Talk:Apollo program

From Wikispooks
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The one star rating on this article seems very unfair. Regardless of one's opinion on the Apollo missions, I feel like this article is objectively one of the most comprehensive, thoroughly researched and well-written articles on all of Wikispooks. I see no problems with it, much less a problem warranting a rating of one star. I'd even say it's better written than most of the 5-star articles.

I think we can do better with a less indecisive and more scientific slant. The page is quite impenetrable and does not flow. Ironically the sheer number of references and amount formatting make it hard to read. It has too much opinion and needless lists of pros and cons without presenting any clear explanation or conclusion. There is lots of hard evidence the Moon landings did not occur and hard evidence is better than professional opinion. Despite what the review says this topic is very important to the mission of facilitating research into the deep state as it is one of the most fundamental and blatant lies that pervades society today. If they can get away with murdering 3 people from Apollo 1, they can get away with murdering 3000 people in 9/11, and 3,000,000 people with midazolam and COVID-19 injections. -- user:MolecCodicies

New additions?

The following text was moved from a article "lunax moon hoax". Which would be better placed here, in part. The article is written like a blog post, violating the style guide on references, sourcing/original docuements, lacking the original narrative in formatting. Please add these in large quantity, before adding again.

“In a period spanning from 1968 to 1972, NASA claims to have landed 6 manned-missions on Earth's closest celestial object, the Moon. Due to irremediable safety hazards with even 21st century technology such a mission would be impossible without casualties to all crew members due to the solar wind which lies outside of Earth's magnetic field. The solar wind and by extension the Van Allen belts formed by the Earth's magnetic field lines are full of high speed energised particles including electrons, protons and neutrons and is analogous to a particle accelerator. Anatoli Bugorsky is the only known person to stand in the way of a particle accelerator and had a hole vaporised through the side of his head which destroyed his brain tissue and paralysed the left half of his face. Miraculously he survived and is proof of the danger of fast moving, high energy subatomic particles. Given this is a very precise beam and in space these kinds of particles would be flying in all directions at all times one could not hope to pass beyond the Van Allen belts and survive.

Because such particles are ionised they pass freely through matter, even lead shielding. The distance of Earth's 40,000 miles of electromagnetic shielding is only just enough to protect Earth from the harmful solar winds and Space Shuttle pilots who traveled to an altitude of 600KM began noticing intense effects of these ionised particles which presented itself as flickers in their retinas. This is known as 'astronauts eye' and is the result of energised particles exciting the nerve endings at the back of the eye. The Space Shuttle crew immediately lowered their orbit as it was feared prolonged exposure to this radiation, or traversing any further into the radiation could have dire consequences for the crew.

In 2016 the Orion space probe was sent into the Van Allen belts to gather radiation data for future space flight missions. When film-maker Bart Sibrel contacted NASA for the information from this mission they refused to release citing that it was classified. Bart Sibrel rebuked this as ridiculous, stating that "the temperature of the Sun or the composition of Jupiter's atmosphere are not classified but the radiation in Earth's magnetic field is?", and recieved no further comment from NASA. In many scientific circles this irrevocable problem facing space flight is known as the 'cosmic showstopper' and without solving it no manned-spaceflight mission beyond the Earth's magnetic field where the crew survives will ever occur. It is believed scientists at the time of the Apollo program realised this hard and fast fact and so early on decided along with the CIA that the manned-missions to the Moon would never happen and would simply be faked, so as not to embarrass themselves and disappoint the entire American public. The Moon landing hoax is one of the greatest, most widespread and longest lasting hoaxes perpetrated on the American public in recent history and if unveiled in massive scale would have dire complications for the continuation of NASA, the CIA and the American deep state.

A masterclass in film-making The Apollo Lunar Landings were faked using a variety of film-making methods which were perhaps no better showcased than by Stanley Kubrick in his movie 2001 a Space Odyssey. These methods included but are not limited to:

  • Rear screen projection
  • Scaled miniatures
  • Remote control vehicles
  • Stop motion animation
  • To-scale indoor sets
  • Artificial lighting
  • Exact recreations of the Lunar surface created according to photos by the Lunar Reconnaissance orbiter

The 'talk' video Perhaps the most damning evidence to fakery of the Apollo missions is a video sent to Bart Sibrel by NASA employees when he was making his film 'A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon'. They assumed he was looking for evidence of the moon landing missions being faked and did not know it existed up until he received it. He was flabbergasted when witnessing the footage for the first time and it was exactly when he realised the moon landing hoax was not a a possibility but a certainty. In it the crew of the Apollo 11 mission are speaking to NASA as if they are half way to the moon. At the start of the video is a message saying 'Not for the public'. Because the distance is so great the time for a radio signal to travel from the Earth to the Apollo module and back again would take over 4 seconds. If the crew responded more quickly than this it would call into question their real location. The damning and incriminating evidence comes in this video when a third party is heard over the intercom. The voice comes after a 2 second delay after NASA speaks to Apollo 11 and simply says one word 'talk'. This third party is an entirely different voice to the one coming from NASA, and is obviously the CIA, ensuring the Apollo 11 do not respond too quickly, waiting for proper amount of time to elapse. This voice is in a separate channel to the one between Apollo and NASA and is not heard in any of the official video or on the live broadcast.

