ZOG's Apollo hoax

[Freddy Ford]

In this book they talk about Elon taking us to Mars. Another constructed narrative.

ZOG's Apollo hoax:

archive.org/details/DidWeLandOnTheMoon
archive.org/details/EndgameVostfr
archive.org/details/WeNeverWentToTheMoon_201511
archive.org/details/RalphReneRawInterview
archive.org/details/Season2Episode8BartSibrel
archive.org/details/BartSibrelMoonMyths
archive.org/details/WasItOnlyAPaperMoonApolloHoaxJamesM.Collier1997
archive.org/details/MoonHoaxBuzzSaysHeDidntGoToTheMoon

Although Neil Armstrong obediently played his role in the hoax, he apparently wasn't actually a psychopath. He felt guilty. That's why he became a recluse. That's why he insisted that his remains be dumped into the ocean.

There are so many impossibilities in NASA's absurd tale that anyone who can think for himself will see that it is a lie.

However, most of the sheeple don't want the truth; it's too painful.

This is their attitude toward ZOG:

"How can such a gnat as I
Question such a mighty fly?"

Here's one impossibility.

The Swedish designer of the camera that Armstrong and Aldrin allegedly used on the moon says that it had no lead shielding; it was merely "painted silver". And yet the pictures were not fogged at all by the high level of radiation found on the moon. Absolutely absurd.

None of the pictures showed any stars in the sky. And of course it is absurd to say that no photographs of stars were taken because NASA couldn't afford a tripod or a camera capable of taking time-exposures. They could spend millions of dollars for a "lunar rover", but they couldn't afford a device that could photograph stars.

Here's another.

The lens of the camera used by Aldrin and Armstrong was made so that several cross-hairs or reticles would be superimposed on every photograph. The cross-hair in the center was larger than the others. In one of the pictures, the largest cross-hair was clearly not in the center of the photograph.

Here's another.

It is evident that fill-in lights were used for some of the pictures. Any expert photographer will tell you that. Even the Swedish designer of the camera that was used says that he cannot explain how those pictures could have been made without a fill-in light. And yet NASA says that no fill-in lights were used.

Here's another.

Many of the "moon photos" show shadows on the ground that are not parallel. This means that the light source was not the sun. Sunlight produces on a relatively flat, level surface shadows that are parallel.

Here's another.

At the press conference after their alleged return from the moon, Armstrong and Aldrin said that when they were on the surface of the moon they could not see any stars. They pretended that they were surprised that anyone would think that stars would be visible from the moon.

We have their word on it. There are no stars to be seen in space. Anyone who believes that is not even human.

Think of the darkest, clearest night that you can remember when you looked up at the sky and saw the stars. Now think of how blazingly bright those stars would be when seen from the surface of the moon, where there would be no atmosphere and no dust between you and the stars.

If the astronots had actually been on the moon, they could have faced away from the sun, lifted the reflective visors of their helmets, looked upward, and seen a stunning array of brilliant stars.

Here's another.

Although the astronauts allegedly left innumerable footprints on the moon, although NASA presented videos of the wheels of "lunar rovers" throwing dust into the air, not one of the six alleged "lunar landers" created a blast crater when it allegedly landed. Not one of the six alleged landers created a depression or disturbed the surface in any way whatsoever with its exhaust jet. Although these rockets allegedly had a thrust measured in thousands of pounds, they were unable even to melt or char the moon's surface. No dust settled on any of the landing pads of the six alleged landers.

What does that tell those of us who can think? It tells us that those "landers" didn't land; they were carried to their locations here on earth.

Here's another.

The video footage allegedly showing the blast-off of the "lunar lander" after the "moon landing" was over shows absolutely no exhaust plume. There should have been a massive, opaque plume.

What does that tell those of us who can think? It tells us that those "landers" didn't blast off on the moon; they were lifted up here on earth.

Here's another.

One of NASA's "moon photos" shows several footprints made by the astronots' boots. However, it also shows part of a footprint made by a tennis shoe.

Here's another.

