Most Americans of a certain age
would agree without reservation that the United States landed a man on the moon
on July 20, 1969. Unfortunately that belief represents a triumph of
psychological warfare and strong delusion.
Saying that the United States did
not land on the moon is akin to calling one’s mother a whore on Mother’s Day.
Saying so would be the absolute truth about the moon. But saying so would also cost you your
life as Virgil Grissom discovered after he spoke frankly about the state of the
space mission in 1967.
In an astonishing documentary,
Apollo Zero, produced by Jarrah White, overwhelming evidence is presented to
demonstrate that the moon landings were giant hoaxes perpetrated not just on
the American people, but the entire world.
White traces the origins of the space
program to World War 2 after which the United States and the Soviet Union
divided the spoils of victory by taking many Nazi rocket scientists to their
respective countries. The hatefulness of these scientists and their CIA
sponsors helps explain why they burned Grissom and his crewmates alive when
they dared to expose the fraud of the space program.
White interviewed many Apollo
alumni in their homes, only to find that rage and physical violence greeted narrator
Eric Ryan when he challenged the science and veracity of space travel, especially in the case of Buzz Aldrin who punched Ryan in the face
when he confronted the former astronaut about his false claims of a moon landing. Another astronaut’s
son suggested that his dad call the CIA to “wax” Ryan and his filming crew as they
were physically thrown from the house for confronting the lies they were still
peddling nearly 40 years later. Clearly the CIA is the leader behind the moon
hoax.
So what is the evidence of fraud?
One of the most powerful clues is the photographic record which shows scores
and scores of lighting, perspective, and artifact anomalies. For example, the
planted flag waving in the wind on the moon is something which even a novice could
detect. When watched carefully, one can see the rod perpendicular to the
pole holding the flag up.
Another source, Jay Weidner,
speculates with certainty that famed film maker Stanley Kubrick produced the
elaborate trick photography he used in his classic film 2001: A Space Odyssey for the televised moon walks.
Weidner shows the Scotchlite screen material used in Front Screen Projection
and seen in Space Odyssey as also present on NASA’s films.
Incidentally, NASA claims to have
“accidentally” erased much of its lunar film, knowing full well that modern
imaging tools could completely unmask the charade of the moon landing. What person would survive destroying witness of mankind's most impressive accomplishment?
Weidner also notes that shadows
in NASA pictures from two men allegedly on the moon are at different angles
although supposedly lit by the same light source – the sun. Weidner, himself a
professional Hollywood film maker, explains that the different shadow angles
are easily caused by studio lighting.
Returning to White’s evidence, he
provides what he calls the smoking gun in which a camera mounted in the Apollo
spacecraft, pointed at the earth, is eclipsed by a man and his hairy arm. The
image also has a large rectangular light source which is without doubt man
made.
One final note on the images of
the moon is that they are all perfectly focused for men who were supposedly
walking around in bulky space suits. How would they have operated the camera controls so expertly?
Weidner notes that depth of vision is perfect across all distances, something
explainable only by a studio production using Front Screen Projection.
Other anomalies abound. One of
the most intriguing is the state of technology today versus what it supposedly
was during the 1960s. White observes that the highest altitude above the earth which modern space missions have
reached is about 400 miles. While the brevity of distance is striking in
contrast to the 240,000 miles to the moon, the real issue is the Allen Belt,
an electromagnetic force field whose radiation is too powerful for man to
withstand for any period of time – to say nothing of the two days required to
take the spacecraft through it - which keeps man under the 400 foot ceiling.
Although not mentioned by the
documentary, we note that that the spacecraft would have to travel 3300 miles
per hour to reach the moon within the alleged 3 days of travel. We cannot
produce aircraft to operate at that speed today, to say nothing of 1969, nor
can man survive at that speed even in the weightlessness of space.
White points out that the environment
on the moon is simply too severe to insulate against, especially with 1960s
technology. The surface of the moon would be at least 250 degrees Fahrenheit, a
condition which the space suits could not handle. The NASA answer is that the
suits were cooled by an air conditioning unit on each of the space suits sporting portable batteries. It is utterly preposterous unless one supposes that the Energizer Bunny was in the backpack operating a treadmill to produce electricity. Oh yes, and batteries supposedly operated
the entire lunar module. For those familiar with battery technology, that lie
ranks right up there with streets paved with gold in America.
In general, given what we know
now about technology and its limits, it is rolling on the floor funny to think
that the technology of 1969 could take man 480,000 miles round trip when going
400 miles into space is a great challenge in 2013. Most Americans are damned lucky to have a car which can go 100,000 miles in Earth's agreeable climate. And to go that distance and live on the moon
for 33 hours without a hitch is the most lunatic lie imaginable. Having many
years with the software industry, project management, and military training
missions, we can say that the likelihood of that outcome is absolutely zero
degrees Kelvin.
Regarding the moon rocks, some of
those were indeed from the moon as found in Antarctica. Nazi Wernher von Braun
visited there in 1966 to find suitable specimens for the moon rock hoax.
After considering Weidner’s and
White’s evidence, it is abundantly clear that the United States did not land on
the moon. The Apollo craft crashing into the ocean was orbiting the earth for
several days until it was time to make a grand splash.
Say it ain’t so, Joe, but say it
we must. No one has ever been to the moon.
16 comments:
To Anonymous - who called our essay rubbish. We permit dissent when it is reasoned and substantiated.
I respectfully disagree that astronauts did not go to the Moon in 1969-72. I don't mean to be belligerent or a prick, just careful about things, concerned with accuracy (many of your posts, on JFK assassination, are excellent).
I suggest you watch this clip on the Moon landings from a rather interesting source:
http://gizmodo.com/5977205/why-the-moon-landings-could-have-never-ever-been-faked-the-definitive-proof
we knew we would hit a raw nerve with millions of americans having a heavy psychological investment in the drama. unfortunately the facts do not support the fantasy. and i say that as someone who drank that kool aid.
the title of your link, why-the-moon-landings-could-have-never-ever-been-faked-the-definitive-proof, is something which a philosophy 101 or first year law student could send packing. our sources provided abundant evidence of how they could have been faked.
as we noted, the science (van allen belt), videography ( front screen projection), and technology ( distance and battery capabilities) make a 1969 lunar adventure an absurd impossibility. we can't even do it today.
as i mentioned previously, we only allow reasoned substantive responses by the poster. Please interact directly with the evidence and logic presented. Links to other sources should only be used in support of a specific thesis developed by the poster.
It's not a matter of having "an investment" in the Moon landing, any more than I might have "an investment" in the laws of physics which allow my heavier-than-air plane to stay aloft.
As for the technology, I beg to differ: we did have the capability, to sling a massive liquid fuel rocket, with multiple stages, out into lunar orbit. The major resistance was getting out of the Earth's atmosphere and gravitational pull. Once we got beyond that, it was just a matter of small bursts of rocket propulsion. The Van Allen Belt does not prevent a rocket from leaving the Earth's gravitational field.
As for the argument that cinematography was used, there was live video of almost the entire landing event. As the director in the video mentioned, there wasn't the video technology to fake this in 1969.
I'm hardly invested in the military-industrial complex. We protested the Vietnam War. We thought LBJ had Kennedy killed in a domestic coup which got covered up. I was opposed to the SST jet in 1971 for polluting the atmosphere. This has nothing to do with being 'invested' and everything to do with acceptance of historical fact, like the fact that the holocaust happened in Germany or the fact that Americans wiped out the indigenous populations and lied about it.
One more thing about the Van Allen Belt, which I don't think laypeople understand: It's dangerous but not at the time scale involved in transiting it which the lunar missions undertook. To elaborate: If you blast right through the Van Allen belts it is no problem, which is what the Apollo astronauts did. X-rays would be lethal too, if you sat there soaking in them long enough. A very real problem, however, are cosmic rays. They are not a problem on a short flight like to the moon, but in long flights that might last years, like to Mars, they could be a serious problem.
