Established in 2006, The United
American Freedom Foundation is America's #1 free
alternative news aggregator and media resource.... Our Organizations are
not faith based and do not tolerate racism of any kind. If
you hate someone because of their skin color or religion,
then you are not welcome in our website areas!
Peaceful noncompliance is the only answer!
Remember,
Don't battle the government with guns. Beat them in court, and in
your state legislature!
According to DARK SIDE OF THE MOON, the
most important film of its kind since
Oliver Stone's JFK - or since Rob
Reiner's This is Spinal Tap, at any rate
- images of Neil Armstrong's walk on the
moon on July 20, 1969 were shown to the
world through the lens of master
film-maker Stanley Kubrick and were
staged on the same Borehamwood, U.K.,
soundstage where Kubrick made his
landmark film, 2001: A Space Odyssey.
7/31/06 Coast to Coast
AM --- George Norry
11p-11:30p PT:
Thursday, July 13,
2006: The original high-quality video
tapes of Apollo 11, which were
apparently sent by NASA to the National
Archives and then were returned to the
Goddard Space Flight Center, have gone
missing (see the
pdf
by John M. Sarkissian). The
quality of the video broadcast to the
world on television was of much, much
lower quality than the video originally
received – or manufactured! - by NASA.
Obviously, if you were going to fake the
moon landing, you might have a motive to
‘lose’ the high-quality tapes, where
artifacts of faking could be seen. This
was by far the biggest moment in the
American space program. You’d think they
would care about hanging on to the
evidence.
USD $25.4
billion -1969
Dollars
($135-billion in
2005 Dollars). See
NASA Budget.
(Includes Mercury,
Gemini, Ranger,
Surveyor, Lunar
Orbitar, Apollo
programs.) Apollo
spacecraft and
Saturn rocket cost
alone, was about $
83-billion 2005
Dollars (Apollo
spacecraft cost $
28-billion (CS/M $
17-billion; LM $
11-billion), Saturn
I, IB, V costs about
$ 46-billion 2005
dollars).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Apollo
Motives
Several
motives have
been
suggested
for the
U.S.
government
to fake the
moon
landings -
some of the
recurrent
elements
are:
Distraction
- The
U.S.
government
benefited
from a
popular
distraction
to take
attention
away
from the
Vietnam
war.
Lunar
activities
did
abruptly
stop,
with
planned
missions
cancelled,
around
the same
time
that the
US
ceased
its
involvement
in the
Vietnam
War.
Prestige
- The
U.S.
government
considered
it vital
that the
U.S. win
the
space
race
with the
USSR.
Going to
the
Moon, if
it was
possible,
would
have
been
risky
and
expensive.
It would
have
been
much
easier
to fake
the
landing,
thereby
ensuring
success.
Money -
NASA
raised
approximately
30
billion
dollars
pretending
to go to
the
moon.
This
could
have
been
used to
pay off
a large
number
of
people,
providing
significant
motivation
for
complicity.
In
variations
of this
theory,
the
space
industry
is
characterized
as a
political
economy,
much
like the
military
industrial
complex,
creating
fertile
ground
for its
own
survival.
Risk
- The
available
technology
at the
time was
such
that
there
was a
good
chance
that the
landing
might
fail if
genuinely
attempted.
The
Soviets,
with their
own
competing
moon program
and an
intense
economic and
political
and military
rivalry with
the USA,
could be
expected to
have cried
foul if the
USA tried to
fake a Moon
landing.
Theorist
Ralph Rene
responds
that shortly
after the
alleged Moon
landings,
the USA
silently
started
shipping
hundreds of
thousands of
tons of
grain as
humanitarian
aid to
the
allegedly
starving
USSR. He
views this
as evidence
of a
cover-up,
the grain
being the
price of
silence.
(The Soviet
Union in
fact had its
own
Moon program).
Proponents
of the
Apollo hoax
suggest that
the Soviet
Union, and
latterly
Russia, and
the United
States were
allied in
the
exploration
of space,
during the
Cold war and
after. The
United
States and
the former
Soviet Union
today
routinely
engage in
cooperative
space
ventures, as
do many
other
nations that
are
popularly
believed to
be enemies.
However,
this
suggestion
is
challenged
by the
impression
of intense
international
competition
that was
under way
during the
Cold War and
is not
supported by
the accounts
of
participants
on either
side of the
Iron
Curtain.
Many argue
that the
fact that
the Soviet
Union and
other
Communist
bloc
countries,
eager to
discredit
the United
States, have
not produced
any contrary
evidence to
be the
single most
significant
argument
against such
a hoax.
Soviet
involvement
might also
implausibly
multiply the
scale of the
conspiracy,
to include
hundreds of
thousands of
conspirators
of uncertain
loyalty.
Shocking : See what NASA has
done (Long but worth reading)
Did man really walk on the
Moon or was it the ultimate camera
trick, asks David Milne?
In the early hours of May 16,
1990, after a week spent watching old
video footage of man on the Moon, a
thought was turning into an obsession in
the mind of Ralph Rene.
"How can the flag be
fluttering?" the 47 year old American
kept asking himself when there's no wind
on the atmosphere free Moon? That moment
was to be the beginning of an incredible
Space odyssey for the self- taught
engineer from New Jersey.
He started investigating the
Apollo Moon landings, scouring every
NASA film, photo and report with a
growing sense of wonder, until finally
reaching an awesome conclusion: America
had never put a man on the Moon. The
giant leap for mankind was fake.
It is of course the
conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy
theories. But Rene has now put all his
findings into a startling book entitled
NASA Mooned America. Published by
himself, it's being sold by mail order -
and is a compelling read.
The story lifts off in 1961
with Russia firing Yuri Gagarin into
space, leaving a panicked America
trailing in the space race. At an
emergency meeting of Congress, President
Kennedy proposed the ultimate face
saver, put a man on the Moon. With an
impassioned speech he secured the plan
an unbelievable 40 billion dollars.
And so, says Rene (and a
growing number of astro-physicists are
beginning to agree with him), the great
Moon hoax was born. Between 1969 and
1972, seven Apollo ships headed to the
Moon. Six claim to have made it, with
the ill fated Apollo 13 - whose oxygen
tanks apparently exploded halfway being
the only casualties. But with the
exception of the known rocks, which
could have been easily mocked up in a
lab, the photographs and film footage
are the only proof that the Eagle ever
landed. And Rene believes they're fake.
For a start, he says, the TV
footage was hopeless. The world tuned in
to watch what looked like two blurred
white ghosts throw rocks and dust. Part
of the reason for the low quality was
that, strangely, NASA provided no direct
link up. So networks actually had to
film man's greatest achievement from a
TV screen in Houston - a deliberate
ploy, says Rene, so that nobody could
properly examine it.