At the beach, one can leave clear and distinct footprints in wet sand, but not in completely dry sand. Because of the perfect vacuum, the surface of the moon is bone dry. And yet the astronots were able to make perfectly formed footprints.

Here's another.

One of the infamous "moon photos" shows that one of the "moon rocks" has the letter C on it and the ground adjacent to the rock has the letter C on it.

Here's another.

The amount of radiation that the astronots received (especially in the Van Allen Belts) was many times the amount needed to kill a human. Yet they did not die or even become ill. Their spacecraft had no shielding against radiation; in fact, the walls were so thin and weak that they could not withstand normal atmospheric pressure.

Here's another.

During a space-shuttle flight that went higher than its predecessors (although it was hundreds of miles below the Van Allen Belts), the astronauts said that they could see sparks caused by radiation with their eyes shut. CNN reported that this flight revealed that the radiation belts are more dangerous than previously believed. How could that shuttle flight provide any information about the Van Allen Belts that had not already been provided by the seven Apollo flights that allegedly went through those belts? That seems impossible. What does seem possible, even certain, is that Apollo was just another of ZOG's lies.

Here's another.

We are told that men walked on the moon in pressurized spacesuits. And yet those men were able effortlessly to bend their arms, legs, and fingers.

Here's another.

NASA provided a video clip of an astronot driving a golf ball on the moon. Later, they replaced it with a different clip of an astronot hitting a ball because the first one showed that the ball was sliced. (Slicing cannot happen in a vacuum.)

Astronot "cavorting on the moon": "It's absolutely unreal!"

Here's another.

We have two video clips that slipped through NASA's fingers. They both show Apollo astronauts in low orbit around the earth pretending to be halfway to the moon. In one, they darkened the interior of the craft, moved several feet away from a round window that was filled by a view of the earth's surface, and pointed the camera at the window. The dark interior of the craft surrounding the window was supposed to be the blackness of space surrounding the distant earth.

Here's another.

As soon as the Apollo farce ended, NASA dumped the Saturn V rocket. A new rocket was developed and used to launch the space shuttle. If the Saturn V had been used instead, the first shuttle would have been launched five years sooner and the cost per launch would have been reduced by two thirds. The problem was that the Saturn V was a fraud; it had nowhere near the performance claimed for it.

And on and on and on.

Bill Kaysing: "The Atlas engine, which was developed at Rocketdyne, was used ... to propel the Atlas intercontinental ballistic missile. However, it didn't work too well. In fact, at one point 14 Atlas [missiles] ... exploded consecutively at Vandenburg Airforce Base. They blew up in the air, downrange, on the pad. So the Atlas engine reliability was very low. And this, of course, gave me a very dim view of space, space travel, rockets in general. The Atlas engine was a small version of the F1 engine that was used in the Saturn V for the alleged trips to the moon."

Bill Kaysing: "Bill Wood is a rocket scientist; he's been in the business for 25 years.... Well, one point that Bill brought out was that the Saturn V vehicle, using five F1 engines, really was not the configuration that was shown in films of the Saturn V leaving for the moon. Instead, it's Bill's contention that they used less powerful engines and simply added fuel to the jet stream to make it appear as though the Saturn V was using five F1 engines. Well, the reason was that the F1 engine, which was tested at Edwards Airforce Base, suffered from a problem in large liquid rocket propellent engines of combustion instability.... [S]hock waves are set up inside the expansion chamber of the rocket, and they resonate and embellish one another until finally the rocket chamber explodes."

Bill Kaysing: "Apollos 1 through 6 were all failures, dreadful failures. They blew up on the pad, they blew up 50 feet in the air. Apollo 6, the last one in which I think we had truthful data, was a total fiasco. It took off; second stage didn't ignite; everything went wrong that could go wrong.... From Apollo 7 on, they decided to falsify information, and that's what they did."

Bill Kaysing: "In 1959, I was working with advanced research at Rocketdyne, and their own studies proved that radiation levels on the moon were lethal. This corroborated Russian research. The Russians claimed that for a man to survive on the moon with the radiation emitted from solar and cosmic sources, he would have to be shielded by four feet of solid lead."

