Something Shady About NASA – Part 2

(image above: the Author in a NASA suit)

The article Something Shady about NASA – Part 1 can be found in my 2020 book Extraterrestrial Linguistics.

In the sunny spring of 2022 I took a one hour drive from my home to Cape Canaveral, where NASA launches several rockets a year. I went to see my first live rocket launch. I was excited to go because I wished to learn more about the reality or unreality of NASA. In close proximity, it’s much easier to observe and feel whether a thing is legitimate than off of Internet-memes. Even after years of conspiracy-themed memes and books, I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Cruising the area, I spotted Jeff Bezos “Blue Origin”, a space-flight company that publishes photoshopped images of its astronauts (as previously shown), and Elon Musk’s SpaceX. Up close the companies resemble medium sized warehouses standing in empty fields. I don’t know what I expected from a high-tech facility that sends astronauts to outer-space, but I wasn’t impressed.

Conspiracy-theorists say that these warehouses are film-stages. NASA runs a large film studio right beside Cape Canaveral:

The official explanation is that this is where they produce educational movies of NASA.

 

 

As a first-time-visitor to Cape Canaveral, I noticed that NASAs entertainment-complex is larger than it’s scientific-research center.

 

NASA’s flights to space and moon being studio-filmed is not an idea taken out of the blue. Filmmaker Stanley Kubrick is claimed to have helped NASA film the Apollo moon landings. He has been photographed on numerous moonscape film-sets and also walking beside NASA staff. The official explanation is that he went to get advice for his movie 2001 – A Space Odyssee.

 

 

Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, with Neil Armstrong the first person to land on the moon, publicly said they were “well staged” and “well scripted”. We know that some parts of the moon landing had to have been staged because there was nobody on the moon to film the space capsule landing on the moon. The cameramen were still inside the capsule while it was landing. At the very least, this part of the moon landing was studio-filmed.

Elon Musk has cheekily said that CGI (Computer Generated Images) are used for space-flight:

 

The tweet is still up for all to see at this address: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/832480331496185857

The excessive use of Computer-Generated-Images has made people skeptical.

 

But if the space-flight program were really a scam, where do all the rockets go? Some people, such as the current shadow-President Donald Trump, claim that the rockets go nowhere:

“Rockets to nowhere”? What an odd thing to say. Don’t Musk’s rockets go into outer-space to take up position as satellites? Is not Elon Musk’s Starlink the new “Internet from space” that makes us independent of the underwater cables (image below) that we are currently dependent on?

 

Conspiracists say the rockets launched from Cape Canaveral make a curve then fall into the ocean. That would explain why people in Florida routinely find space debris washing ashore.

 

There is also the far-out claim that the purpose of the rockets is to fire at “the dome”. What dome? See my article “Do we live under a Dome?”

Yet others say that rockets do go to space but stay within the sub-orbital realm.

On that sunny spring day, we watched a rocket take a curve until it went out of sight in the far distance. Our eyes could no longer follow the tiny dot. From an eye-witness perspective I’ll just have to trust that the rocket continues up into space. Most of what we know about space, is from what we see on screen. That’s a fact. But what we see on screen can easily be manipulated. Because NASA has been caught manipulating images hundreds of times, many people, including myself, have started to question the entire legitimacy of space-flight.

 

It’s been a real headscratcher as to why NASAs video depictions of Earth and Space have changed over time, going with updated technology. Every new Generation is shown new versions of what earth, the moon, the planets and the stars look like.

The Video above was taken from the website of British Pathe, a collector of old news-reels. When I first drafted this article one year ago, the video was still there. It has meanwhile been removed from the site, no doubt because too many people were asking good questions. Fortunately I’m in the habit of saving some things offline.

I write articles like these because of the lack of transparency around these topics. There is no reason to remove the video. There are many reasonable explanations why NASA might have produced such a film. But the removal and hush-hush around it makes it look suspicious. People are treated as if they weren’t smart enough to discern NASA’s arcane motives.

I posted this on my social media page a while ago:

After I posted, a commentor said “it’s because the light gets dissipated by the atmosphere and lights up our sky. The moon does not have an atmosphere”. 

I have nothing in response to that rebuttal. But there is a lingering doubt about how then, the Earth is visible on some Apollo photos and why stars are visible on some (not all) photos of space stations and shuttles.

A forensic examination of the Apollo Earth photo reveals that the Earth may have been inserted:

NASA-apollogists (misspell intended) have responded that the Earth can’t actually be seen because the moon has no atmosphere, but that the Earth was inserted for dramatic effect. The people saying that – are they scientists or entertainment-execs?

In NASA’s space-walk photos, skeptics have detected bubbles. I won’t add them here as this article is already crowded with large files, but you can look them up on your own. Many interesting things have also been found in helmet reflections on supposed “space-walks”.

Why would astronauts walking around space stations or in space, where there is no atmosphere, encounter bubbles? Some say it’s because they are filmed under water:

Space Agencies tell us that Astronauts practice weightless walking underwater and that their practice is filmed. Skeptics counter that the practice = the footage we see on TV, with the water edited out and replaced by images of Earth and Space.

NASA-apologists have asked how “green screen” filming could be used underwater, but the process is fairly easy. Any color that can be uniquely identified for removal can serve as “green screen”, and it doesn’t have to be green. If the whole background is swimming-pool-blue it can easily be removed and replaced. I’m a photoshop amateur but even I’ve done it before.

NASA left us a strong hint that space-walks are not genuine: If they were real, a spacewalk in the 1960s would roughly look the same as a space-walk in the 2020s. Unfortunately, the way a space-walk looks improves with upgrades in film and photo technology.

The Internet is full of memes that cast doubt on NASA:

I’ve always wondered why NASA doesn’t proactively do anything to put conspiracy-theories to rest. Mere public denials that things have been “debunked” are no longer enough to quell public doubt. Eventually, civilians will have to be taken into space to see for themselves. And I’m not talking about sub-orbital travel as is the case with Blue Origins or SpaceX or the plans of Virgin Galactic but orbital flight.

See also this article: What’s suborbital flight? A space-engineer explains.

I quote:

“Suborbital” is a term you’ll be hearing a lot as Sir Richard Branson flies aboard Virgin Galactic’s VSS Unity winged spaceship and Jeff Bezos flies aboard Blue Origin’s New Shepard vehicle to touch the boundary of space and experience a few minutes of weightlessness.

But what exactly is “suborbital”? Simply put, it means that while these vehicles will cross the ill-defined boundary of space, they will not be going fast enough to stay in space once they get there.

If a spacecraft – or anything else, for that matter – reaches a speed of 17,500 mph (28,000 km/h) or more, instead of falling back to the ground, it will continuously fall around the Earth. That continuous falling is what it means to be in orbit and is how satellites and the Moon stay above Earth.

Anything that launches to space but does not have sufficient horizontal velocity to stay in space – like these rockets – comes back to Earth and therefore flies a suborbital trajectory”

That’s the real problem with these projects. None of the vehicles actually go into space. That’s why they say that the boundary of space is “ill defined”.

There are countless videos online that show evidence of trickery and theatrics rather than actual science.

Researchers scrutinizing the publications of NASA, ESA and other space agencies and finding anomalies has become common. And still, news-media stubbornly maintain the official narrative.

At midnight on the 21st of July 1969 Richard Nixon made a phone call to the moon that was televised around the world. It was called “the most historical phone call ever made”. It was made using a radio-telephone. Not only was the line fairly clear but the conversation could be held without time-lag! Amazing! Back in the days of landline phones, when you made phone calls to other countries, there was always a time-lag. It took some time for your voice to travel around the world. But here, Nixon was able to took to the astronauts without time-lag! NASA was able to do what no other human was doing. Ah, the miracles of science!

Quoted from the article “How did President Nixon place a phone call to the moon?

“Neil and Buzz, The President of the United States is in his office now, and would like to to say a few words to you,” Mission Control relayed to the men on the moon. “That would be an honor,” replied one of the astronauts.

So how do you call the moon? According to the AT&T Archives, “Simply, the call went from the Oval Office in Washington D.C. to Houston, where it was routed into space via Mission Control, through the capsule communicator, or CapCom, astronaut Bruce McCandless II.”

Simple as that!

Obviously, I’m being a little cynical here. But I’m not saying it’s impossible. It’s known that the Government is in possession of technology that is far advanced to what is given to the general public. All I am saying is that the famous phone call warrants further research.

It would also be interesting to find out how Apollo 11 travelled half a million miles on one tank of gas and oxygen. Or this:

 

Again, it is entirely possible that this camera and it’s film were not harmed on the 239 000 mile journey. It was fine with boiling daytime temperatures of 250 Degrees Fahrenheit (120 Celsius) and absolutely devastating minus 208 degrees Fahrenheit (-130 Celsius) at night. Nor did the radiation of “van Allens belt” cause any damage to it. I’ve personally had camera lenses condense, polarize and distort at much tamer temperatures, but NASAs unmodified camera was obviously under miraculous protection.

At the very least the public could ask for financial transparency in all the Billions that go into NASA every year.

 

I don’t know why NASA is the biggest purchaser of Helium. It’s interesting to say the least.

Do I need to explain what’s wrong with the above NASA-published photo? I won’t, I’ll let you figure it out for yourself. The added lines provide a hint.

 

The real power of the magicians running the show is the motion picture and the screen. With it, they can make the whole world believe anything. But while there is tons of evidence of something shady about NASA, nobody is actually doing anything about it.

One might be inclined to ask “Why?”. Why would they go through so much trouble to continue a fake space program? Is it to mask the real space program, as some say? Is it to mask other, more occult-type research? Is it to advertise a false narrative about who and where we are? I don’t know. I haven’t reached that stage yet and consider it irresponsible to put out wild theories without evidence. The only real evidence I have so far is that there is something shady about NASA.

 

 

Knowledge dissemination relies on YOU. Share this article far and wide
error: Content is protected !!