43) Your Slip Is Showing

The primary objective of Apollo 11 was to complete a national goal set by President John F. Kennedy on May 25, 1961: perform a crewed lunar landing and return to Earth.

After the Saturn rocket leaves earth, everything goes dark.

Isn’t that the definition of Black Ops?

After Apollo 11 had flown behind the moon out of contact with Earthwhen the LM was behind the moon…Armstrong stepped onto the moon. About 20 minutes later, Aldrin followed him. The camera was then positioned on a tripod about 30 feet from the LM.

shutterstock-285636983

But doesn’t the famous picture show that the astronauts are on the side of the moon facing earth?

And what about the brightness and the shadows cast by the sun? This can’t be the dark side of the moon.

According to NASA, unlike the earth, the entire moon, even the far side away from the earth, is always lit by sunlight.

Whaaat? That doesn’t make sense in a 5th grade classroom.

the-phases-of-the-moon-a-middle-school-science-hands-on-lesson

At any given point in the moon’s trajectory around the Earth, only half of its surface is facing the sun, and therefore, only half of the moon is lit up. The other half of the surface faces away from the sun and is in shadow…

At “new moon,” on the other hand, the moon isn’t even visible from our vantage point. This is when the moon is between the sun and the Earth, so that the side of the moon reflecting sunlight is facing away from Earth. 

Don’t be so bedazzled by “astronomy” that your common sense shuts down. And don’t just take everything you are told at face value.

Trans-Earth injection of the CSM began July 21 as the SPS fired for two-and-a-half minutes when Columbia was behind the moon…

Armstrong and Aldrin spent 21 hours, 36 minutes on the moon’s surface…Docking with Columbia occurred…at 128 hours, three minutes into the mission….Four hours later, the LM jettisoned and remained in lunar orbit.

Once used, the ascent stages of the [Apollo] capsules [the LM / lunar modules] were jettisoned and either crash-landed on the moon, burned up in Earth’s atmosphere, or – in one instance – went into orbit around the Sun.

But where exactly they ended up is not known in every case.

So zero physical evidence of the lunar modules.

It is important to note here that “The Moon always keeps the same face towards Earth.

But! In contradiction to the claim that the landings occurred on the side of the moon that is always facing away from the earth, we are told that we can see the evidence of the moon landings for ourselves, from earth.

Every single argument claiming that NASA faked the Moon landings has been discredited.

But even today, 50 years later, people discuss conspiracy claims online, on television programmes and around the dinner table…

Moon fact: With a powerful amateur telescope you can see the Apollo landing sites.

The sites? What does this mean? Equipment that got left behind or indentations in moon dust that has not been blown away by the solar wind that supposedly blew the flag in the photo?  So many contradictions, so little space to write, as…

Once again, we’re told the complete opposite.

As you’re well aware, no telescope on Earth can see…anything…Apollo-related.

OK, how about the Hubble Telescope in “outer space”?

Not even the Hubble Space Telescope can discern evidence of the Apollo landings. The laws of optics define its limits.Hubble’s 94.5-inch mirror has a resolution of 0.024″ in ultraviolet light, which translates to 141 feet (43 meters) at the Moon’s distance. In visible light, it’s 0.05″, or closer to 300 feet…

However,

No problem for NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), which can dip as low as 31 miles (50 km) from the lunar surface, close enough to image each landing site in remarkable detail.

There’s a number of problems with this report.

  1. Contradictions within the astronomy community of our ability to view evidence from earth.
  2. Contradictions within astronomy stating Apollo 11 conducted its moon landing / moon walk behind the moon, which never faces earth, so how could anyone view evidence from earth with any equipment?
  3. Massive contradiction between Hubble’s inability to view detail on the moon while reportedly capable of viewing objects billions of light-years away.
  4. Anyone who questions if NASA really pulled off the moon landing has to rely solely on evidence presented by NASA. In a civil lawsuit, would you agree to have all your evidence provided by the other side?

Certainly as time passes and our entire society becomes more technologically savvy and equipped, more and more questions are being raised about the validity of NASA’s claim that the US had the capability to fly astronauts to the moon in 1969.

What is NASA’s response?

NASA has released new photos of the Apollo 11 moon landing

Half a century ago, while those on Earth were enjoying a lazy Sunday in the summer of ’69, some 384,000 km away, two men were climbing down the steps of their spaceship – onto the surface of the moon…

Here, shared by NASA for the first time, is a unique glimpse of that extraordinary day in the history of humanity.

Seriously? Kids today can doctor photos on their phones. The ease in which NASA can doctored photos raises a massive credibility problem.

