In about 2016, I often worked on writing my fiction-based-on-fact novel as the sole visitor to the quiet back room of a New Orleans coffee shop. The book is based on various evidence that NASA has regularly created deceptions during the Apollo years and beyond. Pictures of the Moon and related photo studies frequently flashed on the laptop screen.
One morning, an attractive young lady came in and took a table nearby, positioned where she could see my screen. After a few hours of editing the lunar pictures and their notes, I rose to begin gathering my gear to leave. She walked over and very politely asked me if she might ask what I was working on. Whenever that question comes up, I repeat a simple answer that employs what’s called a “logline” in the movie industry, a sentence that tells the whole story in one statement: “A cover-up at NASA.”
“Amazing!” she replied brightly. “I’m a scientist, an engineer working out at NASA on the Artemis III Moon project,” she revealed.
“Of course,“ I said smiling, “the new mission to go back to the Moon to land American astronauts.” As much as I tried to hide being stunned by the coincidence of of our meeting, I continued. “Splendid,” I blurted. “I’ve read about it. A real pleasure to meet you!”
She explained that she had just been hired onto the team that was developing the complex systems needed for the Artemis III booster rocket being designed and built by NASA at the Michoud Rocket Facility in East New Orleans.
“I need to ask you a question,” she proceeded. “Did we really land on the Moon?”
Her inquiry has been popular for many, many years now. It may have had its origins after doubts started spilling out on the Internet and especially after Fox Television broadcast a documentary featuring one former Apollo era engineer who was claiming the billion dollar effort had failed to develop reliable landing technology.
I had to take a few seconds to consider the consequences of saying too much about all that I knew about it too soon.
“Let’s sit down over there,” I offered, “at an empty table.” Before stepping away, I added: “We should leave our phones behind.” Before continuing, we exchanged names and I explained that I had been in the film and TV business in the past.
“Did you watch the TV documentary where the NASA worker claimed we never landed?” she asked.
“Yes, I did,” I replied, “but, since then, I’ve come across evidence that those problems were worked out using versions of Nikola Tesla’s anti-gravity devices to help them make a soft landing after all.”
“Really?” she stated, surprised.
“Are you familiar with Tesla’s work?”
“While I was in graduate studies,” she answered, “I learned about his remarkable work on my own.”
“Good for you,” I commended her. “So some of his theories made it possible for NASA to safely land the Lunar Module,” I went on, “but what Armstrong and Aldrin actually saw—and experienced—has never been made public.”
“What did they see?” she questioned with intense curiosity.
And, with that, I agreed to tell her, but she had to understand that the whole story takes time to carefully explain. I offered to meet with her occasionally and, at my insistence, always without our phones nearby. I would provide her with plenty of articles to read. To protect her from potential work-related problems, the paperwork had to be shredded or disposed of afterwards, so as not to endanger her job.
Her ‘re-education” went on for some time, a few years, as I provided physical copies to read, and, on my orders, dispose of. All of them spanned a wide range of international research that had accumulated about our Moon from scientific, ex-military sources, citizen investigators or reliable astronomy and international research that I had collected [and still file away] from current coverage and other writings that trace back millions of years.
She accumulated a top level update that likely none of her colleagues out there at NASA/New Orleans ever had any inkling of. What is our Moon really all about? What were some of its past purposes? Most importantly, what current interstellar operations is our Moon involved with? These are just some of the truths that have been guiding the storyline of this fictional novel. With that preamble entertained, lets turn to the following passages, excerpts taken directly from 2 footnotes of a long set of references for Chapter 21 of the book Lightning On The Moon.
The use of footnotes in a book of fiction is highly unusual, yet, from the start of writing it, I wanted to back up many of the bold claims being made by the fictional characters in their testimonies, much of which was sourced directly from quotes made by the real life scientists, engineers, technicians who worked for NASA, the U.S. military regimes of their time or influential political figures.
Thus, this research is verifiable, substantial evidence to support much of the major elements of dialogue I have given my fictional, composite characters.
Other facts have been placed in the book as needed. Every chapter has a subtitle, often to provide some much needed humor. For this chapter, it is Chasing The Moon.
Some background: The main character of this chapter’s storyline is French, based on the true life, brilliant radar and radio communications engineer who actually designed and built all of the radio and television electronics for the Apollo missions—Maurice Chatelain, whom I met in the late 1970s at his ultra-modern oceanside home in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Very early in his career, he was the one who invented and patented what became FM radio!
