Thursday, May 18, 2023

What Is Going On Here?

Apollo 17 in space with two different images and two different looks.

One of the Apollo photographic anomalies from the NASA Flickr archive.

Full article at Substack:

Thursday, May 11, 2023

What Is Wrong With This Picture?

Apollo photo irregularities remain.

Quite a bit of debate has surrounded the numerous photo collections of the Apollo moon missions.  From the parallel shadow angles to John Young’s jump salute showing dust from the rear video angle but no dust in front still photo angle.  Much has been revealed in professional photographer Jack White’s Apollo photo study (link below) and it is highly recommended to check out his work. 

One thing that has caught my attention outside of Jack’s comprehensive examination, was the images shot of the earth from the moon’s surface.  If there is any fakery being done, it is quite evident in the earth photos since they are in the wrong position from the moon’s angle of view.   

What is wrong with the picture above? This earth shot was from the Apollo 17 mission.  They landed 20 degrees from the moon’s equator.  The earth’s angle is about 45 degrees from the horizon.  However, that is the wrong location.  Since there is no earth rise or earth set, as it lies in a fixed position.  It should have been directly overhead.  A difficult shot to make with a chest mounted camera with no viewfinder.  The Hasselblad camera would have to be removed from its chest mount and pointed vertically with the hope it appeared in-frame for the shot.


But there are other problems too.  Such as the size of the earth.  It appears smaller in size than when looking at the moon from earth.  The earth is 3.7 times larger and the distance is the same.  It should be much larger.  In fact, it’s actually smaller in size than what one would observe of the moon from earth!    

In the other picture shot during the Apollo 17 mission which features the flag, the earth is at an even higher angle and even smaller than the other image.  But as stated above, the earth is stationary in the moon's sky.

So the earth is in the wrong position in both images and too small in size as seen from the moon’s surface.  Astronomers have to know this is incorrect.  Have any of them come forward?  No.  They know what abuse will be heaped on them if they point this out.  Nobody wants to go through their professional life as a “toil foil hat” wearer.  

And besides that, how come the Apollo era earth photos never show the aurora borealis?  It’s been active every day since the earth began.  But we never see any images of it from space till the Space Shuttle program and the International Space Station (ISS) commenced.  Why?  What were they really doing up there?

Even this picture of the crescent earth has issues. Where are the city lights? Once again, no northern lights either.

As astronaut Dr. Brian O’Leary said at a UFO conference in 1999, “If some of the film was spoiled, it’s remotely possible they [NASA] may have shot some scenes in a studio environment to avoid embarrassment.”

An amazing admission!  According to Dr. O’Leary, the possibility exists that NASA would fake images if the film were ruined.  And they may have done just that in the Apollo 17 example provided here.  That was always a clear risk of film damage since there was no radiation shielding on the camera body and besides radiation issues, the effects of being in a vacuum can damage film as well.  In fact, if they really were on the moon, I fail to see how they did not damage all the film reels shot in such a toxic environment. 

In conclusion, they either made it to the moon and the film was damaged and to be reproduced in a studio or else it was all a cold war propaganda stunt.

Also published at my Substack:


Jack White's Apollo Studies

Dr Brian O’Leary

Project Apollo Archive

Monday, April 24, 2023

Which Came First, The Chicken Or The Egg?

One of the Apollo flight simulators.


Or rather, which came first, the flight or the flight simulator?

“A flight simulator helps in artificially recreating the aircraft flight environment for pilot training, design or other purposes.The main purpose of a flight simulator is to help the pilot to achieve, test and maintain proficiency in handling airplane operation without involving any risk to property or lives, and at a much lower cost than training in the air. A simple flight simulator system consists of multiple displays, control devices, an audio system for communications and a computer system to process control inputs and record flight data.”


“In the late 1960s our simulation technology had progressed to the point where it became virtually impossible to separate the training from the actual missions.”

Gene Krantz, Failure Is Not An Option, p. 234

As my grandmother used to ask me as a boy, “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?”  I pondered the question and never had an answer.  It is a paradox.  You cannot have one without the other.  But what is the starting point?  Take your pick—God's created it or evolutionary biology did. 

The same applies to NASA’s simulator technology that was developed for the moon missions.  As Gene Krantz noted above, the simulators hosted simulations that were as real as the real thing.  So how do you develop a flight simulator that is authentic, to land a manned spacecraft on the moon, when this has never been done before?  The engineers did benefit from data gathered from the Surveyor program’s robotic probes, and data acquired from observation and experiments.  But by 1965, 3 landers out of 9 succeeded in missions to the moon. Where did this database of knowledge, coupled with actual experience come from? How did they increase the simulator accuracy to resemble an actual landing without doing the landing first?

