THE DRESDEN HOLOCAUST AS PLANNED! "The Germans can be killed or constrained after the war,
but they cannot be re-educated to a democratic way of thinking and
acting.”……it is hoped that by war’s end, they will largely have been killed off."
Albert Einstein
N.B. Material re-posted from 16 April 2021 [BAFS]
ALBERT EINSTEIN SHOWED NO CONCERN FOR THE
PALESTINE NAKBA OR SHOAH, BUT ACKNOWLEDGED STOLEN PALESTINE AS "OUR STATE OF
ISRAEL"!
"In 1952, soon after Jewish
terror gangs had ethnically cleansed Arab villages, Einstein was offered
the presidency of the illegitimate State of Israel. He politely
declined the offer: “I am deeply moved by the offer from our State of Israel, and at once saddened and ashamed that I cannot accept it.” " MIKE KING "REAL HISTORY CHANNEL"
When we do a Google image search for the word "genius", the first thing, and I do mean, thing,
we see is the wretched mug of Albert Einstein. Plug in the word
"scientist", and again, St. Albert is the first face to populate. You
can scroll and scroll way down those pages and not even find a hint of
folks like Tesla, von Braun, Shockley, and other great names. Why is
that? Was St. Albert really such a "genius"? Or is this a case of the
press pumping-up a fellow tribesman? Let's have a look.
Monster
Einstein wrote: "The Germans can be killed or constrained after the
war, but they cannot be re-educated to a democratic way of thinking and
acting.”......it is hoped that by war's end, they will largely have been
killed off."
By Mike King – The Real History Channel April 2021
When we do a Google image search for the word “genius”, the first thing, and I do mean, thing,
we see is the wretched mug of Albert Einstein. Plug in the word
“scientist”, and again, St. Albert is the first face to populate. You
can scroll and scroll way down those pages and not even find a hint of
folks like Tesla, von Braun, Shockley, and other great names. Why is
that? Was St. Albert really such a “genius”? Or is this a case of the
press pumping-up a fellow tribesman? Let’s have a look.
EINSTEIN THE PLAGIARIST
Einstein was a serial, psychopathic plagiarist. Einstein’s plagiarism has been conclusively proven beyond doubt. (here). Einstein’s “Theory of Relativity” as well as his famous equation (E=Mc2), were actually published before Einstein claimed credit for them.
EINSTEIN THE MISTAKEN
Einstein’s “discoveries”, stolen as they were, are still disputed to this day. Einstein himself expressed doubts about his “theories.”
Though it is beyond the scope of this author to evaluate theories of
physics, the fact that some physicists continue to passionately insist
that Einstein’s ideas are false, is very intriguing. We wonder, for
every one outspoken critic of Einstein, how many more scientists hold
the very same doubts but are too intimidated to express them. Of even
greater interest is the fact that the scientific doubters are often
childishly ridiculed, but never openly debated.
THE GREAT TESLA ON EINSTEIN & RELATIVITY
“Einstein is a beggar dressed in purple clothes and made king using dazzling mathematics that obscure truth”…
“The theory of relativity isa mass of error and deceptive ideas violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of thepast and even to common sense.”
“The theory, wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes
them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and
makes people blind to the underlying errors. Not a single one of the
relativity propositions has been proved.”
EINSTEIN THE ABUSER
Einstein was very cruel to Mileva, his first wife and mother of their two sons. He not only cheated on her openly, but as the marriage unraveled, he laid out cruel conditions for staying with her as follows:
.
Under the heading: “Conditions.”
.
“You will make sure that: 1. that my clothes and laundry are kept in
good order; 2. that I will receive my three meals regularly in my room;
3. that my bedroom and study are kept neat, and especially that my desk
is left for my use only.You will renounce all personal
relations with me insofar as they are not completely necessary for
social reasons…you will stop talking to me if I request it.”
(here)
EINSTEIN THE SERIAL CHEATER
Einstein eventually dumped Mileva to marry the woman with whom he
was having an affair, his cousin Elsa. But the sex-crazed serial
adulterer still wasn’t happy. He is now known to have cheated on the 2nd
wife as well, having no fewer than SEVEN extra marital affairs during his second marriage! (here)
EINSTEIN THE “DEAD BEAT DAD”
Under the easy terms of Einstein’s divorce agreement from Mileva,
his 1921 Nobel Prize money was to have been deposited in a Swiss bank
account. Mileva was to draw only upon the interest for herself and the
couple’s sons, Hans Albert and Eduard. When the sons were grown, 100% of
the principal would belong to Einstein.
Mileva had to constantly beg the affluent Einstein for child support. (here)
She and her sons struggled while “the great scientist” lived the high
life. Compounding her misery, Eduard would develop severe mental
problems. Beaten down by life, Mileva died in 1955, at only 60.
Einstein became estranged from his adult sons. The boys had always
been resentful over Einstein’s abuse and abandonment of their mother.
Upon Einstein’s death, the wealthy old bastard left an insulting
pittance to Hans Albert, the other son that he had hurt so much.
EINSTEIN THE ATTENTION WHORE
A pure creation of Jewish media hype, Einstein was a pathological
attention seeker. The mad scientist enjoyed shooting hot air out of
his lying mouth on every subject imaginable. Though his sycophant
worshipers eagerly ate up his bullshit, astute observers such as the
great satirist H.L. Mencken saw right through the Marxist clown. Mencken
once referred to Einstein as “that fiend for publicity.”
EINSTEIN THE COMMUNIST
Einstein fled Hitler’s Germany in 1933 not because he was Jewish,
but because he was a politically active Marxist! Einstein held
membership in more Communist front groups than one could shake a hammer
and sickle at.
These activities continued upon his arrival to America, where he would later defend the traitorous Rosenbergs (executed in 1952 for having passed A-Bomb secrets to the Soviets). Einstein defended other Communist traitors as well (Oppenheimer, Robeson, Fuchs, DuBois etc). In 1947, Stalin’s Pravda Newspaper named Einstein to its list of ‘Top-Ten Friends of the Soviet Union.’
Einstein and Szilard plot GENOCIDE against German civilians!
EINSTEIN THE WARMONGER
Einstein the fraud was a self described “pacifist”. However, during
the 1930’s, the “pacifist” suddenly became an fierce advocate for total
war against Germany! The famous Einstein-Szilard letter, in which the
two Jewish scientists urge the Jew owned President Roosevelt to develop
an atomic weapon, was actually written during peacetime in August of 1939! The letter falsely accuses Germany of developing an atomic bomb (the original WMD’s Lie!) and urges FDR to beat Hitler to the punch.
.
The genocidal Einstein was looking forward to the day when Berlin, one
of his former homes, could be nuked! Ironically, Einstein was never
invited to participate in the Communist infested Manahattan Project (which grew out of Einstein’s letter) because
the FBI deemed him a security risk. After the war ended, the USA and
Stalin’s USSR become bitter adversaries. Red Albert conveniently
reverted back to “pacifism”.
EINSTEIN THE ANTI-AMERICAN*
Einstein hated McCarthy and urged Communists not to testify for any hearings
Einstein was an America-basher. Not content with bad mouthing and
betraying his former German host, Einstein had insults for his adopted
American country as well. For example, this sarcastic gem: “Too many
of us look upon Americans as dollar chasers. This is a cruel libel,
even if it is reiterated thoughtlessly by the Americans themselves.”
While ignoring the racial basis for the “State of Israel”, hypocrite Einstein constantly denounced American racism. (see ‘Einstein The Racial Agitator’ section below).
The Red scientist also had harsh words for American anti-Communist
patriots, denouncing the great Senator Joseph McCarthy among others.
EINSTEIN THE ONE-WORLDER
Einstein condemned Nationalism (except for Israeli nationalism) and was very open in his support for a One World Government. He wrote, “There is no salvation for civilization, or even the human race, other than the creation of a world government.”
Of course, it will be St. Albert’s synagogue buddies who will be running this World Federation, presumably from Israel.
EINSTEIN THE MASS MURDERER
With World War II coming to a close, vindictive Jews worldwide
openly called for the genocide of the German people. Indeed, this policy
was partially implemented. Among the demonic voices demanding more
blood was the “pacifist” Einstein.
.
He wrote: “The Germans can be killed or constrained after the war,
but they cannot be re-educated to a democratic way of thinking and
acting.”……it is hoped that by war’s end, they will largely have been killed off.“
The stacks of incinerated Germans in the aftermath of Dresden.
EINSTEIN THE RACE AGITATOR
In spite of segregation, American Blacks were making great economic
progress in America during the 1940’s & 50’s. This didn’t stop the
ungrateful foreigner Einstein from routinely trashing America for it’s
“racism”. He wrote, “Race prejudice has unfortunately become an
American tradition which is uncritically handed down from one generation
to the next.”