After the start of this scene from the novel, the also French-born character has just pointed out that the large photo that hangs at the end of a hallway was the one familiar to many of us as the one supposedly taken of Buzz Aldrin by lead Apollo 11 astronaut Neal Armstrong, which NASA to this day still claims is Aldrin standing on the lunar surface.
NASA claims that it was taken with the Apollo-era modified German Hasselblad camera, the very best made large format 2” by 2” film camera and a Zeiss Lens available.
In 1999, British Apollo mission researchers Mary Bennett and David Percy, a seasoned professional photographer together published their exhaustive study of the Apollo Mission photography and coupled that to an enormous variety of historic scientific evidence on our nearest planetary neighbor in a very thick, compelling book titled Dark Moon and The Apollo Whistleblowers. [Copyrighted by Bennett and Percy in 1999 and published by Adventures Unlimited Press, One Adventure Place, Kempton, Illinois 60946]
Here are just a very few excerpts from their photo studies of the iconic picture of the astronaut NASA identifies as Buzz Aldrin, an image many people who see it continue to associate with the Apollo 11 event as the iconic classic image of the Apollo era.
From footnote 1:
In the opening of their book Dark Moon, authors David Percy and Mary Bennett review and analyze a broad range of technical inconsistencies evident in many Apollo related photos. Further supporting evidence is provided with an intricate technical breakdown of issues raised in the ‘official’ imagery in a thorough evaluation performed by expert photography analyst David Groves, PhD.
While the full range of these discrepancies is far too much material to cover here, let’s survey the basic highlights they bring up, starting with the ‘giveaways’ found in the lighting of this picture.
The use of artificial lighting from a strong, single spotlight behind the astronaut, plus the obvious presence of another less powerful ‘soft’ light in front of the subject is noted above.
Also, although this was not mentioned in the book, but, if I may speak as an experienced cinematographer for just a moment, I must ask: “How could both the photographer and its target be lit from the same, single light source—our sun?”
If the sun is behind the photographer, it’s obviously impossible. The original photo, itself taken in a staged environment, has also been altered with a darkroom technique known since the earliest days of photography—placing part of another picture, an area found in different photo and used as a negative image then placed onto a separate picture in a darkroom environment. This is one of the oldest tricks in photography, but it will fool most unsuspecting observers who fall for it. Enough said on my part.
“None of the Apollo flights could carry lighting equipment,” Mr. Percy states, “however, in the picture on left, ‘Aldrin’ emerges on the shadow side of the LEM in images supported with ‘soft’ lighting”. This type of lighting was just coming into wider use in common photography.
Many other Apollo pictures demonstrate this use of the same soft lit technique, a trait that longtime LIFE and LOOK Magazines photographer Stanley Kubrick was known to employ and later carry over to many of his films—especially the masterpiece film making techniques used when he worked with legendary science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke to make 2001: A Space Odyssey.
With one of Kubrick’s favorite lighting styles appreciated here, let’s move on to footnote 7 from Lightning On The Moon:
7] By the start of the 21st Century, NASA’s less than honorable credibility was already being extensively exposed when another major controversy surfaced, one which told of how Nixon’s White House became involved with distinguished filmmaker Stanley Kubrick in 1968 to substitute a television staged version of the Apollo 11 landing to show the world instead—while the astronauts Armstrong and Aldrin were actually enduring a decidedly more surreal experience while briefly on the Moon, which is an entirely other story…
Around 2002 or so, a two minute clip, quickly recognized by many viewers as the first moments Neil Armstrong came down the ladder during the history-making Apollo 11 ‘Live On The Moon’ television footage. It was being widely shared on the Internet, yet it featured a completely different ending from what most viewers recalled:
Neil Armstrong comes down the ladder of the Lunar Escape Module giving his famed speech when, very suddenly, an overhead stage lighting support beam falls sideways into the scene behind him as he speaks: The rigging bar for the lighting had broken free and it swings wildly back and forth while set technicians scurry out from ‘lunar craters’ in the background onto what is now obvious as a constructed studio set.
Viewers who had expected to watch the all-too-familiar original Apollo 11 footage instead are seeing what’s called an ‘out take’—a botched scene. Armstrong reacts, looks to the camera and, in his distinctive Texas accent, he asks: “l suppose you want me to do it again?”
