Artemis II vs Apollo 11. Artemis II-Orion (now proven to be a fraud) disproves the Apollo Moon Landings. All theatre. No physics. Time to close NASA.

by Dr Ferdinand Santos III

Update April 10th 2026

The author penned this in January 2026 after being on a few podcasts on this subject. The original said there was a 3 % chance of success of a Moon fly by - not a landing - by the Orion Mini-Van. This prediction has been vindicated. The Artemis II-Orion Mini Van spectacle has been such an obvious deceit and mendacity that NASA should be shut down.

This is being reissued before the ‘landing’. We all know that the re-entry will be a grand success so I see no danger in pre-empting the DEI crew arrival in the postage stamp LZ, at 24K mph. I am curious to see if they are fist pumping, laughing, smiling and telling the usual array of jokes. Because space is so easy. So simple. A luxury tour in the Mini-Van. Musk and friends will soon be selling tickets to the Walmart class any day now for the same experience.

We all know that the CIA controlled Fake News and Fake Science will have orgiastic celebrations. The greatest journey evah! And we all know that the Sheeple munching on their phones will look up for a second go ‘baa’, nod their Sheeple heads and continue to ingest their digital content while moaning a prayer to NASA and the brilliance of US ‘rocket-science’. New World Order and all that.

NASA is not ‘The Science’ of space. NASA is not the ‘gatekeeper’ of astrophysics. NASA is a corrupt, criminal, money laundering film company who has ingested U$ 1.5 Trillion since 1972 and who cannot even process proper CGI and AI imagery. It needs to be shut down.

What has been added (Section 6):

• -Graphics on the impossibility of solar energy powering the journey

• -Graphics on the fuel and battery issues that plagued Apollo 11 (and made that journey impossible)

• -Solar and Cosmic events which occur every day but never trouble NASA

• -Ridiculous photos and composites (get the AI and CGI organised boys! for the money consumed this is low quality!)

• -The Van Allen Radiation Belt impossibility - they spent 42 hours in a plasma furnace - no impact on the body, on organs or equipment….come on guys

• -The return (sling shot), re-entry and splashdown theatre (perfect landing in the postage stamp zone, every single time)

• -We could add the complete unprofessionalism of the DEI crew. At least in the 1960s we had jet fighter pilots with 5000 or more hours of real experience. Smart, fit, knowledgeable young men, all in their early to mid 30s.

  • Now we have complete unknowns, some appear to be older than 40, with no experience flying advanced jets, and no experience whatsoever that would allow them to survive ‘space’. Their bios are thinner than a politician’s lie offered as a promise. It is all theatre.

Introduction

This post is for any who are interested in the claims by NASA that Artemis II, which will be launched on February 6 2026, during Easter-tide April 2026 will do a ‘fly by’ of the Moon. This has been promised every year for a decade. The date is not a coincidence. The Church of NASA playing God and Science promoted as salvation. You might remember Trans-sexual ‘Day’ being promoted at Easter a few years ago under the half wit actor playing Biden. Nothing is done by chance.

We can play with probability numbers and derive different results but in essence, if we apply ‘success probability’ to historical antecedents and the detailed components within the proposed Artemis II flight, we end up with a statistically small probability of success. NASA’s own study from 2025, confirms this (NASA: Artemis III Science Definition Report View Report (NASA.gov) and View GAO Report (GAO.gov)).

This admittedly facile analysis is rarely if ever discussed. No one, and no organisation, will deploy into ‘production’ until they are 99%-100% certain that everything has been tested in a simulation environment which imitates the production environment.

Not so with the space-games apparently. The first time these guys try something in the ‘go live’ environment, end-to-end, it succeeds. NASA has never had a manned journey above 400 miles in altitude. Yet they are going to send 4 ‘astronauts’ on a 500.000 mile journey. Sceptics unleashed.

In 1971 Shepard was playing golf on the moon and just 3 years later in 1974, NASA demised the most powerful rocket yet created – the Saturn V. 1974 is thereby the true and official end of the Apollo program. This is when the rocketry is retired and supposedly, by the 1990s, the plans and designs are lost or destroyed. The core principles of polymorphism and reuse violated.

Now there is ‘Artemis’, a new rocket, new systems, a new capsule (Orion), new fuel, digital technology and a new flight path. Who cares about Apollo Chud? Old news, older technology. So what if NASA destroyed or lost everything? Irrelevant Chud old boy. Move on to Orion and the Moon-bus.

