Moon Landing Hoax/No Hoax?

Most enthusiasts who post their positions on the moon
landing hoax/no-hoax convincingly enough must conclude
that the Apollo program was forced into a state of false
promises while in the Nixon Years, meaning that whether
or not we landed on the moon became secondary to the fact that
there was new (or old, depending on how you look at it)
technology that would make Apollo look like the Phoenicians
arriving in South America to meet Captain Kirk on the holodeck.

What we strove to achieve in the Apollo years was more about
the technical communication that managers and supervisors had
with each other than actual territorial gain. Whether or not
we landed on the moon is almost a moot issue, because we really
would have not gained anything by going THERE, now would we?
In fact, I think that the art of UFO technologies were already
well advanced enough to go just about anywhere in the nearby
tens of parsecs region, owing to FTL travel. However, this was
also not exclusively creating pathways to the stars, but
inadvertantly causing a dimensional shift when traveling BACK
to the earth. The only way space travel of this magnitude can
remain "unaffected" by the time dilation is to make the return
trip back in time to just a few days after "originally"
leaving. Even though a proof exists for the Physics/Technologically
inclined, all challenges to the current views of the already
antiquated "theory of relativity" have defined away all
challenges by the mob mentality, or "brute force" method.
Why? Because the antiquated "theory of relativity" is the
only reliable method by which the Supreme Court could draw a
distinction without a difference - in suggesting that only
someone who is as intelligent as Einstein himself can see if
the "antiquated" theory of relativity is, by example, a
"counterfeit" theory. - That's LICENSED opinion - a not-so-
scientific angle that warrants a challenge into the department
of NASA's dwindling resources for advanced technology,
albeit private interests might also be at stake here -
but for whom? (IMHO private industry is probably MORE
informed about advanced propulsion technology than even NASA)
- but can you hear the giant sucking sound of NASA stealing
or blocking the show? (I can)

The truth is, we taxpayers are losing, or have
COMPLETELY LOST our representation with even the Supreme
Court in the sense that we've been "injured" in our capacity
as taxpayers. There is an unconstitutionality of the
exercises of congressional power under the taxing and
spending clause of Art. I, S. 8 of the Constitution, but
not subject to geopolitical redress of Article 4, S.3,
clause 2, regarding the property clause which states,
"Congress has no power to give or authorize leases."
Undoubtedly, interstellar space is in a completely
different territory.

At the same time, NASA's legal argument has defined
their current launch territories to be respective of
any type of Apollo-era technology, which they use to
mathematically exception-barr any new, revolutionary
technology that may come down the pike for review.
The current military-industrial complex holds such a
tight grip on the reign of our bureaucracy that there
can be no business match for revolutionary energy
technology outside of U-238 nuclear and oil. (All those
alternatives like corn, solar, windmills, etc., don't
amount to anything that could replace our current
fixation on nuke plants or oil) Yet there simply is
NO SUPREME COURT DISSENTION on this at all!


American

American wrote:
Most enthusiasts who post their positions on the moon
landing hoax/no-hoax convincingly enough must conclude
that the Apollo program was forced into a state of false
promises while in the Nixon Years, meaning that whether
or not we landed on the moon became secondary to the fact that
there was new (or old, depending on how you look at it)
technology that would make Apollo look like the Phoenicians
arriving in South America to meet Captain Kirk on the holodeck.

What we strove to achieve in the Apollo years was more about
the technical communication that managers and supervisors had
with each other than actual territorial gain. Whether or not
we landed on the moon is almost a moot issue, because we really
would have not gained anything by going THERE, now would we?
In fact, I think that the art of UFO technologies were already
well advanced enough to go just about anywhere in the nearby
tens of parsecs region, owing to FTL travel. However, this was
also not exclusively creating pathways to the stars, but
inadvertantly causing a dimensional shift when traveling BACK
to the earth. The only way space travel of this magnitude can
remain "unaffected" by the time dilation is to make the return
trip back in time to just a few days after "originally"
leaving. Even though a proof exists for the Physics/Technologically
inclined, all challenges to the current views of the already
antiquated "theory of relativity" have defined away all
challenges by the mob mentality, or "brute force" method.
Why? Because the antiquated "theory of relativity" is the
only reliable method by which the Supreme Court could draw a
distinction without a difference - in suggesting that only
someone who is as intelligent as Einstein himself can see if
the "antiquated" theory of relativity is, by example, a
"counterfeit" theory. - That's LICENSED opinion - a not-so-
scientific angle that warrants a challenge into the department
of NASA's dwindling resources for advanced technology,
albeit private interests might also be at stake here -
but for whom? (IMHO private industry is probably MORE
informed about advanced propulsion technology than even NASA)

This was weird man.

