NASA - NEVER A STRAIGHT ANSWER

NASA.

The more I learn about this particularly shady government agency--where mountains of taxpayer dollars are funneled, yet it seemingly has no real beneficial outcome--more questions come to mind. And I'm not the only one with questions. There are many out there who are putting the puzzle pieces together, and the picture they're creating isn't cohesive nor does it make sense. President Eisenhower established NASA in 1958 for civilian purposes (rather than military) to "encourage peaceful applications in space science," due to the growing "space race" between the USSR and the US. Following Kennedy's edict to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade (in order to pull one over on our adversary, the "Reds," the "Commies," the "Russkies"), things really took off like a rocket! 😉 Remember, this was the 1960s, and technology, including computers, was still somewhat in its infancy, and Moore's Law was still to come. So getting to the moon was definitely going to take some doing.

After JFK's speech, NASA no doubt scrambled to do just that: endeavor to put a man on the moon. Only...perhaps they didn't, really. I believe they discovered it couldn't actually be done. There was not enough time, or money, or brains, or technology, or science-ism, to do it (insert flat earth theory here). But by that time, expectations were so high in the field of space science, that, by God, NASA was going to put a man on the moon, and if they couldn't do it literally, then they were going to do it virtually. So--my theory: many millions of dollars later (continuing to this day, NASA is a huge financial black hole), NASA developed, built, and used the BEST: the best photography equipment, the best theatrical sets, the best movie technology, the best lighting effects, the best cabling and puppetry, all of this in order to make the best, most plausible, most believable faux lunar landing(s) ever! And what do you know...it worked. For about 50 years.

I admit, the internet has done much for conspiracy theories, the moon landings being one of them. However, when you start to look at the photos of the moon landing with a much more critical eye, especially when learning the background about NASA, you start to see cracks in the facade, like this. In point of fact, the photos of the Apollo expeditions seemed to be so questionable, that even a professional photographer raised a few questions about that himself.

So let's dive into a few examples about this ultra-classified government group, where the communications are really only one way: they talk, we listen, and no questions, please:

• The Apollo 11 lunar landing no doubt had extraordinarily loud, roaring engines, during the entire flight, and even moreso while coming in for a landing on the moon. One would think this noise would be easily heard inside the command capsule, which would have been easily heard over the communications link while the "Eagle" was landing. If you listen to the recordings from Apollo 11, apart from a couple of spots, the whole thing seemed oddly quiet, especially while they were coming in for landing. Why is that?
• There seemed to have been little to no delay of the radio communications from Houston to the moon; everything seemed to be close to real time, especially as they were chatting about precisely where to set down. If the moon is 240,000 miles from earth, surely there would have been quite a long delay of communication between the two entities, right?
• In photos, where is all of the dust that should have been all over the landing gear, as well as the gigantic landing spot itself, which should have blasted away huge amounts of dust and debris? At least this version looks more realistic. As well, when the Mars lunar rover landed on Mars, how does it keep getting cleaned off from all of the dust covering it? One would think that in landing on Mars, once the vehicle got covered in dust and solar lights from the sun was no longer able to penetrate through the solar panels used to charge it, the vehicle would simply have run its course, and would then be a giant Mars-based "boat anchor," no longer able to function. 
• The Lunar Vehicles (rovers) used on the moon were quite large, not the size of a wagon or wheelbarrow. And wearing 60 pounds of heavy equipment would seem to be quite a struggle just to get out of the lunar module what with the door/hatch being very small as well. With all of that gear, how did they access and unload the lunar rover? Those things were quite large. As well, how would they know precisely how things would actually function on the moon in 1/6 earth's atmosphere? What if they got up there and...it didn't?
• The moon's atmosphere, which (we were told) supposedly was 1/6 that of Earth's atmosphere so (we were told) one would be able to run, jump, bounce, hop, leap and do all types of fun and crazy gymnastics on the moon's surface, even with those heavy suits. However, various videos show that this is not the case at all; in fact, moving around on the surface looked rather clumsy, jumping did not result in the expected "liftoff," items that were dropped seemed to fall at an astonishingly fast (aka "normal") rate, and other movements looked oddly similar to that of puppets being literally held up/jerked up by strings, and guided by an unseen hand. Is that what was really happening? 
• Look at this NASA photo of the lunar module...does this look like something that would have passed a high school science project, let alone go to the moon? Look very closely at the panels on the top right, how warped and poorly welded they seem to be. As well the metal sheets wrapping nearly everything seem look to be so fragile, they'd tear at the slightest provocation. Not only that, but these photos are extremely crisp and sharp for 1969. Perhaps they did indeed have cameras and lenses that could take photos in such detail, but it simply makes me wonder, especially when viewing something like this. The lighting itself looks harsh and synthetic, not like the light from the sun, whether or not NASA told us that the light is more harsh due to the moon having no atmosphere. Again...questions. 
• As well, look at this video and notice the utter flimsiness of the hatch doors of these things. It's like they're made of cardboard (and perhaps they were). In the zero gravity of space, those hatch doors should have literally floated open with no jarring whatsoever. Right???
• Also why can't anyone see the lunar module leftovers and debris on the moon from any of the Apollo missions? We have telescopes that can see to practically the edge of the solar system (Hubble for one), so surely we have telescopes that can do this??? 
• NASA has been "busted" several times for substituting locations from right here on earth as locations on "Mars." NASA does a lot of their "testing" on an uninhabited island off the coast of Canada called Devon Island, as well as in Greenland. Hard to do this in the age of digital cameras, telescopes, CGI, and a little thing called the Internet. Not only have some of the "Mars" photos been corroborated as belonging to locations on Devon Island, but NASA has placed very sensitive sound recorders throughout the island in order to keep looky-loos from visiting there to do a little snooping...doesn't that seem rather odd? In this situation, having a long-distance drone would be extremely helpful!  
• For all of those pictures of various space craft, the ISS, and/or any other NASA related item out in "space" - who is taking those photos? Did they all have giant invisible selfie sticks?

• With the advent of CGI (Computer Graphic Interface) and both blue and green screens have been an absolute dream for NASA in order to manipulate the public into thinking "space" really exists, in order to feed us their peculiar narrative. But sometimes, even the best laid plans of NASA go horribly, hilariously WRONG. I've also noticed that the hair of the female "astronauts" seems to be sprayed into a (literally) gravity-defying "do."
• Why doesn't NASA ever give us a 360 degree pan around space to see what is, literally, behind the camera that is filming the crew doing...whatever it is they're doing? What are they afraid we'll see back there?
• NASA really are a bunch of space cadets, because it seems that they have lost:
• The Apollo 11 video recordings from the earliest moon landing. Yeah. 700 boxes worth. For some strange reason they have all disappeared and no one knows where they went. 
• Hundreds of meteorites and moon rocks have also disappeared. Apparently many of them went "on loan" to various FONs (friends of NASA), but by golly, they're gone too.
• The technology and equipment once used to go to the moon has been destroyed (so says a NASA employee), yet they want to now go walk on Mars. Perhaps they should try perfecting their organization skills first before trying to "visit" another planet that is supposedly even further away than the moon.
• When we see space and the earth or the moon from the space between the earth and the moon, e.g., from the ISS, why can't we see the stars, as well as the thousands of satellites that are supposedly circling around the earth? 
• As well, why can't your astronauts, ISS crews, and other space-travel-related personnel get their stories straight? They describe space as the "blackest of blacks," or "black velvet," yet others have said there are so many stars, the sky was nearly white! Then you get things like this guy speaking for the ISS crew...and not doing a very good job of it.
• On our planet, there have only be a very small handful of people who have gone to space. The rest of the planet has not, nor will we ever. So of course, our of the goodness of their hearts (not), NASA endeavors to show the public all those beautiful "photos" of the stars, the moon, the planets, the Milky Way, etc. Except that...the pictures keep changing. Or they don't change at all. Or they change in strange ways. No matter what, the "photos" look suspiciously synthetic, unreal, and very CGI, even to the most untrained eyes. In actuality, we have never seen a real picture of the earth, the moon, space, planets or any other celestial bodies from NASA, we are just meant to accept what they feed us. And when they do release more of these "photos" they're such poor CGI versions, it's absolutely laughable!  
 

