Tuesday, January 28, 2014

The Illuminati and the Moon Landing: Refuting Wikipedia

After completing exhausting research, we here at IW have finally decided to release some of our findings on how NASA faked the moon landings. Given the amount of evidence that we have accumulated, this report will be published as our first-ever series. We are very excited by what we have uncovered and hope that you will be too. Remember, the truth is there. You just have to be willing to look for it.

As we begin our report on the lunar landings, we want to be clear that we are not going to rehash all of the details about how photos show inconsistencies, the variance of shadows, and the waving flag as well as many other clues that indicate fraud. Instead, we are going to look at how people have refuted these claims and take debate with them, most notably Wikipedia. The free encyclopedia offers one of the most readily available and detailed rebuttals to the "hoaxers," and it's also one of the first links that pops up on a Google search.

When it comes to the photos and the flag waving, we have to give the refuters credit, they make a strong case, one that can easily convince someone who is investigating the moon landings for the first time. However, Wikipedia's case has many glaring holes in it, but only the educated eye can spot them. Those holes are primarily in the case about how the astronauts were not exposed to vast amounts of radiation in both the Van Allen belts as well as deep space.

For those unfamiliar with the basic science behind radiation in space, here is a brief rundown. Lying just beyond Earth's atmosphere are two rings of radiation. These are the Van Allen belts, and they do an excellent job of keeping solar flares as well as cosmic ways from harming life on the surface. On the other hand, they are very dangerous to people that may come into contact with them. According to physics, the Van Allen belts consist of mostly alpha particles (highly dangerous but also cannot penetrate aluminum shielding) and some gamma rays (also extremely hazardous and can penetrate the aluminum shell of the Apollo space crafts). The general argument of the hoaxers is that these belts were too dangerous for the astronauts to pass through, thus keeping them in low orbit. Now according to the rebuttal, the Apollo missions spent too little time in the Van Allen belts for any serious levels of exposure to occur. So let's play devil's advocate here and give Wikipedia some credit and say that there were not enough gamma rays to harm the Apollo crews, that still does not answer the questions about cosmic rays in deep space as well as the radiation being emitted from the lunar surface. Two factors that the hoax refuters do not address.

Today, we are still learning about how much radiation there is in deep space, and the more we learn the more we realize that manned spaceflight beyond low orbit is extremely hazardous. Several NASA programs including the Mars Curiosity rover and the LRO (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) are already revealing that space is filled with deadly cosmic and gamma rays that come from everywhere, even from distant galaxies. These rays are so powerful that almost nothing can stop them, and that definitely includes the aluminum hull of the Apollo CSMs. The reports indicate that the lunar surface is worse than deep space as it's pounded by these rays without any atmosphere or magnetic field to diffuse them. Once the rays hit the lunar surface, they are reflected back into space as a scatter of deadly radioactive bursts. So the questions remain, how could astronauts survive getting to the moon, and how could they set foot upon the surface without being exposed to no one knows how many toxic cosmic rays?

When the Apollo missions were first being planned, little research existed on just how much radiation lay beyond our atmosphere. The Van Allen belts had been discovered in 1958, but no one really knew what was out there in deep space and definitely not on the moon. Even today 40 years after Apollo 11, we are still in the dark about how dangerous flying beyond low orbit really is.

Another problem with Wikipedia's case against the hoax is the explanation for why haven't humans been back to the moon. The answer given concerns only the financial aspects, citing that lunar expeditions are too expensive and not worth the effort. Fair enough, but how about this. Just because going to the moon may not be financially feasible does not mean that the space shuttles could not have attempted a high orbit flight or even a trial run toward the moon to see if the craft was ever capable of reaching lunar orbit. The space shuttles never did anything more than low orbit flights and never attempted a run toward deep space. Why was this? It was probably because flying beyond the Van Allen belts was too dangerous to be attempted. One would think that this next generation of spacecraft would easily be able to accomplish what the smaller Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo models did with little effort and could do it with marked improvements. Instead, the space shuttle almost seemed like a step backwards. In many ways it's like Columbus visiting the New World and then returning to Europe, getting a bigger and more advanced vessel, and then sailing no further than the Canary Islands claiming that doing so was too dangerous. How could this be?

For the Illuminati, time is running out on keeping their moon landing hoax alive. Between having not returned to the moon and the advent of new research, people are starting to lose faith that Americans visited Earth's largest satellite. If this lie becomes exposed, the NWO will be set back for generations if not centuries in their plans for world domination. That is something they cannot allow. Watch as NASA will see its budget fully restored and a real lunar mission occurs, or they may perpetrate the hoax all over again just to convince people that it can be done. One way or the other, not having been back to the moon in over 40 years and with revolutionary technology is too ridiculous to debate. 

In our next piece, we will analyze why a Mars landing never occurred despite having been scheduled during the 1960s.

Follow us on Twitter! Search for "Illuminati Watchdog" @IlluminatiWatc1

No comments:

Post a Comment