American Patrick Murray"exploded" the world media with an incredible sensation - he published an interview with the now deceased director Stanley Kubrick, recorded 15 years ago.
“I committed a huge fraud on the American public. With the participation of the United States government and NASA. The moon landing was faked, all the landings were faked, and I was the person who filmed it,” Stanley Kubrick claims in the video. In response to the interviewer’s clarifying question, the director repeats once again: yes, the American landing on the Moon is a fake, which he personally fabricated.
According to Kubrick, this hoax was carried out on instructions from the US President Richard Nixon. The director received a large amount of money for participating in the project.
Patrick Murray explained why the interview appeared only 15 years after the death of Stanley Kubrick. According to him, this was a requirement of the non-disclosure agreement that he signed when recording the interview.
The loud sensation, however, was quickly exposed - the interview with Kubrick, whose role was actually played by the actor, turned out to be a hoax.
This is not the first time that the topic of Stanley Kubrick's participation in what has been called the "moon conspiracy" has been raised.
In 2002, the documentary film “The Dark Side of the Moon” was released, part of which was an interview with the widow of Stanley Kubrick Christiana. In it, she claimed that her husband, at the initiative of US President Richard Nixon, inspired by Kubrick’s film “2001: A Space Odyssey,” took part in the filming of the landing of American astronauts on the moon, which was carried out in a specially built pavilion on Earth.
In reality, the film “The Dark Side of the Moon” was a well-staged hoax, as its creators openly admitted in the credits.
"We've never been to the moon"
Despite the exposure of such pseudo-sensations, the “moon conspiracy” theory is still alive and has thousands of supporters in different countries of the world.
July 21, 1969 astronaut Neil Armstrong stepped onto the surface of the Moon and uttered the historical phrase: “This is one small step for a man, but a giant leap for all mankind.”
The first human landing on the surface of the Moon was televised to dozens of countries, but some were not convinced. Literally from the first day, skeptics began to appear, convinced that there was no landing on the Moon, and everything that was shown to the public was a grandiose hoax.
December 18, 1969 newspaper The The New York Times published a short article about the annual meeting of members of the comic Society in Memory of the Man Who Will Never Fly, held in one of the bars in Chicago. In it, one of the NASA representatives allegedly showed other tipsy members of the public photos and videos of the astronauts' ground training activities, showing a striking resemblance to footage from the Moon.
In 1970, the first books were published expressing doubts that earthlings had actually visited the Moon.
In 1975, American writer Bill Kaysing published the book “We Have Never Been to the Moon,” which has become a reference book for all supporters of the “moon conspiracy” theory. Kaysing claimed that the entire moon mission was an elaborate hoax by the US government.
Bill Kaysing formulated the main arguments of supporters of the “moon conspiracy” theory:
- NASA's level of technological development did not allow sending a man to the Moon;
- Absence of stars in photographs from the surface of the Moon;
- The astronauts' photographic film should have melted from the midday temperature on the Moon;
- Various optical anomalies in photographs;
- A waving flag in a vacuum;
- A smooth surface instead of the craters that should have been formed as a result of the landing of the lunar modules from their engines.
Why is the flag flying?
Supporters of the version that the Americans have never been to the Moon point to numerous contradictions and inconsistencies in the materials lunar program NASA.
The arguments of conspiracy theorists and their opponents have been collected in dozens of books, and citing them all would be extremely reckless. For example, we can look at the incident with the American flag on the moon.
In photographs and video footage of the installation on the Moon by the Apollo 11 crew of the US flag, “ripples” are noticeable on the surface of the canvas. Proponents of the “lunar conspiracy” believe that these ripples were caused by a gust of wind, which is impossible in the vacuum of space on the surface of the Moon.Opponents object: the movement of the flag was not caused by the wind, but by damped vibrations that arose when the flag was planted. The flag was mounted on a flagpole and on a horizontal telescopic crossbar, pressed against the staff during transportation. The astronauts were unable to extend the telescopic tube of the horizontal bar to its full length. Because of this, ripples remained on the cloth, which created the illusion of a flag fluttering in the wind.
Almost every conspiracy theory argument is refuted in this way.
Was the USSR's silence bought with a bribe?
The Soviet Union occupies a special place in the “moon conspiracy.” A logical question arises: if there was no landing on the Moon, then why did the Soviet Union, which could not but know about it, remain silent?
Adherents of the theory have several versions of this. According to the first, Soviet specialists were unable to immediately recognize the skillful forgery. Another version suggests that the USSR agreed not to expose the Americans in exchange for certain economic preferences. According to the third theory, the Soviet Union itself participated in the “lunar conspiracy” - the leadership of the USSR agreed to remain silent about the tricks of the Americans in order to hide their unsuccessful flights to the Moon, during one of which, according to the “conspirators,” the first cosmonaut of the Earth died Yuri Gagarin.
According to supporters of the “lunar conspiracy” theory, US President Richard Nixon ordered an operation to simulate the flight of astronauts to the Moon after it became clear that technology did not allow for a real manned flight to the Earth’s satellite. For the United States, it was a matter of principle to win the “moon race” against the USSR, and for this they were ready to do anything.
In an atmosphere of the strictest secrecy, the best Hollywood masters were allegedly involved in the operation, including Stanley Kubrick, who allegedly filmed all the necessary scenes in a specially built pavilion.
