Secret Societies and Symbols

There are three major thrusts used by the fake landing advocates to bolster their claim: first, that the radiation exposure suffered by the astronauts was not survivable; second, that the photographic evidence “proves” that the landings were staged in a Disney movie studio somewhere; and third, that the mechanical aspects of the mission — the pure mechanics and physics of the journey — are not as claimed and therefore must be faked. As you will see, each of these is based on misinterpretations, misrepresentations, or just plain ignorance of the realities of space travel. It is not a coincidence that many of the “believers” in this myth are too young to literally remember the Moon landings. If they had been old enough to watch the actual missions, especially on live TV, they would have known that most of these claims are poppycock. For this article, we will deal with each of these claims in separate sections, and try to directly address the key sub-claims being made.

SECTION ONE - THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE

Percy is one of the primary drivers of this particular set of claims, but Collier and others have added to it. Let’s list a few of the claims one-by-one and address them.

ISSUE 1 - The shadows don’t fall right in images taken on the Lunar surface, proving that there are are multiple light sources, like professional stage lighting using high-powered lamps. Since the Moon has only one light source, the Sun, these images (these people claim) “have to have been shot on a sound stage somewhere.”

This one is usually based on images like the one above (taken from an Apollo 17 TV transmission), that seem to show the shadows of the astronauts coming from different lighting sources. However, a logical approach to this problem reveals that there is nothing at all mysterious about either the shadows or the light sources. If, in fact, the shadows were cast by different light sources, wouldn’t each astronaut have two shadows, instead of just the one each we see here? Of course they would. Yet, in the images that the “Moon Hoaxers” cite, there is consistently only one shadow being cast, indicating that the Sun is (as it should be) the dominant light source.

So, how to explain the seemingly divergent shadows in this image? If you look closely, you will see that the astronaut on the right is on a slight rise above the astronaut on the left. This has not only the effect of lengthening his shadow, but also if the slope is greater in one direction, say to the left of the astronaut on the right, it will tend to flow and elongate in that direction.

It’s important to keep in mind that the Moon has a very rough and uneven surface, with lots of slopes, rises and potholes. As a result, many of the shadows will appear to be non-parallel. Invariably, the Moon Hoax advocates will compare these lunar images to flat, smooth terrestrial landscapes, like this one below from David Percy. greater in one direction, say to the left of the astronaut on the right, it will tend to flow and elongate in that direction.

In a sense, the Moon Hoax advocates are correct here; there is no comparison to be made from Lunar landscapes and terrestrial ones. But, it is because the surface of the Moon is so uneven, not because there are multiple light sources, i.e. lamps, casting the “wrong” shadows.

Also at issue is the photographic equipment used by the astronauts on the lunar surface. Shortened wide-angle lenses, like the ones on the hand-held Hasseblad 70mm cameras used by the astronauts, will distort otherwise parallel shadows. Simply pull some outdoor photos from your own personal collection and see for yourself.

ISSUE 2 - The foreground of many images of the astronauts on the Moon are filled in with light, while the shadows remain absolutely black, again proving that there are multiple light sources.

In this one, the argument is that with his back to the sun, the astronaut’s suit should be as dark as his own shadow stretching out in front of him (see Apollo 16 image, above). Since there is no light diffusion in an absolute vacuum, NASA “must” have used reflectors or “fill-in lamps” to illuminate the astronaut for this photograph. The truth is, there is evidence of a “reflector” in this image — but it is the lunar surface itself! Obviously, the lunar surface is a fairly bright gray color. It is known, from the Apollo samples brought back and analyzed in Houston, to contain a LOT of glass beads, with a lot of reflective and refractive minerals in it. All of these materials tend to kick light directly back toward the source of illumination with very high efficiency, in this case the sun. This is one reason why the Full Moon is so much brighter (than other phases) in the night sky; the sun is “behind” the Earth. The effect of the sunlight hitting the lunar surface and being reflected back toward the sun itself creates a “backscatter” that fills in the astronaut’s bright white shadowed suit with excellent “fill-light.” And the fact that the shadow is so dark on the ground in front of him is proof of exactly the opposite of the claim being made by the “Moon Hoaxer” crowd. It shows that indeed, the astronaut is standing upright in a harsh vacuum, where his suit can “see” the illumination from the surrounding lunar landscape. By stark contrast (pun intended …), almost no light at all has seeped into the shadow — because it’s lying flat on the ground and cannot “see” anything but black space overhead! It is, as it should be, extremely dark and sharp.