The trouble making Einstein also joined the anti-White, Jewish
funded NAACP, and became close friends with two of America’s most
notorious Black “race hustlers” – W.E. DuBois and Paul Robeson, both
Communists.
EINSTEIN THE ZIONIST
Einstein with Israeli Prime Minister and butcher of Palestinians, David Ben Gurion
Though not a religious Jew, Einstein was indeed an ethnocentric Jew
who saw the world through a “Jews vs Gentiles” lens. In 1952, soon after
Jewish terror gangs had ethnically cleansed Arab villages, Einstein was
offered the presidency of the illegitimate State of Israel. He politely
declined the offer: “I am deeply moved by the offer from our State of Israel, and at once saddened and ashamed that I cannot accept it.”
German Einstein was not anti-American, but a German traitor who joined them as thousands others and the USA will ally with his Bolshevik Communists (led by more than 80% so-called Jews, according to the Leninist-Stalinist Jew Vladimir Putin!) - and gave them Eastern Europe (satellites) as payment. [BAFS]
19 Comments
MM
on April 19, 2021 at 8:23 am
I wouldn’t know if these claims against Einstein are true but a
lot of renegade scientists do make claims that go against established
opinion. But in the case of Albert he was so influential they didn’t
make these claims just after he died but waited another 65 years, just
to make sure. That’s how influential he still is.
andyay
on April 19, 2021 at 8:59 am
The speed of light is not a universal constant. Einstein’s
equations require that it is, therefore, even his “elegant” mathematical
formulations are just approximations of measure.
Quite why the theoretical equivalence of mass and energy has become so
important to science is confounding to me. It seems ludicrous that so
many hours of scholarship have been expended wrestling with an
abstraction, which isn’t very useful practically and involves the kind
of subject matter, anyway, that poets and philosophers do better.
In theoretical terms, special relativity requires the audacious
sleight of hand of leaving the ether out of consideration altogether. It
abolishes the primary medium, as understood and accepted by all science
prior to Einstein. The ether was the goddess Maat in Ancient Egypt and
it surely must be titillating to the atheist, that there’s one less
deity in the pantheon of Khem.
The results from the Mitchelson-Morley experiments were censorsed such
that readings inferring the existence of a medium for light waves were
rejected as “unreliable” to give way to the Einstein lobby’s
speculations.
The thoroughly deceitful nobel laureate Albert Einstein failed the
entrance exam to Zurich polytechnic. In Bern, he was a patents clerk,
third grade. THIRD GRADE, mind you. The man was as thick as shit.
Hemmed In
on April 19, 2021 at 9:31 am
You omitted his connection to the ludicrous crust displacement
theory, Charles Hapgood and why the Chan Thomas book was banned by the
CIA?
Nexus Magazine gave this information about Einstein over the
years. In a lecture he was interrupted about the plagiarism and just
brushed it off. He established absurdities in the public mind about the
speed of light as a gaslighting exercise and he was one of the view who
expressed the highest level of the Conspiracy by being consciously
Communist and Zionist. Lower down, that is seen as impossible because of
the hypocrisy. He had the nasty view of women like Freud and Weishaupt.
His connections meant they asked him if he might want to lead Israel.
Over time I came to the conclusion that scientific theories have
little basis in facts. We still have no control of gravity (nor
repulsion) forces, understanding of these phenomena and particle flows
is primitive at best.
Saul Dunn
on April 19, 2021 at 2:08 pm
National Geographic fashioned a series titled, “Genius”.
Einstein was the first documentary, followed by Picasso then Aretha Franklin.
It depicts Einstein as a womanizer, but it was because he was so smart.
His E=MC2 was so universally embraced as utter genius that the entirety
of his indiscretions were instantly absolved, he’s just so great.
The fact that Tesla was absent illuminated that series as propaganda hogwash.
Einstein?
Picasso?? Geniuses?!?!
Aretha Franklin comes closer to genius level than those other 2 hacks,
but such displays of obsequience numb the brain and dilute the
information to entertainment rather than facts.
GEORGE
on April 19, 2021 at 4:39 pm
Niels Bohr has proved to be right in his argument with Einstein.
Norm
on April 19, 2021 at 4:42 pm
Einstein was fluffed in order to dispel the profound implications
of the Michelson-Morley experiment that shows the earth to be
stationary, and Hubble’s discovery of the red-shift that shows the earth
to be located at the exact centre of the universe. The implication, of
course, points to God’s providence, which is unacceptable to these
people. With Einstein’s theory “science” can falsify time itself in
order to obscure facts that they refuse to accept.
Berend
on April 19, 2021 at 5:18 pm
There is only one reasion Einstein is so “influential” and its
not his scientific prowes (or shoul I say plagiarism) but the fact he’s
one of the tribe. Simple as.
Makin sense
on April 19, 2021 at 5:34 pm
Saul are you ok?
He’s a fake…ive been saying this for years.
E=mc2….lol is all i can say
Manhattan project a commie creation…alphabet guys said he couldnt be
spart of it…lol…they’re commie too. Amerika is a commie
institution…regardless whst sny1 has to say….
GET READY FOR THE SLAUGHTER FOLKS….WONDER IF THE VAXX WILL FO THE JOB NICE AND QUIETLY….
Albert Shitstein would have to get an extension ladder just to be
able to kiss Tesla’s ass. jews control all your media, you country and
they get to make your hero’s and idols. Picasso a great artist, just
another jew has been nutcase, he would also need a stepladder to kiss a
real artist ass.
Barney
on April 19, 2021 at 7:47 pm
Having read and thoroughly understood “relativity” (it’s not
difficult) a long time ago (1960s?), I’ve always known it for the
complete hogwash that it really is, but to elaborate on that would fill a
book.
“Einstein went on to publish seven different proofs of E = MC^2 over
the course of forty years, but all of them were incorrect.”
How Einstein Ruined Physics” by Roger Schlafly.
Einstein received a Nobel Prize for a trivial observation based on the work of Max Planck, not on relativity.
Poincaré developed the Theory of Relativity to explain what Einstein
claimed he was not even aware of – The Michelson-Morley experiment –
which had been as devastating to classical physics as the ultra-violate
catastrophe had been to classical thermodynamics. Relativity just popped
into his head to explain nothing, his supporters claim!
A prize for relativity was never given because Poincaré had died and,
perhaps, not wanting to disabuse the public of the false notion that
Einstein had invented it, the Nobel committee decided not to give prizes
posthumously.
Marconi received a Nobel Prize based on the patents of Tesla but
Tesla like Poincaré did not get a Nobel Prize. Marconi received
royalties and patent rights for the inventions that Tesla had already
patented (later proven in court) and did not need the money but Tesla
who had gone broke trying to improve the lot of mankind did.
.
Mr Reynard
on April 19, 2021 at 11:07 pm
The last 200 years or so, there were two “MORONS” made in to intellectual giants .
XIX Century Charles Darwin….
XX Century Albert Einstein…
& guess who was behind & financed their elevation, from MORON to Intellectual Genius ?
TESLA was a holy advanced soul to improve
humanity but the powers that send him made a
mistake ignoring that all good intention in this
world are abused by abusers !
therefore nothing improves this world is hell !
THE POWERFUL INTERNATIONAL JUDEAN-TALMUDIST MAFIA THAT WAGED THE 1933-1945 WAR AGAINST GERMANY) CALLS ALL WHO DO NOT SUBMIT TO THEIR LIES HATERS, "HOLOCAUST DENIERS", "ANTISEMITIC", AND THEY HAVE MANY BEATEN UP, HOUNDED, FINED, LOSE THEIR JOBS, ARRESTED, JAILED OR EVEN MURDERED.
WHO WILL DENY THE DRESDEN HOLOCAUST ?
N.B. I DEBUNKED THE FAKE MOON LANDING THE VERY DAY IT WAS ANNOUNCED IT HAD HAPPENED IN 1969!
Deeper research for the past 50 years only added hundreds or thousands of pieces of evidence and arguments by very brave and trustworthy researchers that proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the Moon Landing was a Hoax! Likewise the so-called space travels and stations!
Our Soviet teacher at the Medical Institute of Stavropol (Caucasus) where I was studying in the 1965-67 told us something like that: We will never be able to go to the Moon, but THE AMERICANS WILL! Nobody asked him why. When it was announced that the US Americans had landed men on the moon in 1969, I understood that it was staged and faked as I saw ZERO EVIDENCE, but only tons of lies and fake footage.
Having already debunked so many lies taught in our school text-books, it was not difficult to conclude that the West was the greatest manufacturer of myths of modern History in all domains of life, and I never stopped debunking their lies. So many have been murdered for exposing their lies, and dozens of millions have been holocausted for refusing their dictatorship!
