Many skeptics have pointed out that the space-shuttle was just some kind of glorified jet airliner dressed up in loads of hype and BS. Will NASA soon be forced to confess that the whole space-shuttle story was smoke and mirrors too? If it was so valuable, then why was it given to Russia free-of-charge?;
  1. NASA released its "Official Earth Image 2012" but South America was missing from it, maybe NASA had accidentally airbrushed it out. This resulted in severe criticism, prompting NASA to resize the continents and make really sure that South America was visible on its "Official Earth Image 2013". Would NASA please explain how a whole continent could disappear and reappear and how it expects the public to believe anymore that ANY of its composite CGI photos are real? And what about continents that change size from year to year? Internet users regularly call on NASA to "Make Up Your Mind!" because its "Official Earth Image" released annually has changed so frequently, but also so ridiculously and dramatically, every year since 1975. And the exact same can be said of NASA's highly unreliable "Blue Marble" series.;
  1. In 2015, NASA published the first high-resolution pictures of its "fly-past of dwarf-planet Pluto". But there was uproar when alert earthlings spotted the clear outline of the Disney dog Pluto in the photos, which was superimposed on the surface of the "planet". Was this because NASA white-hats were again trying hard to reveal the truth to the public? O'Bomber congratulated NASA on its "historic achievement", but he may well have just been congratulating NASA on the effectiveness of their hoax.;
  1. NASA actually admits that all its photos are composites, with the excuse that they "have to be" composites in order to capture each section of the Earth (or other planet in question). Today in 2017, NASA claims to possess advanced technologies, but it still does not have even ONE SINGLE proper or real photo of the whole Earth or ONE real video of the whole Earth (on account of its overindulgence in CGI). How can this be? Is it perhaps because NASA has something huge to hide?;
  1. NASA has failed to explain why Google Earth users spotted several NASA "Mars" Rovers driving across the Arizona desert making movies and taking photos. This has got to be the biggest joke of the century but the monopoly-media somehow fail to call NASA out on what looks to be a giant scam. Is NASA shooting "Mars" photos in Arizona and then tingeing them red? The monopoly-media's job is to parrot the official-truth narrative (as per "copy-and-paste school of criminal journalism"). In late 2015, amateur astronomer Joe White studied an image on "Mars" which had been officially released by NASA. He found "possibly a very large mouse or other rodent". With its Giant Mouse on "Mars", NASA had perhaps given earthlings their second biggest joke of the century too.;
  1. NASA claims that its "Mars" Rover was able to take a photograph of itself, dubbed the Rover's self-portrait. When asked to explain this, NASA claimed it was down to "precision robotics … and a bit of artistic photo-shopping". So it was either fancy high-tech or, knowing NASA, it was much more likely made-up fiction. Alert earthlings have ridiculed NASA, charging that it is running yet another hoax to justify the legalized larceny officially referred to as the NASA budget.;
  1. NASA claims that "Mars" Rovers landed on "Mars" and are sending back images from there. But these "Mars" Rovers could in fact be stationed at remote locations on the Earth as part of a well-organized deception, because some photographs allegedly taken on the surface of "Mars" appear to show objects commonly found on Earth; starting with a small rodent identified as possibly an Arctic lemming, a lump of wood possibly from an old railroad crosstie, the vertebras of a large sea-creature, a bone identified as likely the arm-bone of a walrus, lichen growing on rocks, hatched eggshells and fossilized crinoids. Some photos prove NASA falsified the colors in its images. Experts have suggested NASA may be using remote locations such as Devon Island Canada, Svalbard Norway or Arizona USA.;
  1. On "Mars", how did NASA get the lithium-ion batteries in MER-A Spirit and MER-B Opportunity to last for well over a decade as it keeps claiming? Did that work for the batteries of your last laptop too?;
  1. NASA says the operating temperature-limits for its "Mars" Rover are minus 40 degrees to plus 40 degrees centigrade, but the average surface temperature on Mars proper is estimated to be minus 55 degrees centigrade. So NASA is still not getting its engineering basics or even its facts right.;
  1. In Aug 2012, when NASA received the first thumbnail picture from "Mars", it released a movie showing dozens of actors in blue T-shirts standing in a "control room" at Jack Parsons Laboratory (JPL), playing the role of Curiosity Team "monitoring" the descent to "Mars". But whereas having a "control room" for a "trip" to the "moon" is quite plausible, why would you have a "control room" for a "trip" to "Mars", given that the signals would take up to 20 minutes to get to "Mars" and back? Would this whole "control room" take a tiresome, extended coffee-break each time it clicked a signal but had to wait? Twenty-four long-drawn-out coffee-breaks a day might really start to take their toll. Remember, even NASA assures us that Mars is 130 million miles distant. The movie then shows a big fanfare with the NASA Curiosity Team clapping to "Odyssey data are very strong, Woo Hoo!". Then comes the enormous anticlimax when the thumbnail picture arrives from "Mars". But this was just another Z-Movie by NASA, nothing for the Oscars to take seriously. Maybe these NASA actors got the part just because they looked the part?;
  1. Proper scientists and proper astronomers around the world know well that man has never been to the moon and that Project Apollo Hoax was a total fake. But these proper scientists and proper astronomers must keep their mouths shut because they rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from satellites in outer-space. That is why they are scared to death of publicly chiding or denouncing NASA since they fear being deprived of this essential data on which they are clearly so dependent. It is just like communist Russia with officials afraid to speak out against the central Moscow regime for fear of Siberia. It is high time that this monopoly over the whole "space" narrative was ended. We demand an end to centralized soviet censorship by NASA, and we want proper journalism brought back in its place. It is of course also the case that most professors, scientists, astronomers will refuse to stray from the established or officially accepted view so as not to put their own careers in jeopardy (they might lose their tenure).;
  1. The deployment of the number 11 for the first "landing" on the "moon" was a dead giveaway that luciferian-Freemasons (who are addicted to numerology) were running another hoax because they generally reserve the number eleven for psychological-operations. Whenever you see the number eleven, it is not proof but a strong indication that luciferian-Freemasons are about to cast a spell in their capacity as black-magicians or alchemical sorcerers. The London-NY-Axis reuses the number eleven, or multiples thereof, quite often for many of its contrived psychological-operations and events like for the WW1 armistice (taking effect at the eleventh hour, on the eleventh day and the eleventh month in 1918), the Apollo 11 Hoax, or for its many terror attacks against humanity e.g. on 11 Sep 01 in NYC, 11 Mar 04 in Madrid (exactly 911 days later), false-flag terror events killing 77 victims on the 22nd of a month, or 11 Mar 11 for Fukushima (John Lear stated that there was no 9.0 earthquake prior to the disaster because all tall buildings and spires are still standing in all photographs, but that a "unidirectional tsunami", which never managed to head in the direction of the US coast, was triggered by Rothschild-Zionist Mossad which, to induce the "unidirectional tsunami", detonated a nuclear bomb in the ocean about 50 miles north-east of the power plant, and that Rothschild-Zionist Mossad altered the security-controls so that none of the emergency systems would work). Nowadays, many false-flag terror attacks by the London-NY-Axis richly feature the number eleven or multiples thereof. Aleister Crowley described the luciferian significance of eleven when he called it "the number of black magic in itself and therefore suitable to all types of operation … the unsacred number of the new eon, the eon of Horus".;
  1. luciferian-Freemasons use alchemical sorcery to turn "nothing into something" which is their equivalent of turning dull lead into gold. Alchemical sorcerers are Kabbalistic black magicians, and the Kaballah is essentially a system of black magic for creating something out of nothing. Kabbalists believe that magic controls reality. NASA is really just a bunch of luciferian-Freemasons, alchemical sorcerers and illusionists, who put on costumes, pretend to be "scientists" and turn the lowest-budget movies and the lowest-quality CGI images and videos into veritable trillions of dollars. NASA gives its ventures lofty titles like experiment, endeavor, enterprise, adventure, project, chance, feat, exploit, undertaking, peril, hazard, pursuit and challenge but they might as well call it Cosa Nostra because NASA is just the Mafia in fancy dress.;
