STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
More Moon Travel? Protect Yourself From Eroding Public Trust
By Daily Bell Staff - June 10, 2016

Why it’s time to go back to the Moon … It’s more than a stepping stone to Mars … Mars is an extremely popular destination right now. Putting people on the Red Planet has been the big goal for NASA since 2010, and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has made it very clear that his company is going to try to start a Martian colony as early as 2024. – The Verge

We recently wrote about Elon Musk and his plans to go to Mars. You can see that article here.

But according to this Verge article, NASA is considering going back to the moon first.

This is surely an expanded, elite dominant social theme.

NASA and the US government derive tremendous benefits from NASA’s supposed leadership in space exploration.

Fegov is seen as corrupt and incompetent on almost every front.

Some four percent of US citizens believe Congress is highly trustworthy. The numbers aren’t that much better for the judiciary or even the executive branch.

But NASA looms as a competent, ground-breaking entity that has performed miraculous acts.

More:

NASA has been in a weird stasis since the cancellation of the Shuttle program in 2011, relying on Russia to transport its astronauts. It needs a big project, sooner rather than later, to remind the world of what can be accomplished in space.

Fortunately, a return to the Moon is more likely if the attitude in Congress is any indication. At the recent hearings of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, representatives have been very critical of NASA’s Mars initiative, attacking the Mars plan on both clarity and cost. Getting to Mars is likely to take hundreds of billions of dollars, and NASA’s current budget just isn’t going to cut it.

NASA has been focusing on an “asteroid redirect mission.” But it is not “popular.” Hence, Congress is going to defund it and encourage NASA to return to the moon.

Obama wanted NASA to concentrate on an asteroid mission. The idea was reaching an asteroid would involve technology that could then take the US to Mars.

Obama nixed another moon flight, saying “we’ve been there before.”

Presumably a new president will be more accommodating.

Of course, moon skeptics will think all this talk is merely a prelude to an additional, prolonged deception.

These skeptics increasingly believe the entire space program is a hoax.

Such individuals don’t believe there is an international space station aloft. They don’t even believe in satellites.

Or the Hubble space telescope.

A continuation of NASA’s “fictional” accomplishments does two things.

First, it allows NASA to control any significant efforts at space travel. These efforts supposedly would reveal NASA frauds.

Second, NASA’s continued presence and non-existent accomplishments bolster the idea of government competence.

There is not much government does, or does well. But somehow the US government has managed to create a full-fledged space program that took man to the moon.

Space skeptics may also be skeptical of US nuclear programs, as we have been documenting.

Modern media practices aggravate skepticism. What reporters are told by the Pentagon or NASA is what they report.

No one in the formal media challenges these narratives.

Yet Youtube is filled with debunking videos, questioning NASA accomplishments in sometimes excruciating detail.

Some of the skepticism seems credible.

Here’s an astronaut on the moon getting up without using his legs. (See two-minute mark.)

Here’s an article comparing the initial Lunar Rover to a jeep.

NASA defenders often point out that hundreds of thousands of individuals would have to be party to a NASA moon hoax.

But thanks to the Internet, we’ve seen that large-scale deceptions can indeed be developed and maintained.

The US Center for Disease Control and Prevention has been covering up evidence for years showing that vaccines cause autism.

And there is plenty of evidence that global warming is a worldwide hoax but the UN continues to host gigantic meetings to combat it.

Monopoly central banking causes ruinous currency debasement but the system is nonetheless ubiquitous and has defenders despite its obvious destructiveness.

If sufficient pressure is applied, people will fall in line and promote untruths en masse.

The Internet has been helpful in exposing this sort of falsity. But such revelations are discouraging.

Increasingly, one can begin to make a case that almost nothing is true.

Every single area of knowledge from nuclear physics to space travel to various kinds of medical science are infected by fakery.

There’s lots of evidence for instance that gravitational physics is incorrect. That the fundamental force of the universe is electromagnetism.

Some would maintain that Nikols Tesla was replaced by Albert Einstein for public relations purposes, and to mislead people about gravitational physics.

Meanwhile, skepticism about NASA “progress” continues and grows.

The larger US cultural consensus as regards the nation’s goals and accomplishments is falling apart. This is taking place in areas of politics, science, even in the military.

It is dangerous to the civil structure but it is rarely commented on in depth.

Conclusion: You ought to be aware. The implacable eroding of public trust has significant ramifications. And it will not be reversed any time soon.

Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Blank Reg

    Congress wants to return to the Moon (keyword: “return”) because it will keep lots of “Old Space” government contractor jobs in the traditional “space” districts, from Cali to Houston to Huntsville to the Cape. They are authorizing huge expenditures on the SLS (called by critics the “Senate Launch System”), and letting expenditures on private efforts (like Commercial Crew) offering far more bang for the buck fight for the crumbs.

    NASA itself clearly has Multiple Personality Disorder regarding all this. There is a significant minority within the agency who would rather go the “buy the ride” route, as it offers huge cost savings overall, which means more $$ for both human flights and science missions. But, as NASA is “mission driven”, subject to marching orders from the Congress, you may end up in the unenviable position of building something you don’t really believe in just because Senator Shelby wants it, and had his way in committee. For the price of a single SLS launch (projected $1B), you can launch 5 pairs of Falcon Heavy’s carrying the same (combined) payload of an SLS per pair. But we’ll waste billions on SLS anyway because guys like Shelby want to swing their dicks in orbit.

    An asteroid mission actually made more sense, as it would be a joint venture with many private firms seeking to profitably extract extraterrestrial resources.

    NASA spent, since 2004, over $8B developing the Orion capsule, the only Bush 2 era holdover. SpaceX spend $800M (1/10th) developing the entire Falcon 9 system, including the Dragon 1 capsule. No one will try to argue that Orion is somehow 10x superior to Dragon in technology, they would be laughed out of the room. Yet they stubbornly forge ahead, building a Rocket to Nowhere, because they have the illusion they are still in charge of the high frontier.

    • typodrive

      The mining of asteroids is, at this point in our evolution, a ridiculous concept.
      Think about it. Just the cost of getting there and flying back with a load of minerals would be astronomical. What minerals are worth this effort? How much can be transported per trip?
      This is the reality. After landing on the asteroid the surface would have to be explored for the motherload, if it even exists. Heavy equipment would have to be deployed, the digging would have to begin, the minerals would have to be collected, processed and bagged all by humans wearing clunky spacesuits.
      Meanwhile the asteroid is zooming away from earth at 25,000 miles an hour. Every 10 hours this asteroid moves the distance of the earth to the moon.
      And the reality is that these rocks would most likely be more valuable sold to collectors than processed for the metal content. Now that would be criminal wouldn’t it?

  • alaska3636

    I wonder: if Antarctica has proven difficult for exploration due to technological problems. If this is the case, then not exploring the terrestrial landmass makes sense while advertising much larger (and less probable) exploration of extraterrestrial landmasses. It is an example of the big lie as more believable over the small. Does anyone have any information on the explorability of Antarctica?

    • alaska3636

      Spoke too soon 🙁
      Here is a decent summary of Antarctic exploration:
      https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-we-explore-Antarctica-before-Mars

      Still…satellite imagery, both on the NASA website and through GoogleEarth are strangely pixelated.

      • Lynn Ertell

        Still…satellite imagery, both on the NASA website and through GoogleEarth are strangely pixelated.

        (translation: Cheap, shoddy, digital fakery.)

  • typodrive

    There is little “new” science in manned exploration of space and this is just a phenomenal waste of taxpayer money that should instead be directed toward our real problems like infrastructure and poverty.
    I’m supposed to be “proud” of our astronauts landing on the moon and bringing back a few rocks… again, when I can barely drive down the road without ripping out my car’s oilpan?
    Dante got it right when he said 500 years ago that Pride is man’s greatest sin.

  • Bruce C.

    I’m fascinated with the possibility of truly mass conspiracy theories existing for decades or longer. That would be so amazing if most of what we believe is true regarding human history and achievements are false. It’s also interesting to consider that what we “all” believe is NOT true may in fact be true. There are a lot of positive concepts out there that are now considered “mystical” and fanciful and “not true” that could make an enormous difference.

    As has been said, the truth will set you free. Maybe – just maybe – the infallible test of the veracity of a concept or belief is how it makes one feel about one’s self and one’s world. Most of these alleged mass myths tend to make “us” (me at least) feel small, helpless, insignificant, overwhelmed, fearful and powerless. That could be the best evidence of all that they aren’t true.

