'Dark Moon. Apollo and the Whistle-blowers'. Mary Bennett, David Percy. 1999. Aulis publishing.

$cientism and Red Pilling. Open your mind Neo.

Apollo 11 Actor-Nauts heading to the July 1969 launch.

[Do these look-like men, going on a near-certain voyage of death through massive radiation, micro-asteroids, solar flares, enormous swings in temperature, to a hostile planet 240.000 miles away, dependent on their little backpacks or Life-Support-Systems, which must provide oxygen and remove toxins, riding on and in technology that is untested and replete with 10 years of abortive failures and poor quality?  Or maybe the smiles and waves and happy countenances are those of Actor-Nauts, who know they are in little danger, and want to light up the idiot box with their grins, comforted by the knowledge that they will at best fly 150 miles in LEO and are a part of the greatest movie hoax in history?  Is this why Hollywood has a star on its ‘walk of fame’ for the Apollo 11 crew?] 

The Dark Moon, is an excellent and enlightening read.  It comprehensively deals with the ‘science’ ($cience when you view the vast sums involved), behind rocket propelled inter-stellar flight, the various frauds used by the CIA-DoD led Apollo program, during the 1960s and 70s, and the impossibility of man travelling to the lunar surface.  The material in this book has never been refuted by NASA and proves that Apollo was faked. 

There is however a caveat. The authors for some reason seem to believe in extra-terrestrial life, a monumental impossibility when one considers the literally millions if not billions of circumstances necessary for life, let alone inter-planetary travel.  They discuss ‘conspiracy’ themes such as Roswell, long lines of ET vessels on the moon, and life on Mars. All of this detracts from the real point of the book and is a waste of time. I would simply skip over these sections and stay focused on just the facts around the Apollo program. Putting these unproductive forays aside, the book does lay out in compelling rationale, how the ’science’ around space travel works and addresses some key aspects, or frauds, of the purported Apollo missions, from launch, to landing, to return.

You can read one chapter for example on ‘rockets’ and start there and the impossibility of using 1960s rocket technology to go to the moon and back is obvious.  It is still impossible today.  NASA cannot fly to the moon and back today, it does not have the rocket systems and capability. Full stop. You can begin with any stage of the supposed moon-journey, the lift-off, the use of stage rockets, the massive G force acceleration to exit Low Earth Orbit (LEO) and escape the gravitational pull, the penetration through 50.000 miles of the Van Allen radiation belt, the trajectory to the moon, the landing, the photos and images, the communications, the return journey, the re-entry, or just focus on the rocket propulsion systems, the module, the lunar landing craft, the computers and technology.  You can pick any area and analysing just that one area by itself will prove that the Apollo missions were a gigantic fraud. 

The authors break down the techno-jargon with the ‘science’ expostulated in easy to understand layman’s terms, buttressed by forensic and detailed research, original documents and most interestingly, interviews during the 1990s with well-known subject matter experts, including scientists and engineers who worked on the Apollo programs, and more than a few ‘whistle blowers’ who either directly or oftentimes indirectly would tell the authors during the interview, that the entire Apollo program was a fraud.  The authors conscientiously detail the many clues left by ‘whistle-blowers’ whose hints are found in written declamations and in the form of clues in images, photos, videos, and elliptical statements. 

An example is a Labatt’s beer-can posing as a rock on the ‘lunar surface’.  Or ‘rock C’ near the lunar module craft.  Or the pathetic size of the small Earth, shot from an impossible angle, facing up and past one of the Actor-Nauts (the cameras were chest mounted so this angle is impossible unless shot by a midget bending over backwards).  The Earth, at 4x the size of the moon, would hover on the horizon, imposing and large not a small dot.  Or the other whistle-blowing clues such as the obvious issues with shadows and lighting in all the missions’ photos.  Any one aspect, phase or time-bound analysis reveals the fraud.  When you add them together it is such an overwhelming set of proofs, that the debate and queries necessarily turn to why, what was the objective or goals, why the charade?  And why do people believe in it?  Many answers exist depending on the worldview of the inquirer. 

One excellent example of detailing the fraud is the chapter on ‘Rocket Rackets’.  Page 129 lists a long array of NASA Rocket failures starting in August 1958 with the Atlas ICBM program.  22 incidents are listed from 1958 to 1970, or almost 2 disasters every year.  Yet somehow, by the miracle of ‘stuff happens’ and the ‘genius’ of the ‘rocket scientists’ at NASA, America’s ‘best and brightest’, the 2 million moving parts of the Rocket systems, Command and Lunar modules, passed to the moon and back without incident, without a death, with no injuries nay, without even an illness. 