Okay, sure, let’s have a look at Artemis and Orion (narrative sources at the end).

Contents

1. Apollo 11 vs Artemis
2. ESM (refuel)
3. Radiation
4. Artemis I and digital-photo-fraud (just to wind up the Fanboys)
5. Bayesian events
6. Update April 2026 - Graphics
7. Summary
8. Sources, notes, and the author’s n.b. on ‘space travel’ and his equanimity about the whole affair (no emotional attachment, but look at evidence)

1-Apollo 11 vs Artemis

A simple summary of Apollo vs Artemis is given in the graphic below.

1. As you look at this overview, ask yourself how much ‘progress’ over 50 years has been achieved for the money invested? Some U$1.5 Trillion has been invested in NASA and the money laundering networks in the ‘space industry’. The best these guys can give back is the ISS (maybe ~250 miles up, maybe not) and a ‘fly by’ of an orb they were playing golf on and riding jeeps on over 50 years ago (supposedly).

Part 2 of 3: The U$250 billion International Space Station: manufactured images, videos, more problems and issues.

1. Dr Ferdinand Santos III

   ·

   3 ene

   Read full story

2. A further skill-testing question.

   1. What is the point, the business case, the rationale, for the discovery and investment of the Moon at the cost of what is now a total of U$1.5 Trillion (NASA alone, not including other space agency budgets)?

   2. A: Is it to install nuclear weapons or ‘Star Wars’?

      B: Or, to provide an inexhaustible pipeline for money laundering?

Artemis vs Apollo

Highlighted cells are areas of interest.

What do we see from the above?

1. Artemis II has less fuel capacity than Apollo 11-Saturn V (-20%) and is almost double the weight. I am not sure this is ‘progress’.

2. Even without a lander, Artemis needs refueling for a return flight. The HLS (lunar module) is not a part of Artemis II (Artemis III + HLS in 2027 promise a Moon landing. Golf clubs being cleaned as we type). This again disproves Apollo 11.

3. Apollo 11 had no refuelling mechanism comparable to the ESM in Orion, but ported a very heavy lunar landing module (15 tonnes and 3x the weight of the capsule…..). Logically therefore there was no landing on the Moon.

The Artemis II-Orion-ESM and its necessary massive fuel reserves disprove the Apollo landings.The ESM module is physically connected to the Orion capsule and will be jettisoned before re-entry.For Apollo 11 we have no fueling of the lunar module, no flames on landing a massive rocket with the equivalent power of 18.000-5 hp-lawnmowers on the lunar surface, nor a refuelling on the lunar surface including a flame on liftoff.That is case closed on the Apollo fraud.

4. Orion has to do the hop-skip and jump re-entry-to-Earth routine – a never before practiced pattern. Apollo 11 used ‘brute force’ and muscle, with the heat shield first position to re-enter the atmosphere. In reality the capsule would have been enflamed and consumed by the atmosphere.

NASA has demised the supposed-Apollo method of re-entry and created a new pattern based on simple physics and mechanics. We therefore know that Apollo 11 did not re-enter this planet’s atmosphere.Case closed on the Apollo fraud.

5. For a return journey, Artemis-Orion must use the ESM and avoid the ‘gravity’ of the supposedly ‘atmosphereless’ Moon (gravity only operates in a medium or aether, it is a weak force). There is no evidence of either with Apollo 11.

2-ESM (European Space Module)

Orion has less fuel than Apollo-Saturn V. So how will they make a return journey? Here is the flight path from NASA (sources at the end):

The key addition for Orion is the ESM and its reserve supplies of fuel and water. This did not exist for the Apollo program. If the ESM was not built, there is no way Orion is going anywhere.

What is at issue is the testing of an ESM integration with Orion, in space, on a manned mission. This has never been done.

Along with the ESM and refueling, Orion will pass above the ‘gravitational’ obstruction of the Moon, allowing a return to use less fuel and to enact the sling-shot concept around the Moon, to get back to Earth. Gravity is a force and a force operates in the aether. Case closed on the ‘vacuum’ fraud.

We could criticise the reality of the slingshot of course at an operational and technical level. This manoeuvre is another assumption and design component against which you can assign a probability of success.

Again, NASA has never done a manned ‘slingshot’ around the Moon, given that the Apollo program flights were frauds.

We leave it up to the reader to determine if they believe David’s slingshot method around the Moon is feasible.

3-Radiation reality

Another reason why Apollo 11 never landed on the Moon is the rather obvious fact that it did not have the radiation protection or necessary shielding. Lead shielding was the only method in the 1960s and 70s for protection. NASA has now replaced lead shields with hydrogen. This a problem Fanboys.