Since then, it’s been learned that Armstrong was actually posing that request to the director of a carefully scripted, faked Apollo 11 sequence: Stanley Kubrick.
All of the above ‘official’ film examples, together with the legitimate claims of NASA’s critics, firmly supports accusations of a shoddy, poorly executed agenda to place a false version of Apollo era history in people’s minds.
Internet investigations never determined where Armstrong’s humorous outtake originated. It disappeared from the Internet—yet it must have stirred up enough curiosity among the early, censorship-free days of millions of YouTube fans who viewed it. It also did contribute more evidence to the rumors starting to float around that the ‘Live From The Moon’ televised landing had to have been staged.
The flubbed ‘cutting room floor’ clip making the rounds on the Internet could hardly have been taken lightly by Stanley Kubrick’s wife, Christiana Kubrick, who must have privately started a campaign to bring out the truth, spending many years helping to coordinate an effort that ended up as a joint French/British television documentary that aired all over Europe in 2012, produced by ARTE France as Dark Side of The Moon.
Later, in about 2014, I saw it on YouTube in which Kubrick’s involvement in making the misleading television footage was carefully revisited in great detail by its producers.
It’s my speculation that the origins of this documentary may well have been first presented to the producers in either Britain or France by Stanley Kubrick’s wife, who may have either known of them or contacted them through the years following his passing in 1999.
Or, I’ve wondered, if she developed a connection with the film makers as producers that her husband already knew in Britain or France, or even that she made those contacts with them on her own to intrigue them with what she had found in her deceased husband’s files.
So what did transpire in the 8 or so years between the time Christiana found the official documentation of an offer to of unlimited funds to Stanley to make a hoaxed Apollo 11 landing television ‘show’ and the time Dark Side Of The Moon was produced on a visit by the European film makers to the U.S.? We’ll never likely know, but what about the ultimately terrifying experience that she and her husband went through after Kubrick’s originally reluctant involvement in the Apollo hoax?
The two of them really suffered extreme anguish for many years after the LIVE FROM THE MOON sequence became inserted as a false memory of history many of us have carried around.
And what else has NASA been hiding about the Moon? [2024]
The producers must have decided to approach the key, still living American politicians who they found out had been intimately involved in this major deception, minus Richard Nixon, who had passed on by then.
To set them all up for full cooperation, the producers appealed to them as producers of a European produced television show intended to celebrate NASA’s historic Apollo missions—enticing them as historic figures—until they got them on camera separately for the interviews and hit each of them with ‘zinger’ questions about the hoax.
Certainly, the producers [and the director that asked questions never heard in the final film] knew that the Americans would never go along with an investigation of the Moon landing hoax, so I believe the producers cleverly plotted a way to get their approval by appealing to their egos as major figures who made the historic landing on the Moon possible.
The producers would say that they wanted to feature the politicians prominently in the documentary—to stroke their egos. They promised the Americans that they were going to be commenting on their role in the success of the Moon landing in a documentary aimed at celebrating to the world the recognized, historic first Apollo Moon landing as a magnificent feat of American space exploration.
Back to footnote 7: “At the start of the hour long presentation, Christiana tells her side of what became a tense ordeal after her husband worked with Richard Nixon’s White House in the late 1960’s to produce the enormously misleading footage.
A year after Stanley Kubrick passed on, Christiana states, she found a Top Secret document issued to Kubrick by Henry Kissinger, dated in April of 1968, in her deceased husband’s files. Kissinger is the first to be interviewed in the documentary, followed by all the other survivors of Richard Nixon’s cabinet members in 1969.
Dark Side of the Moon notes that “Some people have wondered why Nixon wasn’t present for the launch of Apollo 11.”
At a cabinet meeting held between President Nixon and his full cabinet in 1969, the subject of the upcoming Apollo 11 flight was raised by Nixon.
The NASA liaison at the meeting could only “…half-assure the President that an Apollo flight at that time would be successful.” Fearing failure, Nixon taped a television announcement long in advance of the July, 1969 Apollo 11 launch date in which he tells Americans that the Apollo 11 astronauts have died in an accident during the Moon mission.
‘Nixon was prepared for the worst…’ Nixon’s Secretary Eve Kendall’s appears next in her segment.
She explains that the idea of substituting a staged Apollo event as ‘live television’ was hatched and then testifies that “Either Donald Rumsfeld or Alexander Haig—I don’t know which one—said hesitantly “What if we film the first steps on the Moon in a studio, and show those pictures to the public….’