Arguments and Facts
In 2009, on the 40th anniversary of the first manned landing on the Moon, NASA decided to finally bury the “moon conspiracy.”
The automatic interplanetary station LRO completed a special task - it photographed the landing areas of lunar modules of earthly expeditions. The first ever detailed photographs of the lunar modules themselves, landing sites, elements of equipment left by expeditions on the surface, and even traces of the earthlings themselves from the cart and rover were transmitted to Earth. Five of the six revenge landings of American lunar expeditions were captured.
Traces of Americans being on the Moon, independently of each other, in last years Specialists from India, China and Japan recorded it using their automatic spacecraft.
Supporters of the “moon conspiracy,” however, are not giving up. Not really trusting all this evidence, they claim that an unmanned vehicle sent to the Earth’s satellite could have left traces on the Moon.
How Hollywood played into the hands of skeptics
In 1977, the American feature film Capricorn 1, based on the “lunar conspiracy” theory, was released. According to its plot, the US presidential administration sends a supposedly manned ship to Mars, although in fact the crew remains on Earth and reports from a specially built pavilion. At the end of the mission, the astronauts must appear before the admiring Americans, but upon returning to Earth, the spacecraft burns up in the dense layers of the atmosphere. After this, the special services are trying to get rid of the astronauts, officially declared dead, as unwanted witnesses.
The film “Capricorn-1” significantly increased the number of skeptics who believe that such a scenario could well be applied to the lunar program, especially since the authors used references to the real history of the Apollo program in the plot. For example, at the beginning of the film, the US Vice President mentions that $24 billion has been spent on the Capricorn program. This is exactly how much was actually spent on the Apollo program. The film says that the US President was absent from the Capricorn launch due to urgent matters - the real head of the United States, Richard Nixon, was absent from the Apollo 11 launch for a similar reason.
Soviet cosmonauts: the Americans were on the moon, but they filmed something in the pavilion
It is interesting that Soviet cosmonauts and designers, theoretically most interested in exposing the “lunar conspiracy,” never expressed doubts that the Americans actually landed on the Moon.
Constructor Boris Chertok, one of the companions Sergei Korolev, wrote in his memoirs: “In the USA, three years after the astronauts landed on the Moon, a little book was published in which it was stated that there was no flight to the Moon... The author and publisher made good money on a deliberate lie.”
Spaceship designer Konstantin Feoktistov, who himself flew into space as part of the crew of the Voskhod-1 spacecraft, wrote that Soviet tracking stations received signals from American astronauts from the Moon. According to Feoktistov, “arranging such a hoax is probably no less difficult than a real expedition.”
Astronauts Alexey Leonov And Georgy Grechko, who took part in the Soviet manned flight program to the Moon, confidently declared: yes, the Americans were on the Moon. At the same time, they agreed that some of the landings were filmed in the pavilion. There is no crime in this - the staged footage was only supposed to clearly demonstrate to the public how everything really happened. A similar technique was used when covering the achievements of Soviet cosmonautics.
Astronomically expensive Moon
There is no merit to the argument that the United States did not have the technical capability to take astronauts to the Moon. All now declassified documents indicate that both the USA and the USSR had such a technical capability. However, in the Soviet Union, having lost the “lunar race”, they preferred to curtail further work, declaring that a manned flight to the Earth’s satellite was not planned.
Another question asked by supporters of the “moon conspiracy” is: if the Americans really visited the Moon, then why did they curtail further research?
The answer to this question is quite banal: it's all about money.
Having lost almost all the main prizes of the first stage of the “space race,” the United States threw incredible amounts of money at that time into a manned flight to the Moon. In the end, this allowed them to win.
But when the euphoria subsided, it became clear that the “lunar prestige” was placing a heavy burden on the American economy. As a result, it was decided to cancel the Apollo program - as they thought, in order to return to the Moon in a few years with a more extensive and cheaper research program.
Conspiracy theory 2.0
Programs for the construction of permanent lunar bases were developed in both the USA and the USSR. They were all interesting scientific point vision, but required truly astronomical investments. The question of industrial development of the Moon remains a matter of the distant future.
As a result, no earthling has flown to the Moon for more than 45 years. And this became the reason for many supporters of the “lunar conspiracy” to become adherents of its, so to speak, modernized version.
According to it, American astronauts really were on the Moon, but found traces of the presence of an alien civilization there, which it was decided to keep in the strictest confidence. That is why flights to the Moon were officially stopped, and a cover operation was launched in the media, part of which was disinformation about the staging of the Apollo program.
But this is a topic for a separate story.
- "The Americans have never been to the moon"
- Vadim Rostov "So were the Americans on the Moon?"
- "GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE AMERICAN MOON LEGEND"
- Alexander IGNATOV "ABOUT AMERICAN SLAVES"
Americans have never been to the moon
The proposed material is the result
forum "Membranes", held
in the period from November 13, 2002 to January 20, 2004,
using information
forum "iXBT Hardware BBS"
FACTS REFUTING THE VERSION OF MAN LANDING ON THE MOON
1. Contradictions in reports and memories of astronauts
Apollo 11 Lunar Module
Armstrong is famous for his enigmatic statement:
“And looking at the black sky without stars and planets (except for the Earth), we thought that we found ourselves on a sand-strewn sports field at night, under the dazzling rays of a spotlight” (“Earth and the Universe” 1970, No. 5).