It also raises a shocking question – are we being deliberately deceived as to the shape of the earth?

south-america-physical-map-satellitekunimunes-authagraph-4096p-incl-polar-icecapsauthagraph-north-pole

Landsat’s “image from space” matches the familiar shape we know from the old Rand McNally maps.

But we now know that shape is incorrect.

Why doesn’t Landsat’s image match the corrected shape based on the AuthaGraph projection map, formated in 1999 by Japanese architect Hajime Narukawa, and one of the most innovative approaches to mapping today. The projection largely preserves the relative area of landmasses and oceans, and limits the distortion of their shapes.

It seems to me that Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex is shielding something from view of us commoners. Scoff you may, but who is the fool? The sceptic, or the blind believer?

China’s reported tests of a hypersonic orbital glide vehicle have sparked alarm in the U.S. as it could further fuel an escalating arms race.The Chinese government said this week that these were routine space test missions, not a demonstration of a new military weapon…

What appears to be a new is the Chinese vehicle’s capability to maneuver after reentry in ways that have not been seen before…“and be more aggressive in terms of its cross range,” he said. “That would be new in terms of technology…”

The Pentagon has warned for years that China has developed hypersonic glide vehicles to arm its short-range ballistic missiles. A more advanced vehicle would be concerning, he said. “It’s the element of surprise that becomes destabilizing…”

In anticipation of China and Russia deploying hypersonic missiles, the Pentagon is developing a network of space sensors in low Earth orbit to fill blind spots in the current U.S. antimissile defense system. DoD concluded that only sensors in low orbits can spot maneuvering missile threats accurately and early enough so they can be shot down.

President Putin boasted last December [2021] that Russia was leading the world in hypersonic missiles, which are hard to track because they can change direction while mid-flight…

Russia posted a video [in May 2022] of what it said was its missile strike on the arms depot in Deliatyn, a village in south-western Ukraine only 100km from the border with Romania…

The Russian leader unveiled the Kinzhal four years ago as one of a series of “invincible” weapons that he said would evade enemy defences. The other hypersonic missiles are the Zirkon and the Avangard, which is both faster and has a far greater range.

The Kinzhal can carry a nuclear warhead as well as a conventional one and recent reports said MiG-31 fighters had been sent to Kaliningrad, bringing numerous European capitals within reach. There is no indication from where the attack on the arms depot was launched.

“It’s a signal to the West, because Putin is annoyed that the West is daring to shift all these weapons [to Ukraine],”

That raises a significant question from a US defensive position. Is Hubble in low earth orbit circling Earth every 90 minutes going 17,500 mph positioned for a military rather than an astronomical observatory?

One can only hope. This consideration is supported by the fact that, despite quantum leaps in technology supposedly sending space vehicles to much further reaches of outer space beyond the moon, neither the United States nor any other nation has tripped to the moon since 1972.

And, according to NASA itself, based on knowledge obtained a decade before the supposed moon flight, we can’t.

Over 60 years ago [in 1958], the United States launched its first satellite into space: Explorer 1, which included a Geiger counter.

Because an earth-based scientist had detected radiation.

To NASA’s surprise, it was registering radiation levels a thousand times greater than anyone expected. The radiation wasn’t of earthly origin, and it occupied an area scientists had considered a void. It also far outpaced the levels of radiation that would be expected from cosmic rays alone. So what was it?

Two donuts of seething radiation called the Van Allen radiation belts [named after their discoverer.]

The outer belt is made up of billions of high-energy particles that originate from the Sun and become trapped in Earth’s magnetic field, an area known as the magnetosphere. The inner belt results from interactions of cosmic rays with Earth’s atmosphere.

One key finding was data showing that the inner edge of the outer belt is…[an] impenetrable barrier

Still studying the Van Allen Belts 60 Years After America’s First Spacecraft because [they] are a hazard to both astronauts and spacecraft…”

VanAllenProbes Decal2012_4PrintThe inner Van Allen Belt extends typically from an altitude of…620 mi to…7,500 mi above the Earth…

The outer belt…at an altitude of…8,100 to 37,300 mi above the Earth’s surface.

Lucky escape

So how did NASA solve the problem of crossing the Van Allen belts?

Answer #1:

The short answer is they didn’t…the Apollo spacecraft…took them through the inner and outer belts

Models of the radiation belts developed in the run-up to the Apollo flights indicated that the passage through the radiation belts would not pose a significant threat to astronaut health. And, sure enough, documents from the period show that monitoring badges worn by the crews and analysed after the missions indicated that the astronauts typically received doses roughly less than that received during a standard CT scan of your chest.

