One of those stories seems to be doing the rounds.....
Did man really walk on the Moon or was it the ultimate camera trick, asks David Milne? The great lunar lie. 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 gambol through 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 feat without being able to see what they were doing. * Their 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 clubs. It should have been almost impossible without the use of 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 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 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 for." NASA won't 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 1trillion 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 we will have no way of determining the truth." Space oddities: * 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. * A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Lander lifting off the Moon. Who did the filming? * 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? (It was I Dave Aston) * 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. * 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. * Text from pictures in the article. 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? * 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? |
This fasincates me, allways has.
Is it real or fake? When we get round to this question, as one does in the pub, my big question is: "Why have we never gone back to the moon?" OK, 'been there, seen it, put up the flag' could be an argument, but rather than prat about with a space station, which is a good idea, why not build a moon based space station. Surley the shuttle can get to the moon quicker than an Apollo rocket. OK, it'd need to stay in orbit and deploy a lander, but that's not too hard. So why? is there something on the moon that they don't want us to see, or did something up there scare them away? (anyone remember Dark Skies!) I know that cost is a factor, and shuttle launches cost a vast amount, but I would have thought that american pride would have been enough for them to go back. It's the 21st century, should we not revisit one of the landmarks of the 20th century? The other question I have is how can Neil and Buzz continue with a 'normal' life when they have set foot on another planet. This is something that none, well, maybe a few, of us will ever be able to do in our lifetimes, and yet they've not got stir crazy. Oh, and is there really a darkside of the moon? |
To anyone who believes that the moon landings were faked, try
|
Well as a kid i took a great interest in all the Apollo missions, and i distinctly remember someone (at the time) saying that the "moon flag" had a spring in it to hold it up ('cos there is no air and weaker gravity).
Sounds like another "Captain Pugwash" style hoax! mb |
This old chestnut - sounds like the old tarantulas in the Sainsbury's yucca plants one again.....
|
Interesting site cheers David http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/smile.gif
Hi Dave http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/tongue.gif Si |
Some of these Americans are nutters!
The Apollo 16 lander lift-off was filmed by an automatic camera, as could have been any number of the moon walks. The upward pan was way to smooth for a person to have done it without a tripod etc. What about the experiment where they dropped 2 things (can't remember what they were). On Earth the air resistance of one would have made it fall slower but on the moon they landed together. Not too easy to fake physics! So NASA called the golf shot a slice. Could have been a joke? Or the use of a common golfing term. Don't know how they'd describe a slice in precise physical terms. I thought photographic film was unaffected by radiation so far up the e/m spectrum which is why you can have your camera x-rayed at the airport and not lose your film. Cosmic rays are further up still. To do with wavelengths and film granularity I believe. Buzz Aldrin living a lie? Maybe, but I know Neil Armstrong retired and went back to his farm in the midwest and shunned all publicity. It can't be easy being the most famous man on the planet. Lots of people are famous but shun their celebrity. Doesn't mean they didn't achieve whatever they did. Also, I'm fairly sure that human beings can't actually survive in a pure oxygen environment so I'm not sure about the "capsule pumped full of high pressure oxygen" bit. Not sure the flag was fluttering either. Granted it looked "creased" but that doesn't mean it was fluttering. Gravity on the moon being less than that on Earth could mean that the flag doesn't get pulled out straight when hanging. I suspect the reason the US hasn't been back is because there's no reason to and because of the cost. In the 60s the overriding factor was to beat the USSR. That competitor no longer exists so why should they bother? I guess the International Space Station (soon to be visible from Earth) is a fake as well. Don't suppose this bloke also believes they're hiding aliens in Area 51 does he? Have to say, it is quite enjoyable reading this sort of stuff. It's quite obviously the work of loons but it's fun nonetheless. Sorry to ramble on but I love discussing this sort of thing... |
I always liked the Mr Gorsky story. http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/biggrin.gif
It goes that Neil Armstrong said "Good luck Mr Gorsky" before stepping back into the Apollo lander. Nasa scientists had no clue what this meant, and Neil wouldn't tell. Eventually, he let slip at a party that when he was a kid, he used to live next door to Mr and Mrs Gorsky. One day, playing in the back yard, he overheard a cry from his neighbours' open bedroom window. "You want oral sex? Hell, you'll get oral sex when the kid next door walks on the moon"... |
Does anyone know if Mr Gorsky responded? http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/smile.gif
|
Does anyone know if Mr. Gorsky ever got any **** from Mrs. Gorsky? http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/biggrin.gif |
Did they go? Well I'm pretty sure they did I'm afraid.
The race to the moon with the Russians was a crucial battle to both sides. Star City in Russia tracked all the lunar missions VERY carefully to make sure the Americans actually crossed the finish line. When it was clear the race was over the technical team in Star City's Mission Control threw a small private party in tribute to the winning team and conceded defeat. Why haven't we been back? In the early 70's a lengthy debate took place on whether the 'next step' after Mr Armstrong's should be a lunar station or a space station. The chosen route was space and development commenced on Skylab and the Space Shuttle. Who filmed the lunar blast off? The camera was on the front of the Lunar Rover and controlled remotely from Euston to follow the Astronauts progress when they were away from the Rover. It's last job was to film the lunar ascent. Mirrors were also left on the moon on one of the missions to enable lasers to be reflected from Earth to monitor the lunar orbit track. These mirrors are still utilised today by the international Astronomy community. There is no getting away from the fact that for almost every questionable aspect of the lunar missions there is an explanation. It's just a case of whether you want to take it into account. As for the surface footage well I think both camps agree some of it is fake. Many reasons have been suggested and the one I tend to favour was that activities took place that were not for public consumption. However I have also heard that such a small proportion of the lunar photography came out that it was an embarrassment hence the additional footage. IMHO, they went. Otis. |
It's an intersting one this. Bit like the 'who really shot JFK' debate. I suspect that you will never find out for sure.
It is hard to believe that they could fake something as big as this, but when you look at the website David has posted up, it does make you think... Chris |
was the new Impreza Designed by a Blind student with enlarged and hairy palmed hands?
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:26 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands