Lost Bird Proves Apollo Inauthenticity
I am a scientist of not insignificant abilities, and once upon an uncaring self, thought Apollo true. When I looked at Apollo photos, I saw astronauts on the moon. When I saw a picture of a "moon rock", I saw a MOON ROCK. Then, for reasons not entirely clear to me, just 3 months ago, I decided to read the story. Not the story as told by so called HB types, but the story as told by NASA, by the astronauts, by the Apollo scientists. I carefully read the Apollo 11 Voice Transcript, the Apollo 11 Technical Debriefing, the Apollo 11 Mission Report and on and on and on. I read the story as presented in NASA's official narrative. Reading and reading and reading NASA's own materials, I came to know the story of Apollo 11 as anyone would reading with an open and reasonably clear mind. The fable as told by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins and those supporting them in Florida, Houston and in the Pacific at the time of their recovery, is indeed a fable straining the credulity of any sensible person. Just take a look for yourself, you'll agree. You need only reason's bright light. NASA's Apollo tale is in no need of deconstruction by any external agent, by any outside review or examination. NASA's own account is one of an adventure that implodes with comical inconsistencies.
But of course, if one pauses, internal incoherence is precisely what one would expect from a bogus telling of an Apollo moon landing. Such would be a bogus telling's hallmark. Were Apollo real, the converse would of course be the case. Oh sure, there would be areas of confusion where things were not known, but there would not be telling the story one way to achieve some effect or end, and then reversing field in outer space and coming up with contradictory nonsense because the first batch of jive you mixed up was found to be just that, JIVE, or perhaps because given the circumstances the phony story's telling required 2 versions of events in places given the extraordinary circumstances.
The latter proved to be the case with the "Apollo 11 Mission". The presence of LUNA 15 pressured the Apollo 11 narrative into its having to commit to 2 utterly different tellings. In all likelihood the lunar laser retroreflector was already planted prior to 07/20/1969. I say this because if one considers the facts as I will detail in future posts, it makes more sense than anything else. That said, retroreflector present or not, the exposure of of Apollo's fraudulence by LUNA's camera was nevertheless a major concern, retroreflector already "planted" at Tranquility Base or not. There were no astronauts for LUNA to photograph. The Russians probably knew this, at least they were appropriately suspicious. The fact that the Apollo 11 official narrative features simultaneous accounts of BOTH lack of knowledge as regards the astronauts' location on the surface of the moon AND utter lack of that knowledge, leads the clear thinking open minded individual to the disappointing conclusion that as both stories, as both tellings, cannot possibly be true, neither is. Apollo is fraudulent. The key to coming to terms with the horrifying notion of inauthenticity in the particular case of Apollo 11 has to do with one's recognizing this particular element of this particular mission. The Russians were there to spoil the party. Studied from such a vantage, the whole Apollo 11 tale, including the extraordinary inconsistencies, makes eminent sense. Studied from such a vantage, we the curious become oriented to the forensics of the Apollo fraud within nanoseconds.