Interestingly, as to the question of multiple light sources, some of the leading debunkers of the Moon Hoax theory have also made a very significant mistake. It is flat wrong, ,as many of them have stated, that the Earth is a “very significant” light source on the Moon. When full, the Earth is on the order of 68.4 times brighter than a full Moon as seen from Earth. It also takes up something like 13.5 times as much sky. But, that’s not the whole story.

The Earth is — maximum — 100 times the brightness of a Full Moon (we’re going to overestimate a bit to prove the point). The apparent magnitude (brightness) of a Full Moon is about -13. The equivalent magnitude of the Sun is about -27. Subtracting, that’s a difference of 14 magnitudes. Since each 5 magnitudes corresponds to a factor of 100 in brightness, a difference of 14 magnitudes corresponds to almost 100 X 100 X 100, or a factor of a million! Allowing for the ~100 times greater reflected brightness of the Earth (at “Full Earth”), the direct lunar sunlight is still ~100,000 times brighter than the Earth’s illumination.

There is NO WAY that the slide films used by the crews (even the “super film” developed by EG&G, see below) could have detected that feeble “Earthlight” on the lunar surface, even in the shadows, with exposures set for the sunlit view.

Of course, we have our own thoughts on this. Some of the debunkers must be realizing that backscatter is insufficient to account for some of what we are seeing on the lunar surface photography. To come up with an explanation, they have resorted to the (obviously incorrect) “Earth light” angle; but it is of course, more interesting than that. Read on.

ISSUE 3 - There are no stars in the background from pictures taken on the Moon.

This one keeps coming up, but the answer, while obvious, is somewhat complicated by our own lunar conspiracy theory. Usually, Moon Hoax advocates cite any number of pictures of the lunar surface showing an absolute black background, but this one above of John Young saluting the flag in front of the LM “Orion” is quite prevalent. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of photography can easily put this one to rest. Any brightly lit foreground object must be photographed with a very short exposure time. Otherwise, the image will be badly overexposed. Any background pinpoint light sources — like, say, stars that are literally trillions of miles further away — will not show up at all. Likewise, if the photographer wants to capture the background stars, he is going to have to use a very long exposure time, which means that the foreground will be totally washed out in one blob of overexposed light. Obviously, there would be no real benefit to taking such an image, since the point of the lunar surface photography was to document the activities of the EVA’s on the lunar surface — not to stargaze.

This whole process is complicated by the fact that in a vacuum, the problem is made even worse, the light far more intense, and the exposure must be even shorter. The Moon Hoax advocates also seem to have forgotten that they are basing most of their “analysis” on press release photos, which are invariably cleaned up before release to the press. So of course, these sanitized press kit images would reflect what we all would expect to see, an absolute black background.

Which brings us to our own thoughts on the Moon and lunar photography.

Contrary to what the Moon Hoax advocates have been saying, the sky above the astronauts should be absolutely black. And in fact, on most of the prints that they have been looking at, web based images, press release photos, and even new prints from the archives, it is. The problem is that while the sky should be absolute black, and does appear that way in images presented by by the Moon Hoax advocates, it most demonstrably is not absolute black in the images examined by Enterprise Mission investigators.

As you know, a few years ago Enterprise principal investigator Richard C. Hoagland was approached by former NASA flight instructor Ken Johnston, Jr., and supplied with a set of extraordinary first generation prints of Apollo lunar photography which had remained untouched for nearly thirty years since he obtained them from inside NASA. What these prints showed was quite another story — that the sky above the astronauts was far from blank — it was in fact filled with a strange, bluish, geometric set of ruins.

So the problem is exactly the opposite of how it is stated by the Moon Hoax advocates. The sky should be black, but it isn’t.