Einar
- but can you hear the giant sucking sound of NASA stealing
or blocking the show? (I can)

The truth is, we taxpayers are losing, or have
COMPLETELY LOST our representation with even the Supreme
Court in the sense that we've been "injured" in our capacity
as taxpayers. There is an unconstitutionality of the
exercises of congressional power under the taxing and
spending clause of Art. I, S. 8 of the Constitution, but
not subject to geopolitical redress of Article 4, S.3,
clause 2, regarding the property clause which states,
"Congress has no power to give or authorize leases."
Undoubtedly, interstellar space is in a completely
different territory.

At the same time, NASA's legal argument has defined
their current launch territories to be respective of
any type of Apollo-era technology, which they use to
mathematically exception-barr any new, revolutionary
technology that may come down the pike for review.
The current military-industrial complex holds such a
tight grip on the reign of our bureaucracy that there
can be no business match for revolutionary energy
technology outside of U-238 nuclear and oil. (All those
alternatives like corn, solar, windmills, etc., don't
amount to anything that could replace our current
fixation on nuke plants or oil) Yet there simply is
NO SUPREME COURT DISSENTION on this at all!


American

American wrote:
Most enthusiasts who post their positions on the moon
landing hoax/no-hoax convincingly enough must conclude
that the Apollo program was forced into a state of false
promises while in the Nixon Years, meaning that whether
or not we landed on the moon became secondary to the fact that
there was new (or old, depending on how you look at it)
technology that would make Apollo look like the Phoenicians
arriving in South America to meet Captain Kirk on the holodeck.

What we strove to achieve in the Apollo years was more about
the technical communication that managers and supervisors had
with each other than actual territorial gain. Whether or not
we landed on the moon is almost a moot issue, because we really
would have not gained anything by going THERE, now would we?
In fact, I think that the art of UFO technologies were already
well advanced enough to go just about anywhere in the nearby
tens of parsecs region, owing to FTL travel. However, this was
also not exclusively creating pathways to the stars, but
inadvertantly causing a dimensional shift when traveling BACK
to the earth. The only way space travel of this magnitude can
remain "unaffected" by the time dilation is to make the return
trip back in time to just a few days after "originally"
leaving. Even though a proof exists for the Physics/Technologically
inclined, all challenges to the current views of the already
antiquated "theory of relativity" have defined away all
challenges by the mob mentality, or "brute force" method.
Why? Because the antiquated "theory of relativity" is the
only reliable method by which the Supreme Court could draw a
distinction without a difference - in suggesting that only
someone who is as intelligent as Einstein himself can see if
the "antiquated" theory of relativity is, by example, a
"counterfeit" theory. - That's LICENSED opinion - a not-so-
scientific angle that warrants a challenge into the department
of NASA's dwindling resources for advanced technology,
albeit private interests might also be at stake here -
but for whom? (IMHO private industry is probably MORE
informed about advanced propulsion technology than even NASA)
- but can you hear the giant sucking sound of NASA stealing
or blocking the show? (I can)

The truth is, we taxpayers are losing, or have
COMPLETELY LOST our representation with even the Supreme
Court in the sense that we've been "injured" in our capacity
as taxpayers. There is an unconstitutionality of the
exercises of congressional power under the taxing and
spending clause of Art. I, S. 8 of the Constitution, but
not subject to geopolitical redress of Article 4, S.3,
clause 2, regarding the property clause which states,
"Congress has no power to give or authorize leases."
Undoubtedly, interstellar space is in a completely
different territory.

At the same time, NASA's legal argument has defined
their current launch territories to be respective of
any type of Apollo-era technology, which they use to
mathematically exception-barr any new, revolutionary
technology that may come down the pike for review.
The current military-industrial complex holds such a
tight grip on the reign of our bureaucracy that there
can be no business match for revolutionary energy
technology outside of U-238 nuclear and oil. (All those
alternatives like corn, solar, windmills, etc., don't
amount to anything that could replace our current
fixation on nuke plants or oil) Yet there simply is
NO SUPREME COURT DISSENTION on this at all!


American

That was weird man!

Einar

On Jul 18, 9:54 pm, Einar wrote:
American wrote:
Most enthusiasts who post their positions on the moon
landing hoax/no-hoax convincingly enough must conclude
that the Apollo program was forced into a state of false
promises while in the Nixon Years, meaning that whether
or not we landed on the moon became secondary to the fact that
there was new (or old, depending on how you look at it)
technology that would make Apollo look like the Phoenicians
arriving in South America to meet Captain Kirk on the holodeck.

