The moon landings (hoaxed): April 2009

The scientist- claimed evidence is often no more than claimed rocks from the moon, insignificant video clips, the sight of a rocket going into the sky, and the experiments put on the video clips that would prove many common theories.
But there is one claim that can convince many people we went to the moon. There is an observatory in Mexico that sends lasers to the moon and the lasers look for a reflection higher than the natural reflection on the moon's surface. The people inside see a reflection coming back assume it's remains of the moon landings.

* The 12 observatories that shoot lasers to the moon only detect a strong reflection coming from the moon, not necessarily from the retro-reflector the astronauts of Apollo 15 claimed to leave on the moon. In order to be for sure what all objects are on the moon's surface, we would have to really go to the moon, many times in many places. See:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=orvMZn8L1f0
The reflection was said to reflect a retro reflector. That's something that reflects light directly back at the source. Normally, light reflects at an angle. The people who believe in the moon landings because of those observatories assume there is no retro-reflector on the moon other than man- made equipment, when they would have to go to the moon themselves to know it. And the observatories themselves could be pulling off a hoax. There are only 12 of them.

* It wouldn't be hard for the government to hide a studio where they faked the moon landings. There are several places in which they could have done it. There is one particular area where a lot of the moon hoax theorists say NASA faked it: Area 51. It's claimed to have military flight testing, but Russians claim that through spy satellites, they saw more than that. They say that there was a studio inside, where only military personal is allowed. And there are obviously easier ways than area 51. They could have gone to a low populated place like Antarctica. They could have even faked the videos within NASA's own training center.

* The rocks they claim came from the moon could have been from earth. NASA says that the rocks had material affects that could only come from radiation as powerful as solar flares. But the radiation affects doesn't depend on how powerful the exposure to radiation was, but also how much time it was being affected by the radiation. And the marks on the rocks didn't have to be meteorites. If NASA just had lasers, water- jets, or etc with just the right amount of power, they could have left any marks on the rocks that they wanted to. There are ways mankind can destroy the most powerful things, and now, NASA says the marks on a rock couldn't have been faked? Maybe NASA even made the rocks from scratch. And, the way the rocks have lack of moisture could have been from the same radiation- using tool that they used in the first place. And off course, they claim that the glass particles in the rocks couldn't be faked because they appear to have been caused by meteorites affected by volcanoes, and that they are billions of years old and water from earth breaks down such volcanic glasses in a few million years. But the method that scientists use to determine how old something is is radiodemetric dating. That works by the scientists measuring the amount of radiation- material affects on something and then using the low data they have to determine how old it is. But this is inaccurate. See: www.radiodemistake.blogspot.com. Radiation material affects don't depend only on time, but also exposure. That means it's the opposite mistake of examining those rock's radiation- material affects and assuming you can know all of the exposure that they've faced. Radiodemetric dating and making the assumptions that most moon landing theorists- geologists who have examined the rocks make are also contradictions. Again, NASA may have even made the rocks from scratch.

* The reasons why someone would fake it, are interesting. One reason is to be known as the "American hero." Another reason is to get money. NASA had billions of dollars and might have saved much money if it was faked. Another is the race with Russia. There's also the possibility the government was trying to trick people into doing something. Either the government or NASA could have been wanting to lie their way into being trusted with things they shouldn't have. During the first moon landing, Richard Nixon was president, and then he turned out to be a cheater at politics. Scientists along with politicians have often said different things at different times to turn things to their advantage.

* NASA also claims that the government could not hide something like this, because of the way there were so many people in the project that they couldn't keep this secret. But they are wrong. First, it isn't a secret. There are definitely people who believe in the moon landing hoax. And most of the people obviously didn't know about the hoax. In fact, any astronaut who tried to get to the moon died trying and any astronaut who lived faked it.

* The videos said to be of "man on the moon" are inaccurate. The background could have been artificial. There are tools from the 60s they could have used to fake the motions that seem to be in 1/6 of the earth's gravity: doubled speed, wire supports, hot- air balloon supports, fake and lightweight suits and others. And it wouldn't take a computer to use the blue screen technology. In a theater, they "shoot" the movie at the screen. Maybe NASA put the camera in front of a screen with several images put in one during some of the shots and clips. That would explain why you can barely see through Neil Armstrong in the part of this video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=16Bus5clfrw&feature=channel_page

* The experiments in the videos that some say could only occur on the moon are not more than what could have been done with an airplane, fake objects or the same manipulation they did with the rest of the videos. For an example, when Neil Armstrong supposedly dropped a hammer and a feather and they landed at the same time, you can't say for sure that he wasn't in an airplane- vacuum room or that the "hammer" and the "feather" were made out of their natural materials.

