Did we land on the Moon or didn't we ?
Posted on Tuesday, 12 February, 2013 | 53 comments
Columnist: William B Stoecker
America's manned space program began with Project Mercury, using Redstone and Atlas rockets to send men up on suborbital and later orbital missions. This was followed by Project Gemini, which used Titan rockets to launch two men at a time into Earth orbit, and included EVA (extra vehicular activity) missions where the astronauts actually ventured outside the spacecraft. Then came Project Apollo, using Saturn Five rockets to send men to the Moon... or so we are told. Apollo One was a ground test of the systems, and a fire broke out that killed astronauts Grissom, White, and Chaffee. Gus Grissom was a critic of certain aspects of the space program, and he had nearly been killed before, when his Mercury capsule mysteriously sank into the ocean right after landing. There followed several unmanned missions, and then Apollo Seven, a manned mission that stayed in Earth orbit. On 12/21/68 (the winter solstice) Apollo Eight took three men to the Moon, although they did not land. Apollo Nine tested the LEM (Lunar Excursion Module) rendezvous and docking procedures in Earth orbit. Apollo Ten took men to the Moon again, and two of the crew descended in the LEM to within ten miles of the Lunar surface but did not land. Apollo Eleven (11 is an important number to the Freemasons) landed on the Moon 7/20/69, and July twentieth is the date of the helical rising of Sirius in the Northern Hemisphere... a very important date to the ancient Egyptians. Buzz Aldrin performed a Masonic ceremony 33 minutes (three times eleven and a very important Masonic number) after landing. Apollo Twelve landed successfully, but Apollo Thirteen took off from Earth at 1:13 in the afternoon (13:13 by the military clock) on 4/11/70 and suffered a mysterious explosion on 4/13. Its intended landing spot in the Moon's Fra Mauro region was in darkness the entire planned time of the mission... despite the fact that Apollo spacecraft never landed in darkness. Apollo Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, and Seventeen were all successful.
And then, although more Saturn Five rockets had already been built, NASA abandoned the program, citing a lack of public interest and concern over the expense. Since when does "our" government care about public opinion or spending? America stopped producing and using the Saturn Five, and developed the Space Shuttle, which was actually more expensive to operate, despite being mostly reusable. Although our unmanned space missions have achieved spectacular successes, we have never even sent men back to the Moon, let alone to Mars, but have contented ourselves with orbital missions of dubious value and with the International Space Station, a costly and pointless boondoggle. Obviously, something is very wrong with this entire picture.
There are other questions we should ask NASA. Why is it that, decades after the alleged Moon landings, NASA is still relying on rockets burning chemical fuels for most missions, and only recently an ion rocket? Why have they not been able to develop a true space shuttle, fully reusable and economical? We know that they tested, on a shuttle mission in 1999, an electromagnetic propulsion system that produced a thrust by reacting with Earth's magnetic field. While such a system could not take off from the surface of the Earth, it could, powered by a solar photovoltaic array, operate from Earth orbit... but it apparently has not been used since then. Nor did NASA ever test spin induced gravitation, even with tethers, despite the fact that prolonged micro gravity damages the health of astronauts. Are they serious about space flight? Or is there really a secret space program, using, as some have alleged, exotic systems like gravity control?
From the very beginning, some people never believed that the landings even took place. Initially, most of these doubters were simply ignorant people with not the remotest understanding of astronomy or technology. But, over the years, more serious doubts were raised. Dark Moon, by Mary Bennett and David Percy, whether or not their conclusions are correct, is an exceedingly well written and researched book, with a wealth of technical detail that cannot be ignored. The authors point out that the astronauts, on the way to and from the Moon, would have to spend about two hours each way in Earth's deadly radiation belts, which they claim were made even more deadly by trapped particles from a nuclear test above the atmosphere in 1962. They note that videos of the LEM taking off from the Moon show no exhaust smoke or dust, and that the landing did not leave dust on the legs of the craft. They also point out that the Hasselblad cameras used by the astronauts while on the Moon, mounted on brackets on their space suits at chest height, would have been nearly impossible to operate while wearing the thick and cumbersome suits. All of these points are debatable... except for the last one.
There truly is something terribly wrong with many of the photographs allegedly taken by the astronauts on the Moon. Years ago, people believed that all shadows on the virtually airless Moon would be jet black. Actually, some light is reflected up from the Lunar surface (which is why we can see the Moon from Earth) and the shadowed sides of the LEM or the astronauts would not quite be black... but they would still be pretty dark. In at least one picture the shadowed sides of rocks are black, but the side of the astronaut, also in shadow, is light gray. This makes no sense. In some pictures the dark side of the LEM is fairly bright, too bright to be explained by reflection. In one, a mountain side is black, but the shadowed sides of an astronaut and the Lunar Rover are easily visible. And there are other problems. In one picture a rock has a clear letter "C" on it, too precise to be natural. Was it to mark the location of the rock in a film studio here on Earth? In several pictures the terrain is clearly level, but shadow angles vary widely, as if caused by multiple lights in a studio rather than the light of the Sun. In one of these, two astronauts are standing only feet apart on level terrain, but their shadows diverge at a considerable angle. The Moon's surface experiences a two week night and a two week day, so over the few hours astronauts on any one mission spent on the surface the Sun's angle would vary by, at the most, ten degrees... yet pictures allegedly taken on a single mission show a variance of twenty six degrees.
And there is a picture of Buzz Aldrin allegedly taken by another astronaut with the camera at chest height, which it was, because it and the other astronaut are reflected in Aldrin's visor. But the angle of the picture indicates that it was taken from eye level. Incredibly, in this picture Aldrin is clearly visible and is standing in a lighted area... but all around him, in every direction, the level Lunar surface becomes darker and darker. How so, given that the Sun was shining all over? This is impossible. Period. End of discussion. This picture, at the very least, was either altered substantially, or, more likely, was produced in a studio here on Earth.
So just what is going on here? Richard Hoagland and Mike Bara, in their book Dark Mission, The Secret History of NASA, point out that NASA is not quite what it seems (many of us believe that this is true of the entire US government). I mentioned above the peculiar obsession with certain dates and times involving numbers sacred to Freemasons, and the odd "coincidences" in the Apollo Thirteen mission, which looks more and more like some kind of bizarre ritual or theater rather than an accident. Hoagland and Bara remind us that NASA uses pagan mythological names for most of their rockets and programs, and their mission patch depicts the constellation Orion... very important to the ancient Egyptians. They mention that there was only one White Sands Missile Range launch pad, but it was called Launch Complex Thirty Three... that Masonic number again. And there was only one Cape Canaveral runway... runway thirty three.
So just what is going on here? There are a number of possibilities. Perhaps we never landed on the Moon at all, but, at the most, sent men to orbit the Moon. This would have been extremely difficult to cover up, and, if we never landed, where did over eight hundred pounds of Moon rocks allegedly brought back by the astronauts come from? These were sent to laboratories all over the world, and the isotope ratios of Moon rocks differ from those on Earth... if the rocks had not really been from the Moon it would have been impossible to cover up.
Of course, it is possible that the rocks were actually brought back by astronauts working on a secret space program, and the public program was just for propaganda purposes and to cover up the existence of the secret program and the advanced technologies involved. While it is quite likely that our government has technologies far beyond those known to the public, such as electrogravitics, and may have a secret program, this whole scenario seems a bit far-fetched.
It may be that the astronauts landed at least once or twice and the other missions were faked, but what would have been the motive? A more likely explanation for the faked or altered photographs would be the existence of structures, other space craft, or beings on the Moon that our government is keeping secret. Perhaps these were visible in some actual pictures taken on the Moon. Remember that Hoagland and Bara and many other researchers have presented very strong evidence that some sort of civilization did leave structures on Mars and on our Moon and perhaps elsewhere, and the builders may still be present. Astronauts saw and videotaped mysterious objects in Earth orbit and near the Moon, and saw strange lights on the Lunar surface, and seismic detectors from early missions detected no evidence of meteor impacts to explain these lights. NASA is clearly covering up something.
But there is a much simpler explanation. Since the cameras were certainly difficult for men in cumbersome suits to operate, and since high quality pictures in conditions of intense glare and black or nearly black shadows would be hard to produce, did NASA succumb to temptation and make the photographs in a studio, perhaps basing them on poor quality pictures actually taken on the Moon? Blurry pictures would not have been good for public relations and would do nothing to inspire the public to continue supporting the program. A technique then in use, called front screen projection and since superseded by computerized special effects, could have provided the backdrops, and might explain the illusion of nearly transparent structures of great size noted by Hoagland and Bara. And these pictures could be counted on not to contain any images of unknown structures or craft on the Moon. Of course, there is still the mystery of NASA's abandonment of the program before all the planned missions had flown. Were we, in fact, chased or warned off the Moon by someone else, someone who had been there for a long time? That remains a mystery.Article Copyright© William B Stoecker - reproduced with permission.