What we strove to achieve in the Apollo years was more about
the technical communication that managers and supervisors had
with each other than actual territorial gain. Whether or not
we landed on the moon is almost a moot issue, because we really
would have not gained anything by going THERE, now would we?
In fact, I think that the art of UFO technologies were already
well advanced enough to go just about anywhere in the nearby
tens of parsecs region, owing to FTL travel. However, this was
also not exclusively creating pathways to the stars, but
inadvertantly causing a dimensional shift when traveling BACK
to the earth. The only way space travel of this magnitude can
remain "unaffected" by the time dilation is to make the return
trip back in time to just a few days after "originally"
leaving. Even though a proof exists for the Physics/Technologically
inclined, all challenges to the current views of the already
antiquated "theory of relativity" have defined away all
challenges by the mob mentality, or "brute force" method.
Why? Because the antiquated "theory of relativity" is the
only reliable method by which the Supreme Court could draw a
distinction without a difference - in suggesting that only
someone who is as intelligent as Einstein himself can see if
the "antiquated" theory of relativity is, by example, a
"counterfeit" theory. - That's LICENSED opinion - a not-so-
scientific angle that warrants a challenge into the department
of NASA's dwindling resources for advanced technology,
albeit private interests might also be at stake here -
but for whom? (IMHO private industry is probably MORE
informed about advanced propulsion technology than even NASA)
- but can you hear the giant sucking sound of NASA stealing
or blocking the show? (I can)

The truth is, we taxpayers are losing, or have
COMPLETELY LOST our representation with even the Supreme
Court in the sense that we've been "injured" in our capacity
as taxpayers. There is an unconstitutionality of the
exercises of congressional power under the taxing and
spending clause of Art. I, S. 8 of the Constitution, but
not subject to geopolitical redress of Article 4, S.3,
clause 2, regarding the property clause which states,
"Congress has no power to give or authorize leases."
Undoubtedly, interstellar space is in a completely
different territory.

At the same time, NASA's legal argument has defined
their current launch territories to be respective of
any type of Apollo-era technology, which they use to
mathematically exception-barr any new, revolutionary
technology that may come down the pike for review.
The current military-industrial complex holds such a
tight grip on the reign of our bureaucracy that there
can be no business match for revolutionary energy
technology outside of U-238 nuclear and oil. (All those
alternatives like corn, solar, windmills, etc., don't
amount to anything that could replace our current
fixation on nuke plants or oil) Yet there simply is
NO SUPREME COURT DISSENTION on this at all!

American

That was weird man!

Einar- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We're not talking about cheapening the value of human life
here, but enhancing it from our current "boxed in" technologies.

Imagine if mercenaries had the ability to become healed on
the battlefield; the armies of the US could then become
multiplied by the number of healings, especially where
they became the most TACTICALLY useful. However, this
would actually cheapen the value of a human life, if
the TACTICIANS SOLD OUT TO THEIR TROOPS, LIKE THEY
ARE DOING NOW WITH LEGALISTIC DOCTRINE THAT BINDS
INSTEAD OF ENHANCES THE ABILITY TO ACT ON THE
BATTLEFIELD. ASK YOURSELF: WHO WINS IN THIS
SCENARIO? YOU GUESSED IT - THE POLITICIANS.
IF ONLY 10% VOTE, THEY STILL GET ELECTED.

So right now with their "proper" (invalidating) war funding bill,
our current bureaucracy is in the business of dumbing down
promise markets with a third world reprobate economic system
designed to keep the colonialized military industrial complex
in the business of mass creating "robot economies" in the
likeness of Bush & Co., regardless of what trial balloons
are floated across the beltway.

American

American wrote:
On Jul 18, 9:54 pm, Einar wrote:
American wrote:
Most enthusiasts who post their positions on the moon
landing hoax/no-hoax convincingly enough must conclude
that the Apollo program was forced into a state of false
promises while in the Nixon Years, meaning that whether
or not we landed on the moon became secondary to the fact that
there was new (or old, depending on how you look at it)
technology that would make Apollo look like the Phoenicians
arriving in South America to meet Captain Kirk on the holodeck.