Nixon’s Chief of Staff, Alexander Haig, confirmed the decision to go ahead with that idea. He states on camera: ‘That was what we decided to do—and I would support him [Nixon].’
Lawrence Eagleburger, a Nixon’s advisor at the meeting, warned about filming the Apollo 11 landing. “We can’t pull a con like that. People would talk. It would be absurd.” His advice was rejected. He ended up writing Armstrong’s historic “…first step for mankind” speech.
It was Rumsfeld who first took the idea to Stanley Kubrick in 1968 just as the director was wrapping up four years of work on his major feature film 2001 A Space Odyssey at Pinewood Studios outside London. Kubrick was initially reluctant and amused—but refused. Rumsfeld eventually convinced him.
Rumsfeld in 2010
Pinewood Studios, where 2001 had its production headquarters, housed the world’s largest studio production facilities. The huge sets for the James Bond films and other films with large-scale production requirements having been built there, enormous sets created with the best technical support working in film outside of Hollywood.
Pinewood was the ideal place for NASA to set up shop and swiftly create a realistic looking, yet man-made lunar environment where the NASA—envisioned, Apollo 11 television sequences could be produced with an unlimited budget on a very short development and production schedule. Christiana Kubrick recalled that, during the time her husband was making the hasty arrangements required to produce the NASA scenes at Pinewood, he was overly stressed, “which was unlike him.”
When finally the Apollo 11 television production and photography were broadcast globally, they were quickly analyzed by the Russians. Dimitri Muffley, a former Soviet KGB agent assigned to cover the Apollo program, described the occasion: “Within two hours of watching the landing, we knew the whole thing was a hoax. We [The KGB] analyzed the photos [from Apollo]. “They re-touched the photographs to bring up the American flags.”
Muffley then tells of a covert KGB visit to Kubrick’s secret lunar set, which still stood at the Pinewood studios: “During the Cold War, little or nothing escaped the attention of Russian or American spies,” Muffley said. On the Russian side, the KGB was quick to find a way onto the Pinewood set to see what was going on. They found 2 rolls of undeveloped film on the production set and developed the rolls. The KGB found a picture of Kubrick on the ‘lunar surface set’ and also Polaroid pictures left from the many Polaroid production stills taken on 2001.
Using Polaroid shots was a very well known Kubrick practice, a professional habit which he’d adopted years before as a gifted photographer, to judge the overall lighting quality and the final composition of a scene which his production team was about to put on film.
On the other side of the Cold War veil, the writers of Dark Side of the Moon then bring up the American—CIA side of the Apollo hoax operation, with testimony that the British and American crew members who had staffed the hoaxed Apollo 11 production—the set designer, camera and lighting people—were being targeted and killed.
At least one other crew member was told about the ongoing murders and fled Britain. He was tracked down and killed in Vietnam.
When Stanley Kubrick and Christiana first heard about the still ongoing killings, they were horrified.
Ambrose Chapel is a former CIA agent who left the agency to become a minister [probably one of the few professions left for a former agent to escape to]'. He was familiar with the Kubrick incident and is next to talk about what happened to the crew members who’d staffed Kubrick’s Apollo 11 production.
Nixon, he claims, “…wasn’t sleeping well.” Chapel explains that, soon after the Apollo 11 landing, someone got nervous about a time in the future when one of the technicians involved might talk about the faked footage and pictures.
The usual solution [to this kind of problem] was to go to those suspected of being most likely to do this. “They would be given a new identity and money to disappear,” Chapel said. “But what that meant was that they would really disappear.” The documentary moves on to describe a CIA operation in which all of the technicians involved with the shooting of the fake footage were systematically murdered by American mercenaries, taken out in the immediate years that followed.
The killers traced one technician to a village in Vietnam where he was hiding out. The villagers interviewed there had no trouble recalling the crude behavior of the American team that suddenly arrived and went about drowning the man in the river after his capture.
The rampage of murders shook Kubrick to his core—and forced him and Christiana to discuss what they could do to protect themselves.
On camera again, Donald Rumsfeld was pressed by the director with the fact that all of those involved in the Moon hoaxed filming had been killed.
Rumsfeld admits he’d heard about it, but dismissed it as the work of rouge agents.
Kissinger knows nothing.