  1. Other famous ventures of alchemical sorcery to create "money for nothing" include: deceitful advertising or marketing, money printing, banking (amateurs rob a bank, professionals found one), central-banking (to enslave nations into paying interest in perpetuity to central-banksters), pump-and-dump stock and forex scams, financial derivatives, the entire financial system, synthetic medicine, pseudoscience (including psychiatry, fake scientists and dubious "laws" of thermodynamics), pharmaceuticals, tell-lie-vision (a kind of hypnosis for maintaining support for the totalitarian system of Organized Crime and to control humanity by keeping it in its lower chakras), the monopoly-media (no mention yet of Chatham House, the CFR or rule by total secrecy), the sovietized "education" system (for killing common sense), movies (counting low-budget Apollo-Hoax movies too), movie stardom (including for astronauts), Mickey Mouse & Co, celebrity gossip (for diverting attention from the real deal), pop music, pop stardom, fast food and French fries, Coca Cola, Pepsi, arena sports, soccer, the Olympics, the tax system (let us cut this "magic" to the bone), government interference (let us cut this "magic" to the bone too), red tape and superfluous legal regulations (for driving small firms out of business), the war economy, the UN (unneeded, peace on Earth can begin when you simply scrap central banks), the entire Freemasonic political system (Tweedledum versus Tweedle-Dumdum), PNAC's "alchemical" call for a "New Pearl Harbor" in Sep 2000, and Lucky Larry Silverstein's "magic" WTC insurance policy. Hey presto! The magician's fingerprints are all over these deals and ventures. Perhaps the biggest magician's trick of all was to convince people that they actually needed magicians controlling them in the first place. But they do not! NASA is just one more bunch of magicians engaged in conjuring shades of green for the Great Magician, the Wizard of Oz, at the lavish expense of humanity. So let us be rid of them!;
  1. Although Nixon was president while Project Apollo Hoax was running, he was not directly responsible, even though he did know, or should have known, it was faked. The planning and preparation into faking the "moon" landing began in the early 1960s, and hence Lyndon B Johnson was the president who had the most inside knowledge of Project Apollo Hoax. Johnson classified many Apollo documents until 2026.;
  1. NASA has come under increasing attack over the past decade and many major insiders have called it out regarding its repeated fakery. Wild claims by NASA include those regarding the atmosphere of Venus and hundreds of lies it has told regarding the Earth, "moon" and solar system. Prominent NASA communicator Neil Disgraced Tyson still cannot even make up his mind whether the Earth is spherical, or oblate, or pear-shaped. It is really time for some truth here. So would NASA please supply the very first genuine photo of the whole Earth and the very first evidence it really went to the moon?;
  1. The US General Accounting Office concluded that NASA had rigged tests during the Star Wars (SDI) missile-defense program to make it seem more advanced than it really was. The excuse NASA tried to give for this scandal was that it was designed to fool the Russians about US military readiness, so that the fakery was thus justified, it claimed. But surely now, decades after the London-NY-Axis ended its staged "cold war", it is high time for NASA to simply fess up?;
  1. NASA takes a "No Comment" approach whenever requested to put good ideas into action. The criminally corrupt monopoly-media allow NASA to get away with robbing its enormous budget from the scammed US taxpayers. It is a case of sheer fraud when this huge budget only gets invested in deceiving the backers themselves. The scammed victims need to demand some truth from NASA, from the monopoly-media and of course from the US regime.;
  1. A BellCom insider who worked for NASA stated: "We lied about EVERYTHING; none of it was true". In late 2016, NASA was caught faking "space" at Boise State University in Idaho. Some very wise earthlings were called kooks for just stating that most "space" is being faked by NASA.;
  1. None of the spacecraft in Project Apollo Hoax went to the moon. NASA only improved its skill at staging the very same hoax, over and over, as it went along. The movie for the Apollo 12 Hoax, simulcast on 19 Nov 1969, only achieved low ratings among American TV viewers, so NASA needed a publicity stunt for the Apollo 13 Hoax, so as to keep tax dollars flowing into its fraudulent scam. That explains the totally contrived life-and-death story for the Apollo 13 Hoax which allegedly featured astronauts space-acting on "live radio". NASA wanted to "encourage" the public to take going to the "moon" more seriously, and to get them to reconnect with the "drama" of NASA's entire phony narrative.;
  1. Nowadays, many mil-intel whistleblowers, some even NASA insiders themselves, fully admit that NASA's great motto of in the 1960s was indeed: "If We Can't Make It, We'll Fake It".;
  1. The first time the line "Houston, We Have A Problem" was spoken during Project Apollo Hoax was during the Apollo 13 Hoax. The reason is because Stan Kubrick wrote both the Apollo 13 Hoax script for NASA, and the script for his own "2001; A Space Odyssey". It is in very similar circumstances that these words get spoken in both scripts. By pure "coincidence", the line "Houston, We Have A Problem" from the Apollo 13 Hoax script was timed to the 13th hour of the 13th day of the 13th Apollo Hoax (and the name of this mission featured 13, the occult number of sacrifice, the phoenix (or eagle), death and rebirth). Another similarity between the two movies was that the craft in the Apollo 13 movie had very similar damage to that of the Odyssey in the "2001" movie. In both cases, it was attributed to an exploding oxygen tank. Stan Kubrick had clearly grown very sloppy by repeating the same screenplay and by filling it with nonsensical allusions to occult garbage the public would much prefer to jettison. Come on, Stanley, knock it off! Would you please just stop being so tiresomely repetitive and so shamelessly corny?;
  1. The motto "Houston, We Have A Problem" remains on the lips of all NASA people to this day. The main NASA motto is "For The Benefit Of All". To which you might ask: "All What?". To which it might answer: "For The Benefit Of All … NASA Budget Recipients".;
  1. It is very likely that many aspects of Project Apollo Hoax were copied from Fritz Lang's 1929 movie "Frau Im Mond" (on which rocket scientist Hermann Oberth worked as an advisor long before he joined Project Apollo Hoax). The "moon" surface's appearance seems to have been copied from Lang's movie. Lang also accused NASA of stealing his "10, 9, 8 …" blast-off sequence for the Saturn V on account of its highly dramatic effect, although Lang had indeed failed to copyright it. In reality, NASA has only ever been a kind of Hollywood copycat. We need to replace NASA with proper scientists instead!;
  1. Websites exposing the Apollo Hoax, i.e. disclosing that NASA clearly faked the "moon" landings, now far outnumber the untrue "Apollogist" propaganda websites that claim that humans actually landed on the "moon". But the untrue "Apollogist" websites still fail worse than NASA at providing any credible evidence. If you believe NASA went to the "moon", then please be prepared to prove this scientifically without relying on the dictum "Because NASA Told Me So". NASA has lost all its credibility and it is now really very late in the game, so it may also be time to stop relying on a bunch of proven liars. You simply cannot take it on faith that the Apollo moon landings were real when the "space" agency telling you so is a known liar.;
  1. NASA had not perfected any lunar landing craft in time for the Apollo 11 Hoax on 20 Jul 1969. In 2017, over 48 years after Apollo was supposed to have done just that, NASA is still trying to get a rocket to land and take off again. On 20 Jul 2019, the fiftieth anniversary of the Apollo 11 Hoax, will NASA and the US regime finally alter the official-truth narrative and concede it was all a hoax? Or will the Russians beat them to it? An even better idea altogether would be to abolish NASA and replace it with proper scientists.;
  1. For too long, NASA was guided by bosses who countered any objections on credibility grounds with statements like "We'll Keep Telling The Public That Such-And-Such Is True Until They Believe Us". But this particular "Wash-Rinse-Repeat" approach stopped working at least two decades ago. This "Wash-Rinse-Repeat" method already resides in the dustbin of history and a much wiser public is now demanding scientific proof for any BS story NASA claims to be true. Earthlings are no longer responding "properly" to the hackneyed mind-control techniques deployed by NASA and its many shills.;