What we strove to achieve in the Apollo years was more about
the technical communication that managers and supervisors had
with each other than actual territorial gain. Whether or not
we landed on the moon is almost a moot issue, because we really
would have not gained anything by going THERE, now would we?
In fact, I think that the art of UFO technologies were already
well advanced enough to go just about anywhere in the nearby
tens of parsecs region, owing to FTL travel. However, this was
also not exclusively creating pathways to the stars, but
inadvertantly causing a dimensional shift when traveling BACK
to the earth. The only way space travel of this magnitude can
remain "unaffected" by the time dilation is to make the return
trip back in time to just a few days after "originally"
leaving. Even though a proof exists for the Physics/Technologically
inclined, all challenges to the current views of the already
antiquated "theory of relativity" have defined away all
challenges by the mob mentality, or "brute force" method.
Why? Because the antiquated "theory of relativity" is the
only reliable method by which the Supreme Court could draw a
distinction without a difference - in suggesting that only
someone who is as intelligent as Einstein himself can see if
the "antiquated" theory of relativity is, by example, a
"counterfeit" theory. - That's LICENSED opinion - a not-so-
scientific angle that warrants a challenge into the department
of NASA's dwindling resources for advanced technology,
albeit private interests might also be at stake here -
but for whom? (IMHO private industry is probably MORE
informed about advanced propulsion technology than even NASA)
- but can you hear the giant sucking sound of NASA stealing
or blocking the show? (I can)

The truth is, we taxpayers are losing, or have
COMPLETELY LOST our representation with even the Supreme
Court in the sense that we've been "injured" in our capacity
as taxpayers. There is an unconstitutionality of the
exercises of congressional power under the taxing and
spending clause of Art. I, S. 8 of the Constitution, but
not subject to geopolitical redress of Article 4, S.3,
clause 2, regarding the property clause which states,
"Congress has no power to give or authorize leases."
Undoubtedly, interstellar space is in a completely
different territory.

At the same time, NASA's legal argument has defined
their current launch territories to be respective of
any type of Apollo-era technology, which they use to
mathematically exception-barr any new, revolutionary
technology that may come down the pike for review.
The current military-industrial complex holds such a
tight grip on the reign of our bureaucracy that there
can be no business match for revolutionary energy
technology outside of U-238 nuclear and oil. (All those
alternatives like corn, solar, windmills, etc., don't
amount to anything that could replace our current
fixation on nuke plants or oil) Yet there simply is
NO SUPREME COURT DISSENTION on this at all!

American

That was weird man!

Einar- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We're not talking about cheapening the value of human life
here, but enhancing it from our current "boxed in" technologies.

Imagine if mercenaries had the ability to become healed on
the battlefield; the armies of the US could then become
multiplied by the number of healings, especially where
they became the most TACTICALLY useful. However, this
would actually cheapen the value of a human life, if
the TACTICIANS SOLD OUT TO THEIR TROOPS, LIKE THEY
ARE DOING NOW WITH LEGALISTIC DOCTRINE THAT BINDS
INSTEAD OF ENHANCES THE ABILITY TO ACT ON THE
BATTLEFIELD. ASK YOURSELF: WHO WINS IN THIS
SCENARIO? YOU GUESSED IT - THE POLITICIANS.
IF ONLY 10% VOTE, THEY STILL GET ELECTED.

So right now with their "proper" (invalidating) war funding bill,
our current bureaucracy is in the business of dumbing down
promise markets with a third world reprobate economic system
designed to keep the colonialized military industrial complex
in the business of mass creating "robot economies" in the
likeness of Bush & Co., regardless of what trial balloons
are floated across the beltway.

American

You ought to write science fiction.

Cheers, Einar

On Jul 19, 6:24 pm, Einar wrote:

You ought to write science fiction.

Our NASA of Yiddish wizards does that one a whole lot better. After
all, they certainly fooled those of your kind.
-
Brad Guth

On Jul 19, 9:34 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 19, 6:24 pm, Einar wrote:

You ought to write science fiction.

Our NASA of Yiddish wizards does that one a whole lot better. After
all, they certainly fooled those of your kind.
-
Brad Guth

Don't worry, Einar is just ignorant of the truth and just
wishes to stay that way. Facts don't affect her.

American

On Jul 20, 10:00 pm, American wrote:
On Jul 19, 9:34 pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Jul 19, 6:24 pm, Einar wrote:

You ought to write science fiction.

Our NASA of Yiddish wizards does that one a whole lot better. After
all, they certainly fooled those of your kind.
-
Brad Guth

Don't worry, Einar is just ignorant of the truth and just
wishes to stay that way. Facts don't affect her.

American

The inroads primarily used for innovation are also the routes
to revenge the polluted blood of unbelief, by purging the strongholds
of the enemies of freedom with fire from every restful haven they
seek to settle. There can be no rest for the wicked.

False Christs are the hallmark of the end times. Socialists,
Anarchists, and Communists all add to support the tearing down
the culture of only those who are too weak to defend against
and destroy their aggressors.