  • r2bzjudge

    “Of course, moon skeptics will think all this talk is merely a prelude to an additional, prolonged deception.

    These skeptics increasingly believe the entire space program is a hoax.

    Such individuals don’t believe there is an international space station aloft. They don’t even believe in satellites.”

    A few people have claimed that no jetliners struck the trade center towers. There are numerous videos that prove that jetliners did strike the towers.

    I have a dish on my roof, pointed at the sky, to receive TV signals. Satellites exist, whether some people want to believe it or not.

    Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the Moon, whether some people want to believe it or not.

    • Lynn Ertell

      Believe. Believe. Believe. Because you have no choice.

      • r2bzjudge

        I don’t have to believe that 1+1 = 2. I put a fork on a table and put an additional fork on the table. I now have 2 forks on the table. 1+1 = 2.

        • Dave

          Youtube……”Stanley Kubrick moon landing.”
          He will explain it since he produced and directed the whole farce. ibzjudge
          Wake up people.

    • wrusssr

      Thanks for clearing the jetliner thing up, judge.

      Jet fuel cannot melt steel.

      Fire has never caused a steel-framed building to fall, even after burning overnight.

      Two skyscrapers don’t free-fall exactly on their own footprints in under 11 seconds, nor does a 40-something story building do the same in 8 seconds.

      The owner of WTC-7 is on vid saying he told the people to go ahead and “. . .pull it.”

      The technology wasn’t in place for the Penn “. . . let’s roll air-to-ground calls. . .”

      . . . and the first local tv crews on site couldn’t find the customary wreckage–body parts, seats, luggage. Just a black hole/trench in the ground.

      . . . and you couldn’t fit a tail section in the hole in the pentagon, much less a wing span. Meanwhile, lines of pentagon workers “policed” the light scraps of metal off the pentagon grass. No one mentioned how they picked up and carted off a couple 747 (or 7-whatever) engines.

      If you’re serious about the truth surrounding 9/11, read Dr. David Ray Griffin’s books.

  • mary

    Seems to me that the recent space mania has to do with Keynsian “economists” desperate to push money out into the economy to stave off “deflation.” That genius, Larry Summers, called for infrastructure spending, after hating on the $100 bill, of all things. Maybe we should encourage them. It’s better than massive war, which appears to be their other choice.

  • Paul J McLeod

    HOW THEY GETTING THROUGH?

    they now know that “the impenetrable barrier seen by the twin Van Allen belt spacecraft stops the electrons before they get that far,” said Baker.

    scientists-find-huge-star-trek-esque-invisible-dome-around-earth

    http://futurism.com/scientists-find-huge-star-trek-esque-invisible-dome-around-earth/

    and this?
    NASA admits they cannot get through the Van Allen radiation belts

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlXG0REiVzE

    • r2bzjudge

      http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

      “Conspiracy Theories

      Radiation is a favorite topic of many moon landing hoax theorists. No
      matter how badly they may lose the debate on other issues, they believe
      that space radiation is the one thing that trumps all others.”

      “Let’s first take a look at the
      trajectories. Figures 2 and 3 below show the path of Apollo 11 in
      relation to the VARB. The blue line represents the spacecraft’s path and
      the red dots indicate 10-minute intervals of time. The red and orange
      areas are the most powerful regions of the VARB, and the violet and blue
      areas are the least powerful. You can see that the trajectories were
      designed to bypass the VARB to the greatest extent possible.”

      What is a belt? An area of defined width. A belt worn on pants does not cover the entire pants. The signal strength of the Van Allen belts, falls off at latitude. The Apollo trajectory did not extend out from the equator, passing through the center of the belts. The Apollo trajectory avoided the most dangerous area of the belts, which was how the astronauts were able to go to the Moon.

  • Castle_Nut

    The moon landing was faked! It was shot by Stanley Kubrick on a sound stage in LA!

    • r2bzjudge

      A sound stage, under studio lighting, cannot produce the look of the color photographs taken by the astronauts on the Moon.

      The look of the Moon scene in 2001 does not resemble the look of the Apollo Moon photos.

      • Dave

        Try Youtube for “Stanley Kubrick moon landing” where the great director, just before his death, even talks for over 20 minutes about how he produced and directed the whole “charade movie” for NASA.
        (Man, will some people ever learn? How easy it is to fool the guppies.)

  • Dimatteo

    Another great article.

loading