In this same video the Apollo 11 is faking a shot of the Earth with a circular port hole window. Instead of being half way to the moon the Apollo 11 module is simply circling the Earth in low Earth orbit. The view of the Earth at this distance would fill up ones entire periphery. By turning off the lights and using a circular cut out of a piece of cardboard to simulated Earth's meridian line (where day becomes night) they can create a reasonably convincing image of the Earth upon a blacked-out starless sky. They repeat this again with the camera at the back of the craft before removing the objects blocking the light in the two other module windows revealing that the whole scene was indeed being shot with the camera in the middle and back of the craft instead of being pressed against the window like Neil Armstrong states and how it would had to have been had they were really filming the Earth half-way to the moon.

Fooling Houston For the CIA to pull off the Apollo moon landing hoaxes, as few as possible people would have to have been in the know of the real plan. This included the astronauts, the film crew and a limited number of CIA personnel themselves. This meant that they would have to fake every possible part of the mission that they could not achieve and complete every part that they could in reality. The Saturn V rocket (which in actuality was a modified Saturn 1B) did go up and did take three astronauts for the Apollo 11 mission for all the world to see. At this point the Apollo module separated from the Saturn V and begun its 7 day orbit around the Earth. Here the Apollo 11 crew and all previous and subsequent crews would fake radio comms and footage of the Earth. The location of the Apollo module was simulated with a satellite which was already previously orbiting the Moon. The CIA and Apollo crew broadcasted all of their communications to this satellite which then relayed them back to Earth. Certain staff of the Australian satellite dish at Honeysuckle creek were not convinced that the signals were really coming from the Moon and in fact filed complaints that they were being duped. Houston themselves were presented with flight data that was produced by computer simulation and staff there admit they could not tell the difference between a training simulation and the real thing.

'Reflectors' Many of those who fall for the moon landing hoax present the idea of reflectors being present on the lunar surface which reflect a laser light back to Earth as proof of the moon landings. One only needs to look at the Moon at night to realise that it has a highly-reflective surface on its own.

The Grand Prix video The other was the lunar rover which is 1/8 model RV and 1/8 model astronaut shot in a studio slowed down with rear screen projection. The reason a 1/8 model was used was for both costs and because the Moon's gravity is 1/6th of the Earth's and would shoot the lunar regolith much higher and in a 'rooster-tail' like fashion which is achieved simply with a smaller vehicle.

The colour of the Moon Contrary to popular belief the Moon is not grey but actually slightly brown. And the true colour of the soil is a caramel colour as opposed to a bluish grey as seen in the Apollo photos. One can observe the colour of the Moon by desaturating a colour photograph of it and noticing the contrast before and after. This is not due to the atmosphere of Earth as the different Lunar minerals have different colours and the colours range from greyish brown, to brown, red, purple and even green.

Astronauts on wires Astronauts were attached to harnesses with wires for the live television broadcast on the same cranes. Astronauts can be observed spinning on the spot and levitating on the ground with no other object holding them up.

Micro-meteorites and the radioactive Lunar surface Werner von Braun stated that the possibility of surviving on the Lunar surface was next to zero for the astronauts and even if they overcome all other challenges would have to hide in caves on the moon to protect themselves from micro-meteorites, which due to the Moon having no atmosphere or magnetic field would be travelling at extremely high speeds and pierce through the astronaut's space suits and immediately depressurise them, being instantly fatal. The Lunar surface is also extremely radioactive, comparable to Chernobyl's elephants foot, due to billions of years of unshielded exposure to the cosmic and solar radiation of space.

NASA astronauts admission Three astronauts including Dr. Kelly Smith talking about the Orion Mission and Col. Terry Virts amd Dr. Kathleen Rubin have talked on one occasion or another about going to the Moon and beyond low Earth orbit in a future tense.

"We must solve these challenges (the radiation) before we send humans through this region of space (the Van Allen belts)." -Dr. Kelly Smith

"To destinations beyond low-Earth orbit. Right now we can't go beyond low Earth orbit. That's the furthest we can go right now." -Col. Terry Virts

"This is really the beginning of human beings leaving low-Earth-orbit." -Dr. Kathleen Rubin

China 2020 landing

China landed an unmanned lunar roving module and erected a chinese flag in 2020. This is the first national flag that has ever been placed on an extra-terrestrial object. In the photo of the flag you can clearly see the brown lunar surface as opposed to the grey-blue one in the Apollo missions.”
' [citation needed]

--Jun (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC).

