Something Shady about NASA

Frederick Dodson

Frederick Dodson

I took the photo above, from an the official twitter account of a NASA testing team, who had been camping in the wilderness of Devon Island, Canada:

It’s meant to show similarity between the Haughton Crater on Devon Island, Canada, and the Gusev Crater on the Planet Mars. But instead of inspiring me, it brought up the old suspicions people have always had about NASA: Isn’t that just a red-filter applied to the same landscape? What’s stopping NASA from filming landscapes on Earth and claiming they are on Mars? At first this may sound like the question of a paranoid mind. But read on, and you might think differently. 

Following a hunch, I looked into Devon Island. I found that two NASA-affiliated projects entertain bases there. This is one of them: 

Devon Island is the largest uninhabited island on Earth. Plenty opportunity to sneak in a little clandestine filming outside of public view. The NASA-affiliated group “The Mars Society” runs a place called “Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station” on the Island since the year 2000 and the NASA itself funds the “Haughton-Mars Project”, shown in the images,  since 1997.

These are camera-equipped NASA rovers, roving around Devon Island, shooting the footage (notice the NASA Logo):

A question that instantly arises, is why this testing is not done with something that looks like and is equipped like an actual Mars rover. This, for example, is the Mars Rover called “Curiosity”:

What exactly are they “testing” on Devon Island, if not the actual Rover? It doesn’t look like they want to test a real Mars landing, it looks like they want to capture footage of the terrain. If they wanted to simulate Martian terrain, they wouldn’t be using very small mini-rovers, which neither contain the on-board laboratory nor other sophisticated gadgetry of the real martian rovers. 

Even stranger is that NASA has been using the real rover on red earth terrain, in the Moab Desert of Utah:

Is NASA faking Mars explorations? Are the Devon Island NASA stations for shooting the footage and the real rovers in Utah and the Mojave Desert, just for show?

It’s a wild idea, for sure. 

Photos of Mars never really show anything interesting. They are as boring as it gets, which begs the question why they keep going there and sending thousands of photos of rocks back to Earth. According to NASA, the first pictures of Mars were taken by Viking 1 in 1976:

For some strange reason, NASA always retouched their old Mars photos, adding a red filter to them. They say it’s for “color correction” to show how our eyes would see it if we were on Mars. Or perhaps it’s so that nobody notices that these are places on Earth?

Fast forward 20 years, to 1996, and the images sent by Mars Pathfinder don’t show any different landscape (even though far away from where Viking landed in the 70s), just a different color filter:

Fast forward to Spirit Rover, which shot pictures of Mars surface between 2004 and 2010, as if even more images were needed to ascertain for sure that what we are seeing is desert and rocks:

Another one that NASA excitedly gave to the press, back then calling it “the highest resolution picture we have ever taken” of Mars:

The spirit rover alone, cost 400 Million USD. Curiosity (2020), cost 2.5. Billion USD. And all I get are a few pictures of rocks? There have been a total of 56 missions to Mars, all returning largely the same images and data. If you keep examinig the same soil, over a span of almost 50 years, what new data to you expect to collect?

Having seen these 1976, 1996 and 2004 pictures of Mars, let’s take another look at Devon Island, here with NASA Astronaut Pascal Lee:

There can be little doubt that Devon Island looks just like Mars, nor that NASA has filmed this terrain. 

The red sands of Devon Island or NASA Research areas in Utah are not the only places NASA sets up shop. They also like testing on the red volcanic sands of Hawaii:

But so far, Devon Island seems like a perfect match to much of the “Mars Footage”.

To be fair, this doesn’t prove anything. Perhaps it’s just one of those funny coincidence. When asked about it, NASA officials have said that it’s because Devon Island is a perfect “Mars Analog”. Because it’s so similar, it offers the best testing conditions.

That’s all well and good. But then why are mini-rovers used, instead of the real ones? 

NASAs exploration of Mars would look much better, if the people responsible for the Rover Missions, actually knew something about them. Take for example, Adam Stelzner. He’s presented to us as a NASA Engineer who works at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. His C.V. lists very many, very important and very expensive projects, including Mars Pathfinder and Mars Exploration Rovers. He was also the lead engineer of the “Mars Science Laboratory” which successfully landed the “Curiosity” rover on Mars. Stelzner is also a published author and has received several prestigious awards. If anyone knows anything about NASA Mars Missions, he’s the one, right? Wrong.