The actual capsule protection between the Astronauts and space has not fundamentally changed. What progress?

Which protection makes more sense?

Issues with the above:

1. Quite surprisingly the Apollo capsules used a slightly thicker hull, which NASA claims was equivalent to 7mm of lead in terms of stopping power. You need 3 feet of lead in space. Try again NASA.

2. Orion has less fuel, so by design-default it must use a thinner, higher-tech alloy to save weight. This means that the exposure to space is the same or maybe greater than in the Apollo program.

   • NASA has quite helpfully suggested that the astronauts crawl under their seats and pile up water bags and food containers during a solar flare. Thanks ‘science’.

3. The ‘AstroRad Vest’ which is some sort of personal-wearable shield imitating lead protection is now employed.

Covers sensitive organs (bone marrow, lungs, stomach) using high-density polyethylene (plastic).NASA says this vest reduces radiation absorption by 60% in highly sensitive areas (based on mannequin tests).Question: does the vest have the Apollo 11 spacesuit pouch for the Sunglasses? Fanboys anxiously await the answer.Reality Check: The vest is essentially a gravity blanket for the organs. It doesn’t stop radiation from entering the ship; it just hopes to slow the radiation down before it hits the DNA.

Some issues here Fanboys. It is hard to see any progress in protection or radiation after 50 years and U$ 1 Trillion in spend.

Protection – still a problem

Proper shielding is still an area that eludes NASA. The ‘ablative shield’ appears to be the same based on NASA’s documentation.

If you believe that lead-shielding is the only way to survive space, we have a problem.

1. Lead Shielding assumes you can stop 100% of radiation (based on terrestrial experience and verifiable experimentation).

2. Orion Shielding assumes that the astronauts will undergo radiation exposure and NASA has decided on trying to protect ‘vital organs’. This is not based on experience or experimentation with humans in space or anywhere. Would you like to be the guineau pig for this on a space flight? I will pass on that one.

All of this is very curious. So what progress?

If you believe that 3 feet of lead shielding is the only way to survive, then Artemis II-Orion is a suicide mission. NASA’s gamble is that hydrogen (in food and water) and selective shield protection is an improvement on lead, even if it leaves the crew exposed to constant radiation.

A critic might ask, ‘show me the test data in LEO and above 400 miles in altitude, in which you NASA, have demonstrated radiation protection using these new and novel ideas on humans’.

We know that no manned-tests of these novel systems, protection and assumptions exist. So, yet again, the first time that something new and different is tried the result will be: ‘this untested, unproven method worked as expected’.

The above does not pass the common sense test, nor the dev-prod system in the deployment of any complicated system.

4-Artemis 1 and more composite photo fraud

Just for fun we can cast some doubts on the 2022 Artemis I flight which could also be used as a Bayesian event marker for Artemis II when calculating flight success probability. Did Artemis I actually occur? If NASA did falsify their Artemis I images, how will we know that Artemis II’s photographs and feeds are not tampered with, or even if the flight is real?

NASA alters its images. Changes are always captured by metadata or data about the data. Images (and datasets) are watermarked and fingerprinted and you can track raw to curated. Rage on Fanboys, rage on. NASA ‘scientists’ discussing why they must alter all images (below).

When you process data there are always stages: raw-cleaned-processed-curated. NASA follows this process and alters their images. AI Neural networks will pick this up in image analysis. You can argue that the ‘original’ is valid. You can also argue that there is no original. You won’t know unless you see the raw unedited data. NASA does not give us access to the raw data. You don’t know what you are looking at.

5-Bayesian probability-event facts

When assessing the chance of Artemis II succeeding, we need to take into account prior events (Bayesian probability theory). A very short, non-exhaustible, back of the napkin list can be made.

1. The Apollo landings and indeed the whole 1960s decade of ‘space theatre’, were frauds (fact). You therefore cannot use the Apollo program (or Gagarin), as a baseline for Artemis.

2. NASA has never been above 350-400 miles in altitude in a manned flight (fact). This includes the faux-journey’s of Apollo 8, 9, 10.

3. The only successful test of the Artemis II-Orion combination was in December 2022, an unmanned mission, 269,000 miles into space (fact). There are lots of problems with this claim, but we can accept this at face value. This was unmanned, not manned. The telemetrics for unmanned missions are not directly relevant for human space travel (fact).