Generally, engineering requires the building of prototypes with test flights in real world conditions, or in this case, real moon conditions.  In commercial or military aviation development, the aircraft and the simulation are both built in tandem.  The simulator will be the training platform for pilots and the test pilot’s flights of the prototype will be gathering data to input into the simulator.  Both systems rise together.  

Simulator Construction Began Early On

Apollo command service module (CSM) simulator construction began in the early 1960’s by contractor North American.  Construction was to be completed early 1964.  In 1963 they were awarded the contract to begin construction on the Lunar landing module (LM) simulator.  This was long before the Apollo spacecraft had been launched or tested in real space and real moon conditions.  It should also be acknowledged that at this time, between 1960-1963, only 5 unmanned spacecraft had been sent to the moon and none were successful.    

Around this time, Grumman signed the contract to build the Apollo spacecraft in November of 1962.  Construction started in January of 1963. There would be a need for networking between these two technologies—one from the simulator side and the other from the hardware side.  From 1961 to 1967 the Mercury and Gemini programs were ongoing.  It gave the appearance of gradual steps learning how to travel successfully to the moon.  But apparently, the technology was already there to do so.  But how?  It seems in retrospect that the Mercury and Gemini programs were meant to keep the public engaged with the moon landing project.  Some of their missions could be gleamed 

Where then, is the database of knowledge coming from? Not only for the flight simulations but for the spacecraft also.   A secret space program?  These machines are built with a purpose in mind so the engineers would need a full understanding of the technology required and conditions in deep space such as astrophysics, temperatures, radiation, navigation, launch weight, fuel consumption, etc.—besides what it is like to fly a spacecraft from microgravity to 1/6 gravity in a vacuum for a successful moon landing.

Apollo Simulation Platforms

Apollo Experience Report: Simulation Of Manned Space Flight For Crew Training

As can be seen in this 1973 NASA report the simulators used, there were a total of 11.  All had banks of computers to control every aspect of a mission.  Other simulators included aspects such as simulated 1/6 gravity, docking simulation, centrifuge for high G forces, etc.  The report states Apollo astronauts spent as much as 80% of their training time in these simulators.  And for spacecraft that, under the official NASA narrative, had never been flown in the conditions or places where they were intended for.

How did they know this was going to be successful? 

In Neil Armstrong’s authorized biography, The First Man, Armstrong was instrumental in developing the simulators.  As stated in the book, Armstrong’s method was to “mechanize the equations of motion.” Where are the equations coming from since nobody had flown the LM on the moon?  The reader is never told.  Therein lies the issue—too much data coming from too few sources and never properly explained. 

Armstrong reportedly crashed landing attempts over 3,000 times in the LM simulator.  If that simulator is not as accurate as a real flight experience, then Armstrong would be simulating crashing without fully knowing the correct flight characteristics and data to prevent a crash in a live moon landing.  But the LM had never landed on the moon.  So how did they get the actual flight and landing experience data from? These NASA rocket guys come off as daredevils!  They are not adhering to standard procedures of safety or other basic engineering standards. You always test the prototypes first.  Even smart people don’t know it all.  

It is doubtful they could have done this from running simulations from what is known, because not all was known at the time.


My conclusion to the mysteries presented here, is that the exploration of the moon had already been done.  By chiefly, the Department of Defense.  I judge that by circumstantial evidence of NASA and their contractors having a greater knowledge of technological requirements and space flight characteristics than they should have had at the time since much of the hardware was untested.  And keep in mind, all of the astronauts from Mercury, Gemini to Apollo were employed by the DOD.  All were military men, all officer class.  

As Neal Armstrong once said, “My celebrity is unwarranted.”  This might be more than a humble man’s words.  Maybe Armstrong was not the first man on the moon.  Maybe there were other men, names concealed to this day, buried deep in the Deep State.


Also posted at my Substack page.


Apollo simulator construction timeline.

Apollo Experience Report: Simulation Of Manned Space Flight For Crew Training

What Does Flight Simulator Mean?

Thursday, April 13, 2023

Take The Chemo Or Die

My journey through the Medical-Industrial-Pharmaceutical-Complex.

