NASA has been doing this for some time. Covering the Artemis II return to the moon program as if it is doing something new, as if Apollo never happened. Here is a NASA director, Lisa Carnell saying that for the first time they will be getting data on the effects of deep space radiation on humans.
Read more at my Substack.
https://open.substack.com/pub/georgebailey/p/artemis-ii
New post at Substack.
A NASA photographic analysis.
NASA LIES is a book seeking to show fraud in the Apollo moon landings by comparison of the Hasselblad images taken from space and on the surface of the moon mixed with various explanations regarding rocket science and its effects. In this review I’ll concentrate on the photographs primarily.
https://open.substack.com/pub/georgebailey/p/book-review-nasa-lies-by-lawrence
A NASA photographic analysis.
At Deep Thoughts Radio an excellent breakdown of the inherent problems of making the Lunar Landing Module actually work.
https://deepthoughtsradio.com/dtr-s6-bonus-moon-hoax-lunar-lander/
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: https://georgebailey.substack.com/p/what-is-wrong-with-this-picture?sd=pf
Sources
Jack White's Apollo Studies
https://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_0.htm
Dr Brian O’Leary
https://www.aulis.com/nasa2.htm
Project Apollo Archive
https://www.flickr.com/photos/projectapolloarchive/albums
 |
| 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.”
Techopedia
“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.
Concluding
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.
Endnotes
Also posted at my Substack page.
https://georgebailey.substack.com/p/which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the?sd=pf
Sources
Apollo simulator construction timeline.
http://www.astronautix.com/c/csmsimulator.html
Apollo Experience Report: Simulation Of Manned Space Flight For Crew Training
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search?q=Apollo%20flight%20simulators
What Does Flight Simulator Mean?
https://www.techopedia.com/definition/15229/flight-simulator
 |
| Screen shot from Space Radiation and Risks to Human Health. |
When browsing through NASA’s documents every so often one finds statements that do not fit the official account. And they don’t seem to mind the contractions.
The document “Space Radiation and Risks to Human Health” by Janice L. Huff, Ph.D., is a case in point. She is the Deputy Element Scientist at the NASA Space Radiation Program and this report can be found on NASA’s technical report server.
GCR also fragments into secondary high energy particles that can as the report states, “damage biomolecules, cells and tissues.” An illustration shows the rays passing thru a human head.
Interesting how the NASA experts know about cell and tissue damage when they say they have no human data on the health hazards to reply upon. How do they know this? Another bullet point is professing the need for more animal experimentation. Which apparently they haven’t done enough of, if any.
As I wrote in my article “NASA Document Implies No Go To The Moon,” NASA has no misgiving in mocking their own narrative. In that document from their report server, a chart indicates that the sum total of Apollo radiation exposure for all missions was the same as the Space Shuttle which never left low earth orbit. The astronaut’s dosimeter readings were the same as being in low earth orbit as well. The highest exposure goes to the ISS. Yet if they actually did the moon landings they are being bathed in galactic cosmic rays for the duration of the trip to the moon, on the surface during the exploration phase, and back home again. The consequences should have been hazardous to the health and cognitive function of the astronauts and eventually, deadly.
Besides GCR the astronauts would have been exposed to a plethora of radiation both in sis lunar space and on the moon’s surface. Alpha, Beta, Gamma radiation as well as microwave, x-rays, etc. These same energies would affect astronauts on the moon as well and in another odd twist, there was no adequate shielding in the suit to block all of these high energy particles. The weak point being the helmet which was made entirely out of plastic and offered no shielding from the radiation nor any insolation from the extreme heat and cold.
Did NASA use black budget technology in the shielding? Unknown. If not, then we are looking at a con job.
Sources
Space Radiation and Risks to Human Health
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20140005866
NASA Document Implies No Go To The Moon
http://outwardtrends.blogspot.com/2018/09/nasa-document-implies-no-go-to-moon.html
 |
| Dragon Astronaut exiting capsule on August 2, 2020 |
 |
| President Nixon talking to the astronauts on the moon using a rotary dial phone. |