4. No protection and radiation telemetry for human travel in space exists (fact). Only mannequins have been tested (supposedly) in the Van Allen radiation belts and beyond. If Apollo 8-11 for example had actually been in space, all of this would be known. Case closed.

5. NASA admits that many ‘refuels’ are necessary to get to the Moon and back (fact) and more fuel is required if a landing module is being used (9-20 refuels by their own admission if we include the lunar module).

6. Solar flares and cosmic events are almost daily events (fact). These will simply destroy any objects and life forms ( e.g. Jan 18^th, 2026, there was a Level S4 Radiation Storm one of the most intense recorded). You are going to be incinerated.

In February 2026 Solar Flare activity is forecast to be quite extensive. Why then are they launching on February 5th or 6th, 2026?

But let’s remember in July 1969, none of the above Solar or Cosmic events existed! It was smooth sailing for Saint Buzz of the Bottle and Saint Neil of the Strongest Arms. Did you feel cosmic events Neil? Did you hide under your seat? ‘I don’t recall hiding under my seat, Collins, do you recall hiding under the seat. No Saint Neil, I don’t recall that we hid under our seats, we were looking at the billions of stars remember?’

We can add these Bayesian events to a probability calculation. If we take the above points and combine them with the 20 or so stages of the Artemis II flight, and do a probability analysis we come out with a chance of success to be: 2.7% or less. Let’s be positive and crank it up to 1/3. You are still going to die.

In reality, such a low chance of success would appear to be a problem. You would not attempt to put this into production.You would certainly not advertise ‘certain success’ unless you were going to do something to ‘guarantee’ that success.Back to 1961, 1962 and 1969, and the Capricorn One routines of ‘guaranteed success’.

6-April 2026 Update

NASA was desperate for a ‘Moon return’. It had to have a 100% chance of success. This is the American way in International affairs, especially after the debacle in Vietnam. As Afghanistan and Iraq proved however, they often don’t follow their own dogma. NASA never takes risks. The Capricorn One method was first deployed in 1961 with the Shepard flight (famous for later ‘golfing’ on ‘the Moon’).

6.1. The Fuel Reality

6.2 Battery Power - same issue that Apollo 11 had

6.3 Reality of Daily Solar and Cosmic Events

6.4 Van Allen Radiations Belt Impact

6.5 Fraudulent Communications and Photos - Composites yet again

The networking architecture does not allow anyone to use an iPhone + Outlook and send a photo to a receiving station on Earth in real time.

No chance to snap and send from the iPhone

Is this a mannequin? And how do the following 2 photos come from the same day?

6.6 Return and Re-entry Reality

6.7 The Faked Splashdown - same low altitude drop theatre they did with Apollo

Well it was faked.

7-Summary

Let’s summarise some issues for the Fanboys and Youtube believers.

The improbability of success - less than 2.7% - is statistically meaningless and the conclusion is that you will die. This low chance of success is confirmed by the NASA-ASAP review of 2024-2025. So, NASA has confirmed that Artemis II should fail.

The key premise, the most important element, the foundation of any prediction involving the CIA-NASA-US Government complex is this: ‘nothing is attempted unless it is guaranteed to succeed’.

7-Bottom Line and a forecast

So, what should we expect if Artemis is ever launched? Let’s play the forecast game.

Prediction (Jan 2026): Everyone knows that Artemis II will be a fantastic success! The first time that a manned flight using new technology, new systems, new protection protocols, new fuel, new trajectories, new re-entry patterns, and new refueling techniques is attempted, it all works perfectly! See 1961, 1962 and 1969 for more information!

Cue the narrative. Chud it was ‘tracked’. There were ‘live feeds’. Check out the images and videos Chud. Massive volumes of visual proof Chudly. All there, all good, all fact-checked Chud-boy. ‘We did it’.

We will leave it up to the reader to decide what they believe. What Artemis II has done, however, is to bury the myth of the Apollo landings.

Unfortunately we will likely go full circle. Artemis, instead of confirming the Apollo fraud, will be used instead to sanctify the same, even if Artemis itself is a fraud!

With Artemis II, as with the fraud of Apollo 11, we should expect that popular emotions and religious belief will triumph critical thinking skills, analysis and critiques. The Fanboys and Sheeple, attending their weekly masses in the Church of Science, will say prayers of thanks and gratitude. They will give homage to NASA, their god of ‘the space science’ and declare ‘We did it’, whoever ‘We’ is.

All hail.

ps. We have ‘debunked’ ‘tracking’ in other posts. They launch LEO satellites which transpond a signal and give the impression of tracking in space.