I am not a skeptic or think the moon landing was a hoax - I KNOW!
Follows a remarkable post by our old friend Dr. Kevin Barrett of TRUTH JIHAD.
BAFS
Sunday 19 December 2021
The Moon Landings: A Giant Hoax for Mankind? [I removed the question mark, but put it back! BAFS]
As
the USA celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing,
most of the world remains at least somewhat skeptical. Was it just
another USG big lie about the real history of the 1960s—like the
official versions of the Kennedy, King, and Malcolm X assassinations,
the Manson murders, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the birth of the hippie movement,
and so much more? Or is this one of those times the official sources
happen to be telling the truth? Until recently the fake moon landings
hypothesis was one of those conspiracy theories I didn’t believe. But
after watching Massimo Mazzucco’s American Moon, and reading Moon Landing Skeptic’s article below, I’ve had to reconsider.
Here is a revised version of my article of the same title posted on April 1ston unz.com
corrected and enriched by what I have learnt from the wealth of
comments and the sources indicated in them (with American Moon first on
the list). So it is now, even more than before, a collective work. Thank
you all. -Moon Landing Skeptic
THE MOON LANDINGS: A GIANT HOAX FOR MANKIND?
Revised version
Moon landing skeptic
Are believers in danger of extinction?
So this is it: the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. In 2016, a survey
showed that 52 percent of the British public thought that Apollo
missions were faked. Skepticism is highest among those who were too
young to see it live on TV: 73 percent of aged 25-34 believe we didn’t
land on the moon, compared to 38 percent of those aged 55 or more. These
numbers seem to be rising every year.
British unbelievers were only 25 percent ten years ago. It is not known how may they are today, but a 2018 poll by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center
revealed that 57 percent Russians believe that there has never been a
manned lunar landing. The percentage rises to 69 percent among people
with higher education: in other words, the more educated people are, and
the more capable of rational reasoning, the less they believe in the
moon landings.
For Americans, a 1999 Gallup poll gave just 6
percent of skeptics, and a 2013 Pew Research poll showed the number to
have risen to a mere 7 percent. That is suspiciously low. A 2005-2006 poll
“found that more than a quarter of Americans 18 to 25 expressed some
doubt that humans set foot on the moon,” which is closer to the British
data and more credible. It is interesting to note that in a poll made by Knight Newspapers
one year after the first moon landing, more than 30 percent of
respondents were suspicious of NASA’s trips to the moon. Many of those
early skeptics may have converted over the years, or simply lost the
energy to dissent.
But the moon hoax theory gained new momentum
with the spread of Internet, and the development of YouTube, which
allowed close inspection of the Apollo footage by anyone interested.
Before that, individuals who had serious doubts had little means to
share them and make their case convincing. One pioneer was Bill Kaysing, who broke the subject in 1976 with his self-published book We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle.
He may be called a whistleblower, since he had been working for
Rocketdyne, the company that designed and built the Apollo rockets. Then
came physicist Ralph René with his NASA Mooned America: How We Never Went to the Moon and Why, which introduced the issue of the Van Allen radiation belts.
Research gained depth and scope, and disbelief became epidemic around the 30th anniversary of Apollo 11, thanks in great part to British cinematographer David Percy, who co-authored the book Dark Moon with Mary Bennett, and directed the 3-hour documentary What Happened on the Moon? An Investigation into Apollo (2000), presented by Ronnie Stronge. It remains to this day invaluable for anyone willing to develop an informed opinion.
Then there was the much shorter A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon
(2001), directed by Bart Sibrel, which offers insight into the
historical context. Sibrel also went around challenging NASA astronauts
to swear on the Bible, in front of the camera, that they did walk on the
moon, and he compiled these sequences in Astronauts Gone Wild,
together with more useful footages of embarrassingly awkward statements
made by NASA astronauts who are supposed to have walked on the moon but
sound hardly competent and consistent; Alan Bean from Apollo 12
learning from Sibrel that he went through the Van Allen radiation belt
is a must-see (also here).
Then, using materials from those films and other sources, came the groundbreaking TV documentary Did We Land on the Moon? (2001),
directed by John Moffet for Fox TV. It is a great introduction to the
controversy, although it contains some errors in the interpretation of
the lunar photographs.You can watch it here from its 2013 rebroadcast on
Channel 5:
Did We Land on the Moon?
Very
recently, Italian photographer and filmmaker Massimo Mazzucco, who had
previously authored a great documentary on 9/11, released American Moon (2018),
the best film on the Apollo controversy so far. It is remarkable for
the precision of its argumentation and the relevance of its
documentation. Mazzucco has the great merit of answering in detail each
of the debunkers’ counter-arguments. As a filmmaker and professional
photographer, his major contribution—though not the only one—is in the
field of photo analysis (he corrects some of the common errors found for
example in Did We Land On The Moon?). Mazzucco has solicited
contributions from several other internationally renowned photographers,
whose analyses are devastating for the credibility of NASA’s lunar
photos. You can listen to Mazzucco on Kevin Barrett’s Truth Jihad Radio, but I strongly recommend the DVD:
There is also some valuable material, which I will not discuss here for lack of space, in Randy Walsh’s The Apollo Moon Missions: Hiding a Hoax in Plain Sight (Part I), published in 2018. His chapter 2 (reprinted in Nexus magazine)
demonstrates that, as Kaysing suspected, the F-1 engines of the Saturn V
rocket used in the Apollo missions did not have the fuel and the power
required to send the fully loaded rocket (approximately 3,000 tons) into
Low Earth Orbit. His chapter 3 details the navigation component of the
Apollo Guidance Computer built by Raytheon and the impossible tasks it was expected to perform in order to safely navigate a manned mission to the Moon and back.
I
am not going to discuss all the evidence presented in these sources. I
can only recommend them and a few others on the way. I will simply sort
what I see as the most convincing arguments, add a few recent
developments, give my best conclusion, place the issue in broader
historical perspective, and draw some lessons from it all about the
Matrix we have been living in.
First of all, we need to be clear
about the aim of such an inquiry. We should not expect any conclusive
proof that Neil Armstrong, or any other Apollo moon-walker, didn’t walk
on the moon. That cannot be proven, absent some indisputable evidence
that he was somewhere else (orbiting around the earth, for example) at
the precise time he claimed to have spent on the moon. In most cases,
you cannot prove that something didn’t happen, just like you cannot
prove that something doesn’t exist. You cannot prove, for example, that
unicorns don’t exist. That is why the burden of proof rests on anyone
who claims they do exist. If I say to you I walked on the moon, you will
ask me to prove it, and you will not take as an answer: “No, you prove
that I didn’t go.” Does it make a difference if I am NASA? It does,
because calling NASA a liar will inevitably lead you to question
everything you have been led to believe by your government, your
educational institutions, the scientific community, and mainstream
media. It is a giant leap indeed! Just like children of abusive parents,
decent citizens of abusive governments will tend to repress evidence of
their government’s malevolence. And so, people choose to believe in the
moon landings, without even asking for proof, simply because: “They wouldn’t
have lied to us for more than 50 years, would they? The media would
have exposed the lie long ago (remember the Watergate)! And what about
the 250,000 people involved with the project? Someone would have
talked.” I can actually hear myself speaking like that just 10 years
ago. All these objections must indeed be addressed.
But before
that, the scientific thing to do is to start with the question: can NASA
prove they sent men to the moon? If the answer is no, the next step is
to decide whether we should take their word for it or not. That requires
pondering what could have been the reasons for such a massive lie. We
will get to that.
But, first of all, can NASA provide hard evidence of the moon landings?
Rock-solid evidence from Antarctica
Yes,
they can. They brought back pieces of the moon: roughly 380 kilograms
of moon rocks and soil samples, all Apollo missions combined. Moon rocks
prove the moon landings, don’t they? Yes they do, but only if it can be
firmly established that they were not dug out from the earth. And that
is the problem. As explained here,
“meteorites have been found in Antarctica which have proved to have the
same characteristics as the moon rocks.” It may be helpful to know that
in 1967, two years before Apollo 11, NASA set up an expedition to
Antarctica, joined by Wernher Von Braun, the leading NASA propagandist
for the lunar missions; Antarctica is the region on earth with the
biggest concentration of meteorites. Meteorites were apparently brought
back from this expedition, officially as reference to be later compared
with Apollo samples (according to Mazzucco).