Carl Jung, who assumed the authority of Freud after Freud left
Nazi Germany, is somewhat prolific of how sex, drugs, and rock
and roll - together - have ruined the psyche of space exploration
for America. Most of a handful of quality scientists left at NASA,
I believe are more in the business of making sure what pockets
to sew on the back of their pants rather than focusing on the
expertise they need to be the envy of the world - THAT was the
America that I knew - but for some reason, I don't see anything
promising coming from any of NASA's or its subsidiaries - it's like
we've been stuck in Apollo for over 4 decades - what's happening?

The little voice inside my head says "It's the economy, stupid..."
Right - it's no longer OUR ECONOMY. We're selling out and we've
SOLD OUT TO OUR WAR BASED ECONOMY BECAUSE OF
THE GOLDEN CALF!! WE NEED TO THROW ALL OF THE
TRANSNATIONALISTS OUT OF OFFICE THAT HAVE SOLD
US OUT TO THIRD WORLD INTERESTS!!

American

What if anything makes you think we've walked on the moon?
- Brad Guth

On Jul 21, 10:34 am, BradGuth wrote:
What if anything makes you think we've walked on the moon?
- Brad Guth

The instrumentation technology used during the Apollo era remained
'antiquated' in the sense that TV photographs contributed nothing
to understanding the structure and history of the Moon. There were
no gamma ray experiments, or for that matter, any data on the origin
of the Moon. The whole Apollo mission was a purely media and
politically
driven event, not a scientific data-driven one. Really, any of the
ballistic measurements that we use on earth or moon to measure
_density_ cannot be directly applied as gauges to volume
determination
to any of the planets in the solar system without using tachyon
theory.

We have already discovered structures on the dark side of the moon
that the _non-scientifically driven plutocrats_ do not want us to
see.
Why? Because the Apollo mission was purely a media and politically
driven event, and all significant Scientific discovery now belongs
more to clandestine technology than it does to free-market driven
scientific investigation. We knew of the alien structures on the moon
BEFORE we landed in the Sea of Tranquility, but were only permitted
to see what the CIA would allow. That's why SOME of the mass of
photographs taken may have been doctored with fakes - because it
would really test ALL OF HUMANITY'S resolve as non-earthbound,
homo-sapien space explorers.

We are putting a new face on our existence in this part of the solar
system for the entire galaxy of creatures to see. Don't you think that
first impressions means a lot for what follows? Made in the image
of the Almighty, I think there should be some - modicum of decorum -
in that we are only as intelligent as we are capable in elevating
the standard of living for those who have ALREADY SHOWN POTENTIAL
- AS PERPETRATORS OF SPACE BASED PRIVATE MARKET ENTREPRENEURIALISM!

Control over the masses lies in "Human Resources", where the unlawful
"de facto" government resides. Sovereigns must continually re-invent
themselves in the name of WHAT HAS ALREADY BECOME the NATURAL LAW.
THAT IS THE THEOLOGICAL ASPECT FOR THE BASIS OF UNDERSTANDING
THE APPLICATION OF THE NATURAL LAWS. NEGATIVE LAW REIGNS WHEN
NON-SOVEREIGNS SURRENDER THEIR INDEPENDENCE TO GOVERNMENT
FUNDING IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH PROGRAMS AS ENTITLEMENTS
RATHER THAN AS A NEW FREE MARKET ENTERPRISE. One of the great
fundamental laws established in the positive philosophy of
Auguste Comte was:

"- that each of our leading conceptions, - each branch of our
knowlege,
- passes successively through three different theoretical conditions:
the Theological, or ficticious; *(i.e., taken by faith) the
Metaphysical,
or abstract; and the Scientific, or positive. In other words, the
human mind, by its nature, employs in its progress three methods of
philosophizing, the character of which is essentially different, and
even radically opposed: viz., the theological method, the
metaphysical,
and the positive."

* Added by me, The Positive Philosophy, Auguste Comte (1798 -1857)

If you take away the Theological, then both the Metaphysical and
Scientific will collapse into COMMUNISM. If you take away the
Metaphysical, there can be no transition from the Theological
to the Scientific, and you have COMMUNISM. If you take away the
Scientific, then you can never advance as a species, and you
will eventually become EXTINCT.

So the Positive Philosophy is today, not for everyone, and there
are those in the bureaucracy who must assume they are innoculated from
the market forces of the Sovereigns, but it's all in their
imagination.
Since they have rejected the Trinity of Positive Law, they have lost
their compass, and will end up dying in the Abyss of Negativity, also
known as the Sea of Forgetfulness.


American