By contrast, the still photos
were stunning. Yet that's just the
problem. The astronauts took thousands
of pictures, each one perfectly exposed
and sharply focused. Not one was badly
composed or even blurred.
As Rene points out, that's
not all: The cameras had no white meters
or view ponders. So the astronauts
achieved this feet without being able to
see what they were doing. There film
stock was unaffected by the intense
peaks and powerful cosmic radiation on
the Moon, conditions that should have
made it useless. They managed to adjust
their cameras, change film and swap
filters in pressurized suits. It should
have been almost impossible with the
gloves on their fingers.
Award winning British
photographer David Persey is convinced
the pictures are fake. His astonishing
findings are explained alongside the
pictures on these pages, but the basic
points are as follows: The shadows could
only have been created with multiple
light sources and,in particular,
powerful spotlights. But the only light
source on the Moon was the sun.
The American flag and the
words "United States" are always
Brightly lit, even when everything
around is in shadow. Not one still
picture matches the film footage, yet
NASA claims both were shot at the same
time.
The pictures are so perfect,
each one would have taken a slick
advertising agency hours to put them
together. But the astronauts managed it
repeatedly. David Persey believes the
mistakes were deliberate, left there by
"whistle blowers" who were keen for the
truth to one day get out.
If Persey is right and the
pictures are fake, then we've only
NASA's word that man ever went to the
Moon. And, asks Rene, "Why would anyone
fake pictures of an event that actually
happened?"
The questions don't stop
there. Outer space is awash with deadly
radiation that emanates from solar
flares firing out from the sun. Standard
astronauts orbiting earth in near space,
like those who recently fixed the Hubble
telescope, are protected by the earth's
Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to
240,000 miles distant, way outside this
safe band. And, during the Apollo
flights, astronomical data shows there
were no less than 1,485 such flares.
John Mauldin, a physicist who
works for NASA, once said shielding at
least two meters thick would be needed.
Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which
took astronauts from the spaceship to
the moons surface were, said NASA, about
the thickness of heavy duty aluminum
foil.
How could that stop this
deadly radiation? And if the astronauts
were protected by their space suits, why
didn't rescue workers use such
protective gear at the Chernobyl
meltdown, which released only a fraction
of the dose astronauts would encounter?
Not one Apollo astronaut ever contracted
cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who
were on their way to the Moon when a big
flare started. "They should have been
fried", says Rene.
Furthermore, every Apollo
mission before number 11 (the first to
the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000
defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception
of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn't
one major technical problem on any of
their Moon missions. Just one effect
could have blown the whole thing. "The
odds against these are so unlikely that
God must have been the co-pilot," says
Rene.
Several years after NASA
claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz
Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was
asked at a banquet what it felt like to
step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin
staggered to his feet and left the room
crying uncontrollably. It would not be
the last time he did this. "It strikes
me he's suffering from trying to live
out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin
may also fear for his life.
Virgil Grissom, a NASA
astronaut who baited the Apollo program,
was due to pilot Apollo 1 as part of the
landings build up. In January 1967, he
hung a lemon on his Apollo capsule (in
the US, unroadworthy cars are called
lemons) and told his wife Betty: "If
there is ever a serious accident in the
space program, it's likely to be me."
Nobody knows what fuelled his
fears, but by the end of the month he
and his two co-pilots were dead, burnt
to death during a test run when their
capsule, pumped full of high pressure
pure oxygen, exploded.
Scientists couldn't believe
NASA's carelessness - even a chemistry
students in high school know high
pressure oxygen is extremely explosive.
In fact, before the first manned Apollo
fight even cleared the launch pad, a
total of 11 would be astronauts were
dead. Apart from the three who were
incinerated, seven died in plane crashes
and one in a car smash. Now this is
a spectacular accident rate.
"One wonders if these
'accidents' weren't NASA's way of
correcting mistakes," says Rene. "Of
saying that some of these men didn't
have the sort of 'right stuff' they were
looking."
NASA wont respond to any of
these claims, their press office will
only say that the Moon landings happened
and the pictures are real. But a NASA
public affairs officer called Julian
Scheer once delighted 200 guests at a
private party with footage of astronauts
apparently on a landscape. It had been
made on a mission film set and was
identical to what NASA claimed was they
real lunar landscape. "The purpose of
this film," Scheer told the enthralled
group, "is to indicate that you really
can fake things on the ground, almost to
the point of deception." He then invited
his audience to "Come to your own
decision about whether or not man
actually did walk on the Moon."
A sudden attack of honesty?
You bet, says Rene, who claims the only
real thing about the Apollo missions
were the lift offs. "The astronauts
simply have to be on board," he says,
"in case the rocket exploded. It was the
easiest way to ensure NASA wasn't left
with three astronauts who ought to be
dead." he claims, adding that they came
down a day or so later, out of the
public eye (global surveillance wasn't
what it is now) and into the safe hands
of NASA officials, who whisked them off
to prepare for the big day a week later.
And now NASA is planning
another giant step - Project Outreach, a
1 trillion dollar manned mission to
Mars. "Think what they'll be able to
mock up with today's computer graphics,"
says Rene Chillingly. "Special effects
was in its infancy in the 60s. This time
round will have no way of determining
the truth."
9 SPACE ODDITIES:
1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen
Shepard played golf on the Moon. In
front of a worldwide TV audience,
Mission Control teased him about slicing
the ball to the right. Yet a slice is
caused by uneven air flow over the ball.
The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.
2. A camera panned upwards to
catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting
off the Moon. Who did the filming?
3. One NASA picture from
Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil
Armstrong about to take his giant step
for mankind. The photographer must have
been lying on the planet surface. If
Armstrong was the first man on the Moon,
then who took the shot?
4. The pressure inside a
space suit was greater than inside a
football. The astronauts should have
been puffed out like the Michelin Man,
but were seen freely bending their
joints.
5. The Moon landings took
place during the Cold War. Why didn't
America make a signal on the moon that
could be seen from earth? The PR would
have been phenomenal and it could have
been easily done with magnesium flares.
6. Text from pictures in the
article said that only two men walked on
the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission.
Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor
has no camera. Who took the shot?
7. The flags shadow goes
behind the rock so doesn't match the
dark line in the foreground, which looks
like a line cord. So the shadow to the
lower right of the spaceman must be the
flag. Where is his shadow? And why is
the flag fluttering if there is no air
or wind on the moon?