Bill Kaysing: "On December 7th, 1975, I was invited to discuss my book at radio station KOME in San Jose, California.... About halfway through the broadcast, the engineer came into the ... room ... , and he said, 'We're off the air.' Subsequent investigation indicated that someone in a helicopter had dropped napalm on the KOME transmitter in the Gilroy Hills, causing a quarter of a million dollars worth of damage and effectively cutting off the station from the air for three days."

Bill Kaysing: "After [Neil Armstrong] allegedly returned from the moon, he gradually became more and more reclusive. Today, he will not talk about Apollo with anybody under any circumstances."

Bill Kaysing: " ... in August of 1991, James Irwin [Apollo 15] called me at my home, and he said, 'I understand you've written a book called "We Never Went to the Moon".' He said, 'Come to think of it, this phone could be tapped.' He said, 'I want you to call me at my home on Friday.' ... So I said, 'OK, Jim; I'll call you,' and he gave me his home phone number. Well, when I called him on Friday, James Irwin was dead; he had died of a heart attack."

Bill Kaysing: "Paul Jacobs was a top investigator in San Francisco. I went to see him to get help. I said, 'Paul, help me with my Apollo hoax project.' He says, 'All right, I will. I'm flying to Washington next week; I'll go see the head of the U. S. Department of Geology,' and he did. And he asked the geologist, 'Did you examine the moon rocks? Did they really come from the moon?' The geologist just laughed. Well, there's a sad ending to this story. Paul flew back from Washington, I met with him again in San Francisco, and he told me that he had determined that the Apollo project was a hoax and that people at high levels were keeping it a secret. Unfortunately, Paul and his wife died of cancer within 90 days."

Revilo P. Oliver: "Professor Goldman ... claimed that he and 'most historians' regarded history as a 'weapon' to be used for 'determining people's ideas and attitudes.'"

Bart Sibrel: " ... von Braun ... said that once you landed on the moon, you'd have to immediately go into a cave to protect yourself from micro-meteorites.... He said there would be a 50% chance of a catastrophic failure every 24 hours from micro-meteorites."

Bart Sibrel: "Kelly Smith from NASA went on camera about four years ago and said that the radiation belt surrounding the earth which is about 750 miles above the space station---he said it's dangerous and we must first learn how to protect astronauts from this radiation before we can send people through this region of space.... And then they launched the Orion spacecraft about three years ago with geiger counters to go into this radiation field ... they come back with two geiger counters and I say can I please have those readings and they say, no, that information is classified.... [W]hy is that amount of radiation classified? Because if they told you, it would prove that the astronauts couldn't possibly go through it and survive." [If Apollo astronots went through the belts 14 times, why did Orion have to measure the radiation levels?]

Professor James A. Van Allen: "The acceptance of such grandiose proposals by otherwise rational individuals stems from the mystique of space flight, as nurtured over many centuries by early writers of science fiction and their present-day counterparts. Indeed, to the ordinary person space flight is synonymous with the flight of human beings. The simple taste for adventure and fantasy expressed in that sentiment has been elevated in some quarters to the quasi-religious belief that space is a natural habitat of human beings."

Revilo P. Oliver: "Professor Van Allen lists sixteen projects of the highest scientific importance and one that is merely utilitarian which were aborted or crippled by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in 1981 so that funds for them could be diverted to the construction of the 'space shuttle,' which, at enormous expense, chiefly benefited newsmen and the operators of boob-tubes, and produced virtually no increment of either scientific knowledge or usable technology. One has only to look at the list to see that a vast amount of highly important knowledge about the solar system, the universe, and even the earth itself was prevented or indefinitely postponed, just to give a few men an adventurous and exciting joy ride and to fascinate the audience that stares at television screens in a semi-hypnotic trance."

