Cosmic Warfare

APOLLO LANDING SITES PROTECTION ACT

This one is big folks, in spite of the fact that it probably didn't even make the radar scopes at SeeBS, CNoNews, Faux News....I wouldn't know, because I don't watch them (or, for that matter, listen to their radio shows either). It's been building for some time. What am I talking about?

The U.S.A.'s nervousness over other nations (and corporations) going to the Moon, and, well, finding whatever NASA found there during the Apollo landings. (And no, folks, I am not in the "we never went and it was all theater" school.) First, NASA a few years ago tried to create "no fly" zones and "historical site no-go" zones around the Apollo sites (for some reason, we were less concerned about the robotic landers like Surveyor, or the Russian landers).

Now, however, some in Congress want to raise the ante:

Protection of Apollo Moon Landing Sites Sparks Controversy

Did you catch it? Here it is once again:

The Act, Edwards said, "will ensure that the scientific data and cultural significance of the Apollo artifacts remains unharmed by future lunar landings."

The Act would endow the artifacts as a National Historic Park, thereby asserting unquestioned ownership rights over the Apollo lunar landing artifacts. "The legislation will additionally require the Secretary of the Interior to pursue nominating the historic Apollo 11 lunar landing site, where humanity left its first steps on the moon, as a World Heritage Site," the lawmaker said.

Edwards said the Act builds on the recommendations of a 2011 report titled "NASA's Recommendations to Space-Faring Entities: How to Protect and Preserve the Historic and Scientific Value of U.S. Government Lunar Artifacts."

Now, does this mean that nations that land anything on the Moon are going to be able, now, to claim the site as their sovereign national territory? Or does it mean that there will have to be a new global agency set up to administer and regulate such "sites". One has to admit, the latter would be a neat and nifty way to create global government agencies with real teeth, and one can already see hints of this in the article with the reference to corporate interests.

In other words, the same old pattern of corporate-government interface is perhaps being quietly extended to the Moon. This, in the light of recent announcements and debates over asteroid mining is another indicator, in my opinion, that space, and whatever we find there, was collateralized long ago as a deliberate component of the hidden system of finance.

But there's something else here too, and I hope you caught it, namely, the repeated use of the word "artifact" in the article, and then this interesting, and very odd paragraph, a paragraph that suggests there is more afoot -- much more -- than merely protecting historical sites and making national parks of them on the lunar surface:

"'I applaud the idea that two Congresswomen have decided to spark public dialogue about protecting the artifacts on the moon as an important part of American and ultimately, humanity's lunar legacy,' said Beth O'Leary, an associate professor of anthropology at the University of New Mexico in Las Cruces. She is a leading expert in the field of space archaeology.

The mere mention of "space archaeology" in an article with repeated uses of the word "artifacts" is suggestive, to say the least, that something else is in play in all these deliberations besides resources, corporations, and possible global space regulatory agencies.

See you on th.... er... by the way... did you notice the picture at the bottom of the article?

See you on the flip side.

23 thoughts on “APOLLO LANDING SITES PROTECTION ACT”

  1. “…I do think they have to be careful and not run over, say the Apollo 11 footprints, specifically. That would be like running over Columbus’ footprint on the beach when he landed in the New World,” Hickam said. “All of these things have to be protected.”

    Of course, we didn’t protect Columbus’ first step in the New World, and like his ‘discovery” of North America, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that our astronauts weren’t the first visitors to the moon, either.

  2. “The U.S.A.’s nervousness over other nations (and corporations) going to the Moon, and, well, finding whatever NASA found there during the Apollo landings.”

    Reportedly, Chang’e 2 had spotted landing sites by Apollo 11、12、14、15、17、18. (website translator)
    http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2012-02/07/c_122664008.htm
    they cited Apollo 17 not Apollo 11’s landing site in the report.

  3. Moon ,schmoon, so a couple of two bit politicans want a no-fly zone over the Apollo landing sites. Well that’s fine, but who and by what means are they going to police it.