8. How can the flag be
brightly lit when its side is to the
light? And where, in all of these shots,
are the stars?
9. The Lander weighed 17 tons
yet the astronauts feet seem to have
made a bigger dent in the dust. The
powerful booster rocket at the base of
the Lunar Lander was fired to slow
descent to the moons service. Yet it has
left no traces of blasting on the dust
underneath. It should have created a
small crater, yet the booster looks like
it's never been fired.
I was reading about the supposed moon
hoaxs (I'm not yet sure that they were
faked) on your web site when I came
across an excellent point in your
arguments. You said that during the
videos of the lunar landings the
astronauts replied instantly to Mission
Control in Houston. Yet light, radio
waves, and all energies of the
electromagnetic spectrum travel at
roughly 186,000 miles per second,
meaning the response time of the
astronauts to comments made by Mission
Control should have been a little over
two seconds since the moon is over
200,000 miles from the Earth. Excellent
point! I was stumped here for a minute,
until I considered this: we're only
hearing the astronauts transmission.
Okay, that explanation obviously needs
an explanation. First off, like you
said, NASA didn't establish a direct
link with televison stations for the
broadcast. Instead, the video we saw was
actually filmed as it happened on the
huge television screen in Mission
Control, which accounts for the poor
quality of the film. What does this
mean? It means that the video and audio
in the broadcasts of the Apollo missions
were both time delayed. You didn't hear
people speaking inside Mission Control,
you heard their transmission to the
astronauts. The audio we heard from
Mission Control was actually several
seconds old. In other words, the
landings transmitted back to Earth video
and audio feed of their landing, audio
including messages from Mission Control
that the astronauts had just received.
To make this easier to picture, image it
this way: Mission Control transmits a
message to Apollo 11 on the lunar
surface saying Neil and Buzz can get out
of the LM and walk around (with suits
on, of course.) This message travels
just over a second to the moon, where
Neil and Buzz receive it and reply
"Finally!" This message is transmitted
all the way back to Earth, where it is
received and broadcast on the huge
monitor in Mission Control. So you see,
Mission Control spoke first and then the
astronauts replied, only the audio
transmitted
to us contained both messages with no
time lapse in between. Confused? Don't
worry, you'll get it soon. I've looked
over the arguments used by believers of
a moon landing hoax and they are rather
solid and rooted fairly well in logic,
so I can safely assume you're all pretty
smart guys, so this shouldn't be to hard
for you to understand. I would
appreciate it if you would respond to
this email with your thoughts on my
explanation of this lunar quandary that
is now solved (hopefully.)
DARK
SIDE OF THE MOON
Sunday November 16, 2003 at 10PM
ET/PT
repeating Sunday July 24, 2005 at
10pm ET/PT
How
could the flag flutter when there's
no wind on the moon? During an
interview with Stanley Kubrick's
widow an extraordinary story came to
light. She claims Kubrick and other
Hollywood producers were recruited
to help the U.S. win the high stakes
race to the moon. In order to
finance the space program through
public funds, the U.S. government
needed huge popular support, and
that meant they couldn't afford any
expensive public relations failures.
Fearing that no live pictures could
be transmitted from the first moon
landing, President Nixon enlisted
the creative efforts of Kubrick,
whose 2001: a Space Odyssey (1968)
had provided much inspiration, to
ensure promotional opportunities
wouldn't be missed. In return,
Kubrick got a special NASA lens to
help him shoot Barry Lyndon (1975).
A subtle blend of facts, fiction and
hypothesis around the first landing
on the moon, Dark Side Of The
Moon illustrates how the
truth can be twisted by the
manipulation of images.
With
use of 'hijacked' archival footage,
false documents, real interviews
taken out of context or transformed
through voice-over or dubbing,
staged interviews, as well as,
interviews with astronauts like Buzz
Aldrin and others, Dark Side
Of The Moon navigates the
viewer through lies and truth; fact
and fiction. This is no ordinary
documentary. Its intent is to inform
and entertain the viewer, but also
to shake him up - make him aware
that one should always view
television with a critical eye.
Deaths of key people
involved with the Apollo
program
In a television
program about the hoax
theory,
Fox Entertainment Group
listed the deaths of 10
astronauts and of two
civilians related to the
manned spaceflight
program as having
possibly been killings
as part of a coverup.
X-15 pilot
Mike Adams (the
only X-15 pilot
killed in November
1967 during the X-15
flight test program
- not a NASA
astronaut, but had
flown X-15 above 50
miles).
Robert Lawrence,
scheduled to be an
Air Force
Manned Orbiting
Laboratory pilot
who died in a jet
crash in December
1967, shortly after
reporting for duty
to that (later
cancelled) program.
NASA worker
Thomas Baron
Train crash, 1967
shortly after making
accusations before
Congress about the
cause of the Apollo
1 fire, after which
he was fired. Ruled
as suicide.
Paul Jacobs, a
private investigator
from San Francisco,
interviewed the head
of the US Department
of Geology in
Washington about the
'moon rocks'. Did
you examine the Moon
rocks, did they
really come from the
Moon? Jacobs
asked - the
geologist did not
respond, only
laughed. Paul Jacobs
and his wife died
from cancer within
90 days.
Lee Gelvani
claims to have
almost convinced
James Irwin, an
Apollo 15 astronaut
whom Gelvani
referred to as an
"informant", to
confess about a
cover-up having
occurred. Irwin was
supposedly going to
contact Kaysing
about it; however he
died of a
heart attack in
1991, before any
such telephone call
occurred.
Spacecraft testing
and flying high
performance jet aircraft
can be dangerous, and
all but one of the
astronaut deaths
(Irwin's) were directly
related to their rather
hazardous job. Two of
the astronauts, Mike
Adams and Robert
Lawrence, had no
connection with the
civilian manned space
program. Astronaut
Watcher's Opinion RE:
Orion/Giza Correlation and
Mars/Moon/Masonic Connection
Hoagland, West, Hancock and Bauval
are on to something. What they
collectively have implied is nothing
less than a PERFECT set up for the
advent of the Antichrist. With the idea
that Isis was the Egyptian god of
"returning" and resurrection, it is
uncanny that NASA has been engaged in a
type of worship of this god from the
beginning of the space program. Even the
name Apollo is the Greek derivative of
Isis. The landing sites, the dates for
landing and the incredible connection
with Giza concerning the moon missions
all fit together. There is even evidence
that the US astronauts were closely
watched by the aliens while on luna
firma.
We agree completely with Bauval that the
Giza pyramids are an earthly analogue
for Orion and Sirius. I do not however
agree with His conclusion that this
analogue addresses the Egyptian cult of
Isis and Osiris. The Egyptians recorded
a degraded form of the true meaning of
the Giza complex. The Cydonia region IS
in complete correlation to Giza, but
again, its original meaning was not
intended for reverence to "aliens" or
the so called proginators of the human
race. This conclusion will be the
driving force behind the uniting of all
nations under the Antichrist. Antichrist
will appear as a bringer of peace in
Israel along with a worldwide
manifestation of aliens claiming a
Mars\Earth connection (the fake savior
will appear with his fake holy ones).
The reason that the King's chamber
ventilation shaft is open to the star
"Al Naith" in Orion's belt is because
that star, whose meaning is "The Wounded
One", describes the God who has come.
This God manifested in human flesh, died
and rose again. The ventilation shaft in
the Queen's chamber which points to
Sirius is CLOSED. This is symbolically
accurate because Sirus represents the
same God who died and lives, but has not
as of yet returned. Sirius is not the
consort of Isis (the degraded meaning),
but the symbol of the God who remains to
come as the King of Kings. Sirius means,
"THE EXALTED KING"--the ruler of the
whole earth. When He returns He will set
up a kingdom that will never end.
If a man were to "force" this shaft
open, he would in effect usher in the
sequence of events that surround the
working of the counterfeit-messiah, the
antichrist.
A close look at Orion reveals a warrior,
holding the skin of a lion, treading his
enemy. His upheld club is poised to
smash his enemy. The river of fire,
Eridanus, which issues from before him,
flows out to consume Leviathan, or Cetus,
the sea monster to whom the cords of
Pisces are fastened.
Sirius is properly the embellishment of
Pullox, second of the twins, or
correctly, the sign of second advent of
the Messiah. Procyon embellishes Castor,
the first advent of the Messiah as the
redeemer, which is the actual
translation of Procyon.
The Giza complex, as well as the Cydonia
region, were designed to reveal Jesus
Christ.
However, the Antichrist will of course
try very hard to usurp the meaning for
himself. The forces behind antichrist's
coming were builders of the monuments
(pre-rebellion). They are not presently
alligned with the God which these
structures describe.
I STILL WONDER WHY WE HAVE NEVER GONE
BACK AND WHY WE DO NOT
HAVE A BASE ON THE MOON NOW?
Subject: Why NASA DID land on the moon.
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 16:47:17 -0400
From: "Kyle Connolly" <prospyrus@livemuse.com>
Reply-To: <prospyrus@livemuse.com>
Organization: Point Of View Productions
To: <apfn@apfn.org>
I am writing to argue that NASA really
did put men on the moon. Here are my 9
responses to your nine "space oddities".
1. "Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard
played golf on the Moon. In front of a
worldwide TV audience, Mission Control
teased him about slicing the ball to the
right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven
air flow over the ball. The Moon has no
atmosphere and no air." The functional
word here is "teased". Mission control
was, as you said, merely teasing him.
There is no way for anyone to be able to
tell exactly which way the ball went.
And even if you could, maybe he wasn't
holding the club straight, so the head
hit the ball on an angle.
2. "A camera panned upwards to catch
Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off the
Moon. Who did the filming?"
Mission Control. If you watched the
miniseries "From the Earth to the Moon",
you would know that there was a guy in
mission control, controlling the
pan/tilt functions on the tv camera
tripod. If you want to bring up the 7
second radio delay due to distance, he
actually sent the command to tilt up
with the ascending lander 7 seconds
before it happened, and it all worked
out.
3. "One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is
looking up at Neil Armstrong about to
take his giant step for mankind. The
photographer must have been lying on the
planet surface. If Armstrong was the
first man on the Moon, then who took the
shot?" You really ought to learn more
about the missions before you start
attacking them like this. There was an
arm attached to the lander that was
deployed just before Neil Armstrong
opened the hatch. This arm had a
television and a still camera mounted to
it.
4. "The pressure inside a space suit was
greater than inside a football. The
astronauts should have been puffed out
like the Michelin Man, but were seen
freely bending their joints." Did you
really think that they just sent them up
there in an airtight jumper? OK. I'm
gonna make this real easy for you. Here
is a quote from the NASA KIDS website.
so you should be able to understand it.
"The space suit is made of hard
materials with jointed sections to allow
movement. The upper and lower torso
sections are put on separately. The two
pieces are connected at the waist to
allow the flow of water and gas
lines. Gloves and helmet create a sealed
protection against meteoroids and
radiation. On Earth, the space suit
weighs about 100 pounds. In space, the
suit weighs much less. Under normal
conditions, a space suit should last
about 8 years." So. assuming you can
read. you have just learnt about an
American space suit. There is a hard
layer of plastic, among many other
things, protecting the astronauts from
the vacuum of space.
5. "The Moon landings took place during
the Cold War. Why didn't America make a
signal on the moon that could be seen
from earth? The PR would have been
phenomenal and it could have been easily
done with magnesium flares." That's like
saying 'Why don't the ISS astronauts
light up the sky with millions and
millions of flares?' CAUSE THERE'S NO
POINT!!! What you're saying is. because
they didn't put a massive flare on the
moon. they never actually went. (Oh..
and by the way. have fun igniting a
magnesium flare without oxygen).
6. "Text from pictures in the article
said that only two men walked on the
Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet
the astronaut reflected in the visor has
no camera. Who took the shot?:
As you can see from this photo of Pete
Conrad on Apollo 12, astronauts didn't
hold cameras like you do when you're
taking a picture of your grandmother,
the camera was attached to their suit at
the chest. Most small tools used by
astronauts were attached to their suits,
so they would not be lost.
7&8. "The flags shadow goes behind the
rock so doesn't match the dark line in
the foreground, which looks like a line
cord. So the shadow to the lower right
of the spaceman must be the flag. Where
is his shadow? And why is the flag
fluttering if there is no air or wind on
the moon? & How can the flag be brightly
lit when its side is to the light? And
where, in all of these shots, are the
stars?"
Do you honestly mean to tell me that you
believe that this photo hasn't been
played with? Somebody (no.. NOT NASA)
has doctored this photo really badly to
make people like YOU think that you have
a stronger case against NASA. That
astronaut was copied and pasted into
that photo. And as for the flag.. that
shadow goes to the side with the face
clearly lit because it's not exactly
parallel to the sun's rays! It's on a
bit of an angle, which anybody will tell
you, is enough to clearly light the
flag. And as for the fluttering.. less
drugs for you, man. it's not moving at
all. Do you know what happens when a
flag is stowed for several weeks, all
folded up? You guessed it.. It gets
wrinkled! Look at getting some better
glasses. As for the stars. in
photography, to prevent an over-exposure
(phonetically: Ovur-ekspojur) you must
close the iris a bit, or in this case, a
lot. The sun is much brighter here than
the brightest day on earth. With the
iris down far enough to prevent
over-exposure, there is no way you would
ever, EVER see ANYTHING in the sky other
than the sun and the earth.
