Apollo – “Removing Truth’s Protective Layers”

In this presentation we will examine a range of different evidence which seems to show that much of what we were told and shown about the Apollo Moon shot programme was false/fake. We will look at

Some aspects of Apollo History
Photographic Evidence
Video Evidence
What some of the Astronauts themselves have said – during and after the Apollo missions
New Evidence from Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter – LRO
Likely motives for the fakery

We will also ask questions such as “how they could possibly have got away with it”.

Note: Not all questions can be answered, but the evidence presented raises some serious and deep questions about the Apollo Record and the actions and statements of some of those who were directly involved. Please see minor corrections at bottom

Part 1

Order a DVD Here

An astute reader/listener adds a correction and some additional thoughts:

One small item of language and meaning: When Armstrong said when we “lost the competition”, I heard him to mean that our competitors were lost (meaning: now gone because we won, we smoked them, they were defeated etc), not to mean that we had lost the contest. It is an American colloquialism perhaps- to use the term “The Competition” to refer to the competitors, as distinct from using the term “the competition” to refer to the match or the game.

I see a few possibilities, listed in order of probability (in my opinion) from lowest to highest:

1. the official story is true and genuine: Apollo mission happened exactly as stated and shown. (you did a great job in showing why this is not a reasonable belief)

2. the official story is partly true and genuine, but not the way it was stated and shown: We did go to the moon on Apollo, but were shown faked Kubrick staged films and pictures because they did not want us to see what is really in space and on the moon, or reveal methods and equipment to “the competition”. The astronauts were memory wiped so that they would never reveal the truth. (I think this idea was essentially embraced by Hoagland in Dark Mission) This could be their “limited hangout” story.

3. the official story is completely false: We never went to the moon at all with the Apollo missions, but faked the entire program from low space orbit plus Kubrick staged films and photos, etc. Apollo mission astronauts were memory wiped. We cannot go to the moon in conventional rockets because of Van Allen Belt radiation. Instead the Apollo program was a ruse to capture the public’s imagination and invested belief in low-tech rocketry development, during which a parallel, secret space program based on hyper dimensional physics, free energy technology was developed. The program, using black project funding, probably resulted in super advanced tech electro-gravitic spacecraft that can travel freely within the solar system if not farther. (this is the Nazi based “breakaway” civilization that Hoagland, Dolan, Farrell, etc are now talking about). So we (they) have gone to the moon, but not the way we thought we did.

There could also be an exo-political explanation for all this as well, impenetrable for now.

LRO Segment

It has been pointed out to me by someone who would not reveal their real name that I have probably made a mistake in the segment about the LRO images. I am still trying to check the details, but in the section where I compare Google Map/Google Earth images of my house to the LRO image, I have probably (without realising iit at the time) used an aerial photograph (i.e. taken from a plane – not a satellite) for the images of my house. This anonymous person (who then wanted to engage me in other arguments – without revealing much about himself) So, the level of detail is not totally fair. However, as Jarah White has noted, comparing GeoEye images to LRO Apollo images IS a fair comparison, as they are meant to be the same resolution. See here.

Additionally, I calculated the size of the Apollo 11 LEM image from LRO incorrectly. Although the image size on the LRO image is actually correct, the lack of detail and colour or even much shade variation also remain valid. The “mushyness” and overly high contrast of that image is still a valid observation, however.

References/Links from Slides

Slide 08 history.nasa.gov/Apo…
Slide 08 nasawatch.com/archiv…
Slide 11 www.aulis.com/exposi…
Slide 11 www.lpi.usra.edu/res…
Slide 11 www.thekeyboard.org…. we land on the Moon.htm
Slide 12 www.hq.nasa.gov/offi…
Slide 12 www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj…
Slide 12 www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj…
Slide 13 www.nasm.si.edu/coll…
Slide 13 www.spacegrant.hawai…
Slide 14 www.lpi.usra.edu/res…
Slide 15 www3.telus.net/summa…
Slide 16 www3.telus.net/summa…
Slide 17 www.lpi.usra.edu/lun…
Slide 17 jamesfetzer.blogspot…
Slide 23 www.daviddarling.inf…
Slide 24 www.nasa.gov/mission…
Slide 25 lroc.sese.asu.edu/ne…
Slide 27 www.nasaimages.org/l…
Slide 29 www.nasa.gov/images/…
Slide 30 www.nasa.gov/images/…
Slide 31 www.nasa.gov/mission…
Slide 32 geoeye.com/CorpSite/…
Slide 40 www.lpi.usra.edu/lun…
Slide 40 www.asi.org/adb/m/03…
Slide 44 www.cbsnews.com/stor…
Slide 44 video.google.com/vid…
Slide 46 www.enterprisemissio…
Slide 47 www.enterprisemissio…
Slide 53 www.jayweidner.com/S…
Slide 59 www.imdb.com/title/t…
Slide 59 www.lyricinterpretat…
Slide 59 www.suite101.com/con…
Slide 62 news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/…
Slide 65 news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/…
Slide 72 history.nasa.gov/als…
Slide 74 www.aulis.com/
Slide 74 www.moonmovie.com/
Slide 74 www.thule.org/
Slide 74 www.apollozero.com/

Related Discussion with Jarrah White and Dr Morgan Reynolds

Link

www.checktheevidence… – Morgan Reynolds Reveal – Jarrah White – Andrew Johnson – Moon Hoax and Challenger Disaster.mp3

Jarrah White – Moonfaker and Andrew Johnson Discuss Chang-E Rover etc

moonfaker.com/videos…