    If anybody else gets up there, they are going to probably be the only one’s there at that time, and will do and look at whatever they like…..OR

    Enter the Secret Space Program, now if they have some “sports models” they can use as “highway patrol”, then the toothpaste is out of the tube.

    Did they go or not, well ask the first country to have a peek-a-boo.

  4. My favorite “Apollo Moment” (TM) has always been the Coke bottle seen by thousands of Australians in the corner of the remote camera filming (how, exactly… and who put it there?) Neil Armstrong’s first steps on the Moon. The Australians apparently got the early “satellite feed” from Houston via Pine Gap.

    Talk about a snake pit!

  5. Maybe Reno that’s what they NASA is really hiding the Moon is artificial. Well my fellow commentators I would like to recommend three articles today. First to our new war with China brought to us by the real Dr. Strangelove on http://www.controversalfiles.net. Second from the Mad Scientist Of The Tape Thrillers DARPA and company space war a new place to kill us http://nexusnewilluminati.blogspot.com. Third a long article on the CIA -al Qaeda connection on http://www.globalresearch.ca they all came out today August 5, 2013.

  6. JPF said: ” I am not in the “we never went and it was all theater” school”

    Hey JPF, if you ever have the interest (and, alas, the time) I would really enjoy a long explanation of WHY you make the above statement. I would definitely buy that book! There are of course many very bad “Moon Hoax” arguments. But that does not in any way detract from many very good Moon Hoax arguments (imho of course).

    Personally I claim no knowledge, but I am convinced as of now that “the whole thing was theater.” If they really could get to the moon, why would they fake so much when they could just let the cameras roll, regardless of how they got there ? As much as I respect your opinion JPF, I have never heard you say (or write) anything that even began to make a dent in any of the good Moon Hoax arguments (I’m not even saying that you’ve ever tried to do that, just that you have never given me any reason to doubt the really good Moon Hoax arguments).

    Do you think the astronots went to the moon in the rockets that took off from Cape Canaveral?

    If you think they used UFO-like technology, what is the EVIDENCE for such an idea? All I have ever seen are people talking about such ideas. I have never, ever seen any real evidence for the idea (sort of like the “Nazi’s went to the moon” scenario).

    I repeat that I claim absolutely no knowledge of what really happened with the moon landings. I am not criticizing your viewpoint. I don’t care what your opinion is, I would just like to know all the little details of WHY you hold that opinion, so that I could evaluate the issue better, perhaps change my position if needed.

    I will say again, that I would love to see your book-length critique (or acceptance) of all things related to NASA, the moon landings (fake or not), along with an examination of many of the main Moon Hoax arguments and why you reject them. That would be a really good book, though I cannot think of anyone except you who could really do justice to it.

    Anyone interested in the moon landings ( pro or con) who has not read the ‘WAGGING THE MOON DOGGIE” series of articles by Dave McGowan really should do so. Along with JPF, he provides some of the best commentary on current events (but he is very different from JPF!).

    http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/

    1. After Dr Joseph mentioned the discrepancy surrounding the neutral point of gravity between the Earth and the Moon, I started researching the Apollo missions a lot more closely, pro and con, read Bill Kaysing, Ralph Rene all the way through to Richard Hoagland and the wickedly funny Dave McGowan. And as much as I respect the good Dr’s opinion, on this issue we part company, at this point I’m convinced it’s all theatre. Radiation, the complete flimsiness of the LEM and the so-called photographic record, not to mention the shenanigans regarding missing tapes, etc, convinces me it’s just another aspect of the Apocalypse Theatre. Why no unambiguous photos of the landing sites? And just exactly where are these landing sites? There’s another controversy right there. More shenanigans!

      1. Right, the flimsiness of the LEM and at least some of the suits. As well as no decent explanation of heating/cooling systems w/in the suits. +/- 200 degrees can really ruin your day…
        And if all this is such a treasure, why did some idiot erase the Apollo 11 tapes ‘cos they couldn’t find any other blank ones(?!)
        Perhaps they went to the moon, just not with the equipment as it was billed. And whatever’s left up there may indicate that.