So the moon rocks are
a far cry from proof of the moon landings. As a matter of fact, none of
the so-called moon rocks can be proven to have been brought back from
the moon rather than from Antarctica or somewhere else on earth. But it
gets much worse: some of the so-called moon rocks have been conclusively
proven to be fake. In the 1990s, British astrobiologist Andrew Steele
was granted the special privilege to get close to some of the precious
samples locked in NASA safes. Imagine his surprise upon discovering they
contained bristle, bits of plastic, nylon and Teflon, and tiny earthly
animals (Wisnewski 207). Another moon rock made the headlines when, 40
years after having been handed personally by Neil Armstrong and Buzz
Aldrin to the Dutch prime minister, it was scrutinized and proven to be petrified wood.
Granted,
a few fake moon rocks don’t prove that all moon rocks are fakes. But it
should be reason enough for starting a systematic scientific
examination of the hundreds of other samples that the USA ceremoniously
gave away in 1969 and the 1970s. Unfortunately, most are lost. As the Associated Press reported on September 13, 2009,
“Nearly 270 rocks scooped up by U.S. astronauts were given to foreign
countries by the Nixon administration. […] Of 135 rocks from the Apollo
17 mission given away to nations or their leaders, only about 25 have
been located. […] The outlook for tracking the estimated 134 Apollo 11
rocks is even bleaker. The locations of fewer than a dozen are known.”
The video and photographic evidence
What
other proof does the NASA have of the moon landings? The films and
photographs, of course! Unfortunately, the films available from
television archives are very blurry. How, for example, can we be sure
that astronaut David Scott from Apollo 15 is dropping a real hammer and a
real feather to demonstrate Newtonian gravity in an atmosphere-free
environment, when you can hardly see the objects? (Watch here a relevant sequence from What Happened to the Moon?)
More importantly, how can we check that the appearance of low gravity
in Apollo moonwalking films was not obtained by simply using
slow-motion? Skeptics have pointed that if the film speed is doubled, it
gives the impression of normal motion on earth. Some even question if
the slow motion of the Apollo films is realistic at all. William Cooper,
for example, explains that in an environment with one sixth of earth’s
gravity, the astronauts’ leaps should be much longer and higher than on
earth: they could logically jump six times higher than on earth. Some
astronauts like Eugene Cernan of Apollo 17 obviously liked to do some
playful “kangaroo hopping” on the moon, but why do they seem unable to jump higher than a foot?
The
very low quality of the TV footage is due to the process by which it
was obtained: “Because NASA’s equipment was not compatible with TV
technology of the day, the original transmissions had to be displayed on
a monitor and re-shot by a TV camera for broadcast” (as explained in
this August 15, 2006 report by Reuters).
To be precise, NASA claimed that the original transmission from the
moon was in color video and that it was reshot from a monitor in 16 mm
black-and-white (color from Apollo 14 on), using a kinescope, which is a lens focused on the monitor.
What
we need for a proper investigation are the original NASA video
recordings. Researchers have been asking for access to these films for
decades, under the Freedom of Information Act. In 2006, they were given
an answer. NASA spokesman Grey Hautaluoma said: “We haven’t seen them
for quite a while. We’ve been looking for over a year, and they haven’t
turned up.” 700 cartons of magnetic video tapes were missing, says the
aforementioned report by Reuters, adding:
“NASA
admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings
of the July 20, 1969, landing. Since then, Richard Nafzger, an engineer
at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, who oversaw
television processing at the ground-tracking sites during the Apollo 11
mission, has been looking for them. The good news is he found where they
went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that
were degaussed — magnetically erased — and re-used to save money.”
Also
allegedly lost are all the telemetry data, received and recorded to
monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship, as
well as the astronauts’ heartbeat. Also lost are the blueprints for the
lunar modules, the lunar rovers, and the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V
rockets.
To
conclude on the topic of the missing original video recordings, it is
appropriate to mention one the strongest arguments presented by Apollo
truthers: the limited battery capacity brought on the Lunar Modules (as documented by NASA)
was ridiculously insufficient for the transmission of a video signal to
the earth, even if they had an antenna directly pointed to Houston,
which they did not have. This point is well argued by American
cinematographer Joe Frantz and a Radio Frequency engineer in this video (you will also appreciate watching the mindbogglingly transparent astronauts, betraying bad studio compositing).
We
don’t have the films, but fortunately, we have the photographs. Besides
planting a US flag and collecting rock samples (“never come to the moon
without a hammer,” joked Alan Bean
of Apollo 12), the astronauts spent much time taking photos on the
moon. And let’s be fair: in 2015, NASA released to the public thousands
of them in high resolution. They are accessible here, and can be examined in detail. Most of them are remarkable for their quality.
The
Apollo 11 crew used a standard Hasselblad 500C with a few alterations,
including the removal of the reflex mirror. The film used was a standard
Kodak Ektachrome diapositive film, 160 ASA. That is a surprisingly
sensitive film for a place where the sunlight is unfiltered by any
atmosphere, especially considering that some photos, which came out
perfectly exposed, were taken directly against the sun. There are also
technical issues with the reliability of this material on the surface of
the moon, where temperatures go from under 100°C minus to over 100°C
plus: the only protection against heat for both camera and magazine was a
reflexive coating. (How the astronauts survived such temperatures is an
even more serious issue.)
Another problematic aspect is the
professional quality of most of those pictures. Every single shot taken
by Neil Armstrong, for example, is perfectly framed and exposed.
Wisnewski (144-149) quite correctly points out how incredible that is,
given the fact that Armstrong (or any other astronaut) could not take
aim, since the camera was fixed on his chest where he could not even see
it. Not to mention the difficulty of setting aperture, exposure time,
focus and field of view manually with his pressurized gloves and no
vision of the camera, and with no experience of photography in the moon
environment. We need to remember that photography was a very skilled
occupation in those days, even on earth, and it is quite astonishing to
see that all of Armstrong’s shots were just perfect.
More to the
point, is there any evidence that these pictures were shot on the moon?
None whatsoever. They are easy to make in studios. As a matter of fact,
NASA went to great lengths to train the astronauts in indoor settings
reproducing the condition of the moon surface as they imagined it,
fabricating tons of “moon dust” for that purpose (even before anyone had
seen real moon dust), and even simulating the black sky. Some of the
photographs taken in these movie-like studio settings, such as the
following one from NASA archives, would be hard to distinguish from the
“real” thing, if framed differently.
Armstrong and Aldrin practicing on fake moon dust under fake black sky
Let’s
face it: there is no proof that any of the Apollo photographs are
genuine. That may not be enough to destabilize the believers. But what
should is that quite a few of these photographs are “replete with
inconsistencies and anomalies,” in the words of David Percy, who proves
his point in What Happened on the Moon?The film contains an
interview of Jan Lundberg, the Project Engineer for the Apollo
Hasselblad. When asked to explain some of the inconsistencies concerning
shadows and exposure (for example, astronauts fully lit despite being
in the shadow of the lunar module, as in the photo reproduced on the
cover of Wisnewski’s book), he answers: “I can’t explain that. That
escapes me… why.”
Incidentally, Lundberg’s embarrassed admission
is the perfect illustration of how compartmentalization may have made
the moon hoax possible. Like the hundreds of thousands of people
involved in the project, he worked on a “need to know” basis, and had no
reason to suspect he was working for something other than what he was
told, at least until someone challenged him to explain impossible
pictures. Just a handful of people had to know the full picture, and it
is not even certain that President Nixon was among them. It is estimated
that around 20,000 contractors and suppliers, distributed in the four
corners of the United States, worked on the Apollo project: none of
their employees had the means, let alone the interest, to question the
utility of what they were doing. As Wisnewski (121-126) illustrates with
the Corona alias Discoverer program (a US research satellite launched
around 1959 with the secret purpose of spying over the Soviet Union), it
is wrong to assume that the US military, spatial and intelligence
communities cannot keep a secret. To take another example, hundreds of
thousands of people worked on the Manhattan Project, which remained
completely hidden from the public until the bomb was dropped on
Hiroshima.
I will not list and examine the anomalies of the Apollo
photographs, since they are analyzed in the documentaries mentioned
above. The recent documentary film of Massimo Mazzucco, American Moon,certainly
gives the best evidence, presented by professional photographers, of
the fakery of the Apollo photographs. One of its merits is also to
dispel the wrong kinds of arguments, for example regarding the covered
“crosshairs”.
Just to give beginners an idea, here is an example
of inconsistency in the direction of the shadows on NASA photo
n°AS14-68-9486/7, which, according to the skeptics, prove a source of
light closer than the sun (and not “multiple light sources,” as is
wrongly said in Did we Go to the Moon?):
The
claims based on the analyses of shadows, however, are open to endless
refutations. I find it much more instructive to examine carefully some
of the photographs of the lunar modules, which can be found in high
resolution on the NASA archive site.