9. "The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the
astronauts feet seem to have made a
bigger dent in the dust. The powerful
booster rocket at the base of the Lunar
Lander was fired to slow descent to the
moons service. Yet it has left no traces
of blasting on the dust underneath. It
should have created a small crater, yet
the booster looks like it's never been
fired." A few things you're forgetting..
It's mass was 17 tons, yes, however
since weight is relative to gravity, and
the moon has 1/6th the earth's gravity,
the WEIGHT of the lunar lander was only
17/6 tons (2.833 tonnes). Now I'm not
saying that this is light, there was
dust stirred up when it landed, but no
more that when a chopper lands here on
earth.
Some of your points (which I'm sure you
didn't come up with on your own) were
ALMOST valid. Please e-mail me back when
you read this. I'd love to read your
defending points.
By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor
The US space agency (Nasa) has cancelled
the book intended to challenge the
conspiracy theorists who claim the Moon
landings were a hoax.
Nasa declined to comment specifically on
the reasons for dropping the
publication, but it is understood the
decision resulted from the bad publicity
that followed the announcement of the
project.
Criticism that Nasa was displaying poor
judgment and a lack of confidence in
commissioning the book caused it to
abort the project, agency spokesman Bob
Jacobs said.
Oberg will still write the book
Nasa had hired aerospace writer Jim
Oberg for the job on a fee of $15,000.
He says he will still do the work,
although it will now be an unofficial
publication with alternative funding.
The book will deliver a point-by-point
rebuttal of the theory that the Apollo
landings were faked in a movie studio,
to convince the world that the US had
beaten the Soviets to the Moon.
It will explain why in still and video
footage of the landings, no stars can be
seen in the Moon sky, why a flag appears
to ripple on the atmosphere-free
satellite and why shadows fall in
strange directions - all "facts",
conspiracy theorists say, point to a
hoax.
Some commentators had said that in
making the Oberg book an official Nasa
publication, the agency was actually
giving a certain credibility to the hoax
theory.
Why they would fake it
The Soviet Union had been making all the
early advances and the greatest progress
in the great Moon race.
The Soviet Union launched the first man
and the first women in space in 1961 &
1963 and were also the first to orbit
the Earth.
With the above happening the US
Government had to make some kind of
success with President Kennedy promising
that the US would put a man on the moon
by the end of the 1960's.
Many people believe that NASA had
released that it was not possible to go
to the moon with the technology
available
(Computer chips being as powerful then
as a modern washing machines chip) so
they resorted to faking the landing to
ensure a
victory of the Soviet Union and keep the
dollars coming in for real space
projects.
The Pictures
NASA have never offered
any explanation whatsoever for the
numerous errors in the photographs,
despite repeated questioning.
These errors include:
The Apollo 11 pictures show the ground
in the distance being much darker than
the ground in the foreground, as if the
Astronauts were standing in a pool of
light.
Several photos show evidence of extra
lighting (as a professional photographer
would use fill-in lights) but no such
lights were supposed to have been used.
Some photos clearly show the light
coming from "impossible" angles. In one
instance, Aldrin's boot is lit from
below as he descends the ladder.
Some photos contradict the TV camera
pictures of the same events.
Some photos of one astronaut taken by
the other are clearly taken from
slightly above the eye level of the
subject, but in his visor, the
reflection of the astronaut with the
camera shows it being held at chest
level.
The length of the shadows in the Apollo
12 pictures don't agree with the angle
which the Sun should have been at.
Some wide area photos show shadows
pointing in different directions.
In the sound recording of the lunar
landing, you cannot hear the sound of
the engines. As the astronaut calls out
the remaining distance to the surface,
he is only a few feet away from a rocket
engine which should have
been producing 10000 lb of thrust.
The Sounds
The major point which has helped
convince me that the moon landing was
faked was the fact that when the control
room asked a question to the Astronauts
the replies were instant with no delays.
This seems strange as even with
technology in the 1990's there is a
delay from satellite links from the UK
to the US. There is about a 0.7 second
delay from London to California so how
is it possible for instant replies from
the Moon ?
There is also evidence that when people
go into space that there voice goes
tense although the Astronauts voices
have been analyzed and found to be
normal, and 7/10 people said it sounded
like someone reading from a script.
When Houston are talking to the module
you should not be able to hear the
responses at least when the module is
landing and the infamous "eagle has
landed" quote, this is due to the noise
that should have been created by the
rocket motor which generates several
hundred thousand pounds of thrust 20 ft
below the astronauts. The noise would
have completely drowned
the vocals out.
The Radiation
An American author has researched and
found out that he believes the Apollo
Spacecraft would have needed to be two
meters thick to prevent cosmic radiation
from cooking the Astronauts inside.
Also in addition to the radiation
protection for the astronauts similar
protection would be required for the
films + cameras, NASA's official
explanation of how the films were
protected was that the cameras were
painted with a coat of aluminum paint,
yeah right.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010407065641/http://thepeoplesrevolution.tripod.com/moonlanding.htm
=============================================
TIME &
MOTION STUDY:
Anyone with even elemental math skills
and common sense can look at the facts,
do the calculations, and come to their
own conclusions about the alleged
MASSIVE VOLUME of lunar surface
photography in such a LIMITED TIME.
Here is my conclusion: IT COULD
NOT BE DONE.
http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
It boils down not to just studying the
photographs for signs of fakery, though
I have examined every available Apollo
photo for more than three years (and
discovered many fakes). Very simply, it
amounts to a study known to many
businesses...A TIME AND MOTION STUDY.
The elementary question is: was it
possible to take the known number of
photos (from NASA records) in the amount
of time available (from NASA records)?
But before you read my study, to
understand it you need to know some
basic information about the Apollo
missions:
1. Of seven Apollo missions to put "men
on the Moon", six were claimed to be
"successful". (Apollo 13 was "aborted".)
2. Each of the six successful missions
landed two astronauts "on the Moon" in a
flimsy craft NASA originally had called
the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM, later
shortened to LM), an unproven craft
which never had an opportunity for a
lunar landing test flight. But it landed
and then took off six times with
spectacular "success" on Apollo missions
11 and 12, and 14 through 17...once even
landing within 200 feet of a
pre-selected target.