One amusing sidelight of this Apollo 16 photograph is that it is used on several web sites as “proof” that many of the pictures taken on the Moon are fake, since John Young “… is casting no shadow at all!” on the lunar surface. In fact, all it really shows is how dumb most of the Moon Hoax advocates really are. If you actually look at the picture, you will see that Young is casting a shadow to the right side of the picture a few feet away. How can this be? Why is the shadow not “attached” to young’s feet?! Well, because in this famous sequence, John Young is leaping into the air as he is saluting, while Charley Duke snaps the photo. Many Moon Hoax advocates, too young to have actually watched this all on live television, look at this picture and mistakenly believe that Young is standing on the slight dome shaped rise in the background, when in fact he is in midair (well, OK, mid-vacuum). This famous sequence is also a good way to show that the astronauts are indeed in the one-sixth gravity of the Moon, since in order to get this kind of elevation on Earth (especially with the bulky, several-hundred-pound spacesuit and backpack on), Young would have to have the leaping ability of Michael Jordan! For those interested, I can highly recommend the excellent NASA video series “Apollo - Mission to the Moon” which shows film of this famous live TV sequence.

ISSUE 4 - In some images, a huge light source can be seen reflected in the astronaut’s visors. This has to be a very bright, nearby source.

                     

This argument is essentially a variation of the first argument. Occasional images, like the ones above (taken from the Apollo 17 EVA TV transmissions and Apollo 14), seem to show a very bright, huge light source taking up almost 25% of the astronauts visor. Moon Hoax advocates argue that this is proof of a large light source (a stage flood or a spot, again) positioned very close to the astronauts. What they are missing here is essentially the same geometric problem they missed with the “bent shadows” argument. As you can see from the previous image of Alan Bean (above), the gold-covered helmet visors that the astronauts wore were very convex shapes — similar to automotive wide-angle side mirrors included on many current models (” Warning: objects may be closer than they appear …”). Like the surface shadows in the earlier images above, this curved helmet has the effect of severely distorting the reflections, making them appear much smaller (and thus farther away) than they actually are.

The problem: the sun, in the lunar helmet reflection pictured here, appears much larger (and therefore closer!) than it possibly could. Our explanation for this remarkable observation is firmly grounded in our investigation of the REAL conspiracy that NASA has worked so hard, for over 40 years, to cover-up: the presence of ancient, glass-like ruins on the Moon. It is these ruins, sticking up above the lunar horizon and physically intervening between the low-angle sun and the Apollo astronauts roaming across the surface, which create the magnified halo of scattered light seen in the gold visors. Since this area of “forward scattering” is much larger than the optical size of the sun itself, it makes the “reflection” appear disproportionately larger — even in the curved gold visors — than the view of a similar reflection of the sun from Ed White’s helmet, photographed in Earth orbit on the Gemini 4 mission in 1965 (photographic comparison, below).

Related posts

• No related posts.

Fake Moon Landing part1:

In the last few years, we have become increasingly alarmed as a particularly silly and damaging “urban myth” has begun to take hold. Promoted by a few well known authors such as David Percy and the late James Collier, this latest twist on the current “conspiracy nation” fad is based on a simple, if unbelievably naive and absurd notion — that the Apollo Missions and subsequent Moon landings were faked. Admittedly, we thought this whole issue was put quite nicely to rest in August 1997, when Enterprise Mission principal investigator Richard C. Hoagland “debated” Collier on Art Bell’s “Coast to Coast AM” radio program. The results of that debate can only be described as an unmitigated humiliation for Collier, who turned out to be totally out of his element and misinformed on the general subjects of space travel, physics, engineering, NASA, and Apollo itself.

Yet still, it rears its ugly head today. Even after Percy’s Fortean Times article was pretty much taken apart by readers, references to the “fake” landings began to creep into popular culture, springing up in such diverse places as Jay Leno’s “Tonight Show” monologue and commercials featuring ESPN’s Chris Berman. Usually, the references were tongue-in-cheek, but when we heard that the Fox network was planning a full scale special on the issue, we decided the time had come to say something.

Let us be clear; we are all uniformly, unabashedly, “conspiracy theorists” here. We are 100-percent convinced that there has been a cover up by NASA of some extraordinary discoveries made in the course of the agency’s 40-year year history. That said, one thing they did not do, unquestionably, was fake the Moon landings. In fact, most of the charges made, not just by Collier and Percy, but by others who have picked up the mantle of their assertions, are so absurd, so easily discredited, so lacking in any kind of scientific analysis and just plain common sense that they give legitimate conspiracy theories — like ours — a bad name. Frankly, we suspect that may ultimately be the point of this whole thing after all.