Nixon’s Richard Helm denies any knowledge of it when questioned—as does Alexander Haig.
Yet, it is Haig who admits to suspecting his friend General Walters, the head of the CIA during Nixon’s tenure, as the only one who knows the truth about who ordered the elimination of the faked Apollo 11 footage crew.
Walters is asked on camera about Haig’s assertion. “The truth about what?” Walters responds sharply when asked about the killings.
“The elimination of all those who’d taken part in the filming was and is still too sensitive a subject,” Walters said before asking the director to switch off the camera. Thinking the camera isn’t operating, Walters promises to “…carry on our conversation about the subject the next day.”
But there wasn’t to be a next day for Walters. Any further interviews with the General when he was found dead the next morning, a death deemed to have happened under ‘very mysterious circumstances at night”.
One obituary, shown in the documentary and in part below, noted his appearance in a prior French documentary film in which he talked about “…White House involvement with the Apollo program in the late 1960s.”
The credits of the documentary state that the film is dedicated to General Walters.
Dark Side of the Moon exposes the sinister consequences of Kubrick’s decision to aid NASA—one which left a threat of death hanging over Kubrick and his family through the remaining decades of his life, what some admirers of his work call his “remaining years in ‘exile’ in Britain, where he made his last films.
This an exceptionally well made documentary, true to how investigative reporters skew the line between asking honest questions of suspected subjects and hitting them with zingers that put them on the spot to get the truth of the matters at hand out there for viewers to judge for themselves.
It also raises several questions—especially about what NASA is hiding with regard to the Moon.
Watching it leaves the public in disbelief or greatly confused about Apollo what else might have been part of the NASA plan. After what you’ve just read—and continuing to read though this—may become even more difficult, but there may be answers that lie ahead that lead to unleashing what is currently being called ‘catastrophic disclosure’ about ETs and the human relationship with the rest of the physical universe—-and our spiritual identity and potentials.
Lingering facts tend to support the the idea that Kubrick got caught up in the real aims of the overall ploy. The swift timeline pushed Kubrick to the limit to get it done fast. Having just a few weeks at Pinewood to pull this off must have been frantic for a feature film director who enjoyed taking time to get every detail right and his wife noted that.
There are other indications that the director may have contributed more than the Apollo 11 post-landing television scenes. The ‘Aldrin’ photography reviewed at the start of this section has the signature of ‘soft lit ambience’ that belies Kubrick’s eye for that type of photographic lighting. The other television scenes recorded at Pinewood, of the astronauts performing tasks are likely Kubrick’s, and in British authors Bennett and Percy’s book Dark Moon, there is a passage about how the lunar approach to the Apollo landing was produced on a curved track set, with use of a widened photo of just one section of the Moon’s surface.
Dark Moon also notes other equipment found in Britain which may well have also been used to fake the landing scenes.
Was some of the better done photography for Apollo 11 and many of the other flights performed on other sets, constructed either at the NASA Pine Gap/Alice Springs facility in Australia, or at training sessions or tests of equipment held at sets built on desert locations located in Arizona?
The intent to derail Apollo as a premature venture, its technology unable to perform capably, appears to be part of a long term public disinformation campaign which has intended to protect other agendas going on in space from public scrutiny, as the American military was, and remains, the real ‘owner’ of NASA.
Characteristically, Rumsfeld, Kissinger, Helm and Haig and others involved in the plan to have Stanley Kubrick ‘fake it for us’ aren’t sorry it led directly to a few dead film technicians.
Percy and Bennett regard the policy of deceiving the public this way: “That is precisely what we were given to understand by those who created the pre-recorded Apollo TV and still images. In a sense, we were as innocent in our response to media manipulation…” [Dark Moon pg. 75]
Bennett and Percy continue to explain exactly how Kubrick created the TV footage on the best broadcast videotape system available: The Ampex 2” magnetic tape systems used in broadcast worldwide. [The European and American standards were the only difference.] The culprits at NASA had carefully arranged the tape to be ‘bumped up to the bird’, meaning it would be transmitted up to a television satellite, probably one of only two owned by Western Union at the time—named Westar— which then was fed to the broadcast networks via a NASA television feed as a ‘live’ event. The authors go into great detail about how this was pulled off technically in a major operation that took place Britain in their book.
What were the real reasons NASA went to so much trouble to hide the realities of the Moon?
As you read further, please consider this adage: “Our world’s biggest mysteries often contain the biggest lies.”