The widdle boys continue to watch Star Trek. Their mouths are agape, and they are drooling while they are mesmerized by their heroes: the tickjew Shatner, the tickjew Nimoy, the tickjew Walter Koenig, and the negress Uhura. They know it's real! They've seen it with their own eyes! They know that interstellar travel is just around the corner! Look! Shatner and Uhura are kissing! It makes them quiver with ecstacy to watch it!

No matter how absurd the tales told by the Satanic tickjew System are, they will always continue to believe. They know that Mommy would never lie to her widdle boys.

[Ray Allan]

Oh, for fuck's sake, not another "Moon Hoax" thread. This has been covered time and time again here with people like you using the same old debunked "evidence" from discredited Moon hoaxers and charlatans like Bill Kaysing, Bart Sibrel and others. So White people were not smart enough to figure out how to get into space and make it to the Moon? I suppose you think the Holohoax is real, too?

Try looking at this site: http://clavius.org

[Mike in Denver]

An old post of mine:

"I worked at the Johnson Space Center as an engineer for about 5 years in the 70s. I only worked on one Apollo program, Apollo Soyuz, and it did not go to the moon. However I worked with, and drank with many engineers, mathematicians, technicians, who did work on the moon flights.

Yes, dammit...we went to the moon, sent crews of humans to the moon.

Damn, I really despise the White hating trash who deny the most magnificent feat ever accomplished by humans in the history of humanity.

I, to repeat myself, worked with engineers, technicians, all sorts of people who were part of the Apollo missions that sent White Americans to the moon. I partied with them, got drunk. Not once did I hear a rumor, see a wink, or a story that we didn't go. To deny that we went is slime, a denial of what Whites can do.

Any adult who denies the moon flights is either very stupid, or quite mentally disturbed. Right up there with flat earthers.

VNN is very lax to allow anyone on the forum who posts such crap. These dimwits make CIers look reasonable.

Mike "

To repeat..I had friends, PhD scientists, engineers who worked on moon flights. Friday evenings we would drink lots of beer at a nearby pizza place. Someone would have hinted.

Mike



__________________
Hunter S. Thompson, "Big dark, coming soon"
Add to Mike in Denver's Reputation Report Post To Moderators Ignore Mike in Denver Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message +3

[Gladiatrix]

Is Freddy a member of the Flat Earth Society?

[Major Sharpe]

Only a nigger, out of sheer jealousy, would suggest that white men hadn't walked on the Moon.

It's still driving 'em crazy.

[Nikola Bijeliti]

I could post links to sites debunking those claims, as they have been debunked time and time again, but the OP wouldn't bother reading them, so why bother?

[joeylowsac]

It's a bad idea to discuss religion, people tend to be heavily emotionally invested.

[Franco]

This is what I've heard:

Yes, we went to the moon.

But, much of the film footage on the moon didn't turn out well, so, when they got back to earth, they made "additional" or "supplemental" film footage in a special room designed to simulate the surface of the moon.


-------------------------

[Ray Allan]

Originally Posted by Franco

This is what I've heard:

Yes, we went to the moon.

But, much of the film footage on the moon didn't turn out well, so, when they got back to earth, they made "additional" or "supplemental" film footage in a special room designed to simulate the surface of the moon.


-------------------------

I never heard that before, but given the limited special effects technology at the time, during the broadcasts of Apollo missions, NASA and the TV networks sometimes used simulations involving the use of miniatures, i.e., the Lunar Module on the surface or actors in mock spacesuits, on a soundstage during times when live television transmissions were not available with the words 'NASA SIMULATION' or 'NASA ANIMATION' prominently displayed on the screen, which were obviously simulations and with no intent to deliberately fool the public viewing audience. This video is readily available on Youtube or other venues today.

[Ray Allan]

I find it difficult to comprehend how anyone who calls himself WN would post garbage like this Moon hoax stuff. Yes, it is right up there with CI and Flat Earth drivel. This is about the fourth or fifth such thread about this in the 8 years I have been here. I consider it nothing but spam.

[joeylowsac]

Originally Posted by Ray Allan

I find it difficult to comprehend how anyone who calls himself WN would post garbage like this Moon hoax stuff. Yes, it is right up there with CI and Flat Earth drivel. This is about the fourth or fifth such thread about this in the 8 years I have been here. I consider it nothing but spam.