For example, in November 1966, during the manned Gemini XII mission, the target vehicles primary propulsion system was unusable for elliptical orbit manoeuvres, making the LEO exist impossible.  Two months later in January 1967, Gus Grissom and his 2 co-pilots in Apollo 1 were killed during a simulation test on the launch pad, (or they were perhaps murdered by NASA, given they were great critics of the program, saying it was impossible to fly to the moon).  Officially there was an ‘electrical failure’ which sparked a fire in the pure-oxygen environment within the command module, with the hatch inexplicably closed from the outside, roasting the pilots to a gory end.  In April 1967, the Surveyor III probe had a loop radar failure on its supposed lunar landing, and 3 months later the Surveyor IV crashed after losing all communications.  Apollo 6 in April 1968, a manned mission, had 20 major failures, including a failure to ignite the 2^nd stage rockets and propulsion difficulties with the 3^rd stage.  Yet 15 months later, apparently, Apollo 11, sailed without incident to the lunar surface and back, no issues, no problems, no radiation sickness, nothing but smiles and hand waving.

The Apollo 11 landing, the first ‘on the moon and the most important historical event ‘evah’, is a good place to start with some sceptical analysis.  As this chapter relates beginning on page 141, it is impossible that this homeless shelter on a massive rocket thruster, or as the authors laughingly call it, ‘the wigwam’, could land anywhere, forget the moon.  Armstrong famously almost died, crashing a simulator, not the real LEM (lunar excursion module, or LM) in 1968.  But like always, NASA’s ‘geniuses’, the smartest people ‘evah’, in a remarkably short period of time, supposedly fixed all the issues, and on the first attempt that the LEM is tried on the incredibly hostile climes of the moon, it functioned as promised with no issues.  Of course, it did.

(Apollo 11 LEM NASA, gold foil around the thruster, exhaust and landing gear)

Starting on page 149 the authors make the following appropriate observations about the LEM or lunar-excursion module:

1.     The firm contracted to build the LEM, Grumman, had experience with the design and development of modules, dating back to 1958.  The actual contract to build a module for a lunar landing was awarded in 1962.  So, we are to believe that in 7 short years, this complex system, built for an alien environment, full of failures and unknowns worked perfectly on its first try.

2.     LEM was basically 2 engines with 4 fuel tanks.  The fuel was liquid or hypergolic and highly unstable.  NASA eventually dropped ‘excursion’ from the acronym and named it the LM.

3.     The exterior was protected by a thermal and micrometeoroid shield, with the top and sides using nickel coated panels.  The engine compartment, heated by the descent rocket was covered in titanium.  Mylar and H film blankets were fitted to protect against the Sun.  Micrometeoroids can pass through any layer of protection and any flare, or cosmic ray event emitting these nano-particles would mean death.  During July 1969 some 15-20 solar and galactic events occurred each day during the Apollo 11 mission, yet there was no impact, not even a commentary by NASA or the actor-nauts on how they survived these. 

4.     This flimsy structure would have to endure the Saturn V’s first and second stage rocket thrusts of 7 Gs or more or an equivalent weight of 103 tonnes.  How this wigam-homeless shelter could survive take off is a mystery. 

5.     The LM could function with a 1- or 2-man crew, with both standing next to the fuel tanks.

6.     The LM must leave the Command Module or CM, to descend to the moon using retro-rockets to manage and slow speed, and also have enough fuel and rocket thrust to leave the lunar surface to rejoin the CM.

7.     The LM had two apertures one at the top and one on the side with a central engine (or fire), flimsy supports and thin walls (hence the authors name it the ‘wigwam’). 

8.     The LM or flying wigwam, could not support its own weight on Earth and was designed for the lunar surface and its 1/6 gravity attraction compared to the Earth.  There is no possibility it could survive a re-entry to Earth (24000 mph and 5000 F with the perfect angle needed to enter the atmosphere).  It is unclear how it would survive an exit.

9.     No LM had even been in manned space close to the lunar surface before July 1969.  The May 1969, Apollo 10 test flight ‘supposedly’ had a LM about 9 miles above the lunar surface.

10. No LM test had ever been performed which imitated the detachment from the CM, descent to a surface, within a vertical flight path and landing.

11. No trials had ever been made of a LM ascent, from any surface to an orbiting CM, travelling miles from the surface at 3000 mph.

12. The ascent mandates separate fuel, propulsion and control systems to launch and rejoin the CM.  There are no records of separate and repetitive testing of this system.

13. The small LM capacity was largely taken up by fuel tanks on the front, back, left and right; ‘scientific’ equipment, geological specimen canisters, 8 radio systems, life support systems, cameras and other items.  The LM had a total weight of 14.8 tonnes increased to 16 and 18 tonnes on future missions. 

14. The LM possessed 8 tonnes of fuel, the CM some 2.3 tonnes.  Armstrong supposedly landed with 2% of the fuel remaining. 