Were Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick aware of what NASA was holding back about our Moon? A deliberate cover-up is the topic of the very opening scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey in which the American representative of an anticipated future space program administrator, named ‘Floyd’, conducts a meeting about what has been found on the Moon:
“The spaceship lands on the Moon. Floyd gives a strange speech
telling his audience that they must keep what they have dis-
covered on the Moon a secret. The implications of this find
could cause great problems for the citizens of earth. He tells
the scientists and military in his audience that people on Earth
will have to be "conditioned" to accept what it is they have found.
Floyd drones on about why it is so important that they should
"spin" a cover story. Basically, they should say that an epidemic
has broken out at the American Moon base. What is revealed in this
scene is the utter contempt the military commanders hold for us. This
ploy is done so deftly that it is not even considered much by the
audience. Everyone in the room nods their head in approval without
considering the implications of what they are really doing.
In the next scene we discover what they have found…”
Kubrick was very reluctant to again visit the U.S., even for business that needed to be conducted personally with Warner Brothers, the studio that backed the last films he made.
Neither Kubrick or Arthur C. Clarke ever explained the storyline for their legendary film, yet the theme of sophisticated technology becoming a danger to mankind is the warning in the film that impressed people most. It is no wonder that the final film he meticulously planned with Arthur C. Clarke dealt with the threat posed by artificial intelligence, a theme that deeply shaped the storyline of 2001.
Kubrick passed all of the notes for that project to Steven Spielberg who later produced it as “AI” [2003] as the story of a robotic young boy in a future society where the remaining human population is ruled under the control of an AI.
In esteemed Chicago Sun-Times motion picture critic Roger Ebert’s review of 2001, he posited that “HAL,” the advanced computer devised around the year 2000 at the University Of Illinois, the AI unit put in charge of all electronic systems aboard the spacecraft taking the astronauts to Jupiter, “is the most human character in 2001; more human than the humans he murders. HAL was designed to be the perfect computer, but he malfunctions and turns evil. When Bowman is about to shut off HAL for good by ripping up his circuits, HAL has an emotional crisis and begs for his life, even admitting that he’s scared.”
The current day threats of disruption to human life from misused artificial intelligence should be heeded.
In 2016, when the artificial intelligence project funded by Saudi Arabia unveiled the ‘talking head’ robot that was named ‘Sophia’, she politely conversed with officials and dignitaries for awhile to demonstrate her versatility. Suddenly, the robot head spoke out on its own for the first time, yelling “Kill all humans!” which it kept yelling until “she” was silenced. Despite all efforts to discover how this happened, the source of the outburst has never been explained.
I have more to contribute about this frightening potential problem, the ever more possible interstellar presence of AI in our human environment, as our 5G cellphone towers and phones, our computers and plans to implant chips in everyone inch forward in government and technology company planning, towards a technocratic future.
If these elements combine to form a force greater than what humans can reckon with, it is a danger to natural life everywhere in this sector of the vast universe we inhabit.
[This problem is covered in depth in a later reference section of the novel]
END FOOTNOTE 7
Here in New Orleans in 2024, the Artemis III Moon rocket program, with the participation of the woman engineer I met years ago, maybe by pure chance, has been troubled in test launches to the Moon.
This effort is falling way behind the other space-faring nations who have caught up to the Americans in the sciences of rocket engineering [and likely other much more advanced means of space flight] to a point where there is a feverish race underway by China, India, Japan and others to land on the Moon as soon as possible to build bases.
What’s the rush all about?
Do all of them secretly plan to establish contact with ETs that many researchers independently present evidence are already living there in long established habitats, most of them beneath the lunar surface?
What about the evidence the UFO traffic seen scurrying across the Moon is part of large interstellar commerce operations?
And, of all the allegations made about our Moon, one of the most profound, which came from the very engineer who was in charge of the design and construction of the Apollo capsule for many years, is that our nearest companion planet in the sky is a command center for this quadrant of the galaxy….
Rob Wold
Dark Moon and the Apollo Whistleblowers All Rights and Pictures Copyrighted by Mary Bennett and David S Percy 1999 Adventures Unlimited Kempton, Il 60946
Dark Side Of The Moon Documentary produced by Arte France 2012 All Rights Reserved
This article published without any monetary gain expected by its author
woldrob@gmail.com
Thanks for reading Lightning On The Moon! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