I suggest that the writer(s) of this Moon Landing Hoax submit it for peer review and see how the scientific claims hold up. Like the global warming deniers, who deny the science of the greenhouse effect, I think they would have major problems with most of their claims.
Finally, I urge that people reading my responses to this article doubt what I'm saying: Don't take my counter-claims to Tony Bonn's claims at face value. I could be completely full of sh*t. The way to find out is to test and research my claims (and Tony's) on your own. Do the math and science. Look at the lies our government has told (there are many). Ask yourself if you think this set of trips, from 1969-72 was possible. Don't use religion, national identity and any kind of "faith or belief" to sway you. Check out the facts. Show some critical thinking. That's all I ask, besides give people freedom to say what they think, even if it runs counter to what you think.
My comments about technology were not about the ability to escape gravity - i think i have been specific about which areas but there are more than we presented.
"As the director in the video mentioned, there wasn't the video technology to fake this in 1969."
please see our reference by Jay Weidner. He presents detailed information - and illustrated - showing exactly how the moon landing could have been (and was)faked. It is a tall logical leap to prove a negative. (And yes we know we are superficially doing so).
The experiences of the astronauts who did reach the edge of the allen belt and those who claimed to have gone through it are diametrically opposed. someone is telling a tall tale - and methinks it is the astronauts from 1969-72.
A television broadcast by every major newsfaker in america does not make something so. There simply is no evidence of a landing on the moon and much to refute it.
To All Whose Posts I Have Deleted -
Please deal with the substance of my thesis rather than claiming that I discredit a cause.
My essay is about only one subject - the space program from 1962 - 1972 as it dealt with the faked moon landings. The space program since the 1980s, as i can tell, is a different matter.
It is a genetic fallacy to argue that my opinion on this subject discredits a different subject. Insults do not refute a proposition to people who think critically. Telling me that I bring shame to the conspiracy community or cause vituperations about the sizes and fit of your tin hats is nonsense. I am strictly about facts and substance.
There is no way you could offend me by telling me that i am a "conspiracy theorist" or "tinhatter". Call me what you will, but i only interact with fact based analysis.
You can see proof of the landings on the moon by the junk left behind, in these photos:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html
You're probably too young to remember this, but before the sound barrier was broken, people weren't sure what would happen, if it could be done. When it was broken, in 1947, although people said we didn't have the technology to do so, it was proven and done.
I suggest you submit your thesis of a faked lunar landing (set of landings) to a peer review, to see if the scientific claims your author make hold up to skeptical critical review (the scientific method). If you truly don't have an agenda, this shouldn't be a problem. After all, you don't care either way, you are just interested in the truth, right?
Here's an explanation that I think effectively answers the article's point about space suits working on the lunar surface to protect the astronauts (the article claims that no space suit in 1969 was capable of doing this).
When anyone asks what "the temperature" is, your very first question should be "the temperature of WHAT?" When "it" gets up to 250 F, you have to know precisely what "it" is. In this case, "it" is the rocks and dust of the lunar surface. That is, the figures cited are lunar surface temperatures.
What we commonly think of as "temperature" in our environment is air temperature. So when you say, "Today it was 75 F in Los Angeles," what you're saying is that the air was 75 F. The hot pavement in the parking lot may have been 150 F. And the concrete floor of the bottom level of a parking garage may be 60 F. That is, each item in an environment doesn't all come to the same temperature.
But more importantly, there's no air on the Moon. So air temperature is meaningless. The surface may get very hot, but that doesn't mean everything nearby will get that hot. How hot something gets in space depends largely on how much heat it absorbs from the sun. The lunar soil absorbs 85-90% of the solar energy (1300 watts max per square meter) that falls on it. So when the sun shines most directly on it it -- lunar noon -- it's sucking up a lot of heat.