Almost from the moment that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin set foot upon the Moon at Tranquility Base, the rumors began that the whole thing was faked. We have always felt that there was something a little more to this than simple stupidity or naïveté. Something a bit insidious about the whole thing. We assumed that as time went by, the notion would weaken and falter, rather than gain momentum as it has recently. We have come to wonder, given our own stance on the whole question of what the Moon program was really about and what the astronauts really found, if there wasn’t perhaps something a bit “conspiratorial” about the promotion of this patently absurd and demonstrably false conspiracy theory.

As you will see, some of these charges can actually be more easily explained not just by a complete rejection of the Moon Hoax theory, but a combination of conventional explanations and our own “glass ruins” model of the Moon. The way light scatters on the Lunar surface; the size of solar reflections in the visors of the astronauts (which are way out of proportion to their counterparts on modern day Space Shuttle missions); the sometimes secretive stance taken by the astronauts and the Agency; the very peculiar qualities of the film in the cameras taken to the Moon by the astronauts, all point to something bigger and more interesting than we have been led to believe by NASA itself. But, we suspect that the promotion of this particular idea — that the Apollo astronauts never went there at all! — which is so easily discredited (as we will do below), is designed to lessen the blow when revelations regarding what NASA has really found across the Solar System begin to happen … later this very year.

If NASA is eventually forced to admit that there was more to the Face on Mars than meets the Eye, that maybe they missed something “the first three times around,” or that there is truly something “ancient and extraordinary on the Moon” … then it will be crucial to have thoroughly discredited the “conspiracy theorists” out there (read: us). Remember, it is our position (and has been for some time), that this millennium cycle, the 2000-2001 period, is the beginning of an ongoing pattern of disclosure. Up to now, we had assumed that this would come in a series of significant revelations; of outright announcements that things are not quite what we had been led to believe. But now, we suspect that there will simply be a series of much smaller releases — like simply taking a new image of the Face on Mars and releasing it without comment — and pretending that the “Eye” isn’t there staring back at them. If enough people can be convinced by this deliberate disinformation campaign that “there are no NASA conspiracies” — by the deliberate promotion and then effective debunking of obviously bad conspiracy theories like “We Never Went To The Moon” — then it will be much easier to sell the idea that NASA “just missed a couple of things” on those Mars pics all those years ago. And certain people, deeply implicated in the cover-up, will neatly escape the consequences for their theft over more than forty years of our entire space program!

So this then appears to be the political agenda. We plan to “scotch this thing once and for all” — as a JPL spokesman was heard to say about the “Catbox” image of the Face on Mars — in order that we might make clear the differences between what we have alleged, and the way that the powers-that-be would like you think about all things conspiratorial.

Fake Moon Landing will be continued …

Related posts

• Fake Moon Landing (0)

Gerald Brosseau Gardner (June 13, 1884 - February 12, 1964) was a Freemason, an English hereditary Witch and largely responsible for reviving Witchcraft in the modern Western world. Gardner claimed to trace his roots to a Witch named Grissell Gardner who had been burned at the stake in 1610 at Newburgh.

Gardner suffered severely with asthma from an early age and required a nurse to attend to his needs. Nurse Josephine “Com” McCombie brought along young Gardner on her various trips to Europe and Ceylon, where he worked on a tea plantation. Gerald later worked and travelled to Borneo and Malaysia. In Ceylon between 1905 - 1908, Gardner became a Freemason, Sphinx Lodge 113, I.C., Colombo.

Between 1920 and 1923 Gardner studies native lore, magic, and weaponry in Malaysia. In 1926 through to 1932 Gardner takes up amateur Archaeology; proves the existence of a Malaysian civilization predating the coming of the Portuguese in 1687; returns to England and marries Donna Rosedale, a nurse; frequents the British Museum to research Welsh and Basque folklore; encounters a whole host of Spiritualist mediums; and visits an archaeological dig at Gaza in Egypt, prehistoric caves in France, and England.

In England before the Second World War, Gerald was involved with the Fellowship of Crotona - an occult group of Co-Masons - and met people who introduced him into Witchcraft. The Fellowship of Crotona was a secret society within a secret society; the inner circle claimed to be hereditary Witches. In 1939, Gardner was initiated into the New Forest coven by high priestess Old Dorothy Clutterbuck.