15. No trials had ever been performed either manned, or remote, of detaching and then relinking a LM with a CM at any height, travelling at any speed, anywhere including on Earth.

16. The LM was to be the ‘home’ of the Astro-Actor-Nauts, as they ‘explored’ the surface of the moon, in their cumbersome spacesuits, dependent on small backpacks which provided their own ‘environments’ to survive and which lasted 4 hours.

17. Now the fun part.  Armstrong’s supposed ‘descent’ into Tranquillity Bay was well….very tranquil.  No noise.  No shaking.  Perfect communications.  Yet in 1967 Gus Grissom wrote and stated that on Earth, there was inadequate communications between a sitting CM on the pad and the buildings next door.  How did Armstrong so effortlessly and clearly communicate with ‘Houston’?

18. Further the 10.000-pound thruster engine, used in the descent to slow down the onrushing LM, would make one horrific noise even in a vacuum.  Armstrong and Aldrin were literally standing on top of a massive rocket thruster yet during the televised ‘descent’, there was no noise, no shaking of the structure, and no modulation in Armstrong’s voice.  How is this possible when the entire structure would be vibrating to the point of disintegration?

19. NASA describes the LM descent engine as covered with a Titanium shield to contain the 2000-3000 F heat on descent.  Yet NASA maintains that Armstrong and Aldrin were in shirt sleeves in the LM, and once alighted, could quickly change into their 12 layered space suits.  In reality, it would take hours (some say 6) to put on the suits and there was simply no room in the LM to change.

20. On the descent the 10.000-pound thruster rocket would stir up massive dust and debris, making a visual landing impossible.  Yet neither Armstrong nor Aldrin mention this (Aldrin reflected on some light dust being driven up as they landed). 

21. No exhaust is seen or photographed or admitted to by the actor-nauts on landing.  How is this possible?  Hypergolic emissions would have engulfed the LM colourising the environment and shrouding the landing area.  None of the photos of the Apollo missions show exhaust from the rockets on a lunar-landing or take-off. 

22. The engine on descent was burning at 3000 F or so, it would melt rock (which melts at 1800 F), stir up a cloud of dust and debris and leave a very large hole in the surface.  Yet not a single Apollo mission landing or extraction on the lunar surface, left any signs of melted rocks, holes, or dust storms, nor of any expunged exhaust fumes and particulates.  How is that possible?

23. NASA’s excuse for the lack of exhaust is always the same – it is a vacuum.  Even in a vacuum you would see exhaust, hear, see and feel the vibrations from a massive rocket engine. 

24. (Page 156).  In 1996, in New Mexico the Delta DC-X rocket was tested on a vertical landing, leaving a huge 2-foot-deep crater underneath the rocket, lumps of gypsum and rock were lifted off the surface and spun onto the vehicle leaving significant damage, along with a trail of burnt-out soil and rock.  On the next test the same rocket type fell into the crater and exploded.  Yet we are to believe that on the moon, there was no crater, no hole, no air borne material smashing into the side of the LM, no melted rock and no trail of 3000 F heat on the surface. 

25. NASA still has not built a vertically descending and landing rocket – some 50 years after the supposed Apollo missions….

This one area alone – the landings and looking just at the Lunar Module – proves that the Apollo missions were faked.  And this is only ONE area.  You can investigate the entire trajectory of these missions from lift off to splash down and just zoom in on one phase of these voyages and discover for yourself a long list of anomalies, issues and patterns of failure and deceit.  You don’t need to be a ‘rocket scientist’, just a person using common sense with a critical eye for detail. 

You have to ask yourself a simple question.  Was it cheaper, faster and easier to simulate the moon landings using existing 2001 Space Odyssey and existing movie sets, or take the risk, live on TV supposedly, at traversing space, initiating a cis-lunar routine and landing and then flying back and re-entering our 12 layered atmosphere which takes profound precision and complex automation?  Would you as a director of NASA, after a decade of problems, failures and deaths actually risk showing a live lift off, inter-stellar travel and lunar landing, knowing that long before they reached even the Van Allen Belt that the astronauts would likely be dead or at best, floating off to their deaths in limitless space?  Would anyone anywhere in any company weighing up the reality and risks of space travel, really take the chance to broadcast live what was essentially impossible?  Of course not. 

Occam’s razor.  A moon-landing simulation was the quickest and easiest path to asserting America’s technology, military and scientific dominance and appease the various interests, the real ruling cabal, inside the US Federal government who wanted to demonstrate American omnipotence, as well as access unlimited billions in funding, graft and corruption.  NASA was after all, the golden fleece for many in power.  The old sins of pride, greed and corrupted power pervade everything in the religion of $cientism.