There are Videos of him circulating the Internet, where it is shown that he knows next to nothing about most anything. For example, in the press conference shown below, he can’t answer basic questions such as “How was the landing?”, “Which file-type was used to transmit images back to Earth?”, “Did the Rover land near the mountain?” or anything for that matter. Watch these 7 minutes closely, and it dawns on you that this guy is either extremely nervous and forgetting all of his lines, or he is a paid actor (rather than the leading Mars Landing engineer). 

 

Or perhaps I’m being overly critical. Maybe he was just extremely nervous and forgot all the data? Possible. Improbable though. He’s supposed to have been working this stuff every day, for decades. It’s highly unusual for the project leader to be looking for help from project members that often. It also looks like some of the journalists present, know more about the project than he does. 

Again, I’d love to give NASA the benefit of the doubt. I’d love to view these astronauts and engineers as heroic pioneers, brilliant minds, beacons of progress, lights of the world. But NASA has already told so many lies in the past, that when new issues come up, it’s difficult to trust them. 

Debunkers of these type of questions will assure you that all is well with NASA and we’re just being mean and negative. Or worse, they’ll claim that I’m anti-American (but I have doubts about the Russian, Chinese and European “space programs” too). Many glamorize NASA, but the reality is:

NASA has a History of corruption, lies and fraud. 

And I’m not only referring to all the oddities around the Apollo moon landings, which have been the topic of countless books. Even as recent as 2018, an audit by the U.S. Inspector General of NASAs “Orion Program” concluded the following:

“We found that NASA’s exclusion of more than $17 billion in Orion‐related costs has hindered the overall transparency of the vehicle’s complete costs”

That’s a friendly way of saying that NASA is seriously corrupt. The IG Report goes on to say:

“Both federal law and NASA policy call for a Life Cycle Cost estimate for all major science and space programs costing more than $250 million, and for the Agency Baseline Commitment (ABC) to be based on all formulation and development costs. The Orion Program received approval from the NASA Associate Administrator to deviate from those requirements, resulting in exclusion of $17.5 billion in Orion‐related costs from fiscal year (FY) 2006 to FY 2030 due to the Agency’s tailored approach to program management and cost reporting. Although these exclusions have been approved, the tailoring of these cost reporting requirements significantly limits visibility into the total amount spent on development and production efforts.

What this means is that the management at NASA have been criminally mislabeling the cost of their Orion program.

This is nothing new. NASA Management periodically appears in the news for various criminal activity. Such as in 1994 when 9 people were charged over NASA Corruption, including a former NASA Chief.

Nine people, including two Nasa employees, were charged yesterday with participating in a bribery and corruption scheme at the Johnson Space Center, AFP reports from Houston, Texas. The inquiry also netted a partner in a consulting firm headed by a former Nasa chief, James Beggs.

Or NASA Chief Charles Bolden’s corruption in 2010:

“NASA chief Charlie Bolden was ethically out-of-bounds when he discussed space agency policy with an oil company in which he had financial ties”

I realize this is not directly related to whether NASA has gone to Mars or not, but when evaluating an organization, it’s good to see it as a whole. In the media, NASA are portrayed as being at the frontier of space exploration, bringing us wonderful new technologies, knowledge about Astronomy, about the Earths Climate and a long series of spin-off inventions that make our life better. Working for NASA is a dream come true for most people. We believe these people will take us to the stars. 

But many employees have gone on record or to the press over the last decades, saying that the organization does not live up to the hype. Like any Government Organization, it has been described as bureaucratic and slow, lacking purpose and mission, full of lazy civil servants biding their time, without vision and yes, corrupt at the top. You’d expect management to be of the pioneering, creative genius type, but many have gne on record saying that the top tier of NASA have little interest in space travel or new inventions. 