I recommend browsing through them and using basic common sense. Ask
yourself, for example, if you can believe that the Apollo 11 Lunar
Module Eagle (here, here, or here)
could have landed two astronauts on the moon and sent them back into
lunar orbit to reconnect with the orbiting Command Module. Or pick
Apollo 14’s LM Antares (here), or Apollo 16’s LM Orion (here, or here with the rover that miraculously came out of it), or Apollo 17’s LM Challenger (here).
Keep in mind that these shabby huts had to be hermetically pressurized
in a vacuum environment, each time the astronauts went out in their
extra-vehicular explorations, and that, in the last two cases, two
astronauts spent more than 3 days (respectively 71 hours and 76 hours)
on the moon and slept 3 nights in the module. If you want to be guided
along this reflection, watch this 15-minute video. But you will get a better presentation of the problem in American Moon.
Apollo 11 Lunar Module with Neil Armstrong
Ascent Stage of Apollo 17’s Lunar Module, photographed from the Command Module before rendezvous
Where have all the stars gone?
If
the Apollo crews had photographed the moon’s starry sky, NASA could
have used the images to counter accusation of fraud. Back in the 1960s,
it would have been very hard to use computer calculations to make the
stars’ constellations consistent. Unfortunately, no one thought about it
at NASA. The astronauts were asked to look down and collect rocks, not
to look up and study the stars. It is as if NASA were a congregation of
geologists who despised astronomy. And to think that they spend billions
of dollars sending telescopes into earth’s orbit!
Before the
Apollo missions, it was widely believed that the stars would be
glaringly bright when seen from anywhere beyond earth’s atmosphere:
“astonishingly brilliant” is how Yuri Gagarin described them, from his
orbital trip around earth in 1961. And Gemini astronauts flying in low
earth orbit in 1965-66 had also testified to marveling at the beauty of
the stars.
Here is a picture presented on NASA website
with the following explanation: “If you could turn off the atmosphere’s
ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today’s daytime sky might
look something like this” (from McGowan ch. 12):
Yet
the Apollo missions apparently dispelled that prejudice:there were no
stars visible in the moon sky. Period. The problem is not that the stars
are not visible in the NASA photographs of the moon surface: that is
normal, according to the photographers interviewed by Mazzucco, since
the exposure needed to capture the stars would have overexposed the
lunar surface. The problem is thatthe astronauts saw no stars with their
own eyes. All of them, from Apollo 11 to Apollo 17, consistently
declared that the sky was completely black, “an immense black velvet sky — totally black,” in the words of Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man on the moon.
Was
it because the luminosity of the moon surface was too strong, so that
their eyes couldn’t adjust (a day on the moon lasts 27 earth days, so
the astronauts who landed on the illuminated side of the moon never
experienced a night on the moon)? If that was the reason, then at least
the astronauts should have seen plenty of stars when travelling between
earth and moon. They didn’t report seeing any. When they orbited around
the moon and passed in its shadow, they found themselves in pitch
darkness, and still saw no stars. Michael Collins, who orbited around
the moon several times in the Command Module while Aldrin and Armstrong
were on the moon, declared in their 1969 press conference: “I can’t
remember seeing any!” That is one of the weirdest remarks you can think
of from an astronaut, but the whole press conference is a bizarre
experience to watch.
1969 Press conference by the Apollo 11 crew:
Don’t ask Neil Armstrong
Neil Armstrong’s November 1970 interview
is just as bizarre. It has been used by several skeptics as evidence
that he is lying. I highly recommend this very professional analysis
commissioned by Richard D. Hall of RichPlanet TV from by Peter Hyatt, a nationally recognized expert in deception detection. I find it devastating for the credibility of Armstrong.
Peter Hyatt analyses Armstrong’s deception:
After that, Armstrong must have been ordered to keep away from interviews. He made a last quick appearance on July 20th, 1994,
in the presence of President Clinton, only to compare himself to a
parrot, “the only bird that could talk” but “didn’t fly very well,” and
to conclude with a cryptic remark about “undiscovered breakthroughs
available to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers.”
Then he returned to his seclusion and refused to participate (or was
asked not to) in the 40thanniversary celebrations of his
legendary moonwalk. Fortunately for the keepers of the myth, he has now
left the earth for good, and his story can now be told by Hollywood.
Fasten your Van Allen Belt
We
set out to find out if there is any proof that the moon landings were
real. We have not found any. Instead, we have found evidence that they
were not real. But in fact, it was hardly necessary: NASA engineers
themselves tell us they are impossible, for the simple reason that the
astronauts would have to travel through the lethal Van Allen Radiation Belts that
start at 1000 miles above Earth and extend to 26,000 miles above Earth.
Even beyond these radiation belts, the astronauts would continue to be
bombarded with all kinds of deadly radiation (you can read a good
article on the radiation issue here). On June 24, 2005, NASA made this remarkable statement:
“NASA’s
Vision for Space Exploration calls for a return to the Moon as
preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond. But there’s a
potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash
with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such
as supernovas. […] the most common way to deal with radiation is simply
to physically block it, as the thick concrete around a nuclear reactor
does. But making spaceships from concrete is not an option” (quoted in
McGowan, ch. 3).
There are hundreds of documents available by NASA
engineers explaining why travelling beyond lower earth orbit remains an
obstacle for manned missions, for example this one:
“Space
radiation is quite different and more dangerous than radiation on
Earth. Even though the International Space Station sits just within
Earth’s protective magnetic field, astronauts receive over ten times the
radiation than what’s naturally occurring on Earth. Outside the
magnetic field there are galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), solar particle
events (SPEs) and the Van Allen Belts, which contain trapped space
radiation. / NASA is able to protect the crew from SPEs by advising them
to shelter in an area with additional shielding materials. However,
GCRs are much more challenging to protect against. These highly
energetic particles come from all over the galaxy. They are so energetic
they can tear right through metals, plastic, water and cellular
material. And as the energetic particles break through, neutrons,
protons, and other particles are generated in a cascade of reactions
that occur throughout the shielding materials.This secondary radiation
can sometimes cause a worse radiation environment for the crew.”
NASA engineer Kelly Smith has explained in a short documentary on the ongoing Orion program (Orion Trial by Fire)
that the Van Allen Belts pose such serious challenges that “We must
solve these challenges before we send people through this region of
space” (full documentary here).
The key sequence is included in the 10-minute video below, among other
sequences of astronauts inadvertently admitting that the technology to
send men beyond lower earth orbit is not available yet. You especially
don’t want to miss veteran NASA astronaut Donald Roy Pettit explaining
that the technology is, in fact, not available any longer: “The
problem is we don’t have the technology to do that anymore. We used to
but we destroyed that technology and it’s a painful process to build it
back again.”
NASA admits we never went to the moon:
The
radiation obstacle may be the reason why no manned mission to the moon,
or even beyond low earth orbit, has ever been attempted since the days
of Tricky Dick. Remember, the International Space Station is orbiting at
a distance of 250 miles from the earth, whereas the moon is about one
thousand times farther away. On January 14, 2004, President George W.
Bush, speaking at NASA headquarters, announced a new endeavor to “gain a
new foothold on the moon” and beyond, remarking: “In the past 30 years,
no human being has set foot on another world, or ventured farther into
space than 386 miles—roughly the distance from Washington D.C. to
Boston, Massachusetts” (quoted in Wisnewski 329). No manned mission to
the moon came out of this announcement.
Time is working to the
advantage of the Apollo truthers, for every year that passes makes
people wonder: “If it was so easy to send a man to the moon between 1969
and 1972, why has it not been done again ever since?” Less than half of
the British and Russians still believe in the moon landings. Among the
educated, this percentage is falling fast. What will happen in twenty
years, when Americans realize hardly anybody but them believes it? Will
the United States of America survive the exposure of this giant hoax?
Lies tend to reproduce themselves like living organisms, since every lie
needs to be covered up with more lies. Conversely, the exposition of
one lie leads to the exposition of other lies, as people lose trust and
start to question everything they were taught.
If the moon
landings were real, it would be easy for the NASA to put an end to the
controversy. As Massimo Mazzucco reports in his film American Moon:
“The possibility of inspecting the location of the moon landings came
in 2007, when Google launched the Lunar X Prize international contest.