But that is not the end of the story. To get to the moon and safely back home, the Apollo astronauts not only had to cross the Van Allen belts, but also the quarter of a million miles between the Earth and the moon – a flight that typically took around three days each way.

They also needed to operate safely while in orbit around the moon and on the lunar surface…As such, they and their crews were vulnerable to unpredictable solar flares and events…

The crewed Apollo flights actually coincided with the height of a solar cycle...solar flares and solar energetic particle events are more common during times of heightened solar activity…

There is no doubt that the political imperative in the 1960s to put US astronauts on the moon “in this decade” was the primary driving factor in the mission timing…

History tells us that the gamble of flying during the years of high solar activity during the Apollo era paid off. None of the Apollo flights were blasted by powerful solar flares or engulfed by clouds of solar energetic particles [or irradiated by the Van Allen Belts.]

What are the odds of that!

So another PR writer gives a different explanation. One clear evidence that something sketchy is going on with NASA is the volume of new and contradictory arguments defending its claims.

Answer #2:

How NASA Worked Around Earth’s Radiation Belts to Land Apollo 11 on the Moon

On July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 landed on the natural satellite and broadcast a live view of the lunar surface, Earth, space and of astronauts working on the surface.

Yet still, there are doubts these days that humans actually achieved this feat.

Are you getting that!! This article actually states that the live broadcast of the lunar event should be convincing enough! I’m speechless at the audacity, no – the arrogance and assumption of civilian gullibility and stupidity – of that argument. Try presenting that in court at your burglary hearing. “Your Honor, I made a video showing my alibi.”  “Case dismissed.”

And that’s without investigating the ability of sending television images 240,000 radiation-filled miles to earth with the broadcasting technology at that time.

Moving on while shaking my head in disbelief AT THE AUDIENCE’S CREDULITY…

Answer #3:

the following question appeared on Quora on August 23, 2018:“When will the existence of the Van Allen belt and our inability to penetrate its harsh radiation with today’s technology force NASA to admit it faked the moon landing?”

Some people believe we never went to the Moon because of the existence of the Van Allen radiation belts. The idea is that any astronauts en route to outer space has to pass through these belts and, in so doing, they would receive a lethal dose of radiation.

So engineers fashioned shielding that consisted of a spacecraft hull and all the instrumentation lining the walls.

Further, knowing the belts’ absence above the poles, the altitude of the lower edge of the inner belt being ~600 km (well above the LEO [Lower Earth Orbit]) and the location of the South Atlantic anomaly, where doses are at a high 40 mrads/day at an altitude of 210 km allowed NASA to design the Apollo translunar injection (TLI) orbit in a way that the spacecraft would avoid the belts’ most dangerous parts.

Apollo 11 bypassed the inner belt and only passed through the weaker part of the outer belt (Fig. 4). According to NASA’s ‘The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology’, the high-altitude nuclear tests would have had a significant impact on Apollo orbits but NASA scientists had accounted for this possibility in radiation-protection planning.

Fig. 4: This figure shows only the final leg of the path through the belts. Red marks indicate the time in 10-minute intervals of the Apollo 11 flight. The first red dot near Earth is the point of TLI. From AP-8 Trapped Proton Environment for solar maximum and minimum. Source: National Space Science Data Center, December 1976
Fig. 4: This figure shows only the final leg of the path through the belts. Red marks indicate the time in 10-minute intervals of the Apollo 11 flight. The first red dot near Earth is the point of TLI. Photo: Apollo 11’s Translunar Trajectory

Several factors worked in favour of the minimum exposure trajectory. We all know that Earth’s axis is tilted by 23.5° relative to the ecliptic plane. In 1969, the magnetic north pole was displaced from the geographical north pole by 11.4°. Therefore in 1969, the Van Allen radiation belts could have had a maximum inclination of 34.9° (23.5°+11.4°) with respect to the ecliptic (Fig. 5).

Take your pick of alternative histories.

NASA’s Explanation of Why We Haven’t Been Back to the Moon

historic_radiation_belts_orig

Data…recorded by Explorer 1 was humanity’s first glimpse of Earth’s radiation belts…named the Van Allen Belts…

Satellites that unwittingly or intentionally venture into the belts can be damaged by the radiation, which could have an impact on unprotected astronauts as well. Understanding the dynamics of this region is essential for protecting technological assets and planning crewed space missions.

“Could have an impact on unprotected astronauts?” “Planning crewed space missions?” Sure sounds like manned space craft haven’t been through the Van Allen Belts yet.

There are strong reasons to reject the claim that the Apollo spacecraft were capable of taking humans through the Van Allen radiation belts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s