It was in 1940 at a large gathering of many covens that a legendary event was to take place:

“In June 1940 when England faced invasion from the Nazis, Gardner claims that the high priestess of his coven called a huge gathering of witches in the New Forest where the Great Circle was erected. This was a magical ritual only performed in cases of extreme emergency. Previously it had only been raised twice, in 1588 to combat the Spanish Armada, which was defeated not only by Drake and his ships but with the help of a great storm, and in the 1800s when it looked as if Napoleon would cross the Channel. The ritual in the forest involved raising a cone of psychic power and directing it towards the French coast with the command, ‘You cannot cross the sea. You cannot cross the sea. You cannot come.’ According to Gardner this ritual involved the use of the life force of the gathered covens and as a result several elderly witches died. The ritual was repeated four times and then the Elders said ‘We must stop. We must not kill too many of our people.’”

The Occult Conspiracy : Secret Societies—Their Influence and Power in World History, p. 139

By 1951 the last of the English laws against witchcraft were repealed and throughout the 50s into the 60s Gardner published some widely read books on the rituals and traditions of the New Forest covens. This laid out the seeds of what would eventually be known as “Gardnerian Wicca.” The resurgence of the “Old Religion” spread like wildfire and continues unabated.

Gardnerian Wicca borrows very heavily from Freemasonry, Tantric Hinduism and a touch of ceremonial magick. Gardnerian covens are always headed by a High Priestess and have three degrees of initiation closely paralleling the Masonic degrees. Worship is centered on The Goddess and The Horned God. Eight seasonal Sabbats are observed, and the Wiccan Rede is the guiding principle.

Related posts

• No related posts.

“That which we must say to the crowd is - We worship a God, but it is the God that one adores without superstition.

“To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st, and 30th degrees - The Masonic Religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian Doctrine.

“If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay (The God of the Christians) whose deeds prove his cruelty, perfidy and hatred of man, barbarism and repulsion for science, would Adonay and his priests, calumniate him?

“Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also god. For the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without black, for the absolute can only exist as two gods: darkness being necessary for light to serve as its foil as the pedestal is necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive.

“Thus, the doctrine of Satanism is a heresy; and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay; but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of Darkness and Evil.” (Instructions to the 23 Supreme Councils of the World, Albert Pike, Grand Commander, Sovereign Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry, July 14, 1889. Recorded by A.C. De La Rive, La Femme et l’Enfant dans la Franc-Maconnerie Universelle, page 588)

The Word of God, the Bible, clearly puts Lucifer in his proper place, and gives God’s reasons. “How Art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north. I will ascend above the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.” (Isaiah 14:12-15)

Related posts

• Freemasonry about: God, Jesus and implications for Christians (2)
• Freemasonry a satanic sect : argument 3 (0)
• Freemasonry a satanic sect : argument 2 (0)
• Was Jesus Christ married? The Christian Answer (0)
• The Grand Architect of the Universe (2)

Fake Moon Landing:

If you’re a member of the International Flat Earth Society, it’s self-evident that NASA is nothing but a huge conspiracy of liars. The Space Shuttle pictures of a round earth — complete frauds. After Gemini 11, Flat Earth Society members sent Pete Conrad letters of denunciation because during the flight he transmitted the statement “Eureka, Houston! The Earth is round!”

Necessarily, then, the Apollo moon landings never happened.

According to a poll conducted in 1999, 11% of Americans did not believe that the Apollo landings were genuine. In 2001, Fox television attracted 15 million viewers when it broadcasted “Conspiracy Theory: Did We Really Land on the Moon?” Fox claimed that after their show aired, roughly 20% of the public had doubts about the authenticity of the Apollo program.

This skepticism isn’t completely nuts the moon landings were such incredible feats that they seem sort of farfetched at first.

Thankfully, private enterprise is working to resolve the matter. The TransOrbital corporation intends to launch its inaugural Moon excursion in October 2003. The mission objectives will include live video of flybys of the Apollo landing sites. Presumably, then, the world will finally get an opportunity to catch a glimpse of the bags of astronaut urine and feces deposited on the the lunar regolith.

Fake Moon Landing © rotten.com

Related posts

• Fake Moon Landing aka The Moon Landing Hoax aka The Moon Landing Lie (part1) (0)