The fraud of the Apollo Moon ‘landings’. Were the moon landings staged and filmed? A compendium of material and questions.

Dr Ferdinand Santos III

·

27 de diciembre de 2024

Read full story

Notes

A) Author’s Nota Bene on the Space-Game and a need to return to reality

The author does not care about the Moon, Mars or space fantasies. No, the author does not believe in a flat Earth, giants building pyramids on Mars (CIA-NASA claim), flying dinosaurs on Venus (CIA-NASA claim), or ‘aliens’ on the Dark side of the Moon (anti-reality claim).

The posts on this substack are aimed at $cientism, or corrupted Science and in particular, the effects that scientific fraud have on our worldviews, reality, the world of the 5 senses, our psyches and dare we say it, spirituality.

If Artemis II is a ‘real’ flight and the author doubts it will be; and NASA again plays golf on the Moon (Artemis III), the author could care less. Chapeau and well done. But if Artemis, like Apollo, is revealed to be yet another fraud, then the Sheeple need to become Neo, unplug, wake up and ask for the demolition of the CIA-NASA military-industrial-complex, one of the most negative and perverse forces to be erected in history (until proven otherwise).

B) Note on Apollo 8, 9, 10

• Apollo 8, 1968: Moon fly by with all the issues discussed in this post (i.e. a fraud).
• Apollo 9, 1968: Suposedly proved the disconnection of the LEM from the main capsule at in LEO (maybe 200 miles altitude). No landing was attempted, it was to show how the 2 hardware units could disengage. This does not prove that the LEM was tested in conditions remotely ressembling those of a lunar descent. It is unclear what NASA was trying to prove with this flight. We can assume it is just another misdirection, another layer of false-’proof’.
• Apollo 10, 1969: The final ‘practice run’. Attempted to combine Apollo 8 and 9 and get close enough to the Moon with the LEM to confirm that a landing was possible (9 miles from the surface). Apollo 10 of course suffers from the same issues as discussed in this and other posts, and is another fraud. It lacked the fuel to complete the journey, had little radiation protection, and would have burned up on Earth re-entry.
• Apollo 10 was also trapped in the Moon’s gravity so it could not have done a sling shot return. Same with Apollo 11. This is why Artemis II is slated to traverse 80 or so miles above the Moon’s surface. Case closed on the Apollo 11 fraud.

C) Narrative sources

1. Comparison of Artemis with Apollo

2. Why NASA’s Orion capsule is so important,

– no proof of this exists in ‘space’

3. December 2022: The uncrewed Artemis I mission reaching its maximum distance from Earth

4. NASA: Artemis III Science Definition Report View Report (NASA.gov) and View GAO Report (GAO.gov)

5. The German Aerospace Center (DLR) led the radiation study which is the source for the Hydrogen Protection theory. Artemis I was the first-ever measurement of radiation exposure to a (simulated) body beyond the ISS, highlighting the lack of prior biological data. View MARE Data (DLR.de) (what then is the value of the ISS?)

6. Security and Architecture review from NASA ASAP: ‘2024/2025 Annual Safety Report’. This supports the low probability of success conclusion by formally recommending that NASA re-evaluate the architecture because the accumulation of risk is too high. View ASAP Safety Meeting Summary

7. Artemis II vs Apollo 8 link

The Best “Go Paid” Deal on Substack! You Get REAL Stuff!!

Go paid at the $5 a month level, and we will send you both the PDF and e-Pub versions of Etienne’s new book: To See the Cage Is to Leave It - 25 Techniques the Few Use to Control the Many and a coupon code for 10% off anything in the https://artofliberty.org/store/.

Go paid at the $50 a year level, and we will send you a free paperback edition of Etienne’s new book: To See the Cage Is to Leave It - 25 Techniques the Few Use to Control the Many OR “Government” - The Biggest Scam in History… Exposed! OR a 64GB Liberator flash drive if you live in the US. If you are international, we will give you a $10 credit towards shipping if you agree to pay the remainder.

Support us at the $250 Founding Member Level and get a signed high-resolution hardcover of “Government” - The Biggest Scam in History... Exposed! + Liberator flash drive + a signed high-resolution hardcover of Etienne’s new book: To See the Cage Is to Leave It - 25 Techniques the Few Use to Control the Many + everything else in our “Everything Bundle” of the best in voluntaryist thought delivered domestically. International pays shipping. Our only option for signed copies besides catching Etienne @ an event.