  1. The true facts surrounding all Apollo missions are as follows: Apollo 8 did 92 Earth orbits; Apollo 10 did 121 Earth orbits; Apollo 11 did 123 Earth orbits; Apollo 12 did 154 Earth orbits; Apollo 13 did 90 Earth orbits (and all its so-called life-and-death problems were really simulated in Earth Orbit); Apollo 14 did 136 Earth orbits (without Alan Shepard on board); Apollo 15 did 186 Earth orbits; Apollo 16 did 168 Earth orbits; and finally Apollo 17 did 191 Earth orbits. In reality, NASA only used Project Apollo Hoax to lengthen the time that astronauts could spend in Earth Orbit, with a view to constructing a space-station, however it conned the world into believing it was landing on the "moon" too. This is confirmed by the mission duration times, both before and after Project Apollo Hoax. The last Gemini mission prior to Apollo did 59 Earth orbits in 94.5 hours. After the final Apollo Earth orbit (by Apollo 17), Skylab 2 (launched in May 1973) did 404 Earth orbits in 672 hours before crashing back to Earth. Apart from royally scamming US taxpayers, the real job of Project Apollo Hoax was to bridge the gap between Gemini's 59 Earth orbits and Skylab's 404 Earth orbits.;
  1. If NASA keeps claiming that "Thunderbirds" is real by dressing up pure and total nonsense in complex pseudoscientific or pompous language, then are you really going to keep buying the swindle willingly? Or when exactly do you propose to shout Enough Is Enough? When do you propose to finally pass the "Project Apollo Hoax Intelligence Test" set for you by these swindling "NAS-holes"? The truth is being hoarded by a tiny minority of people who think they are better than the rest of us. And the truth is that one of the greatest events in human history was the faking of a "trip" to the "moon", all out of sheer pride.;
  1. Perhaps NASA regrets never running any episodes of Project Apollo Hoax on April First. If it had, at least it could have claimed that the hoax had all been intended all along as a most colossal April Fool joke.;
  1. The amount of time, money and work invested by official-truth websites maintained by regime agencies such as the CIA, MI6, NSA and Rothschild-Zionist Mossad indicates that the power-elite and the London-NY-Axis (the Beast [i.e. the English monarch], the City of London and the House of Rothschild) really need this faked official-truth narrative for Project Apollo Hoax to remain standing. But why, when so many folks already know the truth? Their strong inclination to lie also demonstrates how much skepticism and caution consumers need to exercise when accessing these official-truth websites. From the fact that official-truth websites like the CIA's WickedPedia lie so much, we know that they are no different to other fake-news outlets and need to be ignored, except by those wanting to find undeniable details such as the area of Canada. But ordinary consumers need to take official-truth websites with a very large grain of salt. We all know that the likelihood of one individual being right increases in direct proportion to the intensity with which others are trying to prove him wrong. That tends to explain the forcefulness with which NASA and its bosses in the London-NY-Axis insist on lying in their attempt to maintain the whole myth.;
  1. Today, if you search Google for site: moon hoax, you will find over 600,000 links to websites devoted to exposing Project Apollo Hoax. So why does a majority of citizens of English-speaking countries still believe NASA? Because they are kept in their ignorance by the CIA-ridden monopoly-media, or else they choose to be ignorant, or else they really do not care. It is possible that they prefer the dream to harsh reality, the dream being that man went to the "moon". But it is time the English-speaking world caught up.;
  1. In 1999, the Red-hot Chili Peppers released the very apt lyric: "Space May Be The Final Frontier But It's Made In A Hollywood Basement", probably penned by ace lyricist Anthony Kiedis. Considering the thousands of lies told by NASA, many exposed here, this fine lyric may have nailed what NASA is really up to. Some rap songs built on top of the lyric and guitar-riff have achieved huge responses on YouTube, spreading the truth about NASA's deceptions.;
  1. A group called the Elders Of Zion released the song "Masonic Moon" satirizing Stan Kubrick and NASA for Project Apollo Hoax. Let us all thank God that it has become so easy to satirize NASA.;
  1. Many events in history were faked, more so than most folks care to remember. Footage of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake was faked, as was footage of the 1915 sinking of the Lusitania. During WW1, they produced films showing German soldiers spearing Belgian babies, with National Geographic magazine actually giving "factual" presentations on the subject. Hollywood filmed many fighting scenes of WW1 and WW2 as movies because, in real war, it is often the case that very little is actually happening at any given time (a bit like a French movie) and Hollywood regarded that as too boring for audiences. The "cold war" was staged largely for profit, whereas the wars in Korea and Vietnam were unnecessary except for the profits they yielded for the S&P War Economy. So why would it ever be difficult to believe that Project Apollo Hoax, a much smaller event by comparison to many other staged events, had been faked too?;
  1. When NASA gave all space-shuttle technology to the Russians free-of-charge (it debuted in Russia as the Buran), we must assume that this was an act of bribery to ensure that the Russians played along with the deception of Project Apollo Hoax. Throughout the staged "cold war", London's Fabian Society had a desk in the Kremlin directly next to the communist top brass. The Fabian Socialists issued their orders to the communists on behalf of the London-NY-Axis (the Beast [i.e. the English monarch], the City of London and the House of Rothschild) but also ensured that Russia was being supplied with all the financing and high-technology from the west necessary to keep it going. The reason for this was because the London-NY-Axis had invested an enormous amount of money in setting up communist Russia as one-half of its post-WW2 Hegelian Dialectic designed to usher in the totalitarian "new world order". It is therefore also possible that the London-NY-Axis simply ordered the Russians to play along. The Russians gave up on going to the real moon and declared it technologically impossible, despite being ahead of the USA in the "space" race. In his the 1970 book "Journey To Tranquility", Hugo Young describes how, in 1963, Bernard Lovell was given a tour of Russian observatories and space facilities and then asked to pass on a special message to Hugh Dryden, then deputy NASA administrator: "We see no immediate way of protecting cosmonauts from the lethal effects of solar radiation", a bit like "beware the dangers of faking it, as we all know you want to".;
  1. NASA forgot to cast the Clangers waving to the "Thunderbirds"-like lunar-module as it arrived like the very first voyage to the Americas. It might have added solid weight to the credibility of Project Apollo Hoax because of the human interest it would have sparked as the astronauts were greeted by the Clangers, just like Christopher Columbus was welcomed by the Native Americans all those centuries previously.;
  1. Many rationalize things as follows: "In my life, I did not take anything too seriously, it was a bit like a movie. But I was glad I had at least seen the movie everyone was talking about, even if it was a total hoax".;
  1. There are some indications that NASA based its whole Apollo Hoax Program on the popular song "It's Only A Paper Moon", published in 1933. In the Apollo Hoax Simulator, James Lovell was reading from a prewritten script on-camera when he described the "moon" as being: "essentially gray, no color, looks like Plaster Of Paris, like dirty beach-sand with lots of footprints in it". But just after Lovell mentions Plaster Of Paris, Michael Collins is seen to plainly smirk. Collins's smirk is a clear indication that NASA had built its "moon"-scape from just what Lovell was describing. In reality, Plaster Of Paris is the favorite material NASA uses to create fake "moon"-scapes for later photos and films of the surface of the "moon".;
  1. New definitions: Those who believe the lunar-module or lunar-rover were real or that Project Apollo Hoax actually landed men on the "moon" might henceforth be classified as Total Lunatics. The internet features terms like "the lunatic-module" and "the lunatic-rover" in which the "astro-nuts", or "astro-nots", or "actor-nauts" were playing. So "Apollogists" Beware: Truth Is Like A Steamroller, It Can Run Right Over You. Unfortunately, the jury of the Court of Common Sense finds NASA guilty as charged. It finds that NASA is a bunch of total "NAS-holes". The data are final and the statistics are clear.;
  1. Now that you know much more about how deceitful NASA is, do you still believe NASA people are real scientists, or do you now realize that they are just a bunch of "NAS-holes"? If you have not already passed the "Project Apollo Hoax Intelligence Test" set for you by a bunch of swindling "NAS-holes", is it not time you decided to do so? Is it not really time you considered taking that One Giant Leap For Mankind?;
  1. The top dishonest professions include reporters-of-ill-repute (meaning TV and noose-paper reporters for the monopoly-media), lawyers (total liars), advertising agents, politicians, car salesmen, lobbyists, and of course NAS-holes. Nowadays, one of the most dishonest openers most earthlings have learned to skillfully discern goes: "Trust Me, I'm A NAS-hole!".;

 

CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY

 

NASA is largely a bunch of luciferian-Freemasons, alchemical sorcerers and illusionists, who put on costumes, pretend to be "scientists" and turn the lowest-budget movies and the lowest-quality CGI images and videos into veritable trillions of dollars. NASA gives its ventures lofty titles like experiment, endeavor, enterprise, adventure, project, chance, feat, exploit, undertaking, peril, hazard, pursuit and challenge, but they might as well call it Cosa Nostra because NASA is just the Mafia in fancy dress.

This article has pinpointed well over two-hundred anomalies, paradoxes, ambiguities, absurdities and downright errors in the official-truth narrative claimed by NASA and defended by its shills, propagandists, gophers and by "Apollogist" websites. Arthur C Clarke referred to the Apollo 11 Hoax as "A Hole In History" and invented an occult concept about a "moon" monolith having sides in the precise ratio of 1 : 4 : 9 (1² : 2² : 3²), whose function was to mentally test various group members. So although this article raised over two-hundred questions, let us distill our list down to 149 questions in honor of Arthur C Clarke's creepy monolith.

In a nutshell, please ask NASA to plausibly answer the following 149 still-open questions or conundrums:

  1. Please explain the light-blue haze and the relatively tiny Earth-curvature allegedly seen from the capsule roughly halfway to the "moon" when it was allegedly located "in the blackness of space".;
  1. Please explain why ILC Dover said the spacesuits it manufactured for the astronauts gave no protection whatsoever against radiation, and how none of the astronauts were killed by radiation either in "space" or on the "moon".;
  1. Please explain how, although NASA knew in 1958 from its Explorer 4 satellite that the radiation of the VARB (van Allen Radiation Belt) exceeded what later occurred in the Chernobyl core, NASA still claims that all its Project Apollo Hoax astronauts were not killed by the radiation or made severely ill within minutes, but actually survived miraculously despite spending two hours each way in the VARB without any radiation protection whatsoever.;
  1. Please explain why NASA did not protect its astronauts with at least a 6-foot layer of solid-lead shielding to get them safely through the VARB and back, and at least a 4-foot layer of solid-lead shielding to protect them from radiation on the "moon", when such minimum lead-barrier-protection was expected by most leading experts and proper scientists.;
  1. Please explain how the camera suddenly jumped from inside the lunar-module to the outside, and to Armstrong's left, as he descended the dustless ladder for the "One Giant Leap" scene, and please explain how jolts and edits could be present in a supposedly "live" simulcast from the "moon" when there was allegedly only one TV-camera being used for the Apollo 11 Hoax.;
  1. Please explain why the TV-cameraman for the "One Giant Leap" scene was not named as the first man on the "moon" although he must have preceded astronaut Armstrong so as to focus that TV camera (with the help of Ground Control) given that it had no viewfinder and could not be focused without such feedback.;
  1. Please explain how the TV-cameraman for the Apollo-17-Hoax panned the camera up so well and kept the lunar-module perfectly in focus as it lifted off and flew away from the "moon", but why NASA cruelly left this cameraman behind on the "moon" with no air, water or food, and why this cameraman was not named as a famous hero, declared dead or even registered as a victim of Project Apollo Hoax.;
  1. Please explain why the ladder shown in the Apollo-11-Hoax film does not match the ladder shown in any of the Apollo-11-Hoax photos and why both ladders have hazardous design errors.;
  1. Please explain why the "Earthrise" photograph was faked, with a rectangular "Earth" poster pasted onto the background of a 1968 photo thus creating a composite, as proven when Adobe-Photoshop users load the "Earthrise" photo and then just manually increase the exposure level.;
  1. Please explain how the astronauts remained uncooked at sunrise on the "moon" in the equivalent of a metallic oven having an interior temperature of perhaps 200 degrees centigrade, and how the astronauts managed to remain uncooked and untoasted while strolling around the "moon" which is supposed to have an average surface temperature of roughly 108 degrees centigrade.;
  1. Please explain how the astronauts survived when going through "space" although their craft was perhaps minus 50 degrees centigrade just inside its dark side, but maybe plus 60 degrees centigrade or more just inside its light side after it allegedly passed through the VARB and flew through "space" to the "moon".;
  1. Please explain how temperatures far exceeding 50 degrees centigrade on the "moon" caused no chemical changes in the photographic emulsions and no loosening of camera lenses or mechanical parts.;
  1. Please explain the absence of an enormous billowing dust-cloud in scenes where the lunar-module comes in to land on the "moon" (its 10,000 pound thruster was expected to disturb the many layers of "moon"-dust and blow a dust-storm like a hurricane from on high).;
  1. Please explain the absence of an enormous billowing steam-cloud in any of the splashdowns where the allegedly "red-hot" lunar-module hit an ocean whose temperature was around 10 degrees centigrade.;
  1. Please explain how known solar flares, especially those recorded in 1969 and 1972, never fried the spacecraft, never fried the astronauts nor any of the delicate equipment on board.;
  1. Please explain why NASA decided to risk human lives rather than first sending an animal to the "moon", like any normal "space" agency would do.;
  1. Please explain properly the damp footprints shown in Apollo Hoax photographs on a "moon" where the average daytime temperature is much higher than the boiling-point of water.;
  1. Please explain why there was none of the expected damage and injury from the micrometeorites that fall in showers on the real moon at up to 40,000 MPH, with zero no damage or injury on the NASA "moon".;
  1. Please explain how the tiny lunar-module cast a clear 450-mile-wide shadow onto the surface of the "moon" (around 30 times wider than the Maskelyne Crater known to be roughly 15 miles in diameter).;
  1. Please explain why all lunar-module test-flights crashed on Earth but allegedly no test-flights crashed on the "moon", and why the lunar-module never had a single successful test-flight on Earth, ever.;
  1. Please explain how the 140 dB or 150 dB engines remained totally inaudible in all "radio transmissions" allegedly broadcast by the astronauts from "space" and from the "moon".;
  1. Please explain the zero time-lag in all radio conversations allegedly broadcast through "space" and back, in an era when any long-distance phone-call from Houston to Australia featured noticeable time-lags.;
  1. Please explain how the broadcasts between the "moon" and the Earth could ever have succeeded in an era when a broadcast across the USA required at least one relay-station along the way to boost it and no such relay-stations were located along the alleged transmission path between the "moon" and the Earth.;
  1. Please explain why the same photographic background repeats at points on the "moon" allegedly several miles apart.;
  1. Please explain why the jet coming out of the actual Saturn V in each Apollo Hoax movie was not white-hot as expected but was red-hot indicating that it was actually operating fuel-rich.;
  1. Please explain how the Rocketdyne J-2 engines of the Saturn V's second and third stages could ever have accelerated the rocket to the 24,000 MPH needed to escape the Earth's gravity given that experts have proven this was totally impossible on the basis of all the facts, in particular because the Saturn V rockets could never have had enough fuel to leave Earth Orbit, and thus never enough propulsion-power to escape the Earth's gravitational field.;
  1. If it really worked as advertised, then please explain why the Saturn V, which looked so good on paper, had to be replaced with the space-shuttle, which was much less efficient by comparison.;
  1. Please explain why NASA, for the space-shuttle, did not use electrogravitic propulsion which had become available to it in the 1960s and would have boosted the shuttle's speed enormously.;
  1. Please explain what magic aerodynamic principle NASA used to "design" the lunar-module and what happened when its side rockets shot off while it "floated" on 10,000 pounds of thrust, and explain how badly the lunar-module must have tipped over and crashed as thousands of experts have proven.;
  1. Please explain how external recorded sounds are clearly audible on the "moon" during Project Apollo Hoax, when there can be no sound in the vacuum of "space" and hence no such sound on the "moon".;
  1. Please explain how any rocks native to the "moon" could ever be rounded where there is supposed to be no atmosphere, nor wind nor rain to round them.;
  1. Please explain why, since 1970, top NASA spokesmen such as Dan Goldin, Douglas Cooke, Terry Virts and others keep telling us repeatedly that mankind has never yet gone past Low Earth Orbit, and why NASA states that the VARB still remains the main barrier preventing any manned missions to Mars.;
  1. Please explain why footage released by NASA shows that the astronauts of the Apollo 11 Hoax were in Low Earth Orbit on 20 Jul 1969 at the very same time NASA claimed they were walking on the "moon" (as proven in Bart Sibrel's 2001 documentary "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon").;
  1. Please explain why NASA was manufacturing simulated "moon"-rock since 1966, before it even went to the "moon", and is still manufacturing it today.;
  1. Please explain why the Netherlands national museum (Rijksmuseum) announced that a "moon"-rock given to it by NASA was just a piece of petrified wood from the Earth.;
  1. Please explain why "moon"-dust disturbed by the lunar-rover did not, as expected, head skyward and then fall back down in something akin to a perfect and progressive parabolic arc (like a rainbow), given that there should have been no lunar atmospheric wall there to block it.;
  1. Please explain how astronaut Alan Shepard's golf ball is seen to slowly curve off to the right where there is supposed to be no air to curve it on the "moon", namely in the expected vacuum of "space".;
  1. Please explain properly the flapping US flag, especially in the Apollo-14-Hoax movie because any and all explanations so far have been highly unscientific and totally nonsensical.;
  1. Please explain the absence of "moon"-dust on the "moon"-rocks and boulders in the background, where there is supposed to be no wind to blow such "moon"-dust away, so that "moon"-dust is expected to accumulate there the very same as it accumulates on the ground on the "moon".;
  1. Please explain properly the total absence of any landing impact-crater under the lunar-module in any Project Apollo Hoax movie which might have indicated that multiple layers of dust had been blown off the surface of a "moon" in the veritable hurricane and dust-storm expected from its 10,000 pound thruster.;
  1. Please explain why it was so very simple to leave the "moon" without any specially-constructed launch-pad being required to get the lunar-module to blast off from there, whereas in order to succeed, any Apollo launch from Earth required the exact opposite, namely a specially-constructed launch-pad, along with thousands of gallons of fuel, a three-stage rocket and a meticulous take-off protocol.;
  1. Please explain the absence of the dark-red opaque fumes expected from combining UDMH fuel and DNT oxidizer in blastoffs from the "moon" in the Apollo 15, 16 or 17 hoax movies, each in glorious NASA color.;
  1. Please explain how the lunar-rover's battery survived on the "moon" when its operation handbook (PDF file LS006-002-2H on the internet) clearly states that its maximum operating temperature-limit was around 52 degrees centigrade, but the average temperature of the lunar surface is 108 degrees centigrade.;
  1. Please explain why the vast majority of Apollo astronauts refused to swear on the Bible that they had ever actually walked on the real moon.;
  1. Please explain how all the priceless paperwork for the lunar-module and lunar-rover got "destroyed" or "lost", so Grumman had none, Boeing had none, the Washington archives had none, and NASA had none, and also explain how NASA managed to "lose" all the priceless video footage of the "moon" landings.;
  1. Please explain why astronauts on the "moon" never managed to do camera turns of 180-degrees or 360-degrees which would have been the first, most logical move any normal cameraman would think of doing.;
  1. Please explain why NASA claimed a highly unlikely 80-90 percent success-rate for "trips" to the "moon" during Project Apollo Hoax but a lower, albeit more realistic, 28 percent success-rate for "trips" to "Mars".;
  1. Please explain how Apollo-13-Hoax astronaut Fred Haise could "see the Fra Mauro highlands" on 15 Apr 1970 when they were in total darkness that day (they were on the dark side of the moon that day).;
  1. Please explain why at least six of the seven Challenger astronauts are still alive in 2017 although NASA and the monopoly-media reported that the Challenger blew up in Jan 86.;
  1. Please explain how none of the astronauts was blinded by the sheer intensity of light reflected from the lunar surface which is bright enough to illuminate the darkness of Earth around 239,000 miles distant.;
  1. Please explain why Dr Roel van der Meulen of the Netherlands Leiden Observatory concluded that: "The Apollo 13 Disaster Was Actually An Expert Simulation".;
  1. Please explain the obvious photographic errors in Project Apollo Hoax with thousands of obviously faked photos, the lack of damage to photographic material from immense temperature fluctuations, no fogging or discoloration from radiation / solar flares / lunar gamma rays, no lightning streaks from micrometeorites passing by, no stars visible, color photographs featuring reticles (cross-hairs) but their monochrome counterparts featuring none, and of course photographic subjects often covering photographic reticles.;
  1. Please explain why, in their writings of the 1950s, both Wernher von Braun and James van Allen doomed any real moon mission similar in nature to Project Apollo Hoax to total failure.;
  1. Please explain why actor-wires are clearly visible in a lot of film footage on the "moon".;
  1. Please explain radical contradictions between films and photos on the "moon" allegedly shot at the same time, such as the "Apollo-16-Hoax jump-salute" where John Young jumps for cameraman Charles Duke.;
  1. Please explain how the astronauts survived for days in the cramped capsule despite all the noise, vibration and heat, and how two astronauts carrying suitcase-sized backpacks all the way to the "moon" and back managed to fit inside the lunar-module which was barely the size of two phone-booths.;
  1. Please explain how Charles Duke's family-photo-in-pouch (code AS16-117-18841) did not curl, melt or go on fire while lying on a "moon" surface having a temperature of around 108 degrees centigrade and how the photo of it was almost perfectly focused although Duke's camera had no viewfinder.;
  1. Please explain properly the "C rock", and also the meaning of the perfectly-symmetrical "C" shown on the rock, and also the meaning of the perfectly-symmetrical "C" shown in the "moon"-dust, mentioning for instance whether the Romans had perhaps left a marker to indicate 100 miles.;
  1. Please explain how the lunar-rover vehicle was ever carried to the "moon" although hundreds of experts proved it was too heavy and would not even fit in the lunar-module, or on the outside due to overweight.;
  1. Please explain how the lunar-rover did not tip over in one-sixth-gravity on the "moon", as was expected by automotive experts on account of its very poor design, in particular because it was far too narrow and would have properly needed to be about twenty feet wide to even start behaving normally.;
  1. Please explain how the astronauts emerged so quickly from the lunar-module onto the "moon" when the same task took up to fifteen minutes on Earth because the lunar-module's main door opened inward.;
  1. Please explain how the lunar-rover's tires did not explode on the "moon", as expected given they were pre-inflated (the average temperature being 108 degrees centigrade), and how they were (re-)inflated although there was no air on the "moon" with which to (re-)inflate them.;
  1. Please explain how the water-cooling system for the spacesuits of the astronauts worked on the "moon" where the outside temperature already exceeded the boiling-point of water and there would have been nowhere for the heat to dissipate.;
  1. Please explain properly the failure of the astronauts to notice any stars whereas, in the non-atmosphere of the moon, the stars look like the headlights of oncoming trains and are totally in your face, and also explain how the astronauts "forgot" being pelted and pierced by micrometeorite showers on the "moon".;
  1. Please explain why the only manned soft-landings in history using rocket technology all took place on the "moon", but never yet on Earth, not even yet in 2017.;
  1. Please explain why the astronauts did not look like the "Michelin Man" despite wearing spacesuits which had an alleged internal pressure of around 5 pounds per square inch, mentioning whether NASA preferred an aquiline, alpha Freemason image for the astronauts, so that a Michelin Man just did not look the part.;
  1. Please explain why it is at all relevant in the first place to give photographic evidence of "landing" sites on the real moon when unmanned missions could have placed any number of objects there after 1969.;
  1. Please explain properly the lack of any evidence of "landing" sites on the real moon, such as evidence gleaned via powerful telescopes like the Hubble (run by NASA), which can actually comfortably resolve down to 50 meters on the surface of the moon (which would indeed be more than sufficient to view "artifacts" allegedly left behind by the astronauts).;
  1. Please explain why, in Nov 2009, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter photos of "landing" sites on the "moon" showed a blob for the lunar-module which was roughly four times larger than its official diameter (circular blob roughly 35 meters in diameter, compared to the lunar-module's official width of 9.4 meters), and also explain how the lunar-rover could have left a totally unbelievable, astonishing circular black blob.;
  1. Please explain why the astronauts did not film the surface of the "moon" using that high-resolution color video camera we know they brought with them on their Apollo-11-Hoax "trip" to the "moon".;
  1. Please explain why the Earth seen from the "moon" was at least four times smaller in the sky than expected, for instance in the faked "Earthrise" photograph, given that the Earth seen from the "moon" must be at least four times larger in the sky than the moon seen from the Earth.;
  1. Please explain why Neil Armstrong's sister, Natasha Armstrong-Warner, stated that Armstrong only went to the "moon" when he was high on the LSD that NASA gave him.;
  1. Please explain the sound of roaring jet-engines clearly audible in scenes featuring both the space-shuttle and the "ISS".;
  1. Please explain how the "Mars" Rover photographs could show objects commonly found on Earth such as a large mouse, an Arctic lemming, a railroad crosstie, the vertebras of a large sea-creature, the arm-bone of a walrus, lichen growing on rocks, hatched eggshells and fossilized crinoids.;
  1. Please explain why the horizon on the surface of the "moon" is visible both behind the astronaut and in his visor although no photo ever taken on Earth in all of history exhibited such an incredible phenomenon.;
  1. Please explain how astronaut John Young survived alive and unscathed despite exposing his naked hand in the vacuum environment on the "moon".;
  1. Please explain how astronauts wearing pressurized gloves or gauntlets could adjust camera settings, change camera films or fix any equipment whatsoever on the "moon".;
  1. Please explain who took the massive stockpile of photos on the "moon" (an average of roughly one photo every 50 seconds), and why the astronauts could never have taken such a hoard of photos because they were already too busy with their own schedules.;
  1. Please explain how astronauts with no viewfinders on their cameras could ever take such glitzy photos on the "moon" and why some observers suspect that professional Madison-Avenue photographers unlisted in the manifest must have hitched a ride to the "moon" and survived without any spacesuits.;
  1. Please explain why the visors of the astronaut helmets on the surface of the "moon" betray the presence of multiple large studio lights given that the real sun reflecting on the convex visors would have been tiny, having a diameter of less than one inch, but the actual diameter of light reflections is up to four inches.;
  1. Please explain why there was never a single speck of "moon"-dust on the feet of the lunar-module after the expected dust-storm from its 10,000 pound thruster when it allegedly landed on the "moon".;
  1. Please explain why, in the Apollo-11-Hoax movie, the shadow of the lunar-module was seen to suddenly sharpen dramatically, within milliseconds, just after the lunar-module had landed on the "moon".;
  1. Please explain why two astronauts of roughly the same height had vastly different shadow lengths.;
  1. Please explain why the shadows of multiple objects are not parallel but intersect, although the only source of light on the real moon is supposed to be the sun, so that all subjects are expected to have parallel or never-intersecting shadows, exactly the same as for subjects in sunshine on the Earth.;
  1. Please explain why, in the 1970s, NASA set out to temper expectations and refrained from announcing that they had acquired new bases on the "moon" as most earthlings had been eagerly anticipating.;
  1. Please explain why, in so many "moon" photos, portions of the surface of the "moon" are lit from above, the astronaut is lit from behind and the lunar-module is lit from the front.;
  1. Please explain the hotspot or halo around the "sun" where there is supposed to be no atmosphere to cause such a halo, namely in that well-known vacuum of "space" on the "moon".;
  1. Please explain why doubling the footage film-speed reveals that the astronauts are in reality on Earth doing their kangaroo-hopping scenes at normal speed (so as to make total fools of their viewers), and why they could never have been in one-sixth-gravity in the first place.;
  1. Please explain why, in all the Project Apollo Hoax clips, objects the astronauts throw on the "moon" are actually clearly proven to have been thrown on Earth.;