A space suit, on the other hand, absorbs only about 15% of the solar energy that falls on it. And the outer layers are heavily insulated from the inner layers. Aluminum absorbs only about 5% of the solar heat. Things made of aluminum don't always heat up very much in space.
An astronaut's boots touch the surface directly and so absorb heat from it. But again, insulation is the key. You can walk very easily in ordinary shoes across asphalt that's 150 F or more without any ill effects. Your shoe soles get hot, but little of that heat conducts to your feet. Same with the astronauts. They had about an inch total of boot sole between them and the ground.
And the other key factor is that the Apollo missions landed in lunar morning. The sun was low in the sky. And just as surface temperatures on Earth take a while to warm up as the sun climbs, so do lunar surface temperatures. I computed once that the average lunar surface temperature during Apollo 11 was only about 30 F. The sun hadn't risen very far yet.
Even at lunar noon, the hot part only goes down less than a meter. Dig more than a few centimeters below the surface, and you've got very cold rocks and dust. The sunlight never penetrates there, and heat conducts very poorly through the jumble of rocks and dust.
Keep in mind that +250 F and -300 F are the extremes. Most of the surface temperatures measured on the surface will lie somewhere in the middle of those. And it takes a long time for any object to change between those extremes. It's not like you stand in full sun and then walk into the shadow of the spacecraft and your suit temperature immediately plummets to hundreds of degrees below zero. Heat transfer just doesn't work that fast.
Tony: I am intrigued by the following statement by you because it is factually incorrect:
Although not mentioned by the documentary, we note that that the spacecraft would have to travel 3300 miles per hour to reach the moon within the alleged 3 days of travel. We cannot produce aircraft to operate at that speed today, to say nothing of 1969, nor can man survive at that speed even in the weightlessness of space.
We have had spacecraft (for a few decades, now) that travel much faster than 3,300 miles per hour. For instance, near-earth satellites (including manned ones such as the ISS) orbit the earth (circumference ~24,000 miles) in around 90-95 minutes. This translates to a speed of over 17,000 miles per hour. The evidence for this is solid and variegated: (i) numerous humans have traveled on such spacecraft and have seen the Earth rotate under them in 95 min; (ii) these spacecraft are operated not only by NASA or America, but by other countries and private agencies; (iii) you can yourself see these spacecraft in the sky and track them by using websites such as heavens-above.com, which predict their orbits and positions accurately to the second. Our own Earth travels around the Sun at a stunning 67,000 miles per hour. Both examples disprove the statement that humans cannot withstand such speeds. After all, physics as we know it indicates that speed is relative. A traveler should not experience anything different at a different speed in the absence of acceleration.
Furthermore, I don't know if you are aware, but our abilities to speed up spacecraft have dramatically improved in the recent past. The (unmanned) New Horizons spacecraft (on its way to Pluto) traveled the Earth-Moon distance in less than 10 hours, becoming (if I remember correctly), the fastest human-made object to leave Earth.
It is not fair to compare aircraft to spacecraft because the two modes of transport operate very differently. Aircraft fly in air and require continuous expense of fuel to overcome air resistance and keep flying. On the contrary, spacecraft travel in a vacuum and require propulsion (rocket firing) only when their speed has to be altered. Your statement is analogous to disbelieving that an aircraft can cross the Atlantic in 8 hours on the basis that no ship can do so.
your comments are duly noted and accepted. i will incorporate some of that in a revised version of the essay.
on the other hand, my views are incorrigible about the space program and its flights of fantasy during moon days.
the space program since the late 1970s appears to be of a different character.
thank you for your comments.
The moon missions were a hoax as so were some of the first mars missions with robotics in the 1970s. I have heard some of the stories right out of the mouths of former nasa people that worked there during that era.