(Mirror at my substack page:

I took the news that I had been diagnosed with cancer in September of 2021 better than I had imagined.  I thought it might fill me with terror This was the first time I had ever been diagnosed with a disease of this seriousness.  Up to this point I had not had a cold, flu or a fever in 15 years.  My worries regarding cancer were few with my consistent good health, a strong immune system and close relatives that never experienced internal cancers.  

Nevertheless, getting such a diagnosis feels as if your house has been broken into and the security of it violated. Your safe place, your physical body, the place where the soul has a home, is not safe anymore.  Afterward, any minor ache seemed like a warning sign of some impending trouble.  After a while, well over a year actually,  I learned to shake if off and go on living my life as I had always done.

It started in January first of 2021 when I noticed my urine was brown.  I was greatly disturbed by this and I checked online to see that could be a result of dehydration and drinking more water would correct the discoloration.  I did drink more and it did improve. Only to come rounding back in a few months, off and on.

Later in the year it turned to blood.  Which was even a greater shock and my blood pressure shot up to dangerous, near stroke levels as I was told by a nurse practitioner.  No more time to waste, I started the process of meeting my urologist Dr. Michael Grable, whom I found to be a genuinely pleasant man dressed in overalls resembling a garage mechanic.  Next commenced the exams of bladder,  kidneys, blood, etc.  The bladder led to the source of trouble—a small tumor which required surgery in October.    

The surgery was meant to be a straightforward process at a day surgery clinic.  In and out early in the morning.  All went smoothly except the bleeding which did not stop and eventually led me to the ER where it was discovered the bleeding was causing blood clots.  I was hospitalized for a long week having my bladder irrigated to break loose the clots.  I was never warned it could happen!  I came close to a transfusion, but thankfully the saline solution worked.  I had a long recovery process regaining my strength and battling a UTI infection that went on for weeks.

The Chemo Process

After sufficiently recovered, I conferenced with my urologist where I was told my options.  One, was basically to do a round of chemotherapy which would only give a 20% chance of the cancer returning.  Two, do not proceed with the chemo and have a 70% chance of a return.  And third, no nothing and die in two years.  Sounded scary and depressing.  I didn’t like the prospects of these options and needed time to think it over.  One issue that bothered me was the lack of options. This resembles what I would have been told 20 years ago and quite possibly my doctor did.  Where was the advancement in treatment?  As I would find out, and will be shown later on in this piece, I was given inaccurate information regarding the efficiency of this type of treatment.

After much thought I decided on the treatments since the chemistry being used, gemcitabine (gemcitabine hydrochloride), was not nuclear based, the side effects were minimal and is an antiviral found to be effective in destroying cancer cells.  Also, the application was simple.  Gemcitabine is fed into the bladder via a catheter (intravesical instillation).  It’s urinated out after 2 hours.  Overall, throughout the year of 2022, I had 15 treatments with no major side effects.

Starting in January of 2023 I had a bladder exam and everything looked fine.  During the time I had had four and everything looked good.  That is why I was surprised when Dr. Grable stated he wanted to continue them—there more.  I said nothing about it at the time as I am good about obeying doctor’s orders.  But it started me thinking.

What is the end game here? At what point do we declare victory?  Yes, I should have asked and likewise, my doctor could have told me.  But when you are a rookie with potentially dangerous diseases such as cancer, you don’t know where to start or what to ask.  You are in a vulnerable place and being told scary things.   Only the basics are generally revealed.  It would be nice if patients had a medical advocate to walk you through the labyrinth and ask the right questions in your stead.  But we are not there yet.

I had decided to take a more natural, holistic approach while still keeping in mind to have regular exams to check progress.

After much thought I canceled treatments.

Afterward, I got something in the mail.

The Letter

Several weeks later after canceled treatments a letter arrived.  It was from Dr. Grable informing me if I didn’t reinstate the Gemcitabine treatments I would no longer be a patient of his.  It was quite a surprise!  As a friend said, my urologist went from “recommendation to ultimatum.”  Indeed.  I thought as a patient I had a right to determine my own course of treatment and make the best choices I could with the information at hand.  And that choice would not result in punishment.  But I was wrong.  Instead, I was kicked off the train for being uppity.  

In a way I had been uppity, from a medical industry rooted in man-made chemistry.  One can only wonder at what pressures the physicians employed by these medical corporations are under.  I was never asked why I made my choice.  Apparently, as before, there are no other options and certainly not under this arranged system.  And besides, my urologist didn’t care.  If he did, he would want to consult with me about this.  Ultimately, he’s a company man.  Besides, Big Pharma rules.  Just take note of their advertising.  It’s all over the place, day and night and supplies networks with a steady income.  