Consider that you are like the religionists who deride other religionists because they believe in different supernatural entities. They don't realise how foolish they look regarding their own group with contempt because they don't realise they are in the same group. From the outside however it is obvious that, like it or not, they are in the same group.

Holocaust Denier, 9-11, Anti-Vaxers, Moon Hoax. If you asked people to list them in order of most crazy to least crazy you would get back 16 different answers. Between the Holocaust, "HIV", Building 7, Titanic/Olympic and Apollo I am well over my limit of things most of the world accepts unquestioningly but upon close inspection turned out to be largely BS.
The Apollo missions were long before I was born and even today I have no way of observing first-hand what happens on the moon. I don't know who's been there or when.
I can only see (and hear) what is in the NASA archive. When it comes to Apollo there are serious problems with what is claimed to be the record of the Apollo missions. One could fill a book (several have) with all the problems.

The sun doesn't produce this effect.

Apollo 11 (stills I took from video)

This occurs throughout the Apollo missions.

Apollo 16 (Archive photo AS16-107-17446)

There are so many things wrong with this photo it defies logic that it is even included in the archive but it and many that are no less problematic are there. Not only are there at least two light sources the antenna of the vehicle is on top of a reticle (cross hairs). These reticles were placed in the focal plane of the camera when it was made. It is impossible for anything to get in front of them. Impossible! Yet this is far from the only photo in which it occurs.

These and many other impossibilities are found in the official record. How can they be ignored? I don't even give a fuck about this shit but neither can I pretend I don't see it. If it were only a few irregularities perhaps they could be overlooked but they are everywhere. With every aspect, everywhere!
Of course, none of it proves that nobody ever went. Given the record it is not an unreasonable conclusion.

There are simple experiments that almost anyone can do to verify the curvature of the earth (I've done them). The record provided by NASA is the only way to verify landing on the moon. I marvel that anyone believes either. An examination of the evidence is not the reason most believe and it is not likely to be the reason they stop believing. I'm fine with that. I'm fine with people believing in gods or a god. I'm fine with people believing Building 7 collapsed in on itself naturally. I'm fine with people believing the earth is flat.

I just cannot play along.

There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance, that principle is contempt prior to investigation. - H. Spencer

[Nikola Bijeliti]

All of these claims about light sources are mere speculation. First of all, the moon isn't flat; it's bumpy, so shadows aren't all going to be the same length or go in the same direction. It is the same as on earth. Furthermore, studio lighting produces multiple shadows, which are not present here. Studio lighting is used to soften the shadows, but the shadows are very harsh, due to the vacuum.

One would have to have a predisposition not to think the moon landings are possible to look at any of those photos and see anything wrong.

[Ray Allan]

How do you account for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, launched in 2009, photos of the Apollo landing sites, taken as close as 15 miles altitude, clearly showing the Lunar Module descent stages, equipment such as the laser reflectors (which scientists all over the world still bounce beams off of today) and even astronaut footpaths and Lunar Roving Vehicle tracks? Are these fake, too?

You know guys, we've had this discussion before. I guess the debate will never be settled until people go back to the Moon, walk up to Apollo 11's Eagle descent stage, the toppled over flag, Armstrong's and Aldrin's boot prints and whatnot, and take pictures of them. My guess is there will still be individuals who will say it's all fake.

And while we're at it, how about the Viking landers from the 1970s and the current rovers operating on Mars? Hollywood productions, too? Are the Chinese collaborating in the case of their Tianwen-1 rover? Or astronauts and cosmonauts aboard the ISS? Just riding in the Vomit Comet to simulate zero-g? The Hubble and James Webb images? Is the entire universe and our own existence just a big computer simulation?