His statements are consistent with NASA photographs, which do not show stars due to the limited capabilities of photographic equipment. However, unlike photographic film, the eye has a wider dynamic range of brightness, which allows you to observe both the starry sky and the contours of the surface of the Moon if you turn your back to the Sun. Let us also note that in his earlier statements he generally avoided a direct answer, claiming that he simply did not remember whether the stars were visible in the sky of the Moon. He did not see the stars even through the upper viewing window (highlighted in red in the figure), while inside the lunar module, and could only observe the Earth. Watch the recording of his report:
"103:22:30 Armstrong: From the surface, we could not see any stars out the window; but out my overhead hatch (means the overhead rendezvous window), I"m looking at the Earth. It "s big and bright and beautiful."
This is especially strange considering that the Sun at the time of landing was shining at an angle of 10-15 degrees to the horizon, and the upper observation hatch was oriented vertically upward. The unfortunate oversight of the script directors was corrected in the statements of other astronauts, since Alan Bean from Apollo 12 had already observed both the stars and the Earth from the upper hatch of the lunar module (see entry 110:55:51). However, he also did not see stars when entering the lunar surface. Bean talks about how he took a badge with him to the moon - a silver star. “Having descended to the lunar surface and emerging from the shadow of the module, I took out this badge and threw it with force.
The silver star sparkled brightly in the sun, and it was the only star I saw while on the lunar surface."
A correction regarding the observability of stars from the Moon was made later: Eugene Cernan, observing the sky from the shadow of the Apollo 17 lunar module, was able to observe individual stars (see entry 103:22:54).
Apollo 11 crew pre-flight training
Note that the astronauts' spacesuits have side plugs that allow them to adjust the viewing slit and tune out bright light, and they also used light filters. It would seem that what could be simpler: place a narrow viewing slit in the helmet, raise your head inside the helmet and observe not individual stars, as stated by the mentioned participants in the scenario, but a whole section of the sky strewn with stars, in a narrow angle limited by the slit and the upper edge of the helmet . The astronauts' memories contradict the clear and colorful descriptions of the starry sky that our cosmonauts give during spacewalks:
“So, I’m standing on the edge of the airlock in outer space... The ship, flooded with bright rays of the sun, with its needle antennas spread out, looked like a fantastic creature: two television eyes were watching me and seemed to be alive. The ship was equally brightly lit the sun and the light reflected from the Earth's atmosphere... The ship rotated slowly, bathed in solar flow. The stars were everywhere: above, below, left and right... The top for me was where the Sun was, and the bottom was where the airlock of the ship was" (memoirs of Alexei Leonov from E.I. Ryabchikov's book "Star Trek").
As you can see, the bright illumination of the ship and the Sun did not interfere with the observation of stars, and not just one or two, but the entire sparkling starry sky.
Thus, there is both a contradiction between the statement of the crews of Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 regarding the observability of stars from the upper hatch, and a contradiction with the observations of Soviet cosmonauts.
2. Jumping heights that do not correspond to lunar gravity
The most interesting and unusual thing that a person encounters when landing on the moon is weak gravity compared to Earth. The weight of an astronaut in a spacesuit on Earth is about 160 kg, on the Moon it is 27 kg, and the strength of the astronaut’s leg muscles is unchanged. Where is the demonstration of light and high jumps? Such jumps are not only interesting for a person who first landed on the Moon, but would also be irrefutable evidence of a lunar expedition. Such jumps are absolutely safe, since the load in contact with the ground during descent remains the same as during a push, and the push is no stronger than on earth. The safety factor of such a jump also includes the fact that with a fixed jump height, the landing time on the Moon is 2.5 times greater than the corresponding earthly time, and the speed of the astronauts’ reactions is unchanged. On film documents, the height of free jumps is 25-45 cm. Watch the video - you will see sluggish jumps, which are quite achievable in earthly conditions.
Let's see how astronauts demonstrate to us high jumps "on the moon" in the video. Everyone can measure and evaluate the height of the astronaut's jump, which, PLEASE NOTE, is the highest ever presented by NASA and was supposed to prove the presence of astronauts on the Moon. Jump height does not exceed 45 cm:
120:25:42 John Young jumps off the ground and salutes for this superb tourist picture. He is off the ground about 1.45 seconds which, in the lunar gravity field, means that he launched himself at a velocity of about 1.17 m/s and reached a maximum height of 0.42 m. Although the suit and backpack weigh as much as he does, his total weight is only about 65 pounds (30 kg) and, to get this height, he only had to bend his knees slightly and then push up with his legs. In the background, we can see the UV astronomy camera, the flag, the LM, the Rover with the TV camera watching John, and Stone Mountain. Scan courtesy NASA Johnson.
120:25:35 Timing of John's second jump in the television record shows it lasts about 1.30 seconds and, consequently, his launch velocity is about 1.05 m/s and his maximum height is 0.34 m. Scan courtesy NASA Johnson.
These numbers are typical for an ordinary person on Earth. The jump height typical of any average person is 35-45 cm (this height is easy to achieve: measure the height of your outstretched arm on the wall and mark with a pencil the height of the top point of your arm, you will see that these numbers are completely real). Note that the standards for volleyball players jumping in height from a place in training are 57.63 cm, in length from a place - 232 cm, see.