Suspicious political events and deaths involving NASA's Apollo project:

> Guss Grimson, Edd White, Roger Chaffee were all killed in an Apollo 1 fire inside the rocket they were locked in. They say they heard Guss Grimson, Edd White and Roger Chaffee yelling about the fire before they died. But before the fire, the capsule's communication systems failed. Grimson tried to commumicate, saying: "No, I didn't read you Chuck at all. I can't read you Chuck. You wanna try the phone? How are we going to get to the moon when we can't talk between two buildings? I can't hear a word you're saying." It's as if while others knew there was a moon landing hoax being planned, they didn't and people knew that if they were killed by the radiation, more people would suspect the future moon landings were hoaxed and they would have more proof behind them. Guss Grimson's family claims the death's were no accident, but on purpose. They say nasa knows who it was and they need to tell them the truth. Before the rocket was even finished, people in the North American Aviation were in arguements with NASA of how the rocket should be designed. Before lift- off, the crew showed deep concern about fire hazards. After the believed "accident," the North American Aviation was partly blamed for the deaths of the astronatus. It seems that someone intended for the rocket to be deadly.
See: www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0W9bQ2Jg3A. Some of NASA admits that it was carelesness and that no one thought about whether or not a fire could start in the ground. Right after a phraze procaliming that, however, it was said: "-Let's go to the moon."

> Thomas Ronald Baron was a safety inspector during Apollo 1. After the incident in which several astronauts died, he approached Congress saying the US. may never walk the moon. Exactly one week after his approach, he and most of his family were killed. It was said to be a train accident. But why would it just happen to be a train accident killing a safety inspector of a failed "moon mission" and most of his family a week after he testified against the Apollo project?

> John F Kennedy was President while nasa was planning on going to the moon and he was putting hard effort into supporting them. But during his Presidency, he was murdered. It could have been parts of nasa trying to pressure people into helping them and believing in them through a tragic death. Maybe they thought John F. Kennedy was putting too much effort into it himself and that he might find out the truth. Although Johnson, his Vice President who became President, also put a "risky" amount of effort into it, the secret service had recently been invented and he was expected to have faith in NASA as part of his sadness for John F. Kennedy. Both of those ideas seemed to be true. Johnson didn't believe in NASA's hoax and no President in America has been assassinated since the secret service was invented that we know of.

> Richard Nixon was President while the first moon landing was said to occur. But his glory didn't last too long. Nixon turned out to be a cheater. He literally, after being caught, asked if he could retire from his Presidency. Like Kennedy, his Presidency ended suspiciously.

What likely happened to John F. Kennedy was he was assassinated because some of NASA was afraid that unless they could pressure the people to have faith in them through a devastating death, someone would end up discovering the fraud while they were trying to help with the Apollo project. If they were thinking that way, they were probably right. Few people in America believed in the hoax and then said so years after Apollo 18 and then generations after that were sometimes pressured into not even questioning the Apollo project. At first, it was probably partly because of the Kennedy assasination. Now, it's because people are trying to pressure the people younger than them into having faith in the Apollo project because they are afraid to question supposed "heroes" who were claimed to have went to the moon and come back.

Most of NASA was trying to put man on the moon. But some of them were planning a hoax, because they feared the radiation in deep space. They knew they could not survive the heat and radiation on the trip. But Guss Grimson actually was trying to get to the moon. The hoax planners inside NASA didn't want him to die before the trip was halfway over. That would rise suspicion. So, Grimson's death was something they were picky about. Frauds were also inside the North American Aviation and put traps inside the rocket. This may be what Baron had interpretated. It seems he thought that someone inside wanted to fake it. Because whatever Barren said, it seems Baron was dead for a particalarly big reason. 10 astronauts died in freak accidents, sometimes during their own training. Could this be because NASA was hiding their vulnerability to the dangers of deep space? It's obviously the truth. No astronaut has died or suffered from an accident in outer space, yet there were several astronauts who died in suspicious and freak accidents based on technichal difficulties that occured on earth? Why would that be? Some scientists of the time of the Apollo project were shocked and angry at NASA for continuing the Apollo project even after all of those astronauts died suspiciously. Could it bee that the reason NASA's concience was so still against some of the scientist's opinions because there was more than one reason not to believe them? Yes, it was.

Barren was claimed to be killed by a train in an complete accident. It was exactly one week after his testimony and a rare death that was unlikely to happen to anyone. Someone could have easily killed them with hand in hand combat that didn't involve guns, then put his car on the tracks ,with him and his family inside it, hijack the train, destroy Barren's car, and then give the train back to the original driver and forcing him not to say a word. Or, maybe the train owner himself was trying to help the murderers cover- up for their crime.

President John F. Kennedy's death was selected at just the right time so that people would think he died because of his speeches he made against slavery.

Richard Nixon was President while NASA was said to send man to the moon. But later, he turned out to be a cheater and he retired from Presidency. Although he is clearly not the only President who cheated, he is the only one that asked to be dismissed. He clearly was hiding something. Nixon was John F. Kennedy's old opponent during the election that John F. Kennedy won. This sounds like no coincidence. The probability is that Nixon was cheating along with the hoax parts of NASA so that people would trust him more. But after he was caught, he was forced to admit his cheating against the opinions he was against. He asked to leave his Presidency behind him probably for more than one reason. The probabilities are that:

> All of his effort to gain worthless trust had only lead him to success for so long. His depression was either more than he could take or more than what he would take.

> If he was caught and kept going as President, more and more suspicion would rise both on him and NASA. He had made deals with the hoax parts of NASA and was afraid of their betrayal.

> Some of the hoax planners inside NASA were wanting a more trusted President.

> He feared he might be assassinated, like his old opponent, John F. Kennedy. The secret service might have a harder time putting the effort into protecting him that they were supposed too. He thought his protection at the White House wasn't enough and he was more comfortable having no strong protection if people felt less reason to assassinate him.

> He thought he would have a better reputation if he quit and pretended it was for the people's own good, that he wasn't able to be President.

The theory that NASA terminated the astronauts who were trying to go to the moon, while others helped pull off a giant hoax has some sense behind it. The astronauts in the the Apollo project who died all died on the earth but the ones who were claimed to go into space all survived, even though Apollo 13 was said to have a dangerous accident that got close to killing 3 astronauts. So, it's easier to survive in space than to avoid a freak accident on earth? No. There was obviously something wrong with the moon landings.

The most suspicious is probably the cold war and the events of the space race that was in it.

Americans and Russians were on a race to the moon, determined that whoever won the race would be known as the world dominator. When Russia sent sputnick, the first satellite into inner space, the Americans were terrified. Some even thought we might be headed for extinction because of Nuclear bombs. Assumptions were being made that Russia was going to drop Nuclear bombs on America from space. Meanwhile, America was having trouble sending rockets high above the ground. Suspicious deaths and technical difficulties were NASA's big problems. According to those who believe in the moon landings, in three years, America went from where they were to a time when they weren't able to get far of the ground to a time when they could go to the moon in 2 years and then Russia who three years before then, was in the lead, didn't go to the moon for 40 years after America's supposed "moon landing." This exchange was extremely unlikely at the time and it still seems suspicious.

Russians, supposedly using spy sattelites accuse America of hiding a studio in "area 51," a place at the Vedas high desert, which is so heavily guarded, that if you went in, on purpose for any reason, or on accident, or even if you were mentally ill, you could be shot and murdered. The government says it's where some military flight and bomb testing, training and practicing occurs. But what part of the government is definitely going to be honest about a place that they'd guard with innocent people's lives? Why would there be 80,000 guards and none betray this murderous way of secrecy? Were the guards divided, not only into different parts, but into different intentions? Probably so. There has been reported betrayel in American surges in other countries, so shouldn't there be betrayel in area 51? Either their hiding truths about betrayel, or the guards are devided into different intentions.

The summarary is simple yet, curious:
John F. Kennedy was assasinated, a cheater took over after 8 years, 10 astronauts die in suspicious deaths, along with Thomas Ronald Barren, who feared the program could be stopped dead in its tracks, and it all happened in a space race in the Cold War, a result of American and Russian paronia of each other, while area 51 was and still is suspiciously and horrificly unreasonably protected and hidden. Coincidence? Why shouldn't anyone doubt it? Something was wrong. The government was untrusworthy. So, they were obviously hiding something big. The one theory with photography, video footage and other strong evidence behind it is the moon landing being faked. The suspicious deaths and political events show the government could very well be hiding something. The photographic evidence, the video evidence, the radiation in deep space and the dissability to re- enter the earth's atmosphere are all proof that the government was hiding something and they show exactly what it was that they were hiding.

Engine noise from a rocket and the lift off.

The engine noise in a rocket is over 200 dB(A). That's loud enough to kill someone in close range if they weren't shielded. Where the astronauts were was a location feet from the engine. And NASA's designing for a sound system that could hear through all of that noise was innacurate. The microphones being inside the spacesuits and the walls being between the engine are the only parts of the sound system made to allow the astronaut's voices to be heard through all of that noise. That's not enough to keep engine noise powerful enough to kill anyone up close.

The moon landings (hoaxed)

NASA cannot prove man ever went to the moon.

Related websites:

Followers

Suspicious political events and deaths involving NASA's Apollo project:

Engine noise from a rocket and the lift off.

Other links

Questions or comments?