There is a website I sometimes use to check out various companies, it’s www.glassdoor.com. It’s quite revealing to go through the employee-reviews of various NASA branches. The issues widely criticized about NASA keep cropping up, no matter what branch. A few samples:

Yes, I’ve picked the bad apples and ignored positive reviews. But the overall ratings of NASA companies does not compare well to other companies within the industry. For many decades, there has been a discrepancy between public image and reality

How did I ever come to doubt NASAs trustworthiness in the first place? It’s because I’ve done a lot of stargazing in my life. Probably more than most people. I’ve seen a lot of very advanced aircraft that have little to do with our airplanes, helicopters or space shuttles. I’ve seen not just a few, but hundreds of “UFOs” by now, including dozens of flying saucers at different times and in different countries.

See the problem? The stuff I have seen with my own eyes, does not align with the way NASA portrays space, space-flight and orbit. I see flying devices perform maneuvers that a space-shuttle could never do. I see them almost every time I go star-gazing. And you’re telling me that the NASA people, who spend a lifetime looking into space, have never seen or asked about these things? 

Is NASA a cover-organization for the public and real space flight is undertaken by the military? Have humans not only already traveled to Mars, but way beyond our solar system? I wouldn’t rule it out. 

I read about the faked moon landings when I was a teenager. I read several books on it, but I still didn’t believe it, even though I had seen the evidence. I figured that if there were 40 000 people and staffers involved, it would be impossible for that many people to keep a secret. The consequences of accepting the evidence would have been too wide-ranging. “If that’s untrue, then too many other things are also untrue“. But then again, it’s not that difficult to fool 40 000 people. If the moon landings turned out to be a Hoax, I wouldn’t be surprised. 

One does wonder why the manned moon landings went from 1967 to 1972 and nobody has been to the moon since then. Not the Americans, not the Russians. Why not? Wouldn’t the Russians want to catch up? Don’t the Americans want to build a base there? Wouldn’t the Chinese want to prove they can do it?

After looking into these Mars Exploration oddities, I took another look at claims that the moon landings are fake. I entertained the idea and went with it for a while, asking “What If…?” 

The Apollo moon landings may have been filmed at a place called “Langley Research Center”, which is a “Lunar Landing Research Facility” where all aspects of the trip to the moon and the landing of the moon could be “tested”. 

A few official pictures from the testing facility:

Other locations were moon footage could have been filmed include the desert of Nevada, as some have claimed, as well as the area around Mauna Kea, Hawaii. 

Unfortunately, NASA were already caught faking pictures long before the first moon landing. It’s almost like faking was ingrained in their corporate culture. 

For Michael Collins famous “spacewalk”, NASA showed a photo from a zero-g training exercise on Earth. In what we would today call “photoshop manipulation”, they had removed all the background and flipped the image to its reverse, to make it look like he’s in space. Once the fraud was discovered, NASA said “we never claimed that its a photo of Michael Collins in space“. Collins used the same photo for the cover of his book as well as inside the book. As soon as he was called out for it, he also said “Show me were I said its a photo of me in space“.

Sure, nobody explicitly made that claim, but they sure implied it and made it look like that. 

Of course, this can be forgiven, as it wouldn’t be that easy to take pictures of the real space-walk, I guess. 

If we, for a moment, entertain the idea that all Apollo moon landings were filmed in a studio on Earth, then its surprisingly easy to find evidence for that. 

This is astronaut Alan Bean in the Apollo 12 program (all photos shown here are official NASA photos). Notice anything strange?

Many interesting and anomalous things can be found by looking into the visors of the Helmets worn by the astronauts. There are hundreds of different images researchers have discussed, around helmet visors alone. 

Investigators have said that these light reflections aren’t supposed to be there. They have speculated that these are film studio booths or floodlights. Debunkers on the other hand, have said that these are merely the sun reflecting smudges on the helmet visor. OK, fair enough. Nothing to see here. Just sun reflections.

The following is a photo of astronaut Eugene Cernan on the moon (?) in 1972. In the reflection of his visor you can see a guy who appears not to be wearing a moon suit. How do we explain that? 

And who took the picture of him? It was obviously not this guy and there were only two astronauts present. If he’s not wearing a space suit, he should at least be holding a camera. Are there ghosts on the moon, or is this simply a studio staffer?