Once again, where's your witness? Can't prove a hoax without an eyewitness, otherwise it's just conjecture. There would be dozens, if not hundreds of techs needed to fake the hours/days of 16mm transparency film (the hardest format to do any sort of optical compositing) and video footage, not to mention the hundreds of 70mm still images. (just watch the credits of any effects-heavy movie)
It took 2 and 1/2 years just to do the 200+ effects shots in "2001." All the Apollo footage would have taken the resources of every effects shop in Hollywood and London working around the clock for years to knock out all of that material that exists for the 6 successful landing missions. And there was nothing even resembling digital compositing then.
Watch "Incredible Voyage"(1967) or Robert Altman's "Countdown"(1968)or the Oscar-winning "Marooned"(1969) to see the state-of-the-art in film-based effects of the time. None of that looks anything like the Apollo footage.
But like I said, you got NO WITNESS, NO PROOF. Of the thousands of people it would have taken to carry this off, no one has come forward to blow the lid off this hoax. No deathbed confessions, no disgruntled whistle-blower, NO ONE to give what would certainly command a million or two dollars for a legit hoax interview in today's media.
We went to the moon. 9 times, 6 successful landings, 12 guys walked. It's not as sexy as being a chronic non-conformist and yelling, "Fake!!", but it's true. Deal with it.
Your arguments about witnesses is utter nonsense. We can establish the fact that someone murdered someone else through the use of forensic investigation, the basis of such popular television programs as csi and real life detective work. In such cases eye witnesses are not mandatory.
On the other hand, we do have eye witnesses such as Stanley Kubrick who has essentially admitted on camera and through his films that the Apollo missions were utter god-damned fakes.
Furthermore, we have the evidence of professional cinematographers and photographers who have confirmed countless anomalies in the video and stills that the "moon" activities occurred in studio and on locations in Nevada, and I believe Utah. This is forensic evidence which provides the "eye witness" account.
2001 space odyssey was the dress rehearsal and the amount of effort and special effects put into it were all that was required to fake the moon landings. if you can make a movie then you have all people and skills needed to stage a few days of space fakery.
the absence of witnesses or the old nonsense "someone would have talked" is not proof of your moon landing. the same tired argument is used to claim that there was no conspiracy to murder kennedy, yet the mountains of forensic evidence proves otherwise. also, many of the participants have been murdered or intimidated into silence. read our story about gus grissom.
finally, the number of direct witnesses is limited. with the vast bureaucracy producing the moon hoaxes, it is easy to compartmentalize people so much that they don't know which way is up. neil Armstrong or buzz aldrin was so shaken by the exposure that he resorted to physical violence against his accuser. that is quite possibly the smoking gun and eye witness you so desperately seek.
I work in the refrigeration field.
A little reflection on perceptions of reality. Being somewhat of a specialist in any field makes you that more tuned in to any suggestions that might be ignorant or absurd. You might quietly smile at such infantile ideas, knowing that the specialists reality is much more advanced and so they can often excuse ideas that are innocently preposterous. This is the case of most Americans that have no background in the technologies required to perform a moon walk.
I literally burst out laughing when I read the writers remarks about the size and number of batteries needed for cooling space suits and the craft itself. I had my suspicions about the methodology/theoretical aspects of just the theoretical aspects of cooling a space trip with all its trimmings, let alone the energy required to perform such a feat. People have no idea how much energy is required to power equipment to support removal of heat from something as small as a refrigerator in a 70 degree home, let alone from a craft housing 3 men (300-400 btu/hr, resting state) traveling 240,000 miles, for over a week, sporting a craft landing on the moon for a 3 day camp out, and the supporting apparatus required to achieve it.
Something the author doesnt mention, is the BTU heat added by the human body, which also needed to be taken into account. 350-600 btu, depending on the amount of work being done. (By the way Cooling is not adding "cool", it is the subtraction of heat)
When I first heard about the Moon Hoax Landing, I thought it was ludicrous. The convincing part for me was this issue of cooling. I assure you, what NASA is foisting on the public can be scientifically dismantled by this one proof alone. Nothing more is required. Refrigerating the craft on the 6 day round trip journey, the suits, the environment of 2 separate crafts, as one was circling the moon for several days is nothing short of a fantasy.
Post a Comment