How much should the height of jumps on the Earth and the Moon differ, given the same push force, provided that the mass of the astronauts dressed in the spacesuit is doubled (the spacesuit is 30 kg and the life support pack is 54 kg, a total of 84 kg, with the astronaut weighing about 80 kg)?
To make the task easier, consider the following physical model jump based on an elastic spring with a load of mass m attached to the spring (it will be shown below that the obtained result is valid for any model describing the behavior of muscles).
Let the magnitude of the displacement of the spring X relative to the initial state be fixed (analogous to the depth of an astronaut’s squat when jumping). The potential energy of the compressed spring is converted into the kinetic energy of the load mv2/2 and ensures an increase in its potential energy mgX at the point of separation. Next, kinetic energy mv2/2 is spent to ensure the jump height h:
(1) kX2/2=mv2/2+mgX=mgh+mgX;
(1) kX2/2=mgh+mgX;
For the jump height H on the Moon, when the mass doubles due to the spacesuit (2m), and the gravity force is 6 times less (g/6), equation (1) will take the form:
(2) kX2/2=2mV2/2+2mgX/6=2mgH/6+2mgX/6;
(2) kX2/2=mgH/3+mgX/3.
Subtracting equation (1) from (2), we find:
(3) mgH/3-mgh+mgX/3-mgX=0;
(3) H=3h+2X
Let’s take the squat depth X from the frame-by-frame scan of an astronaut’s jump on the Moon, it is about 20 cm, and we’ll take the jump height on Earth for a person without a spacesuit in the range of 25-35 cm, which is 10 cm lower than the characteristic height for the average person in sports shoes (understatement height takes into account the possible limitation of the ankle by the space suit). Then on the Moon, with the same push force, for an astronaut in a spacesuit we get:
H=115...145 cm; at h=25...35 cm and X=20 cm
As you can see, the height H is two to three times higher than the height of the jump in the video (45 cm).
Why are they showing us such a low, inexpressive jump that has nothing in common with the lunar one?!
Maybe the chosen spring calculation model is not adequate to the behavior of the muscles? If this is so, then we take another model in which we replace the spring force kx with the force F(x) developed by the muscles, and kx2/2 in equations (1) and (2) we replace the work of the force F(x), which is equal to the integral of F (x)dx on the segment [-X,0]. This quantity is equally included in both equation (1) and (2), and disappears when subtracted. Therefore, the proposed calculation scheme is invariant to the muscle force model. That is, the earthly jump height h(X,F) depends on the type of force and depth of the squat, but the formula for recalculating the lunar height through the earthly height is unchanged. For a model in which the muscle force is constant (F) in the push section, equation (1) will be rewritten as:
(4) FX=mgh+mgX. Hence h=X(F/mg -1)
The lunar altitude H is expressed through the terrestrial one, as H = 3h + 2X, but does not contain an obvious dependence on the functional type of force developed during the push.
So, the estimation of the height of the lunar jump was performed correctly.
Jump frame
Maybe it's all about the rigid spacesuit, in which it is difficult to bend your leg?
However, in the video, the astronaut bent his leg quite deeply (the value X = 20...25 cm was taken from this video), and then the elasticity of the spacesuit should even help him straighten his leg in the push, adding to the muscle force the elastic force of the compressed spacesuit. Additionally, Aldrin states in his memoir that his biggest problem on the moon was keeping himself from jumping too high, so what was stopping him from jumping too high? Probably not a problem with bending the legs, then he would say that the suit does not bend and interferes with jumping. In addition, you can see from the video (a frame from it in the right picture) that the spacesuit allows you to provide any squat depth. This means that the issue is not the rigidity of the spacesuit.
Maybe it's all about grip? The grip could decrease by 6 times due to the reduction in weight on the Moon (for comparison, on Earth the grip of rubber on ice is 8-9 times worse than on dry asphalt). However, is this true for a moonsault? Is the comparison with a slippery surface adequate?
1. Astronauts' boots have deep treads that increase the shoe's grip on the ground.
2. NASA, explaining why there is such a clear trace on the Moon, never ceased to repeat that due to the lack of air, the rocks do not oxidize there, and therefore there is no film that prevents adhesion between dust particles, and therefore the friction coefficient of regolith is higher than that of terrestrial dust .
3. When jumping high, a strong push is produced, and the pressure on the ground increases due to the force of the push, so traction with the ground increases as the height of the jump increases (this is why astronauts on the Moon were trained to move by jumping, and not walking in the usual way). This effect compensates for the decrease in grip caused by the low weight of the astronauts.
Thus, comparing lunar jumps with terrestrial jumps on slippery ice is fundamentally wrong.
Maybe the astronauts didn’t realize that to demonstrate their presence on the Moon they needed a high jump that was not possible under terrestrial conditions? But there were six lunar missions, why couldn’t they eliminate the demonstration miscalculations?!! They present feather and hammer throwing (which is easy to obtain in any student laboratory) and do not present the most obvious and simple demonstrations. The same feather and hammer were thrown straight down, isn't it because a narrow vacuum cylinder was used? So, DEMONSTRATION EXPERIMENTS CHARACTERISTIC FOR WEAK GRAVITY AND VACUUM ARE COMPLETELY ABSENT. At the same time, having experience with a feather and a hammer indicates that the scriptwriters understood the need for demonstrations, and if they did, then why weren’t there any?