If the moon landings are a hoax, then these are some really lazy hoaxers. 

Another popular question that moon-landing-skeptics bring up is this: 

If there is no atmosphere on the moon, as NASA says, then why are there video clips of the U.S. Flag waving? The flag should be still if there is no atmosphere. It’s not only the flag that has been shown to be moving on the moon but also various other objects, such as a metal foil type object hanging from the shuttle. Most TV viewers watching live, recall a rippling flag, merrily waving in the wind. 

NASA has responded to the question by saying that the Flags wave because of the movement of the Astronauts touching the flag. Anyone who thinks NASA is lying, must be delusional, because they are a such an honest organization 🙂 At the time of the explanation, NASA had forgotten to remove a Video from Apollo 14, that showed a moving Flag without any astronaut touching it. 

If the moon doesn’t have an atmosphere, then the flag should not be moving. Either the moon has an atmosphere, or these “moon landings” are not on the moon at all but shot in a studio.

Upon these facts being published, an hordes of “debunkers” and “skeptics” and “fact checkers” come out of the woodwork to proclaim that the movement of this flag is also somehow related to a person moving it. The person walking by must have accidentally caused it to move, they say.

OK, fair enough. Maybe we’re wrong. Maybe we don’t even have the right to ask any of these questions, “because we don’t have a science degree”, as I’ve heard seen people say. 

But what then, about moving materials, even when no Astronaut is present? 

The “debunkers” stay mum on that. 

A square device that was attached to two strings, hung from the Apollo 17 capsule. The device looks like a one meter long and 30 to 40 cm wide plastic shopping bag, made of some kind of foil. The bag is rocking back and forth in the wind. The camera was pointed at the landing capsule and no Astronaut was seen touching the capsule. What caused the object to move?

Did you know that some Astronauts reported that the sky was entirely black and no stars were seen while others reported that the sky was full of stars? Why might that be? Is it because they have no clue of what it looks like on the moon?

Apollo 11 was the first moon landing, so it contains the most errors. Most of the photos taken are of Buzz Aldrin. Only one photo was taken of Neil Armstrong. However, Buzz Aldrin must have changed his clothes in between photo shots. In one photo he is wearing dark boots in other photos he is wearing lighter boots. In one he is wearing white gloves in another dark gloves (see two photos below).

In some pictures the pants are outside of the boots, in some they are inside the boots. When and where did Aldrin have a change of clothes? Official accounts say that they only left the shuttle once before they returned to it. There is no mention that he changed his gloves, boots and shoes. In movie making this is called an error in continuity. In professionally made movies there are especially assigned continuity directors and staffers. If this is a fake moon landing movie, it is not professionally made. 

The landing capsule of Apollo 8, entered Earths atmosphere at 40 000 kilometres per hour. Because its heat shield had a temperature of 2800 Degrees Celsius, the Capsule was sent back into space to re-attempt a landing.  Some researchers say that the capsule had no power unit or impetus and it is not explained how it could fly back. Later on, NASA did add small power units to their landing capsules. 

Neil Armstrong said, of the Apollo 11 flight: “The computer was steering us toward a sea of steep cliffs”. Its interesting that such a landscape was never photographed or seen on any of the missions or even in later photography.

According to the NASA, the rocket engine was powered off after landing. And yet, many footsteps can be seen around rockets. If it were true that rockets are powered off later, they would blow up the dust so that footsteps could no longer be seen. Moreover, one would expect that there is dust on the lunar module foot pad. But there is no dust on the footpad and clearly visible footsteps around it:

The same can be said, by the way, of the Mars Rovers such as the Mars Pathfinder, that, even after many years in the rough terrain of Mars, where there are supposedly vicious sandstorms, always looks sparkling clean and new…almost as if it had never been deployed in real life. 

In any case…anyone who knows how strong these engines are and how much dust they blow up, cannot possibly fathom how things stay shiny clean. This is an error in the special effects department. 

 

Viewers of the first moon landing sat transfixed in front of their TV sets to hear President Nixon speak with Neil Armstrong on the phone…through space! Many were so fascinated that they didn’t notice. But some noticed: They spoke without time delay. In those days, there was a time delay just speaking between London and New York. If it were a conversation between the moon and earth, the time delay would have to have been around 4 to 8 seconds, because it takes time for radio waves to travel. 