3. Two astronauts rode each LEM to the
Moon surface while one remained in the
orbiting Command and Service Module (CSM)
awaiting their return.
4. During their Extra-Vehicular Activity
(lunar surface exploration) each of the
two wore a bulky inflated spacesuit with
clumsy gloves, greatly limiting
mobility. On their backs they wore a
huge and heavy Life Support System (PLSS)
backpack containing an oxygen tank and
circulating water air conditioning
system which pumped refrigerated water
throughout the suit to counteract the
200+/- degree heat (and cold) of lunar
conditions. Pumps circulated both
refrigerated air and water to the liquid
cooling undergarment, as well as
dehumidifying, removing carbon dioxide,
and providing all other functions needed
to survive harsh conditions in the
confining suits.
5. The principal objective of all six
missions was SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
projects to be carried out by the two
astronauts. Most of the projects, which
numbered about a half dozen each
mission, were remarkably similar on all
six missions. All of these science
experiments involved unpacking equipment
from stowage bays, assembling it,
transporting it to its location, setting
it up, and then doing the experiments.
As you might imagine, each of these
research projects would require a major
portion of the TIME of the two men for
each experiment.
6. Another major project besides
operation of the packaged experiments
was the Geological Study, which involved
searching for different specimens of
rocks and soils in various locations,
documenting and collecting samples to
return to earth. This obviously occupied
much of their TIME.
7. Considerable TIME was needed for
"housekeeping chores". After landing,
the LEM had to be inspected to make sure
it had not been damaged. Communications
equipment to put them in contact with
Earth had to be set up and operated,
including radio and television antennas
and TV cameras. The US flag was planted
in the moondust on each mission. All of
this was done before any experiments
were initiated. Oh, and don't forget the
"ceremonial" chat with President Nixon
during Apollo 11.
8. The first three missions required the
astronauts to walk to each experiment
location. The last three missions were
supplied with a Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV)
to travel to distant locations miles
away from the LEM. The partially
pre-assembled LRV was attached to the
outside of the LEM. The rover floor
served as a pallet which was hinged to
the outside of the LRV. The wheels were
folded under. The "pallet" was lowered
by hand to the lunar surface, and the
wheels rotated into position. After the
wheels were down, the vehicle had to be
outfitted with all of its considerable
equipment from various storage bins of
the LEM. Oddly, not a single photo
exists in the public domain (at least
that I could find to date) of the
astronauts assembling and equipping the
LRVs. The battery-powered rovers had a
top speed of about 8 mph, only slightly
faster than walking...much like a golf
cart. During the LRV travels
("traverses"), both men rode, and when
moving, had no opportunity for
photography. Also, the time taken in
assembling the rover was not used for
any photography. Though I could find no
time given by NASA, surely it is
reasonable to guess that it took at
least an hour to unload, assemble and
equip and test a rover?
9. Almost incidental to the main
astronaut tasks was PHOTOGRAPHY. Each
astronaut had his own camera. (Apart
from the Apollo 11 EVA.) It was a
square-format specially-built Hasselblad.
It was mounted on a chest-plate for the
astronaut to operate. The astronaut had
to manually set the shutter speed and
apertures while wearing bulky,
pressurized gloves and without being
able to see the controls. The cameras
had NO VIEWFINDER, so the astronaut
could only guess at what was being
photographed. Each camera had a bulk
film magazine holding more than a
hundred exposures. The film (mainly
Ektachrome color film) had a very narrow
exposure range, which required PERFECT
aperture and shutter settings, because
according to NASA, the cameras did not
have automatic exposure capability.
10. It is important to know that
although each man had his own camera,
they ALMOST NEVER USED THEM AT THE SAME
TIME. Usually one of them was
photographing the other doing some task.
Therefore having two cameras DID NOT
TRANSLATE TO TWICE AS MUCH TIME FOR
PHOTOGRAPHY, as one might surmise. Now
that you understand the missions, here
is my discovery of NASA overzealousness,
which has been successfully hidden till
now.
A TIME AND MOTION STUDY
For more than three years I have
been collecting and analyzing nearly all
the significant photos from the Apollo
missions. These official photos are
readily available on multiple NASA
websites for downloading. Recently I
noticed they were taking up many
gigabytes of memory on my computer's
external hard drive, so I began
organizing them and deleting
duplications. I did a rough estimate of
the number of Apollo photos, and was
amazed that I had thousands!
I visited several official NASA websites
to find HOW MANY PHOTOS WERE TAKEN on
the surface of the Moon. Amazingly, NASA
AVOIDS THIS SUBJECT almost entirely. Two
days of searching documents and text
were fruitless. But Lunar Surface
Journal, one of the sites, lists every
photo with its file number. So I
undertook to make an actual count of
every photo taken by astronauts DURING
EXTRA-VEHICULAR ACTIVITY (EVA), the time
spent on the surface out of the LEM.
Here is my actual count of EVA photos of
the six missions:
Apollo 11........... 121
Apollo 12........... 504
Apollo 14........... 374
Apollo 15..........1021
Apollo 16..........1765
Apollo 17..........1986
So 12 astronauts while on the Moon's
surface took a TOTAL of 5771 exposures.
That seemed excessively large to me,
considering that their TIME on the lunar
surface was limited, and the astronauts
had MANY OTHER TASKS OTHER THAN
PHOTOGRAPHY. So I returned to the Lunar
Surface Journal to find how much TIME
was available to do all the scientific
tasks AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHY. Unlike the
number of photos, this information is
readily available:
Apollo 11........1 EVA .....2 hours, 31
minutes......(151 minutes)
Apollo 12........2 EVAs.....7 hours, 50
minutes......(470 minutes)
Apollo 14........2 EVAs.....9 hours, 25
minutes......(565 minutes)
Apollo 15........3 EVAs...18 hours, 30
minutes....(1110 minutes)
Apollo 16........3 EVAs...20 hours, 14
minutes....(1214 minutes)
Apollo 17........3 EVAs...22 hours, 04
minutes....(1324 minutes)
Total minutes on the Moon amounted to
4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was
5771 photos.
Hmmmmm. That amounts to 1.19 photos
taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon,
REGARDLESS OF OTHER ACTIVITIES. (That
requires the taking of ONE PHOTO EVERY
50 SECONDS!) Let's look at those other
activities to see how much time should
be deducted from available photo time:
Apollo 11..........Inspect LEM for
damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy
radio and television equipment, operate
the TV camera (360 degree pan),
establish contact with Earth (including
ceremonial talk with President Nixon),
unpack and deploy numerous experiment
packages, find/document/collect 47.7
pounds of lunar rock samples, walk to
various locations, conclude experiments,
return to LEM.