Second reaction from Robomartion

Please refer to what I wrote in response on my page regarding the moon landing. I know it's hard to swallow but the Moon landings really never happened. It's understandable although disheartening you would send me links about Indian jungle girls and Steven Greer painted as the Joker as a response. I'm sorry you felt the need to outright delete the page. This is real scientific stuff, not bogus the Queen is a lizard territory. If you're seriously interested in the truth three documentaries to watch are:

  • American Moon
  • A funny thing happened on the way to the moon
  • Astronauts gone wild

And to peruse the websites and I even made a short and easily digestible video that really shows beyond any doubt the Moon-landings never happened:

Lunar Moon Hoax content discussion

(Added from own talk page - Jun (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)) Thanks for not deleting this I thought it was totally gone. I attempted to find a place for it in the original article and concluded that it was far and away a different approach to the topic which is why I created an entirely new page. It is of my opinion we should speak with conviction of the truth and not make wishy-washy maybe they did maybe they didn't types of arguments which is how the original article is set out. This topic is of vital significance to understand how we are lied to and manipulated by the deep state on a fundamental level. It is also important to understand if the Saturn V really never was capable of taking men to the moon, a large percentage of the 283 billion dollars (in todays money the total cost of the missions) may have been embezzled for deep state projects (since the mission would not have cost nearly as much if they never really went all the way to the Moon), and nevertheless all of that money was spent on a lie. Also it is of vital significance that the Apollo 1 crew were burned alive at the expense of taxpayers in keeping the secret concealed. 'How are we going to get to the moon if we can't even talk between two buildings' 'What? I have not the faintest idea what you said.' 'Jesus christ'. -- User:Robomartion.

Hello there Robert! To engage in discussion, would you be willing to explain what of & this; we can't agree on? Would you be willing to use quote marks or quote the passages, I can try to talk to the editor of ISGP if his sources have been taken down and we exchange opinions :-). The articles were a lot longer than just Indian girls or the Joker, as those were just in the lede, as humour, also a part of our style guide. ISGP is a great source of deep politics, has been acclaimed by our founder, multiple of our editors and dozens of scholars, scientists and whistleblowers.

We never deleted something outright at Wikispooks, the is always available to show you if we indeed would've done that. I've moved the article to here, but I'd like to explain that. Few points to react on.

Saying "It is of my opinion we should speak with conviction of the truth and not make wishy-washy maybe they did maybe they didn't types of arguments which is how the original article is set out." is not the way Wikispooks works. So that mindset is not following the official style guide to We always shortly start with (not defend) mainstream media opinions (or like your opinion an official opposition narrative), and then give arguments why they are or aren't are wrong. Wikispooks is for red pillers to critically reflect on these "Official narratives", to compile relevant evidence, exchange opinions and bounce ideas off like minds. The idea of removing one opinion and placing another of one editor isn't the sites purpose.

1. I'm not sure if the Apollo program did/didn't happen (although I slightly lean to yes), or if the moon landing did or didn't happen. I didn't move it because of that. If an editor believes is to not be, he can add it as long as he follows the style guide. I moved the content because your content can't be placed on the Apollo Program page without following the style guide, as I remarked the first time. So I'm gonna explain the style guide for that article and what I'd please would request to keep in mind when re-adding parts of your work.

1. We always include the to begin the article with. also often are added there after along with SMW or references and an additional list at the end.

2. Please use a Hcard and (add to) templates as explained here, this one would've needed template:event

3. An article needs to be a stand-alone subject, if you mention people, persons or significant objects, it needs to be hyperlinked. Like this; CIA.

4. properly formatted with templates could be added if the topic or the quotes were of really good significance like you say. In this article, in the last header and the lede, they were missing. We therefore miss letting the page help in circular traffic; meaning; people can't find the page, and don't have a single other WS article to click on from there.

5. Would you be willing to keep on the title and subject of the page. If you wanna compare or give examples (such as the header on China), give a short example why you mention the China and link to that page using the template:FA where that example or argument is more explained in detail, so that you can also add that part to the page of China or China's Lunar project. UK/Deep state has multiple good examples of this.

6. Would you please be willing to use sources and Typing ""Bart Sibrel contacted NASA", would you please be willing to find a website (use the most original canonical source as possible) that says it and add it at the end of a paragraph.

None of this is intended as a barrier to evidence-based contributions intended to refine our collective understanding of deep political phenomena. It's the way it was presented. I often mess up stuff to, so other admins also have deleted or moved my stuff, that's not a shame or anything. Your Rust shooting article was a decent one, but another admin also commented that you lack references and quotes, so I hope you do see the pattern here! Thanks for your willingness to elaborate. --Jun (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)