The contest offered a $30 million reward to the first private
organization that could send to the moon a robot capable of traveling at
least 500 meters by transmitting live images to the earth. More than
twenty different teams from around the world have expressed their desire
to participate in the contest. Google also introduced an additional $4
million bonus for those who would be able to transmit live TV footage
from one of the Apollo missions’ moon landing sites. At that time,
Astrobotic Technology, a Pittsburgh company, announced that it planned
to visit with its own probe the most famous landing ground of all: that
of Apollo 11.” But strangely, rather than viewing this contest as the
opportunity for an independent proof of their Apollo missions, NASA
issued in 2011 unprecedented legislation demanding that no robot
approach any of the Apollo mission landing sites within a radius of 2
kilometers. NASA’s 93-page “Recommendations
to Space-Faring Entities: How to Protect and Preserve the History and
Scientific Value of U.S. Government Lunar Artifacts” justifies the
decision by the need to preserve the historical moon landing sites from
possible contamination. To comply with NASA’s demand, Astrobotic
Technology shifted its aim toward the moon’s north pole, and all other
participants in the Google contest likewise decided to play by NASA’s
rules and waive a $4 million bonus, as reported in the article cited by
Mazzucco, titled “Rocketeers obey NASA moon rules”. In
2018, Google announced that no competitor would be able to meet the
deadline of March 2018. At the same time, NASA produced a new document emphasizing again that any project to interfere with the Apollo landing sites should get its approval.
Kennedy, Johnson and NASA
If
the Apollo moon landings were faked, serious questions ought to be
asked about NASA, to start with. And then there is a need for some deep
thinking about what has become of the United States since World War II.
And beyond that, the moon hoax is the ideal starting point for
reflecting on the hypnotic control that television and the news media
have gained over our minds. It is not just a political issue. It is a
battle for our souls.
The first step is to grow out of our
infantile beliefs about NASA, and do some basic study on what it is all
about. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was founded in
1958 by President Eisenhower. Many people today commend Eisenhower for
warning Americans, on leaving office, against the growing threat of the
military-industrial complex, and the “potential for the disastrous rise
of misplaced power.” Ironically, the foundation of NASA was itself a
giant leap for the military-industrial complex. There is no question
that NASA’s so-called “civilian space program” was first and foremost
“an elaborate cover for the research, development and deployment of
space-based weaponry and surveillance systems” (in McGowan’s words). The
NASA Act of 1958 made explicit provisions for close collaboration with
the Department of Defense, and in practice, the Pentagon was involved in
all decisions regarding the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs.
Erlend Kennan and Edmund Harvey documented this point in Mission to the Moon: a critical examination of NASA and the space program, as early as 1969, and concluded:
“It
remains imperative to have NASA keep its status as the decorous front
parlor of the space age in order to reap public support for all space
projects and give Defense Department space efforts an effective
‘cover’.” (quoted in Wisnewski 296)
Besides launching satellites
for espionage purposes, NASA was to contribute to the development of
transcontinental rockets. For after WWII, the equation was simple:
“Rocket + atom bomb = world power” (Wisnewski 62).
The
para-military purpose of NASA is essential to understanding the Apollo
hoax. For in matters of military programs, “what the public knows is
also known to the enemy. This means that in principle the public and the
enemy can be seen as essentially one and the same thing” (Wisnewski 7).
Therefore, we should understand that deceiving the American public was
not a perversion of NASA’s original purpose, but an integral part of it.
It
fell upon Kennedy to sell the moon program to the Congress and to the
American public in order to increase NASA’s budget dramatically. On May
25, 1961, a mere 43 days after Yuri Gagarin allegedly completed one
orbit around the earth, Kennedy delivered before the Congress a special message
on “urgent national needs.” He asked for an additional $7 billion to $9
billion over the next five years for the space program, for the
purpose, he claimed, of “achieving the goal, before this decade is out,
of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No
single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind,
or more important for the long-range exploration of space.”
Kennedy
can be blamed for fooling the American public, but it is likely that he
had been fooled himself, just like he had been tricked by the CIA into
the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion a mere month earlier. In any case,
the moon was Johnson’s idea, not Kennedy’s. It is believed that Kennedy
was convinced by a memorandum of Lyndon Johnson,
titled “Evaluation of Space Program” and dated April 28, 1961,
supposedly based on deliberations with top NASA officials. The memo
assured the president of the feasibility of “a safe landing and return
by a man to the moon” “by 1966 or 1967”, if “a strong effort” is made.
As for the benefit of it, Johnson put it this way:
“other nations,
regardless of their appreciation of our idealistic values, will tend to
align themselves with the country which they believe will be the world
leader—the winner in the long run. Dramatic accomplishments in space are
being increasingly identified as a major indicator of world
leadership.”
Two weeks after receiving Johnson’s memo, Kennedy
made his famous speech to Congress (May 25, 1961): “I believe that this
nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade
is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth.”
Then, a month later, he officiallymade his vice-president head of the
National Aeronautics and Space Council with the charge of exploring the
moon project. As Alan Wasser has said:
“Few
people today realize or remember, but a single man, Lyndon Baines
Johnson, ‘LBJ’, is primarily responsible for both starting and ending
‘The Space Race’”.
That explains why Texan industries were the
greatest beneficiary of the space program, and why the NASA Manned
Spacecraft Center in Houston was renamed the Lyndon B. Johnson Space
Centerin 1973.
Under Eisenhower, Johnson was both the Senate
Majority Leader, and a key player in the Texan sector of the
military-industrial complex. It is interesting to know that the original
draft of Eisenhower’s farewell address, written by his assistants
Malcolm Moos and Ralph Williams, spoke of the “Military-Industrial Congressional Complex”,
but Eisenhower dropped “Congressional”—in fear, perhaps, of Johnson.
Johnson’s corruption aggravated after he became vice-president and
appointed his Texan friends at the head of the Navy: first John
Connally, then Fred Korth, who resigned in October 1963, after the
Justice Department (led by Robert Kennedy) implicated him for corruption
in the contract for the joint Navy-Air Force TFX aircrafts.
Johnson’s control over the NASA was achieved through James E. Webb,
whom Johnson got nominated as administrator of the NASA. He played a
decisive role in lobbying for the Apollo program. Webb was so closely
tied to Johnson that he resigned when Johnson announced he wouldn’t run
for reelection in 1968, thereby avoiding being in charge during the
glorious Apollo moon landings.
The Apollo program received also
the efficient support of Senator Robert S. Kerr of Oklahoma, another
close business partner and political ally of Johnson. In his memoir Wheeling and Dealing: Confessions of a Capitol Hill Operator, Johnson’s
personal aide Bobby Baker “recounts his efforts in collecting the
half-million dollars in cash demanded by Senator Robert Kerr of Oklahoma
from the Savings and Loan industry in return for a favorable
legislative adjustment” (Andrew Cockburn, “How the Bankers Bought Washington: Our Cheap Politicians,” CounterPunch).
In his recent film American Moon, Massimo
Mazzucco brings in key information that enriches our understanding of
the relationship between Johnson and Kennedy, and may shed some light on
Kennedy’s assassination. We learn that, although Kennedy left the
Apollo project under Johnson’s supervision, on September 18, 1963, he
summoned Webb in the Oval Office to share his doubts about the
possibility and the value of sending men to the moon, which would cost
“a hell of a lot of money,” suggesting that enough scientific knowledge
could be gained by simply sending probes. “Putting a man on the moon
isn’t worth that many billions,” he said during that recorded
conversation. Webb insisted that it was too late to change plans.
Two
days after this meeting, in a speech to the United Nations, Kennedy
publicly invited the Soviet Union to collaborate in space exploration,
and in particular in “a joint expedition to the moon.” Khrushchev
politely declined the Americans’ offer with this statement:
“At
the present time we do not plan flights of cosmonauts to the Moon. I
have read a report that the Americans wish to land on the moon by 1970.
Well, let’s wish them success. And we will see how they fly there, and
how they will land there, or to be more correct, ‘moon’ there. And most
important—how they will get up and come back. We do not wish to compete
in sending people to the Moon without thorough preparation.”
Two
days later, Kennedy was murdered in Dallas. The chronology is important
because it reveals that Kennedy tried to neutralize one of the major
arguments of the moon race, which was to make it a battleground of the
Cold War. This attempt by Kennedy must be put in relation with what is
otherwise known about Kennedy’s secret communications with Khrushchev
and Castro in his efforts to end the Cold War, and with his now
well-documented intention to withdraw American troops from Vietnam.
Manufacturing belief
NASA
was not just a camouflage for military developments. It was a
manufactured dream to keep Americans looking up at the sky while their
government was committing atrocities in Vietnam. And so, NASA had also
close ties with the movie industry. Its first boss, T. Keith Glennan
(1958-1961) had a long experience in running film studios in Hollywood
(Wisnewski 298).