One of the main “proofs” that were were on the moon are the “moon rocks” supposedly brought from there. But if only it were so. I’ll leave you with this news headline that speaks for itself:

Scientists examining the rock in a lab found out that it wasn’t rock at all, it was petrified wood. As there is no wood on the moon (again, according to NASA), the rock was considered a fake. What might have motivated these superstar Astronauts to hand out fake moon rocks? I have no idea. But maybe…just maybe, they don’t have any real ones. 

And yet, you have National Geographic, Discovery Channel, History Channel, the Smithsonian Institute, etc. continually broadcasting shows that “debunk” any notion that NASA is in any way dishonest and calling us crazy. But who is the crazy one here? Is it me, who is pointing out dishonesty, or is it the people offering petrified wood as “moon rocks” which were proudly displayed in Rijks Museum in Amsterdam and fawned over by National Geographic, Discovery Channel, History Channel, the Smithsonian Institute, etc. ?

And by the way: How was an earthly bacteria able to survive in a camera of lunar probe Surveyor 3, brought from the moon? The unmanned craft was supposedly landed on the moon in 1967. In 1969, the Apollo 12 astronauts supposedly brought back some parts of it to earth, including the Camera. Scientists have asked how the bacteria in the camera could survive the trip to the moon, a two and a half year stay on the moon and the trip back! Again, I have no idea. 

Why has NASA repeatedly been shown to retouch, manipulate and Photoshop their images? The topic is so comprehensive that I chose not to even go into it in this article. Can’t they just let your images be what they are? 

In the Apollo 15 photos Astronaut Dave Scott is saluting in front of the American Flag. The NASA archives show several black and white pictures and one color picture of this scene. On the color-version of the photo, Scott is wearing a Camera on his chest, on the black and white photos this camera is missing. He is standing at the same spot in the same posture, shot from the same angle – where did his camera disappear to? Was this to detract from the fact that, the person whose picture is being taken, should not be wearing the camera? It is unlikely that his colleague Irwin had taken the camera, otherwise his footsteps in the dust would be seen. There are two identical photos, but in one, the camera is removed. How? Why? 

Due to more recent real spaceflight, we know that an astronauts physical state, when he or she returns from weightlessness, is a bit shaky and fragile. We don’t let them walk on their own but help them with their first steps so that they don’t break any bones. This applies to modern U.S. Astronauts, European Astronauts, Russian Astronauts, etc. The Apollo Astronauts, however, showed no symptoms of muscle or bone problems whatsoever. They got out of the rescue helicopter, walking and jumping around as they saw fit. Perhaps they weren’t actually in outer space, unlike modern Astronauts? 

In Apollo 17, you can see tracks of the moon rover in the moon dust…while the moon rover is still hanging, unpacked, on the capsule. It looks like a lazy technician forgot to wipe away the tracks from the film shoot on a previous day. I was looking for a photo to show this, only to discover that the photo I had seen of this, had been scraped from the Internet. I couldn’t find it. Had someone gone through the effort of having it removed from search results? I don’t know. 

In many images of the three Apollo missions in which the moon rover was used, the rover did not leave any tracks, strangely enough. Shoe prints can be seen, but no tracks. The photos below are only two examples of many. Had the moon rover been lifted there with a crane, for a nice little photo shoot?

The tracks that are visible on some photos, are not compatible with the tire profile of the rovers tires. The tracks are not from these tires, as anyone can see. But as no other vehicles were taken to the moon, what are they tracks of?

The “first man on the moon”, Neil Armstrong, had no appreciation of his fame. He avoided publicity, remained unresponsive to fans and said he didn’t see himself as a hero or that he had done anything special. He also refused to take part in movies and documentaries about the Apollo mission. His wife reported, that he had not changed at all, since before the trip. Why? 

But fret not! There is irrefutable evidence that NASA sent men to the moon! One of their primary “proofs” is that the lunar craft was being followed by tracking stations around the globe. One of the tracking stations that NASA likes to cite, is called “Jodrell Bank” in England:

The problem is that Jodrell Bank cannot be considered an “independent source” of proof. 