    2. I agree with most of what you state- but maybe Dr. Farrell has inside sources he has not yet made public- Dr. Farrell has yet to reveal everything (one assumes) he knows-

      but I think we can all agree that all NASA space programs are probably somehow related and it ‘ain’t’ always a pretty picture-

      if one thinks the Apollo program was an obfusaction then check out Kerry Cassidy’s interview (forget Cassidy) with Ed Laughrin (concentrate on Laughrin) on the facts behind the hideous Challenger disaster available here:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xa1zduo4cg

      amazingly enough (or not) Laughrin sort of got unexpectedly “died” about a yr. ago-

      my point (if I’m able to make any sense of myself so far): yes, I agree NASA may be a front org. and the Apollo moon landings may/may haven’t occured (I’m not an insider)- but I continue to try to connect dots; the faked film footage of the 1st Apollo landing (was 1st aired in on the jointly German/French owned TV station ARTE here in Europe- and thanks to Jay Weidner), then the Challenger disaster, then the testimonies of Gary MacKinnon-

      to wrap this is up: we continue to live in a world of complete deception-

      by the way, a crater (mound?) on the moon was named after Christa McCauluff (sp?)- how nice- a tribute to an innocent, good-intentioned civilian whose life was sacrificed (among others) to keep public opinion behind NASA’s space program (some people need to give up their lives for “progress,” right?- sort of rhymes with the N**i philosophies)-

      Larry

  7. If you click on Apollo artifacts in the above article you can see that artifacts refers to crap left by us. Is that Kubrick’s boot in the referenced photo? What about those who say that we can’t get through the Van Allen belts? Who cares that a few fat-cat CEO’ S will have a new playpen. I can barely afford the waterpark. And some say that the moon itself is an UFO made artifact that was towed into place.

    1. … as do the eternal enterprising entrepreneurs who keep well-polished that truism: “There’s a sucker born every minute” … Dennis Hope put in his claim to the UN for ownership of the moon and has since sold more than 600 million acres @ $19.95/ac (larger tracts discounted) … He’s made a small fortune doing so … He’s also claimed Mercury, Mars, Venus, Jupiter’s moon Io, and Pluto, which is available for only $250k.

      www dot usnews dot com/news/articles/2013/03/25/meet-the-man-who-owns-the-moon

  8. in response to both Antoine and Basta (or anyone else):

    I also saw no anomaly in the last photo (Dr. Farrell, please clue us in) but what I noticed in the one photo seemed to be the reflection of light bulbs (at least the kind available in Europe- don’t know anymore about the States or other areas) on the background (movie screen?- haven’t ruled that out)

  9. what I found the most interesting were the discrepancies between the astronaut’s footprints depicted in the 1st and 3rd linked articles; in the 1st article the footprint was embedded in the soil (normal); in the 3rd article the depicted footprint (if not photo-shopped) was higher than the soil around it (not normal)

  10. Mostly I see this as Congress being, well, Congressional… that is, arrogant, obnoxious, willfully blind to the rest of the world, and–let’s not forget that defining characteristic of the Federal legislature–just plain old stupid.

    If it serves any purpose, it would be to keep prying eyes away from the doubtless quite fascinating innards of the LEM lander lower stages, which doubtless have some extremely interesting propulsion technology unknown in 1969–but now suspected by many.

  11. Assuming the earth’s moon has somethings ancient and made by intelligent beings, and assuming the Apollo landings were done in part to find some of these things: It is very unlikely that the Apollo missions retrieved anywhere near all of the artifacts on the moon. And it is unlikely that the entirety of such possible artifacts have been surveyed–at least using publicly available technologies.

    Seems then that that interesting thing would be the remnants of the Lunar Excursion Modules.

    Also where’s “corporate” or “corporation” in the linked Space.com article?

  12. This is ridiculous. One does wonder if the United States of America seriously believe in that amusing idea that they would have any right whatsoever to extend their hubris to the moon.

Comments are closed.