  1. Please explain why the Apollo 8 Hoax dated one photograph allegedly taken while orbiting the "moon" to the exact same day the Apollo 8 astronauts left Earth whereas the "trip" was expected to take three days.;
  1. Please explain why Dr Stanislav Pokrovsky proved the Apollo 11 payload could not have been any more than around 60 percent of what NASA keeps claiming (28 tons versus NASA's alleged 46 tons).;
  1. Please explain why the enormous lunar-rover was so "easy" to get to the "moon" for the Apollo 15, 16 and 17 hoaxes, whereas the much smaller "Mars" Rover was allegedly so hugely difficult to get to "Mars" by comparison.;
  1. Please explain how the onboard computers claimed to have been used in Project Apollo Hoax could even have worked, and could ever have had enough main memory to run both a simulated "moon" landing and a simulated "moon" take-off, having had less capability than a 2017 pocket calculator.;
  1. Please explain how the lunar-rover or its delicate onboard equipment did not get absolutely smashed to pieces while driving over the uneven surface of the "moon" allegedly in one-sixth-gravity.;
  1. Please explain how flagpoles and other objects on the "moon" seem to have been planted by a studio-crane given the absence of any prints or tracks that might indicate that the astronauts had planted them.;
  1. Please explain why one exact same Apollo 8 film-sequence was reused for the Apollo 11 Hoax.;
  1. Please explain the object suspended in the "sky" visible in the photos above the "moon", and also explain the ceiling beams visible when computer users zoom in to inspect this object suspended in the "sky".;
  1. Please explain all the cheap foil, tape and curtain-rods used to construct the lunar-module and clearly visible when computer users zoom in to inspect it more closely, also mentioning perhaps where NASA spent all its money.;
  1. Please explain the many criticisms made by Thomas Ronald Baron, inspector at Cape Kennedy Pad 34, who was called to testify before a congressional investigating committee after Gus Grissom's murder and stated that NASA was guilty of mismanagement, ineptitude, incompetence, drunkenness on the job and of flouting safety regulations, and indicated that NASA would never make it to the real moon.;
  1. Please explain the quantum-leap in dishonesty, fraudulence and downright deceit by NASA after the sudden departure on 7 Oct 1968 of NASA administrator James Webb.;
  1. Please explain why NASA decided to proceed with Project Apollo despite NASA itself in 1959 having concluded that the radiation levels on the real moon were lethal, as was reconfirmed by Russian findings.;
  1. Please explain how the Tetra-A Satellite, specifically designed to simulate transmissions coming from the "moon", managed to "accidentally burn up" in the Earth's atmosphere just before the Apollo 11 Hoax, as claimed by NASA but never actually proven, and please prove it was not used to dupe NASA's own Ground Control during the whole course of Project Apollo Hoax.;
  1. Please explain the involvement of Stanley Kubrick with top NASA insiders for the best part of a decade, explain how his front-screen-projection method put both the background and foreground in perfect focus, and also explain the similarity between the Apollo-13-Hoax movie and Kubrick's own "2001" movie, both of which feature an "exploding oxygen tank" (like two hackneyed scripts by the same screenwriter).;
  1. If Stan Kubrick was involved, then please explain why his most famous movie "Apollo 11 Hoax Moon Landing", which got simulcast worldwide on 20 Jul 1969, still remains unlisted by IMDB.;
  1. Please explain why official-truth websites maintained by regime agencies such as the CIA, MI6, NSA and Rothschild-Zionist Mossad really want the faked official-truth narrative for Project Apollo Hoax to remain standing, badly need humanity to believe the insane assertion that men actually landed on the "moon" and explain why they try to maintain this nonsensical official-truth narrative for their bosses in the London-NY-Axis (the Beast [i.e. the English monarch], the City of London and the House of Rothschild).;
  1. Please explain why, in press-conferences and interviews prior to taking off for the "moon", the astronauts never had any tension whatsoever in their voices or movements (as if they were really going on vacation).;
  1. Please explain why the worldwide simulcast of the words "The Eagle Has Landed" on 20 Jul 1969 from the Apollo-11-Hoax movie was deliberately timed to coincide precisely with the zenith of the star Sirius, where Sirius signifies the Egyptian god Horus in luciferian-Freemasonry's unholy trinity.;
  1. Please explain why so many NASA members are top-level luciferian-Freemasons, why so many missions and craft are given luciferian names and why all astronauts wear mission patches replete with occult and luciferian-Freemasonic symbols.;
  1. Please explain the significance to NASA of JPL founder Jack Parsons and the meaning of the luciferian rituals he performed for NASA.;
  1. Please explain the "un-documentable adjustment" of 500 billion dollars attributed to NASA, as announced by Donald Rumsfeld the day before 11 Sep 2001, when Rumsfeld likely knew Rothschild-Zionist Mossad-Sayeret-Matkal was about to launch the terror attacks on NYC for its bosses in the London-NY-Axis.;
  1. Please explain the complicity of NASA in the alarmist climate-change scam being run by the London-NY-Axis as a guise for creating a world tax system to feed greedy central-banksters and ultimately transfer all the world's wealth to the top one percent, just as always happens in a private central-banking regime.;
  1. Please explain why, in the 1970s, NASA allegedly stopped using phenomenally valuable equipment it had left on the "moon" (such as its claimed Lunar Laser Ranger).;
  1. Please explain why the shroud over the descent-engine of the lunar-module looks as though it had never been heated above room temperature, although it was designed to deal with exhaust temperatures of up to 1482 degrees centigrade.;
  1. Please explain why none of the Apollo-17-Hoax films on the "moon" show Harrison Schmitt at "Tracy's Rock" despite this venue and still-photo being the most popular of the whole "trip".;
  1. Please explain why not a single genuine, non-composite photo of the Earth from the surface of the "moon" yet exists today in 2017.;
  1. Please explain why not a single genuine, non-composite photo of the Earth from "space" yet exists today in 2017.;
  1. Please explain why not a single genuine, non-composite video of the Earth from "space" yet exists today in 2017.;
  1. Please explain why NASA photos showed no change in cloud-cover over the "Earth" for the entire twenty-five-hour period during the alleged "Earth flyby" by spacecraft Galileo on 8 Dec 1990.;
  1. Please explain why the official NASA photos showed no change in cloud-cover over the planet "Jupiter" in the two-year period from 2014 to 2016.;
  1. Please explain why a photograph of the underside of my frying pan looks like a more realistic "Jupiter" picture than anything NASA ever pulled out of its nose.;
  1. Please explain why most female "ISS" astronauts perm their hair vertically to "simulate" zero gravity and why these perms go horizontal whenever they look down.;
  1. Please explain why NASA spokespeople often openly admit that they are filming the "ISS" from within an airplane flying in US airspace.;
  1. Please explain why astronauts are regularly caught wearing scuba tanks and snorkels in NASA coverage of the "ISS", commenting on why in "space" NASA needs equipment to prevent drowning, and whether "ISS" really stands for international swimming station.;