 
• How did an astronaut nearly drown out on a spacewalk due to nearly a gallon of water building up in his helmet? Is it because the space walks actually ARE done under water? 
• The Van Allen radiation belts. Highly dangerous, yet...we sent many people through them! 
• "UFOs." Lots of them. Seen by many astronauts. And shut up by NASA. 
• This video which shows NASA "scientists" and "astronauts" struggling mightily to answer some of the media's questions that should have been very easily answered. These were supposedly all engineers, who could give very detailed, precise answers; instead, they seemed to be actors who knew nothing about space travel, giving extremely general and misleading answers, even going so far as to say "I don't know"--a huge red flag! 
• To continue this huge, monumental secret from the public would be quite an undertaking. How could it be done? Well, having the ear, and the abilities of one of the most secretive societies in the world would be a start. Enter the Freemasons. 
• By their own admission, the majority of astronauts and other important NASA staff were Freemasons. Why? Is it because Freemasons take an oath (to Lucifer, in point of fact) to keep secrets under thread of having "my throat cut across, my tongue torn out by the roots, and my body buried in rough sands at low tide..." or that he will "forever conceal and never reveal" the  secrets of Masonry? Freemasonry teaches and encourages its members to perjure themselves if necessary, for the honor and protection of the Lodge or its members. The oath of a Mason takes precedence over everything else in a his life. It teaches that violations of this oath as a witness or as a citizen are not perjury, as long as it is for the good of the Lodge...so why wouldn't this also apply to keeping NASA secrets as well? 
• Gus Grissom, the astronaut who was slated to walk on the moon first, but was relegated to a later expedition, had major doubts about not only his own flight, but about NASA in general, and he voiced his position on many occasions, making few friends at NASA in the process. In protest, he even hung an actual lemon on the outside of the capsule to voice his feelings. Sadly, and ironically (or not), he and his 2 other crew members burned to death after the rocket caught fire on the launch pad. 
• Body language says sooo much. It's said that 75% of our communication with others is body language, even moreso than mere words. In this video of the Apollo 11 crew--who, one would think, should have been absolutely jubilant about their recent trip to the moon--seem obviously distressed and very reticent during this post-mission press conference. Perhaps they were being forced to suppress the truth, and were obviously struggling with this. 
• The biggest secret that NASA has been keeping from the public may be this: the discovery of a planetary system that may be entering our solar system--a system they have known about for 30 years--has been kept from the public. Yet "the powers that be" have been frantically building underground structures in order to move and house equipment, the military, the elite, and even the government...but why?
• And now we have this. A new branch of the military called the "Space Corps," which may be connected to Project Blue Beam and HAARP (by coating our skies with metallic chemtrails in order to project holographic imagery to fool the world about the 2nd coming...of aliens, that is).

So the NASA facade seems to now be cracking. And many will continue to keep chipping away until the truth really comes out. But never forget that the NASA narrative is an evolutionary narrative. That all that there is now, was created from nothing or from a "big bang," and from there, everything magically coalesced; single-celled creatures came to be, they became larger, got more organized, and then suddenly there was mankind, with all his intellect. This narrative also says that the Earth is nothing more than a tiny grain of sand in the cosmos--and is just as meaningless--floating about in the vastness of space. That the universe is full of trillions of stars and planets, of which the Earth is just one little speck. That there are many other earth-like worlds out there that humans might migrate to when we use up and destroy our planet.

However, the reality is much more amazing. The Earth was created specifically for human kind by an intelligent and loving creator being. The earth was created before everything else, before the sun, the stars, and the heavens. This loving being then let us have free reign on this planet. Humankind is the culmination of this intelligent being's creativity, and were created in order to commune and converse with this being. We aren't just physical, we have a soul and a spirit which will live for eternity, after this life is long over. We are "fearfully and wonderfully made," and made in His image, with a mind, spirit, soul, memories, creativity, emotions, and a desire to be loved, to be something special. This amazing Being loves each of us with a never ending, eternal, all consuming love that we simply cannot fathom with our human minds. This Creator gives us eternal life in paradise with Him, if we only believe and accept Him, and allow him to guide our lives. He even gave us a "user's manual" that shows us more in depth, just what this Creator being is like, and how we relate to one another. As well, this Creator Being tells us that He created science! But He also tells us to beware of those who corrupt His word, and corrupt His science to their own ends.

Mankind's version of science is WRONG. http://tinyurl.com/yaee4fjj