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/a...ted/index.html

[NeverASayanim]

I'm in the Oppose camp with this subject. I do believe NASA has gotten us to lower Earth orbit, but as for exponential long distances then you're better off believe your grandmother could talk to fairies. I read on another debunker website that the photos of the Voyager missions were just pictures of mosaics appropriated to look like something planetary. I'd like to repost some nice comments from Renegade Tribune:



"Also, Charles Giuliani recently did a great five hour expose on this hoax…"

The NASA Apollo Hoax Part 1

The NASA Apollo Hoax Part 1

"Outer space is boring communist propaganda. German crafted UFOs from Earth are a much more intelligent discussion."


"Indeed. Let’s completely ignore the judeo-masonic NASA’s money laundering and racketeering and concentrate on some more wishful thinking. Just for the hell of it."

http://www.renegadetribune.com/nasa-...ideo/#comments

[Nikola Bijeliti]

Originally Posted by NeverASayanim

I'm in the Oppose camp with this subject. I do believe NASA has gotten us to lower Earth orbit, but as for exponential long distances then you're better off believe your grandmother could talk to fairies. I read on another debunker website that the photos of the Voyager missions were just pictures of mosaics appropriated to look like something planetary. I'd like to repost some nice comments from Renegade Tribune:



"Also, Charles Giuliani recently did a great five hour expose on this hoax…"
The NASA Apollo Hoax Part 1


"Outer space is boring communist propaganda. German crafted UFOs from Earth are a much more intelligent discussion."


"Indeed. Let’s completely ignore the judeo-masonic NASA’s money laundering and racketeering and concentrate on some more wishful thinking. Just for the hell of it."

http://www.renegadetribune.com/nasa-...ideo/#comments

That whole video is simply the uploader's opinions. There is no evidence presented. The few actual arguments given have repeatedly been debunked. The whole video amounts to saying that it is too difficult. One could say the same thing about open heart surgery or cell phone technology.

[NeverASayanim]

Unfortunately I cannot speak to those points right now as that would require huge amounts of reading and logical deduction in mental processes that would take probably more than month to figure out. I'll let you speak to user @joeylowsac as he's one of the brightest minds on VNN.

But I know I'm not at all wrong about Renegade's entire article on the subject of space missions mostly being a network of money laundering and racketeering. This can be proven if you do enough digging out there.

[T.Garrett]

Typical VNN forum horseshite ...firstly, the Russians have never claimed Nasa's Apollo missions didn't land astronauts on the moon and they would know, they monitor just about everything that goes on in low earth orbit, cislunar space and beyond.

What about the thousands of people that were employed nationwide by the contractors and subcontractors involved with the Apollo program ...dont you think many of them would have publicly called 'bullshit' if the moon landings were faked?

These are big mouthed Americans we are talking about here.

I crack up when I see threads like this.

[Ray Allan]

If some troll starts another thread about this, I won't bother responding. Enough already.

[Joe from OH]

Let's put an end to this nonsense. If man didn't go to the moon, then how in the hell would we have these:

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/...L._SL1500_.jpg

The first moon landing was in 1917. Just look on the box.

[U. Dunrouse]

Originally Posted by T.Garrett

What about the thousands of people that were employed nationwide by the contractors and subcontractors involved with the Apollo program ...dont you think many of them would have publicly called 'bullshit' if the moon landings were faked?

These are big mouthed Americans we are talking about here.

Working on something and completing it are 2 distinct things. The NASA could have been working on a moonlanding and have finally failed to achieve it within the proclaimed timeframe. In that event, the staging of a fake moon landing would have been a logical option. Aren't government agencies supposed to draw up plans to provide for all possible contingencies after all? It doesn't sound more far-fetched than a U.S. representative just conceding on TV in December 1969: "Sorry, but we will never go to the moon. We tried as hard as we could, but we have miserably failed. The victory of the Soviet Union in the space race is total and undeniable.". Unthinkable! Disastrous!! The Cold War was full of lies and deceptions. And the U.S. regime of the that time couldn't afford to lose face on that program with such a big failure. I'm not saying that that's what happened. I know almost nothing about the debate on the 1969 moon landing. I'm only saying that the argument of the numerous Apollo workers is not as compelling as it may seem.