  1. Please explain why South America was airbrushed out of the 2012 NASA "Official Earth Image" and why the annual "Official Earth Image" has changed so often, but also so ridiculously and so dramatically, ever since NASA first started releasing one in 1975.;
  1. Please explain why the clear outline of the Disney dog Pluto can be seen in the NASA photos of the "fly-past of dwarf-planet Pluto" dated Jul 2015 and praised by O'Bomber (perhaps for its hoax-value).;
  1. Please explain why Google Earth users spotted several NASA "Mars" Rovers driving across the Arizona desert taking photographs and making movies.;
  1. Please explain properly how the "Mars" Rover was able to take a photograph of itself, dubbed self-portrait.;
  1. Please explain how the "Mars" Rover can operate in minus 55 degrees centigrade (the alleged average temperature on Mars) but, at the same time, its operating manual specifies that it must never operate outside strict temperature limits of between minus 40 degrees to plus 40 degrees centigrade.;
  1. Please explain how, on "Mars", the lithium-ion batteries in the MER-A Spirit and MER-B Opportunity could last for well over a decade and whether NASA owns a special patent on these ultra-super batteries.;
  1. Please explain why anyone would even need a "control room" for a "trip" to "Mars", given that signals would take up to 20 minutes to get to "Mars" and back.;
  1. Please explain why NASA rigged tests during the Star Wars (SDI) missile-defense program to make it seem more advanced than it really was, as the US General Accounting Office in fact concluded.;
  1. Please explain the statements of hundreds of proper scientists and experts from the world of science and engineering that Project Apollo Hoax was a total fake and why, nowadays among contractors working for NASA, the clear general consensus is that mankind NEVER went to the moon.;
  1. Please explain how the Moonset Studio (under Donald Hewes in Langley Research Center in Hampton Virginia, or under Stanley Kubrick at Elstree Studios London, or else at a different location) was fabricated, and please give the precise formula for the Plaster Of Paris backgrounds and the rounded "rocks".;
  1. Please explain how the astronauts got from the lunar-module into the conical command-module when it was already occupied by the three large reentry parachutes, designed to eject from the conical end.;
  1. Please explain why all Project-Apollo-Hoax movies look so much like episodes of "Thunderbirds" and also whether "Thunderbirds" was really a Tavistock military project designed to support Project Apollo Hoax.;
  1. Please explain why NASA is still allowed to parry and lie with total impunity without its budget being cut or frozen and without its administrator or other senior NASA executives being arrested.;
  1. Please explain why so-called PhD "scientists" who endorse the "moon" landings have not been stripped of their qualifications yet, given that any schoolboy can prove that the "moon" landings were faked.;
  1. Please explain how one boot print was so hardened that it remained unalterable when other astronauts stepped on it, and whether it may have been left a long time ago, perhaps by Robinson Crusoe.;
  1. Please explain the details of NASA's Project Blue Beam, which Wernher von Braun and Dr Carol Rosin both predicted would eventually be deployed by NASA to deceive humanity, and also explain why NASA joins in on major deceptions against humanity being orchestrated to create perceived threats which do not in fact exist but are being used as excuses for introducing a totalitarian world police state.;
  1. Please explain why, in reality, Project Apollo Hoax was probably a deception deployed in pursuit of the unilateral but unauthorized control of space and whether NASA is complicit in creating a power-elite "breakaway civilization" as very many mil-intel whistleblowers have testified.;
  1. Please explain how one pilot for a major airline stated that he had actually seen the Apollo 11 capsule, the astronauts and their enormous parachutes being dropped from the cargo-hold of a Lockheed C-5 Galaxy while he was piloting a nonstop flight from San Francisco to Tokyo and whether this was the reason why no vast billowing steam-cloud was visible on splashdown, given that the capsule was not red-hot after all.;
  1. Please explain whether communist Russia played along with Project Apollo Hoax because the USA bribed it for its silence (with the USA selling grain to communist Russia below market price, or by NASA giving its space-shuttle (as the Buran) to communist Russia totally free-of-charge) or else because Russia's Fabian-Socialist bosses in the London-NY-Axis simply ordered Russia to play along with the deception.;
  1. Please explain why a monopoly over the whole "space" narrative is still actually necessary and whether proper journalism can be brought back to replace the current system of centralized NASA censorship.;
  1. Please prove how the alleged "Eagle" ever left Earth, landed on the "moon" and took off again, by proving that NASA actually managed to land men on the real moon a phenomenal six times, while no other country even got through the VARB (van Allen Radiation Belt) even fifty years later.;
  1. Please explain why NASA never thought to confirm that one-sixth-gravity was in fact what its astronauts measured on the "moon", or whether this assumption was contradicted by the Bullialdus-Newton Inverse-Square Law, meaning that gravity on the moon is actually around 64 percent of the Earth's gravity.;
  1. Please explain the involvement of NASA in the mysterious deaths of Gus Grissom, Edward White, Roger Chaffee, Pete Conrad, James Irwin, Paul Jacobs, and Thomas Ronald Baron along with his entire family, who all died under suspicious circumstances and apparently in relation to NASA's need to keep secret the fact that Project Apollo Hoax had been faked.;
  1. Please explain why, nowadays, roughly 80 percent of Russians and 60 percent of Germans believe that NASA never went to the moon, and why a growing number of people in the English-speaking world are also gradually catching on to this truth too.;
  1. Please explain why it has become so easy to satirize NASA.;
  1. Please explain where the trillions of dollars (in 2017 terms) which NASA stole from US taxpayers over the decades were actually invested (given that any schoolboy can prove NASA never even left Earth Orbit let alone go to the real moon and given that most people realize NASA is more of a movie studio than it ever was any kind of "space" agency).;

After reading this article, you should no longer be on NASA's side in defending its approach of refusing to answer questions, because that would automatically make you yourself a part of the Apollo "Moon" Hoax conspiracy.

This has been an exhaustive investigation just like a good old-fashioned, thorough investigation led by Lieutenant Colombo, except with one major difference: Lieutenant Colombo had the authority to get answers to his probing questions, whereas NASA spokesmen are still allowed to bark "No Comment", to parry and to lie with total impunity, without fear of being arrested or held in any way accountable. Is it not high time that was changed?

If you have not already passed the "Project Apollo Hoax Intelligence Test" set for you by a bunch of swindling "NAS-holes", is it not high time you chose to do so? Is it not really time you considered taking that One Giant Leap For Mankind?

 

 

Email

Plaintext email only
No
Show name: 
Patrick OCarrol

History

Blog
View recent blog entries
Member for
1 year 4 months