I was given the choice of calling the office to reinstate the appointments or ask questions.  Notice this is talking to the staff, not the urologist.  He can speak directly to you, but you can’t talk directly to him.  Actually, you only speak to a doctor in the examination room.  I remember a time when your doctor would call and give you the results of a test.  How quaint.  A thing of the past.  Now they keep their distance from the rabble.  I never called in.

One important thing to consider is Gemcitabine (without health insurance) costs $373.99 per ounce and they fill your bladder up with it.  When I canceled those appointments thousands of dollars were lost to Advanced Urology.  I am sure it doesn’t look good.  I would judge this to be a factor in the eroding of the patient/physician relationship.

Taking A Deeper Dive

So at last I got around to doing the research I should have been doing from the start.  And I ran across some surprising issues.  

As I said earlier, I was told by my urologist that if I did the  chemotherapy there would only give a 20% chance of the cancer returning or a 70% chance of it returning if I did nothing.  I was given no end date for receiving the treatments.  But in my research I never found the range I was told.  Instead, I found totally different figures from a double-blind study published in JAMA.  As follows:

“Among all of the 406 patients in the clinical trial, the use of gemcitabine after surgery reduced the rate of the cancer returning. Over 4 years, the recurrence rate was 35% in the gemcitabine group, compared with 47% in the placebo group, the researchers reported in JAMA on May 8.”

The 4 year period was new to me as I was not informed there was a time range for the gemcitabine to be effective in.  It goes on:

“Participants were recruited and randomly assigned to a treatment group prior to undergoing surgery, which is needed to determine whether a patient has low-grade or high-grade disease. Over the course of the trial, the researchers determined that 215 patients had low-grade disease.

Among this group, 34 of 102 patients receiving gemcitabine (34%) had a recurrence, compared with 59 of 113 patients receiving placebo (54%)—a 37% relative reduction in the recurrence rate.”

Low-grade would be my category since my cancer was caught early enough and did not penetrate the bladder wall. 

On the same page another chemotherapy drug is mentioned, mitomycin C.  I was not aware of it for treatment.  It’s a bit more strident and can cause rashes if it comes into contact with skin. However, the report seemed to favor gemcitabine as it has proven effective in reducing the chances of recurrences and is more easily tolerated by the body. 

Overall, I was disappointed at the information I was told at the time and I have no explanation as to why this was so.  It is obviously of utter importance for a patient to have the best information available.  A 20% chance of recurrence over an unknown time range compared to a 34% or 35% chance over 4 years is a whole different understanding of how the treatment works.  A pity I had to do my own search to discover this after the fact.

In Closing

If cancer is an immune system failure, what about discussion of the immune system, it’s important to overall health and ways to strengthen it for optimum efficiency and well being?  In my journey through this, I was told nothing regarding the importance of the immune system for health, as if this vital system for the body’s defense against contagions doesn’t exist.  So the first cause is not addressed, only the mechanics of repair.

It is as if there were no other choices.  What about other therapies?  Or taking a more holistic approach?  That is the place I wanted to go and the reason for my canceling of the appointments.  In my research I have found there are other choices.  And I will pursue them.

So this was a unique experience from the beginning, to hardships, to the surprising end.  I do appreciate what Dr. Grable did for me.  He after all, saved my life and I will always be grateful.  But since he is not a King nor I, his subject, will move on to more greater options for my health rather than, “Take the chemo or die.”


Gemcitabine efficiency

Gemcitabine trials

Gemcitabine Hydrochloride - NCI

Gemcitabine cost

Other treatments, BCG

Saturday, April 8, 2023

The Trademark Name

Seems in the world of Jessie Czebotar things often get off kilter.

One example is her trademarking of her name. Scrolling down one can find she lists the "first use" date of “Jessie Czebotar” as being her birthdate of April 24, 1977. But that is her married name. She was born “Jessie M. Ellevold.”  So the first use is not her married surname in 1977.  Why is this in error?

Friday, April 7, 2023

SOS Army Reveal

 One of the SOS (Shepherds of the Sheeple) Army members resigned and here is her message to Jessie Czebotar and Jeff Shepherd. Also, Jessie’s reply back to her.

(Also posted here:

In sequence as follows: