Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake?
(And why haven't we been back to the moon in 35 years?)
Moonfakers at work for Collier's magazine
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 47-year-old Ralph Rene.
"How can the flag be fluttering," the American kept asking himself, "when there's no wind on the atmosphere-free Moon?" That moment was 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 growing wonder, until finally reaching this astounding conclusion: America had never put a man on the Moon. The giant leap for mankind was fake!
This is the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories. Rene has compiled all his findings in a startling book titled NASA Mooned America. It is being sold by mail order for 25 US dollars and is a compelling read. The story lifts off in 1961 with Russia firing Yuri Gagarin into space, leaving America trailing in the space race. At an emergency meeting of Congress, President Kennedy proposes 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, 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. Rene believes they're fake.
For starters, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked like two blurred white ghosts gambol on an unearthly surface. 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.
Award winning British photographer David Percy is convinced the pictures are fake. He says 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. David Percy believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by "whistle blowers", who were keen for the truth to get out one day. If Percy is right and the pictures are fake, then we have 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?
Lets Start off with the pictures
Lets face it, there isn't really a heapload of evidence that we didn't go to the moon. Why would there be? NASA doesn't WANT evidence that we went to the moon. NASA wants people not to ask questions, and keep living their happy little lives. But here is some evidence that you cannot argue with. My theory is that the moon landing were set on a sound stage, not in space. (Perhaps an Air Force base near San Bernardino, called Norton Air Force Base, where they have the world's largest sound stages under tremendously efficient security).
On the moon, there is only one light source, the sun. This is a shot of Buzz Aldrin and Neal Armstrong planting the US flag on the moon. If the sun is the only light source used by NASA on the moon, Aldrins shadow A shadows should not be so much longer than Armstrong's.
This is a famous picture labeled "Man on the Moon" I have a poster of this picture hanging on my wall in my room, and it always gives me a chuckle.
If you will look at area B you will notice a shadow cast across Buzz Aldrin's space suit. Once again, if the Sun is the only light source used on the moon, this shadow would have been MUCH darker.
Looking at area C you will notice that the surface of the moon fades off into the distance, then is met with the moon's horizon. In a no-atmosphere environment, the ground shouldn't have faded out, but stayed crystal sharp unto the moon's horizon.
Looking at area D you can plainly see some type of structure reflected through Aldrins helmet. I do not know what it is, but it is there.
In this picture, taken from the LEM, you can see at least two abnormalities. In section E you see an abnormal shadow on the moon's surface. NASA claims that this shadow is the shadow cast by the Lunar Module, but on earth, even when aircraft is flying low to the ground, it does not produce such a clearly defined shadow.
OK, here's the kicker... if you will look at section 3 you will notice there are no stars in the sky. In fact, you will never see any stars in any NASA Moon photographs, or hear an astronaut mention anything about the glorious stars that are visible when out of the earths atmosphere.
if you look in areas 6 and J , you will again see no stars. In area K you will notice that one side of the LEM in covered in shadow, but somehow the symbol of the US flag in illuminated. This very well could have been a touch up job.
This is a picture of Alan Bean holding up a Special Environmental Examiner Container. This picture was taken off a camera that was strapped to Conrad's chest. If the camera was attached to Conrad's chest, the top of Bean's helmet L should not be in this picture.
All of the shadows reflected in Bean's visor M are going off in separate directions, not in parallel lines like they should be.
If you will look at the Environmental sampler that Al Bean is holding, N , The reflection is coming from a light source other than the sun, but it is possible that light is being reflected off the space suit.
There is a strange anomaly in the sky 7, It is yet to be determined what that might be.
In our last picture, I would like to direct your attention to the circled portion of the screen. These Lunar Rover tracks are quite well defined, don't you agree? Well, the fact is, you need a mixture of a compound, and water, to make such defined lines. I don't know if that idea is so convincing, but I assure you, this next one is.
If you look at the rock labeled R you will notice a the letter C carved in the rock. Perhaps a gag left by the props department?
Here is a portion of the previous picture, blown up. Take a look at the cross hairs that appear on the picture. These hairs appear on EVERY lunar picture. These cross hairs are placed between the shutter of the camera, and the film, supposedly. If you take a look at the cross hair on the left, this cross hair was placed behind the lunar rover, you can see the Lunar Rover is in front of the cross hairs.
The questions don't stop there. Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. The earth’s Van Allen belt protects standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space. 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 Lander, which took astronauts from the spaceship to the moon’s surface, were, said NASA, "about the thickness of heavy duty aluminum foil". How could that stop this deadly radiation? 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.
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. Case of Liar’s Conscience?
Here are some more interesting Space oddities:
- Apollo 14 astronaut Allan 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?
- 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 move that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.
A NASA public affairs officer, Julian Scheer once delighted 200 guests at a private party with footage of astronauts apparently on a 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". Rene believes that 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.
BUT WHY WOULD THEY DO IT ?
I have come up with three reasons why NASA would fake a landing on the moon:
MONEY -- NASA gathered about 30 billion dollars pretending to go to the moon. That means that someone is getting a lot of money in their pockets.
ATTENTION -- If you ever saw the movie "Wag the Dog", the president has sexual relations with a 12 year old. This information goes out to the media 1 week before elections. So, to get the publics mind off of the little Girl, the president stages a war with Albania. The moon shots were the same concept. People did not like what was going on with the Vietnam war, so, to get the publics mind off of all the bad things going on in Vietnam, the US faked a moon landing. If you check your dates, we abruptly stopped going to the moon around the same time the Vietnam War Ended.
TO WIN THE SPACE RACE -- Back in the late 60's early 70's, Russia and the US were in a heated battle to see, well, pretty much who was better. Once the US realized that they couldn't send a man to the moon, they couldn't just say, "OK Russia, we give up."
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 were in infancy in the 60s. This time round will have no way of determining the truth."
