Curried Wealth Building
Finding an Edge

If you want help with your finances, give me a call at 703-791-3243.
April 1, 2012
Issue 192  -  An Otherworldly Detour
I did have a fair amount of material this week in regards to finances but I just HAD to take a detour into what some might think is left field.  However, I do believe it ties itself nicely back into the finances.  Specifically, the government control/intervention argument.  There are some that argue that this type of intervention would be almost impossible to keep a secret.  I would say that is not the case.  One tactic that I believe is used is disinformation WITHIN the conspiracy camps.  Information that is planted to make the conspiracy theorists appear stupid or wrong.  Easily disproved theories thrown out by the hoaxers make the whole idea seem improbable.  These red herrings planted by the hoaxers will tend to disrupt and delegitmatize the skeptics.  Just because some of the evidence presented by skeptics are easily disputed, doesn't mean that ALL evidence should be thrown out.  Human nature allows the mind to completely dismiss a theory if something presented in it is way off base.  That is one strategy a hoaxer could use effectively.
This week I delve into a topic that most of you will have heard of and probably dismissed.  The validity of the Apollo moon landings.  Those of you who know me personally, know that I love conspiracy theories.  I have investigated almost all of the theories out there from Area 51, to the Bohemian Grove, to JFK, to the Illuminati.  I had at one time investigated the moon hoax theory and had convinced myself that we had indeed landed on the moon.  After finding a web site this past month that extensively covered this topic, I am pretty well convinced that we didn't land on the moon.  I'm at least to the point where I want more evidence from NASA.  So how does that relate to finances?  If the government can convince most people that something happened, that almost certainly didn't, then it is rather easy to see how a gold manipulation scheme could be implemented and concealed for many years. 
I will say up front that if you are not ready to have your perception of things, especially the government, completely flipped on its head, you might want to navigate over to a more paradigm conforming site, like CNN or Fox.  Ready?  Let's travel down the rabbit hole....
I am taking most of my data from a couple web sites,  with the best and easiest to read being  I highly encourage you to take a look as he has a 14 part write up with many more links and pictures than I am going to include here.  What I really liked about this guys argument is his use of logic and questions to make the reader think.  The first one of which that really struck me was the idea of timing.  Just how long has to pass without returning to the moon, before the populace starts to wonder why?  I mean it's been 40 years, why haven't we went back?  Technology is just a TAD better now, so it would seem to be a lot easier to accomplish and yet no return trip.  Hmmmmm.........if it gets to 50, 60 70 years without returning wouldn't that be a little curious to you?  I mean, damn, we actually achieved a manned flight to the moon in the 1960s in EIGHT years!  Keep in mind that when JFK announced this plan in 1961, that we had only achieved a grand total of 15 minutes of manned space flight, and that was in low orbit space.  Yet, in 8 years we landed men on the moon and returned them home with no fatalities.  Over 41 months we supposedly landed 12 men and returned them safely home.  40 years later and we are still waiting for that elusive 13th man (or woman) to make that return trip.  Why is that?  If we haven't returned to the moon by 2069, I think most people reading this could make the concession/conclusion, that we never went there in 1969. 
Actually, President Bush did annouce in January of 2004 that we were going to return to the moon.  Unfortunately, the NASA experts said it was going to take 15 years!  Now wait a second here.  How did 1960s technology get us to the moon in 8 years but 2004 technology would require almost twice as long?   Of course you'll remember that the technology achievements of the 1960s included such dizzying contraptions as the computer mouse and cassette tape. 
Wow,  those are some gee wizz type devices.  That hardly compares to anything we had in 2004, like an artificial liver, a camera on a chip, or the tooth telephone.  Considering that the Apollo rockets had a whopping 72kB of memory you can see how it would be difficult to recreate the 1960s flights.   Compare this $159 Terabyte harddrive which is currently available to anyone today and you could see why it would be so difficult to recreate our lunar voyages. 
By the way, this hard drive is only 15 MILLION times larger than the Saturn V memory but we probably couldn't have fit that thing on the rocket so let's just forget it.  We'll have to come up with a bigger rocket for our next moon trip.
How about the plans for all these wonderous devices and gadgets that took us to the moon.  Why don't we just look at those and determine if they are feasible.  The data package for a project this size would be huge, but it would make a great project for a college student.  I'd want to look at the lunar module first as that is the most impressive device of the lot.  To land on the moon and then take off and rejoin the command module at 69 miles above the moon is impressive.  What's that?  All of the plans and specifications are gone!  We can't look at them?  It seems NASA has lost all of this documentation.  The contractors who built these machines don't have their copies either?  It's not as if these were important, I can see them being misplaced.  Wait...these plans should have totaled tens of thousands of pages?  How did we lose all of the those?  Hmmmmm.
Ok, let me examine all the telemetry tapes from the Apollo missions.  I can just study the fuel consumption and trajectory paths and confirm if this makes sense.  Most importantly I can closely examine the television camera videos for anomalies.  The take offs, landings and all those videos of the astronauts on the moon.  Viewing the hundreds of hours of footage should reveal something amiss if it was a hoax.  What?!!!????  NASA doesn't have those either?  They can't find ANY of the 13,000 reels of tape?  700 boxes of data?  Gone?   Curiouser and curiouser. 
I've got it!  The moon rocks!  That's the proof.  For this one I take an excerpt from the listed web site:

“Well,” you now say, “what about all those cool Moon rocks? How did they get those? The Moon is, you know, the only source of Moon rocks, so doesn’t that prove that we were there?”


No, as a matter of fact, it does not prove that we were there, and as odd as it may sound, the Moon is not the only source of Moon rocks. As it turns out, authentic Moon rocks are available right here on Earth, in the form of lunar meteorites. Because the Moon lacks a protective atmosphere, you see, it gets smacked around quite a bit, which is why it is heavily cratered. And when things smash into it to form those craters, lots of bits and pieces of the Moon fly off into space. Some of them end up right here on Earth.


By far the best place to find them is in Antarctica, where they are most plentiful and, due to the terrain, relatively easy to find and well preserved. And that is why it is curious that Antarctica just happens to be where a team of Apollo scientists led by Wernher von Braun ventured off to in the summer of 1967, two years before Apollo 11 blasted off. You would think that, what with the demanding task of perfecting the hugely complex Saturn V rockets, von Braun and his cronies at NASA would have had their hands full, but apparently there was something even more important for them to do down in Antarctica. NASA has never offered much of an explanation for the curiously timed expedition. 

Couple that with the fact that NASA can only definitively locate abot 15% of the moon rocks (it seems they gave many of them to foreign leaders as gifts but most are now in "parts unknown.") One of these rocks was even found to be petrified wood!  (NASA isn't very good at keeping records are they?)
Of course most of the rocks are probably of space origin, but it seems strange that a "gift" to another country would be such an obivous fake.  So recapping, we have the U.S. not even knowing where 85% of the moon rocks are currently located and some of the official rocks were hardly of lunar origin and things are really looking iffy to me, just from a logical standing.
Let's take into consideration just what we have accomplished over the last 40 years.  We've launched hundreds of satelites and many probes which have gone well past the moon.  These are impressive feats no doubt but we haven't sent another human anywhere near the moon.  No country has.  In fact would you be surprised to learn that we have only sent men 363 miles above the surface of the earth.  That's 40 YEARS!  The space shuttle orbits much lower than that at 200 miles.  But in 1969, we sent three men 238,000 miles to the moon AND returned them safely.  What other human endeavor has not progressed in 40 years?  How is that not one country or company hasn't been back to the moon if we achieved it in 8 short years with primitive technology?  Wouldn't it be odd if cassettes were the best audio medium today?  Then why isn't it odd that the human race hasn't sent a man off the face of this planet more than 0.15% as far as we did in 1969?  That's not 15%, that's 0.15%.  That just strains my credulity. 
Why hasn't even the space shuttle been sent into a higher orbit at say 1000 miles?  This would take it beyond the Van Allen radiation belts and provide a cleaner view of space's radio wave environment.  135 launches of the space shuttle and not one time did it go higher than 400 miles.  On the one mission that was to 363 miles, the astronauts reported seeing meteor showers on their retinas while closing their eyes.  This was supposedly caused by radiation intruding through the space shuttle and then onto their retinas.  Yet, the Apollo astronauts reported that this only happened if you really looked for it.  Why the descrepancy?
One of the most amazing aspects of the Apollo missions was the lunar lander.  This machine descended to the moon and landed and then blasted off to rehook with the command module 69 miles up in orbit.  Amazing.  Let's take a look at a NASA photo of the lander:
Now a closer look:
I don't know about you, but there is no way I'm getting into THAT and flying down to the moon.  It kind of looks like a cheap prop from a Sc-ifi movie.  Aluminum foil and tape just doesn't give me oodles of confidence.  But hey, that's just me.  Keep in mind that this supposedly space worthy craft was the LEAD vehicle on the trip to the moon.  It was the front "bumper" for the command module for over 200,000 miles.   That vehicle doesn't look like it would make it 2 miles to me at 25,000 miles per hour.  Just to be clear, these are photos provided by NASA, not some random web site.
The next thing I'd like to take a look at is the video and stills from the moon.  When you consider that the cameras had no view finders and the astronauts were basically taking the pictures blind, isn't it amazing that over 95% of all the photos are properly framed?  (Yes, NASA does have all of the photos still available and they are all in the public domain)  Geez, I can't even get that percentage in my living room with a view finder.  There are many theories about how the pictures have many mistakes but I won't go into that here as I believe some of them are red herrings.  I just don't believe that men taking pictures without seeing the image could be that successful.  Perhaps they were Ansel Adams proteges. 
Next the videos from the moon.  Several things are fishy (from the very little video still in existence).  First, why didn't they ever film the earth?  There isn't a single video that shows, what would surely be a spectacular backdrop, the earth.  Lack of planning?  How about the famous golf shots?  Why was the camera facing the astronaut so that the ball, which supposedly went and I quote, "miles and miles and miles," just flew off the screen.  Why didn't he hit the ball away from the camera?  Lastly, why didn't the astronauts do anything that was "superhuman?"  Why didn't any of them jump higher than a foot?  There really isn't a single thing shown on the videos that just screams moon.  Why is that?  Why didn't the astronaut throw the golf ball up in the air 100 feet instead of just dropping it on the ground?  Not sure about you, but I would be like a kid in a candy store at 1/6 gravity and yet the best these guys could come up with is to hop around like kangaroos?
What about those amazing space suits?  The moon has no atmosphere which causes some incredible temperature swings.  In the sun, it is over 200 degrees while in the shade it is minus 200 degrees.  This suit magically adjusted the interior of the suit as the astronauts went from the shade of the lunar module to the light of the sun.  That seems like an impossible engineering feat even TODAY to me.  How was the heat dissipated?  How did it know when going from sun to shade?  I'd love to read the documentation on how this suit was designed and implemented.  Too bad, all the documentation is gone!  This is starting to sound like the Clintons.
The last thing I'd like to write about is the astronauts.  I don't know if any of you reading this know fighter pilots but they are a VERY confident breed.  It goes with the territory.  Watch this short video of the first 3 men to successfully land men on the moon and note the fidgeting body language.  These men don't appear to be very happy.  Strange for men who had just conquered the moon.
It also seems that Collins is having trouble with the story as Armstrong doesn't seem pleased with his answer.  To say that this demeanor is totally at odds with the expected cocky bravado expected is an understatement.  These men just returned from the moon and seem nervous, careful in their words and introverted.  Why?  These guys just conquered the moon and should have been ecstatic. 
Summarizing I'll just say that I don't know for sure if we went to the moon.  It is still possible that we did and all of these anomalies are just a coincidence but I'm not leaning that way.  No, it seems that this was a giant propaganda campaign during the Cold War to best the "Reds."  It's also very interesting that the Apollo Program had flights 18, 19, and 20 planned but they were scrapped right after the Vietnam War ended.  Were these trips also a distraction from the unpopular war?  I'll leave that for you to decide and ponder.  I'll also leave to the reader to decide if the date of this blog post has anything to do with it's origin.
I'll close with a video that fits the theme.  Another talented artist who paints with spray cans, (thanks to Jim) have a great week!