Apollo 12..........Inspect LEM for
damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy
radio and television equipment (spend
time trying to fix faulty TV camera),
establish contact with Earth, unpack and
deploy numerous experiment packages,
walk to various locations, inspect the
unmanned Surveyor 3 which had landed on
the Moon in April 1967 and retrieve
Surveyor parts. Deploy ALSEP package.
Find/document/collect 75.7 pounds of
rocks, conclude experiments, return to
LEM.
Apollo 14..........Inspect LEM for
damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy
radio and television equipment and
establish contact with Earth, unpack and
assemble hand cart to transport rocks,
unpack and deploy numerous experiment
packages, walk to various locations.
Find/document/collect 94.4 pounds of
rocks, conclude experiments, return to
LEM.
Apollo 15..........Inspect LEM for
damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy
radio and television equipment and
establish contact with Earth,
unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV
electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and
drive it 17 miles, unpack and deploy
numerous experiment packages (double the
scientific payload of first three
missions). Find/document/collect 169
pounds of rocks, conclude experiments,
return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8
mph*.)
Apollo 16..........Inspect LEM for
damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy
radio and television equipment and
establish contact with Earth,
unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV
electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and
drive it 16 miles, unpack and deploy
numerous experiment packages (double the
scientific payload of first three
missions, including new ultraviolet
camera, operate the UV camera).
Find/document/collect 208.3 pounds of
rocks, conclude experiments, return to
LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph*.)
Apollo 17..........Inspect LEM for
damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy
radio and television equipment and
establish contact with Earth,
unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV
electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and
drive it 30.5 miles, unpack and deploy
numerous experiment packages.
Find/document/collect 243.1 pounds of
rocks, conclude experiments, return to
LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph*.)
Let's arbitrarily calculate a MINIMUM
time for these tasks and subtract from
available photo time:
Apollo 11....subtract 2 hours (120
minutes), leaving 031 minutes for taking
photos
Apollo 12....subtract 4 hours (240
minutes), leaving 230 minutes for taking
photos
Apollo 14....subtract 3 hours (180
minutes), leaving 385 minutes for taking
photos
Apollo 15....subtract 6 hours (360
minutes), leaving 750 minutes for taking
photos
Apollo 16....subtract 6 hours (360
minutes), leaving 854 minutes for taking
photos
Apollo 17....subtract 8 hours (480
minutes), leaving 844 minutes for taking
photos
So do the math:
Apollo 11.......121 photos in 031
minutes............3.90 photos per
minute
Apollo 12.......504 photos in 230
minutes............2.19 photos per
minute
Apollo 14.......374 photos in 385
minutes............0.97 photos per
minute
Apollo 15.....1021 photos in 750
minutes............1.36 photos per
minute
Apollo 16.....1765 photos in 854 minutes
...........2.06 photos per minute
Apollo 17.....1986 photos in 844 minutes
...........2.35 photos per minute
Or, to put it more simply:
Apollo 11........one photo every 15
seconds
Apollo 12........one photo every 27
seconds
Apollo 14........one photo every 62
seconds
Apollo 15........one photo every 44
seconds
Apollo 16........one photo every 29
seconds
Apollo 17........one photo every 26
seconds
So you decide. Given all the facts, was
it possible to take that many photos in
so short a time?
Any professional photographer will tell
you it cannot be done. Virtually every
photo was a different scene or in a
different place, requiring travel. As
much as 30 miles travel was required to
reach some of the photo sites. Extra
care had to be taken shooting some
stereo pairs and panoramas. Each picture
was taken without a viewfinder, using
manual camera settings, with no
automatic metering, while wearing a
bulky spacesuit and stiff clumsy gloves.
The agency wants the world to believe
that 5771 photographs were taken in 4834
minutes! IF NOTHING BUT PHOTOGRAPHY HAD
BEEN DONE, such a feat is clearly
impossible...made even more so by all
the documented activities of the
astronauts. Imagine...1.19 photos every
minute that men were on the Moon –-
that's one picture every 50 SECONDS!
The secret NASA tried to hide has been
discovered: The quantity of photos
purporting to record the Apollo lunar
EVAs could not have been taken on the
Moon in such an impossible time frame.
So why do these photos exist? How did
these photos get made? Did ANY men go to
the Moon? Or was it truly the greatest
hoax ever?
Editor's Notes: *According to Andrew
Chaikin, author of A Man on the Moon the
LRV averaged only 5 to 7 miles per hour,
which would reduce even further the time
available for photography.
http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
In July 1969, more than
600 million people watched in awe, as Neil
Armstrong became the first man to walk on
the surface of the moon. The last men to set
foot on the moon were the astronauts of
Apollo 17, in December 1972. But even before
this, a set of conspiracy theories were
spreading, the most radical of which claimed
that NASA had faked all the lunar
landings-that man in fact never landed on
the moon. Look at the evidence and decide
for yourself.
This shot of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin
planting the US flag on the moon's surface
was taken by a 16 mm camera mounted on the
lunar module. Aldrin's shadow (A) is far
longer than Armstrong's. Yet the only light
on the moon - and the only light source used
by NASA - comes from the sun, and should not
create such unequal shadows.
Buzz Aldrin
stands with the sun shining down across his
left shoulder. Although his right side is in
shadow, there is too much detail shown on
that side of his space suit (B). It should
be much darker and less visible because the
contrast between light and dark is much
greater on the moon. With no atmosphere to
pollute the light on the moon, all the
photographs should look bright and crisp.
But the landscape behind Aldrin (C)
gradually fades to darkness. This 'fall-off'
effect, hoax theorists say, should not occur
on the moon. But the fading effect could
have happened because film is less adaptive
than the human eye and makes objects seem
darker the further they are from the camera.
There is a curious
object reflected in Aldrin's visor (D).
Some theorists think that it is a
helicopter, others say that it is a 12-metre
glass structure. NASA claims that it is a
piece of equipment on the lunar surface.
NASA claims the strange shape (E) - in
this shot taken from the Lunar Module
while it was 95 km above the moon's
surface - is a shadow cast by the
Command Module's rocket. But when larger
aircraft fly at lower altitudes over the
Earth, they do not cast such huge and
defined shadows.
As
the Lunar Module Antares, from Apollo
14, rests on the moon's surface there is
no crater beneath its feet (F), despite
the considerable amount of dust that
would have been thrown up during its
descent. There also appears to be a
footprint (G) directly under the module,
yet no one walked on this part of the
moon before the craft landed. On the
left side of the craft, the words,
'United States' (H) are clearly visible,
whereas they should be in shadow. Buzz
Aldrin himself said that there is no
refracted light on the moon, which
points to the fact that another source
of light was used to take this shot.