I found this searching the NASA website itself: 

In parallel with the work supported by the U.S. Air Force discussed above, Jodrell Bank also was involved in the satellite program of NASA. Besides the scientific and prestige interests, collaboration with NASA, mostly involving the use of the big radio telescope to track satellites and probes, brought much needed money to Jodrell Bank. One contract alone with NASA paid $179,200 to the radio astronomy observatory.

In other words, NASA as used a company which it has equipped and funded, as “independent verification”. That’s NASA proving that NASA is honest. 

I could go on like this for a while. From what I’ve seen, one could fill several books on this. But it’s tiresome, so I will stop now. NASA is a tiresome organization, as are all other space agencies who endorse this ridiculous idea of an empty and uninteresting universe full of desert rocks. There are not dozens, and not hundreds but thousands more anomalies around NASA missions that I did not mention, which anyone can look up online. Don’t be fooled by the hundreds of websites at the top of search results that appear to “debunk” all this. 

If NASA is indeed running a fake space program, and I consider that a 50-50 possibility (some would say I’m too generous), the next question is “why”? Organizing such a gigantic theater is almost more effort than actually flying to Moon or Mars. 

I can only answer this with what I myself have seen: The nature of space is different than we are told. It’s full of intelligent life which has probably been there for thousands of years, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. Humankind is in a state of Oblivion, with only few individuals aware of a bigger context. Maybe humans are not permitted to go beyond a certain point, for some reason. Why? Maybe Earth is in quarantine, who knows. 

Isn’t it a little odd that Richard Bransons Virgin Galactic, Elon Musks Spacex  or other companies of the last 50 years, have kept promising commercial space flight and moon flights for private passengers but not delivered on their promises? Space travel has been strangely mired by malfunctioning rockets and tragic deaths. Richard Branson first promised private space flight 20 years ago. Dozens of projected dates for the “first trip to the moon” have passed without event. What’s the hold up? Not only have these companies not made it to the moon, but we’ve even struggled with just supersonic space flights. In 1969, Concorde commenced its supersonic, sub-orbital flights. It wasn’t much heard of after that. The cost of fuel and a horrible crash in 2003 and the company went broke and was not heard of again. The Russian Concordski supersonic plane began in 1977, with great fanfare. Commercial flights were suspended just six months later and the super-plane disappeared from public awareness. In 1982, the X-30 space plane project started. Again, the hypersonic plane was widely praised and admired as a new step for humankind. But a prototype was never completed and Congress halted funding in 1994. What exactly had been funded in the 12 years in between? In 1990, NASA introduced its supersonic jet for 300 passengers. The program did not succeed and was abandoned in 1999. Right after that, in the same year, the Californian company XCOR, promised a space tourism plane called Lynx. They said they’d soon be able to take people around the whole world in only two hours. The company never kept its promise and finally filed for bankruptcy in 2017. The company Rocketplane XP, founded in 1995, promised much of the same, did not deliver, and went bankrupt in 2010. 

It is reported that the supersonic passenger plane hasn’t taken off due to feasibility issues. It’s too expensive. Then why do companies keep trying to do it with the same means and technology and a stratospheric amount of funding? Are these attempts perhaps being sabotaged? Some of the events surrounding private space flight would seem to point in that direction (but that’s a topic for another time). 

And what’s to make of the Astronauts who claim to have seen orbs, snakes and unidentified objects or heard music in space? Such statements don’t fit into any known context. 

What about claims of secret space programs? It’s possible, I don’t know. 

But I do know one thing for certain: There is something shady about NASA

Articles like this are meant to inspire citizens research. I’m just a regular citizen. It is not normal for Billions of people to wander through life too busy and stressed to take the time to look around, to ask questions, to investigate. It is each persons civic responsibility to question things. It is not right that an organization that will hand out fake moon rocks and steal public funds, gets the amount of continued funding and praise that they do.  At what point will we speak up and say #DefundNasa?

Share this post

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on pinterest
Share on print
Share on email

This function has been disabled for Reality Creation.