Walt Disney with Wernher von Braun, “Father of Rocket Science”, in 1954
During
the transition period between Johnson and Nixon, Apollo 8 allegedly
carried three astronauts ten times around the moon. Then, after two more
testing missions (Apollo 9 and 10), six Apollo crew landed on the Moon
from 1969 to 1972, all during Nixon’s presidency. Wisnewski (130-139)
provides a spectacular parallel showing how breaking news related to the
Apollo program conveniently turned the American public’s eye away from
Vietnam war crimes (read also McGowan ch. 3). Apollo 11 landed on the
moon two months after the media exposed the illegal bombing of Cambodia.
Nixon’s phone call from the White House to Neil and Buzz on the moon
worked his popularity up. The Apollo program stopped just after the
official end of America’s involvement in Southeast Asia. So, writes
Wisnewski,
“while the United States of America was murdering
thousands of Vietnamese people, burning down one hectare after another
of virgin forest and poisoning the land with pesticides, it was at the
same time trying to fascinate—or should one say hypnotize?—the world
with a conquest of quite another kind.” (131)
“For the rest of the
world the cultural and technological thrill caused by the lunar
landings must have been as overwhelming and disarming as the negative
blow of September 11. To this day the USA draws strength from the
boundless admiration generated by those lunar landings. And I still
maintain that this ‘conquest’ of the moon, that ancient myth of
humanity, elevated America to the status of a quasi-divine nation. / The
moon landings fit in with the country’s overall psychological strategy
of self-aggrandizement coupled with subjugating, undermining and
demoralizing others.” (287)
“Civilian space travel became a form
of ‘opium for the people’, a promise of redemption bringing a new and
better future for the universe.” (63)
The Apollo 11 crew, just returned from the Moon, “looking rested, shaved and fresh faced, as though they had just returned from a day at the spa” (McGowan ch. 10)
Indeed,
travelling to the moon and coming back alive is a feat of mythical
proportions. It is tantamount to travelling to the Other World and
coming back to the world of the living with your physical body. That
makes the NASA astronauts the equals of ancient supernatural heroes,
immortal demi-gods, and that semi-divine quality reflects on the USA as a
whole. Such was the significance of the Apollo moon landings: it was
about a new world religion that elevated the United States above all
other earthly nations. A lot has been said about institutional religions
as means of collective mental control. But no religious belief can
compare to the moon landings in terms of the cynical abuse of people’s
gullibility. And no religion could compete, until recently, for the
numbers of believers worldwide.
The deeper lesson is that it was
made possible by television, and would have been impossible otherwise.
Hardly anybody would have believed it if they hadn’t seen it with their
own eyes.
In Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass, Alice tells the White Queen “one can’t believe
impossible things,” but the Queen insists it is possible with enough
practice: “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day.
Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before
breakfast.” With television, believing in six impossible moon landings
came without effort.
Appendix: the Kubrick hypothesis
Before
being broadcast on TV, the Apollo moon landings were studio
productions. No wonder, then, that one of the most influential
whistleblowers was Hollywood filmmaker Peter Hyams with his film Capricorn One (1978).
Although
it has no bearing on the issue of the reality or possibility of the
moon landings, and should not be taken as argument, I’d like to mention
here one of the most intriguing developments of the moon hoax conspiracy
theory: the suggestion that director Stanley Kubrick collaborated with
the NASA in the making of the Apollo moon films while making his 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), on which he started working as early as 1964, just after finishing his antimilitary film Dr Strangelove. The
rumor has it that Kubrick was then pressured into a Faustian pact in
exchange for funding and other help. That Kubrick received support from
NASA for 2001 is actually no secret: the scenario was
co-written by Arthur C. Clark, an enthusiastic supporter of and
contributor to NASA adventures, and several assistants for the film,
such as Harry Lange and Frederick Ordway, had worked for NASA and
aerospace contractors. Some therefore believe that 2001 was part of a NASA program both to fascinate the public with space travel and to test production techniques.
That
hypothesis first arose when skeptics studying the Apollo photos and
films became convinced that they had been made in movie studios using
the technique called frontscreen projection, which had been perfected by Stanley Kubrick for his film 2001.
The theory had already been around for some time, when a French “mockumentary” called Dark Side of the Moon,
by Franco-Israeli TV director William Karel, was aired on Arte channel
in 2002, as an attempt to discredit the theory with the filmed
confession of a fake Kubrick, and deceptive editing of interviews of
Rumsfeld and Kissinger. The strategy is to pretend to support a
conspiracy theory with some phony “proof” that is easily debunked, in
order to fabricate a ready-made argument against the whole moon hoax
theory. In my opinion, the very fact that an institutional media outlet
finances and broadcasts such a program, and gets Rumsfeld and
Kissinger’s permission to misuse their words in order to discredit the
Kubrick thesis, is reason enough to take the thesis seriously.
The
Kubrick theory gained new vigor when film director Jay Weidner, after
documenting the frontscreen projection used in Apollo photos and films (here), added to it the hypothesis that Kubrick cryptically confessed his participation through his 1980 film The Shining. Weidner presents his arguments in his 2011 documentary film Kubrick’s Odyssey: Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick. Part One: Kubrick and Apollo. He also gives a brief summary of his theory in the documentary film Room 237 (2012), available on Vimeo (Weidner’s contribution is between 00:44:25 and 00:51:55, and between 1:16:00 and 1:16:45).
When I first heard of that theory and watched Room 237 (I haven’t watched Kubrick’s Odyssey), I didn’t think much of it. But after watching anew The Shining with it in mind, studying Kubrick’s other films (especially his fatal Eyes Wide Shut, released on July 16th1999, the 30thanniversary of the launching of Apollo 11, as Kubrick had required by contract) and their layers of hidden meanings, and learning of his perfectionist obsession with every detail, I find the theory not only fascinating, but highly plausible.
Weidner’s starting point is the observation that, although the film The Shining is
allegedly based on Stephen King’s novel of the same title, Kubrick
ignored the scenario adapted by King himself, and changed so many things
in the story that it can be said to be a totally different story—which
made King quite resentful. Kubrick seems to have used King’s novel as a
cover for a story of his own. What is therefore interesting is to focus
exclusively on the elements of the film that depart from King’s novel,
and on the details that seem to have no direct bearing on the main
narrative. Weidner is not alone in taking this approach: many Kubrick
admirers believe that the film has hidden meanings. Some argue,
convincingly I believe, that it contains cryptic references to child
abuse, also an underlying theme in Eyes Wide Shut. But Weidner
reads into the film a subtext that amounts to an autobiographical
confession of Kubrick’s role in faking the Apollo moon landings eleven
years earlier.
According to that interpretation, Jack Torrance
(Jack Nicholson) represents Kubrick himself, while the Overlook Hotel
(built on Indian burial ground), represents America. The manager of the
hotel, Stuart Ullman (Barry Nelson), made to look like JFK, represents
the US government (as well as perhaps the JFK Space Center), while his
assistant Bill Watson, who keeps observing Torrance without uttering a
word, represents the Intelligence underworld.
Stuart Ullmann (the State) and Bill Watson (the Deep State)
Two
scenes in particular give the keys to this cryptic narrative. The first
one is when Danny (representing Kubrick’s child, that is, the Apollo
films) rises up wearing an Apollo 11 sweater, on a rug with a design
similar to the Launch Complex from which the Apollo rockets were
launched. Soon after, Danny enters room n°237, which contains the secret
of the hotel. The room number was 217 in King’s novel, but Kubrick
changed it to 237 in reference to the distance of 237,000 miles that
separates the earth from the moon (according to the common estimation at
the time). The “room n°237” is in fact the “moon room”, because “room”
looks similar to “moon” when read backward, and Kubrick has taught us to
read words backward in the scene where the word “redrum” becomes
“murder” in the mirror.
The
second most important scene from the point of view of Kubrick’s cryptic
subtext is when Wendy discovers that Jack, who is supposed to write a
novel, has been typing one single sentence over and over again: “All
work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” That sentence, which must have
been chosen by Kubrick for a very specific purpose, takes a secondary
meaning once you realize that All, in American typewriter script, is
indistinguishable from A11, which can stand for Apollo 11.
When Jack then catches Wendy reading the pages, he tells her how deadly serious his contract is:
“Have
you ever thought for a single solitary moment about my responsibilities
to my employers? […] Does it matter to you at all that the owners have
placed their complete confidence and trust in me, and that I have signed
a letter of agreement, a contract, in which I have accepted that
responsibility? […] Has it ever occurred to you what would happen to my
future if I were to fail to live up to my responsibilities?”
Besides
these two scenes, there are a number of other clues that support this
subtextual reading. Why did Kubrick, for example, make the design of the
Indian tapestry in the main lounge resemble rockets? Does Jack aiming
at them with a ball represent Kubrick “shooting” the Apollo films?