These
shots of John Young and James Irwin -
like many Apollo photos - show a lunar
sky without stars (J). Yet with no
atmosphere on the moon, stars should be
visible - a fact confirmed by Maria
Blyzinsky, Curator of Astronomy at the
Greenwich Observatory, London. If NASA
could not hope to recreate the lunar
sky, they may have opted for simple
black backdrops. NASA claim that the
sunlight was so strong it overpowered
the light from the stars. On the shadow
side of the landing modules, there are
plaques (K) with the American flag and
the words 'United States' quite bright
and clearly visible, but the gold foil
around the plaques is in near darkness.
Studio spotlights highlighting these
areas, or technicians retouching the
prints, could have caused this effect.
As
Alan Bean holds up a Special
Environmental Sample Container, the top
of his head is clearly in view. But the
camera taking the shot was fixed on
Charles Conrad's chest, and the ground
here seems to be level, so the top of
the helmet (L) should not be in the
photo. Shadows visible in Al Bean's
visor should not be in the photo.
Shadows visible in Al Bean's visor (M)
go off in various directions, not in
straight parallel lines, as expected,
suggesting that there is more than one
light source. The container Bean is
holding (N) is brightly lit at the
bottom, yet it is facing away from the
light. This may be due to the light
reflected from Bean's suit on to the
container, but the rest of the container
is not so brightly lit.
In
this photograph of John Young
readjusting an antenna next to the Lunar
Rover Vehicle (LRV), there is a marker,
known as a cross-hair (inset) (P), that
goes behind the LRV's equipment. These
cross-hairs (Q), which appear on all the
lunar photographs, are made by a screen
of cross-hairs placed between the
shutter and the film. The bright,
reflected light may have obliterated the
fine line of this one, or it could have
happened if the image was retouched. The
foreground shows what looks like the
letter 'C' on a boulder (R). Is this
perhaps an identification letter left on
a studio prop? The letter C on the
original photo is actually quite well
defined and it is hard to imagine what
can cause such a well-laid inscription
on a boulder in a desolate place such as
the moon. The tracks made by the LRV's
wheel turn rather oddly at right-angles
(S). These tracks could have been caused
by studio technicians pushing the buggy
into place. Such clear tracks and
footprints require moisture to form and
should not appear on the dry lunar
surface.
THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS
EXCLUSIVE WITNESS
The
two leading supporters of the
faked moon photograph theory
come from either side of the
Atlantic. Ralph René, an author
from New Jersey, argues that Man
never flew to the moon. He
believes the radiation from the
sun is so deadly that astronauts
would fry as soon as they got
into deep space. In his book
'NASA Mooned America!' René
claims that the Apollo pictures
were shot in a government studio
near the town of Mercury in
Nevada.
Englishmen David Percy, on the
other hand, uses his experience
as a professional photographer
to put forward the argument that
the lighting in the Apollo
photographs could only have been
achieved in a studio on earth.
He also claims to have an
informant in NASA, whom he calls
Whistleblower, who has leaked
information about the cover-up.
Buzz Aldrin
Aldrin was the second man to
walk on the moon. Here's what he
had to say about the claims that
the Apollo photographs were
faked.
"There has always been an
undercurrent of queries about
the conspiracy. But they are
sensational fabrications and I
don't put much into any of it. I
appreciate he attention they
draw - it's helpful in keeping
the space promises on people's
minds - but it's very erroneous
and misleading and selfishly
irresponsible. by the people
concerned."
How
do you feel when people say you
and Neil Armstrong never went to
the moon?
"Well it's a waste of my time. I
don't have much respect for the
people who entertain that
thinking and generally am not
interested in engaging in any
discourse with them. All that
does is encourage them and it's
not going to change their
thinking at all."
An
interesting speech reversal can
be found on Neil Armstrong's
legendary 'One small step for
man, one giant leap for mankind'
statement. When played backwards
Neil seems to say 'Man never
space walk.' Listen to it
for yourself.
(not in
archive)
Certain
aspects of the shots - the highlighted
flags, the Lunar Modules without
craters, the camera's cross-hair
disappearing behind the image, the
abnormally distinct tyre tracks and the
footprints - are difficult to explain
away completely. But perhaps the most
intriguing question is why the
photographs may have been faked,
regardless of whether or not Man
actually did land on the moon.
"Apollo debates are usually dominated by
physics arguments which can be confusing
for most people.
Jack White's new analysis is
breath-taking in its simplicity: now
anyone can understand the evidence and
come to their own conclusion."
John P. Costella PhD
Dr. Costella is a physicist living in
Australia
http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
Why would the US military
ignore 9-11 and other
crimes?
These excerpts from 8 hours
of interview of Kay Griggs
(available at 888-820-2126)
show one reason.
Kay is another woman who
wants a better world.
NASA's
$104-billion plan to revive manned
lunar missions is seen as a step
toward Mars trip.
By Peter Pae
NASA unveiled a 13-year,
$104-billion blueprint Monday for
sending humans back to the moon as
early as 2018, using a
modified space shuttle rocket to
propel an Apollo-like capsule into
space.
More:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050920-moon.htm
How
could the flag flutter when there's
no wind on the moon? During an
interview with Stanley Kubrick's
widow an extraordinary story came to
light. She claims Kubrick and other
Hollywood producers were recruited
to help the U.S. win the high stakes
race to the moon. In order to
finance the space program through
public funds, the U.S. government
needed huge popular support, and
that meant they couldn't afford any
expensive public relations failures.
Fearing that no live pictures could
be transmitted from the first moon
landing, President Nixon enlisted
the creative efforts of Kubrick,
whose 2001: a Space Odyssey (1968)
had provided much inspiration, to
ensure promotional opportunities
wouldn't be missed. In return,
Kubrick got a special NASA lens to
help him shoot Barry Lyndon (1975).
A subtle blend of facts, fiction and
hypothesis around the first landing
on the moon, Dark Side Of The
Moon illustrates how the
truth can be twisted by the
manipulation of images.
With
use of 'hijacked' archival footage,
false documents, real interviews
taken out of context or transformed
through voice-over or dubbing,
staged interviews, as well as,
interviews with astronauts like Buzz
Aldrin and others, Dark Side
Of The Moon navigates the
viewer through lies and truth; fact
and fiction. This is no ordinary
documentary. Its intent is to inform
and entertain the viewer, but also
to shake him up - make him aware
that one should always view
television with a critical eye.