Maybe the astronauts were too lazy to jump?
The first astronauts had to prove to the whole world (and this was the main task of the expedition) that they were on the Moon, and not at a picnic, where you can want something and refuse something. All actions of the astronauts on the Moon were pre-planned on Earth, rehearsed, included in the flight program and were mandatory. Only one parameter in a jump - ITS HEIGHT - can indicate its lunarity. And if they were too lazy to jump, then they were too lazy to fly to the moon.
Maybe they were afraid of falling? - after all, if the suit loses its tightness, then the death of the astronaut is inevitable. However, spacesuits provide protection even from micrometeorites, which fly at speeds of up to 20 kilometers per second and, like a bullet, can pierce ordinary materials, so what can we say about some kind of impact when falling? However, It's time to listen to what the astronauts themselves say:
"Of course, in conditions of lunar gravity, you want to jump up. FREE JUMPS while maintaining control over movement are possible up to ONE METER. Jumping to a great height often ended in a fall. The highest jump height was two meters, i.e. up to the third step of the lunar cabin stairs. . .. Falls did not have unpleasant consequences. Usually, if balance is disturbed, a fall can be prevented by turning and stepping in the direction where you are falling. If an astronaut falls face down, you can easily get up without assistance. If you fall on your back, you need to apply more effort to rise on your own." (Neil Armstrong, "Earth and the Universe", 1970, No. 5 and also see).
As we can see, our estimates of the heights of lunar jumps (1-1.5m) coincide with the ideas of NASA theorists who put this information into Armstrong’s mouth. These words of Armstrong are accompanied by videos and. However, they cannot be considered an illustration of a FREE MOON JUMP. The jump is performed in such a way that the legs are not visible throughout the entire demonstration and therefore cannot be considered evidence of a high jump. The jump, about 1.5 m high, IS NOT FREE, since it is performed on the stairs of the lunar cabin with support on the handrail; in addition, the frame is so cloudy that the figure of the astronaut can only be guessed, therefore there is no need to talk about the authenticity of the illustration. Given the quality of the roller and the presence of support, any form of falsification is possible.
So, we can summarize:
There is no FREE MOON JUMP demonstration.
Comparison of calculated data with demonstration free jumps and clearly proves: the presented jumps were performed on Earth, such a difference (several times) cannot be explained by any reasonable arguments.
The videos were filmed on Earth (they filmed an earthly jump in a suit simulating a spacesuit; then the film material was slowed down 2.5 times).
3. Contradictions in the demonstration materials related to the spacesuit.
In the video, pay attention to the bend of the astronaut's calf muscle in the areas of his movement and jumping flight shown in the right picture. A narrowing of the contour of the leg in the area of the foot and knee is clearly visible.
ISS Astronauts / Jump Footage
This is only possible in pants that are light and form-fitting to the legs, but they are multi-layered (25 layers) and thick enough to hide the contours of the leg. Compare them to the space suits on the ISS when astronauts go into space. Compare also with the footage of pre-flight training (picture below), but there is no high blood pressure, but still the legs are shaped like columns, no bends are visible.
In the video you can also observe how easily (at an acute angle) and quickly (0.5 sec), as if in a jacket, the astronaut bends his arm at the elbow joint when he “salutes” the American flag, forgetting that he is wearing a spacesuit. Is such ease of bending possible if he really was wearing a multi-layer spacesuit?
Pre-flight training footage
In the elbow joint, corrugated bushings made of especially strong rubber were used, allowing bending, however, analysis of the geometry of the elbow bend shows that when the arm is bent, the volume of the spacesuit in the elbow area must inevitably decrease, and the sharper the angle, the stronger, therefore, the arm must do work against pressure forces, and considerable forces (an astronaut inside a spacesuit has an excess pressure of 0.35 kg/sq. cm; with a sleeve diameter at the elbow of about 15 cm, the sleeve is tensioned with a force of 55...70 kg)...
Thus, the ease of bending of the arm that we see in the video and the degree of fit of the astronaut’s legs with the trousers clearly indicate that the jump is performed in a light jumpsuit that imitates a spacesuit.
Gernot Geise also draws attention to the problem of spacesuits in his book " Big lie centuries. Apollo Lunar Flight" ("Der groesste Betrug des Jahrhunderts. Die Apollo Mondfruege"), which contains dozens of photographs of astronauts from the Moon and, for comparison, photographs of astronauts working on the Shuttle in outer space. The author notes that spacesuits with " The Moons are not inflated, they have characteristic large folds of material and bends, which are absent on the suits of the Shuttle astronauts, since the latter are inflated from the inside with a pressure difference of 0.35-0.4 atm.
Apollo 16 astronaut's leg
Shuttle astronaut's leg
We also illustrate this idea with fragments of a photo of the legs of the Shuttle and Apollo astronauts, picture on the right (you can click on these frames to get the full photo). It is necessary to distinguish small folds of external tissues from voluminous folds; we are talking about the latter. The spacesuit has a reinforcing layer that separates the sealed layer (which is actually inflated) from the outer layers of fabric, and these outer layers may have their own folds, however, the inflating of the sealed layer eliminates the possibility of deep and voluminous dents in the fabric, which are visible in the above figure, on thigh of the Apollo astronaut, and are absent from the Shuttle astronaut.
4. Length of jumps that does not correspond to lunar gravity
There are no long jumps, the expected length of which (at least 3 meters) at a height of 50-70 cm would correspond to lunar gravity. The available jumps (for example, roller or) have a length of less than 150 cm (for rollers of the type in which astronauts move at an angle to the plane of the frame, this can be established by simulating their movement in 3D graphics packages, for example in "3D MAX").
To ensure normal traction with the ground, moving astronauts on the Moon requires a special method, reminiscent of hare jumps or kangaroo jumps (or). The coefficient of friction there is no worse than on Earth, but the weight of the astronaut is small, so lunar movement requires strong shocks that provide excess pressure on the ground, however, the observed jump length (movement step) has a value characteristic of terrestrial, not lunar conditions. What prevented astronauts from taking advantage of long and high jumps (with a length of 3 m at a height of 50-70 cm) to quickly and conveniently move along the lunar soil? The answer is clear - it interfered with them earth gravity, because all the jumps were performed in the pavilion. You can easily verify that movement by jumping is a type and can be easily reproduced on the ground; to do this, you need to perform a series of jumps, following the same techniques, with your body turning sideways to the direction of movement.
INDIRECTIVE EVIDENCE INDICATING THE ABSENCE
MANned FLIGHTS TO THE MOON
1. Over the past 30 years, Americans have not carried out a single manned flight to the Moon. And this despite the fact that the modern US budget is not comparable to the budget of the 60s. If a flight to the Moon was carried out, then why not reproduce it again? One of the reasons that the Americans did not fly to the Moon was the fear of their own revelations, because they would have to initiate new people into the secret of the hoax of the flights of the 60s and 70s. This version is also supported by the absence of unmanned flights to the Moon in recent years; in fact, all programs for studying the Moon by automatic stations have been frozen.
However, after China declared its intention to land a man on the Moon, the United States immediately entered the fight for lunar priority. On January 14, 2004, US President George W. Bush presented a new American space program, according to which, no earlier than 2015, but no later than 2020, the United States intends to make an expedition to the Moon and begin construction of a permanent base.
2. In October 2002, it became known that NASA hired its former engineer, and now one of the most authoritative experts on the history of space exploration, James Oberg, to in writing refuted "the fabrications of all those who prove that the lunar epic is just a well-executed falsification." Oberg was required to “describe the Apollo mission step by step, refuting all insinuations point by point.”
However, already in November 2002, through funds mass media NASA announced its abandonment of this intention.
However, unofficial sites like , which “refute all known objections of skeptics,” have appeared all over the world. Thus, NASA's intention turned out to be carried out by the wrong hands, in an unofficial manner. Thus, NASA evaded its original promise and thereby evaded responsibility, leaving the world community in deep bewilderment. The probable reason for this step was the signing of a contract (November 26, 2002) between the Russian-Ukrainian company Kosmotras and the private American company TransOrbital on the use of Russian-Ukrainian conversion launch vehicles "Dnepr" (SS-18 "Satan") for the implementation of the first American commercial program for small spacecraft flights to the Moon. It was assumed that the TrailBlazer probe (which was scheduled to launch in June 2003, and then postponed to October) would produce high-quality video footage of the Moon and allow us to see the American and Soviet vehicles that once landed on the Moon and remained there. To obtain permission for the “lunar” commercial activities it took the company more than two years - federal authorities allegedly wanted to thoroughly make sure that the commercial ship would not pollute the Moon with biomaterial and would not damage the previous landing sites of earthlings. On December 20, 2002, a prototype of the future lunar spacecraft TrailBlazer was successfully launched into a circular orbit at an altitude of 650 kilometers by the Dnepr launch vehicle. As for the lunar probe itself, according to a 2002 interview given by Denis Lurie (president of TransOrbital), the device weighing 520 kg was already 80% ready at that time. After being delivered into low-Earth orbit, the TrailBlazer, equipped with a propulsion system, had to independently reach the Moon.
However, the probe has not yet flown, which may cause confusion after such an extensive preparatory work. According to the latest data, the launch has been postponed to the beginning of 2004. However, it is alarming that the TrailBlazer is not included in the launch plans for the first half of 2004.
In our opinion, the failure of the flight is associated with the threat of exposing the lunar scam of 68-72. The device did not fly, since one of the tasks of the flight was to videotape the traces of the landing of American astronauts.
REASONS THAT MADE THE USA GO FOR Falsification
The USA, having a serious lag behind the USSR in space race, set the task of getting ahead of the USSR at any cost in the program of landing a man on the Moon. Realizing that this task might turn out to be impossible, work was carried out in two directions: a real lunar program and a backup option - falsification, in case of failure or delay of the main program.
NASA's lunar program was not brought to the level of manned flights to the Moon due to the threat of advance from the USSR. The United States had to abandon the implementation of a manned flight to the Moon and put into action a backup option - a plan to hoax the landing on the Moon.
A month before the launch of Apollo 7, the Soviet spacecraft Zond-5 (an unmanned version of the manned spacecraft "7K-L1", designed for two cosmonauts to fly around the Moon), successfully circled the Moon for the first time and returned to Earth, splashing down in the Indian Ocean ( the first living earth creatures to visit the cislunar space, there were turtles on the Zond-5 rocket; On September 15, 1968, this rocket circled the Moon at a minimum distance of 1950 km from it). On November 10-17, 1968, the flyby of the Moon was repeated by the Zond-6 spacecraft, which then landed on the territory of the USSR. NASA experts were alarmed that the Soviet Union might send the next Zond-7 spacecraft with astronauts on board, in order to once again ensure the priority of the USSR - priority in a manned flyby of the Moon.
In the United States, the decision to hoax a manned flight to the Moon was made because, despite the production of the Saturn 5 launch vehicle and other elements of the lunar program, work to ensure the required reliability of the elements and the very delivery of a person to the Moon was not completed (the required reliability of each expedition is not lower than 0.99). It is known that just a few months before the announced landing of the first astronauts, the tests ended in crash dynamic model lunar module. During the descent in simulated conditions of lunar gravity, the cabin became uncontrollable, began to tumble and crashed; Armstrong, who was piloting the device, miraculously managed to eject. Usually, the causes of such disasters are not eliminated within a few months (for example, after the Shuttle crashes, a moratorium on launches was declared for more than a year).
Not everything went smoothly with the Apollo KM spacecraft. On January 27, 1967, during ground training of astronauts, a fire broke out in the crew cabin of the Apollo spacecraft. Three astronauts were burned alive or suffocated. The cause of the fire turned out to be the atmosphere of pure oxygen, which was used in the Apollo life-activity system. Everything burns in oxygen, even metal, so a spark in electrical equipment was enough. Fire safety modifications to the Apollo required 20 months, but questions about the reliability of the ship as a whole remained open. There is a report by Thomas Ronald Baron, Engineering Safety Inspector space flights, which he prepared after the tragic incident, where the ship’s unpreparedness for the lunar flight was substantiated. Shortly after this report appeared, Baron and his family were killed in a car accident.
The idea that the Americans were insufficiently prepared for the lunar flight in 1968 was also voiced in the diary of N.P. Kamanin (Aide to the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force for Space, organizer of preparations for the flights of Soviet cosmonauts in 1960-1971):
“In a TASS message received today, there is information that the United States intends to fly around the Moon in December with the Apollo 8 spacecraft with three astronauts on board. I consider this a pure gamble: the Americans have no experience in returning ships to Earth at the second escape velocity , and the Saturn 5 rocket is still not reliable enough (only two launches were carried out, one of which was unsuccessful)."
In order to understand more deeply what exactly did not work out in the US lunar program, let’s look at what happened in the USSR as part of the program for a manned flight of the Moon
“The UR500K-L1 program first envisaged 10 flights of the unmanned version of the 7K-L1 ship, which later received the name “Zond”, the 11th and 14th ships were to launch with crews on board. At the same time, the task was to ensure the priority of the USSR in the first manned flyby of the Moon, since the United States was already actively working on the Apollo program.The flight was planned for July 1967
The first spacecraft of this series was launched only on March 10, 1967 under the name “Cosmos-146”. Moreover, due to a failure in the control system of the rocket unit “D” of the Proton launch vehicle (UR500K), instead of accelerating to the Moon, the ship was slowed down, which entered the Earth’s atmosphere along a steep trajectory and collapsed.
In the same year, three more unsuccessful attempts were made to launch the unmanned 7K-L1 to the Moon. One of the ships, called “Cosmos-154” and launched on April 8, remained in Earth orbit on September 28 due to the failure of the “D” block, and on November 22, Proton launch vehicle accidents occurred during insertion into orbit. On March 2, 1968, the next ship, called Zond-4, was launched. Due to the failure of the orientation system, it could not be directed to the Moon; it entered a highly elliptical orbit around the Earth."
We see that all launches of unmanned spacecraft were aimed at flying around the Moon, and not at testing in low-Earth orbit. In light of the above, it is reasonable to assume that the Americans also launched their unmanned Apollo 4 and Apollo 6 to the Moon. It would be strange not to test the expensive Saturn-5 on the route for which it was created - if a launch is carried out, then this launch should be aimed at the Moon. However, due to some problems with Saturn 5 or due to a failure of the Apollo spacecraft's orientation system, they could not be launched into orbit to the Moon; they only entered a highly elliptical orbit around the Earth, like our Zond 4. The Americans were cunning enough to say that they had planned it that way. NASA then realized that they did not have time to ensure proper reliability of the launch and return of the Apollo spacecraft with its crew - the USSR with its Probes was hot on their heels. A hoax plan was adopted, involving the delivery of only unmanned ships to the Moon. The following were not fatal for drones: depressurization, severe overloads during acceleration and braking, and re-entry. Finally, the absence of an atmosphere and life systems inside the drone distinguished it favorably from the manned Apollo spacecraft with a fire-hazardous oxygen atmosphere. Moreover, the Americans were satisfied with even the complete destruction of the ship in the Earth’s atmosphere upon return, because the astronauts were waiting for it on Earth. It was only important not to miss the calculated landing point too much. The reliability of the Apollos available at that time was sufficient to perform such an unmanned task, but not acceptable for manned flights. The level of development of space technology 60-70 in terms of automated control systems and coolants did not meet the requirements for the reliability of delivering a person to the Moon.
The fact that at that time the reliability of the Saturn-Apollo system was not sufficient for a manned flight to the Moon is confirmed by the words of Wernher von Braun addressed to Armstrong and sounded in the film shown on December 21, 2003 on ORT:
“From a statistical point of view, my prospects are very bad (he said this about his illness before his death) ... but you know how deceptive statistics can be. I should have been in prison after everything that happened, and you should have died in space..."