Just
after that shot, Wendy and Danny go into the hedge maze. Jack then
looks over a model of the maze inside the lounge, which merges with the
real maze in cross fading, suggesting that the maze is not real. This is
also hinted by the aerial shot of the Overlook Hotel, which clearly
shows that there is no maze next to it. Coming from Kubrick, this cannot
be a continuity error.
Puzzling spatial impossibilities in the film have also been discovered by careful students of the film such as Rob Ager.
They are not mistakes, for Kubrick gave himself a lot of trouble to
produce them. Therefore, they must have a message to tell, possibly that
what appears to be outdoors was in in fact filmed indoors .
There
are also two brief allusions to television that fit with the alleged
subtext: a sarcastic remark on the notion that what is seen on
television is “OK” (watch the scene here), and a mysteriously wireless television (impossible in 1980) showing the film Summer of 42.
“See, it’s OK, he saw it on television!”
Another possible clue left by Kubrick to let us know that he intended The Shining to
be read as cryptically autobiographical, is the documentary that he
asked his daughter Vivian to shoot on the set of the film (now included
as bonus in DVDs). It makes Kubrick appear as a mirror image of Jack
Torrance. This has been detected even by critics with no interest in the
Apollo theory, such as Rob Ager, who writes:
“Kubrick’s decision to allow a documentary film to be shot on the set of The Shining was
an unprecedented departure from his usual ultra-secretive work policy.
All of the behind the scenes footage was shot by his daughter Vivian.
Without realizing it, many film critics and biographers have
accidentally identified Kubrick’s motive for releasing this documentary.
Time and time again they have described his edgy behind the scenes
behavior as being comparable to the film’s main character Jack Torrance.
One of the biographies I read […] even claimed that there were running
jokes on set about the similarities in appearance and behavior between
Jack Nicholson’s character and Stanley Kubrick. My theory is that
Kubrick was deliberately creating these character parallels between
himself and Jack, both in the documentary and among his crew in general.
But the most prominent example of this parallel is Kubrick’s degrading
treatment of the actress Shelley Duvall (Wendy) and the actor Scatman
Crothers (Halloran), both of whose on screen characters are victims of
Jack Torrance’s madness.”
He
also has appeared many times on Fox, CNN, PBS, and other broadcast
outlets, and has inspired feature stories and op-eds in the New York
Times, the Christian Science Monitor, the Chicago Tribune, and other
leading publications.
Dr. Barrett has taught at colleges and
universities in San Francisco, Paris, and Wisconsin; where he ran for
Congress in 2008. He currently works as a nonprofit organizer, author,
and talk radio host.
There are very few books available on the subject. I am not aware of a more researched one than 
Granted,
a few fake moon rocks don’t prove that all moon rocks are fakes. But it
should be reason enough for starting a systematic scientific
examination of the hundreds of other samples that the USA ceremoniously
gave away in 1969 and the 1970s. Unfortunately, most are lost. As the 
I wouldn’t know if these claims against Einstein are true but a lot of renegade scientists do make claims that go against established opinion. But in the case of Albert he was so influential they didn’t make these claims just after he died but waited another 65 years, just to make sure. That’s how influential he still is.
The speed of light is not a universal constant. Einstein’s equations require that it is, therefore, even his “elegant” mathematical formulations are just approximations of measure.
Quite why the theoretical equivalence of mass and energy has become so important to science is confounding to me. It seems ludicrous that so many hours of scholarship have been expended wrestling with an abstraction, which isn’t very useful practically and involves the kind of subject matter, anyway, that poets and philosophers do better.
In theoretical terms, special relativity requires the audacious sleight of hand of leaving the ether out of consideration altogether. It abolishes the primary medium, as understood and accepted by all science prior to Einstein. The ether was the goddess Maat in Ancient Egypt and it surely must be titillating to the atheist, that there’s one less deity in the pantheon of Khem.
The results from the Mitchelson-Morley experiments were censorsed such that readings inferring the existence of a medium for light waves were rejected as “unreliable” to give way to the Einstein lobby’s speculations.
The thoroughly deceitful nobel laureate Albert Einstein failed the entrance exam to Zurich polytechnic. In Bern, he was a patents clerk, third grade. THIRD GRADE, mind you. The man was as thick as shit.
You omitted his connection to the ludicrous crust displacement theory, Charles Hapgood and why the Chan Thomas book was banned by the CIA?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rcL8oQec-c
Nexus Magazine gave this information about Einstein over the years. In a lecture he was interrupted about the plagiarism and just brushed it off. He established absurdities in the public mind about the speed of light as a gaslighting exercise and he was one of the view who expressed the highest level of the Conspiracy by being consciously Communist and Zionist. Lower down, that is seen as impossible because of the hypocrisy. He had the nasty view of women like Freud and Weishaupt. His connections meant they asked him if he might want to lead Israel.
“Few”, not “view”, in line three.
Miles Mathis does his usual spot-on analysis:
http://mileswmathis.com/eingen.pdf
Einstein wasn’t perfect. Neither is Mike King.
Over time I came to the conclusion that scientific theories have little basis in facts. We still have no control of gravity (nor repulsion) forces, understanding of these phenomena and particle flows is primitive at best.
National Geographic fashioned a series titled, “Genius”.
Einstein was the first documentary, followed by Picasso then Aretha Franklin.
It depicts Einstein as a womanizer, but it was because he was so smart. His E=MC2 was so universally embraced as utter genius that the entirety of his indiscretions were instantly absolved, he’s just so great.
The fact that Tesla was absent illuminated that series as propaganda hogwash.
Einstein?
Picasso?? Geniuses?!?!
Aretha Franklin comes closer to genius level than those other 2 hacks, but such displays of obsequience numb the brain and dilute the information to entertainment rather than facts.
Niels Bohr has proved to be right in his argument with Einstein.
Einstein was fluffed in order to dispel the profound implications of the Michelson-Morley experiment that shows the earth to be stationary, and Hubble’s discovery of the red-shift that shows the earth to be located at the exact centre of the universe. The implication, of course, points to God’s providence, which is unacceptable to these people. With Einstein’s theory “science” can falsify time itself in order to obscure facts that they refuse to accept.
There is only one reasion Einstein is so “influential” and its not his scientific prowes (or shoul I say plagiarism) but the fact he’s one of the tribe. Simple as.
Saul are you ok?
He’s a fake…ive been saying this for years.
E=mc2….lol is all i can say
Manhattan project a commie creation…alphabet guys said he couldnt be spart of it…lol…they’re commie too. Amerika is a commie institution…regardless whst sny1 has to say….
GET READY FOR THE SLAUGHTER FOLKS….WONDER IF THE VAXX WILL FO THE JOB NICE AND QUIETLY….
MAKES SENSE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NQSv22TD2c
Albert Shitstein would have to get an extension ladder just to be able to kiss Tesla’s ass. jews control all your media, you country and they get to make your hero’s and idols. Picasso a great artist, just another jew has been nutcase, he would also need a stepladder to kiss a real artist ass.
Having read and thoroughly understood “relativity” (it’s not difficult) a long time ago (1960s?), I’ve always known it for the complete hogwash that it really is, but to elaborate on that would fill a book.
DONT SAY ANY TRUTH ABOUT HOLY
EINSTEIN OF THE JEWS : ITS ANTISEMITISM
The best book on Einstein with regard to physics is “How Einstein Ruined Physics” by Roger Schlafly.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/7t3eVukfdkg
“Einstein went on to publish seven different proofs of E = MC^2 over the course of forty years, but all of them were incorrect.”
How Einstein Ruined Physics” by Roger Schlafly.
Einstein received a Nobel Prize for a trivial observation based on the work of Max Planck, not on relativity.
Poincaré developed the Theory of Relativity to explain what Einstein claimed he was not even aware of – The Michelson-Morley experiment – which had been as devastating to classical physics as the ultra-violate catastrophe had been to classical thermodynamics. Relativity just popped into his head to explain nothing, his supporters claim!
A prize for relativity was never given because Poincaré had died and, perhaps, not wanting to disabuse the public of the false notion that Einstein had invented it, the Nobel committee decided not to give prizes posthumously.
Marconi received a Nobel Prize based on the patents of Tesla but Tesla like Poincaré did not get a Nobel Prize. Marconi received royalties and patent rights for the inventions that Tesla had already patented (later proven in court) and did not need the money but Tesla who had gone broke trying to improve the lot of mankind did.
.
The last 200 years or so, there were two “MORONS” made in to intellectual giants .
XIX Century Charles Darwin….
XX Century Albert Einstein…
& guess who was behind & financed their elevation, from MORON to Intellectual Genius ?
TESLA was a holy advanced soul to improve
humanity but the powers that send him made a
mistake ignoring that all good intention in this
world are abused by abusers !
therefore nothing improves this world is hell !