The words of Wernher von Braun eloquently indicate that according to NASA statistical estimates, Armstrong had little chance of returning from the Moon.
EXAMPLE SCENARIO OF NASA Falsification
AND COLLUSION OF GOVERNMENTS
1. The launches of all Saturn-5 rockets were carried out in an UNMANNED version. All lunar missions, from Apollo 8 to Apollo 17, were unmanned. The launch vehicle consisted of two modules: the Apollo module (an unmanned version of the Apollo KM spacecraft), designed to fly around the Moon, and an automatic lunar vehicle ("Lunnik"), designed to land on the Moon and deliver soil to Earth. It is possible that not one, but several lunar explorers were placed on board the ship to increase the reliability of the operation as a whole. The ship entered lunar orbit, after which the lunar divers separated, followed by landing on the moon.
There are two possible scenarios for returning to Earth. The first is the launch of lunar missions from the Moon to deliver soil on board the Apollo spacecraft and the return of Apollo with a soil capsule. The second scenario is the autonomous return of the lunar explorers to Earth (if this version is correct, then the meaning of unofficial statements about the appearance of certain UFOs and their pursuit of the Apollos on the trajectory of their return to Earth becomes clear).
Due to the insufficient reliability of the lunar missions during operations at the stages of landing, launch, docking with Apollo (according to the first version), landing (according to the second version), some or all of them crashed. Most likely, in the first Apollo missions it was not possible to obtain soil; the only thing they successfully dealt with was the delivery and installation of repeaters and corner reflectors on the Moon.
2. Lunar Soil.
The article and website are devoted to a detailed analysis of the problem of lunar soil. Analysis of the data presented in these articles allows us to conclude:
1. By the time of the exchange of soil between the USSR and the USA (1971), the Americans did not have samples of lunar soil, and the USSR did not publicly declare this, which suggests that by this time there had already been some kind of political conspiracy between the leadership of the USSR and the USA
2. Lunar soil was obtained by the Americans in later expeditions, and in an insignificant amount. However, about 400 kg of soil was declared. The lion's share of this soil was obtained under terrestrial conditions.
3. Film and photographic materials.
Filming and photography were carried out in the pavilion and on the training ground of the secret US Air Force base known as Area-51, with a corresponding imitation of the lunar landscape and the use of scenery made from numerous photographic materials accumulated during the operation of drones. The imitation of lunar gravity was performed by slowing down the speed of playback of video frames by 2.5 times (by that time the Americans already owned the technology of video recording images on magnetic tape). The movement of the rover on the Moon was reproduced in the same way: it was driven at a speed of 30-40 km per hour on the sandy soil of the test site, which created a sufficient height of dust rising, and then the video was slowed down by the same 2.5 times. In order to reconstruct the studio filming, you can speed up the “lunar” videos (NASA originals) by 2.5 times, or watch two of them, already accelerated.
It is important to note that in comparison with videos, photographs are of significantly higher quality (very sharp). This is easily explained if you consider that for photographing the ground was imitated with fine dust (powdered dust), while for videos, coarse sand is needed, which easily settles in air atmosphere pavilion (fine dust would expose the lack of vacuum due to hanging in the air)
Reducing the sharpness in the videos made it possible to pass off the sand as fine dust - lunar regolith.
It should also be noted that the simulators manufactured as part of the lunar program had a dual purpose - they could be used both for training astronauts and for filming. Here's what you can read about this in the book of cosmonaut Feoktistov:
“From the airfield we drove to the base in Langley, where we were shown a simulator for practicing manual control during landing. The mock-up of the cabin was suspended on a crane-beam with a hoist moving on a huge overpass, and was equipped with an engine (simulating a landing one) and control engines and standard controls lunar cabin. When testing the descent, dynamic processes were simulated (descent speed and horizontal movement, angular accelerations cabins and so on). The landing site was made “to resemble the Moon”: on a surface made of slag, filled with concrete on top, there were craters, slides and all that stuff. The conditions of solar illumination of the landing site were also simulated. For this purpose, testing could be carried out at night, and the spotlights would rise and fall, simulating different angles of elevation of the Sun above the horizon of the Moon."
There are two possible scenarios for simulating negotiations between the Mission Control Center and astronauts
1. Using a repeater.
A repeater is delivered to the Moon by a drone, and the following radio exchange scheme is organized: MCC>>ground-based information reception and transmission point>>lunar relay>>MCC. From ground point Receiving and transmitting information, the video image is transmitted to the MCC via a lunar relay. In this case, the astronauts voice the transmitted videos during a communication session with the Mission Control Center, either in real time, or the videos are voiced in advance.
2. Using video playback equipment. A video recorder with a pre-recorded radio program is installed on board the lunar boat.
A repeater (or tape recorder) was also installed on the unmanned Apollo spacecraft to simulate negotiations with astronauts during the “flight to the Moon.” Note that a similar communication scheme was used on Zond-4 (an unmanned version of the Soviet spacecraft designed to fly two cosmonauts around the Moon). During the Zond-4 flight, Popovich and Sevastyanov were in the Evpatoria Flight Control Center, in a special isolated bunker, and for six days they negotiated with the Mission Control Center through the Zond-4 repeater, thereby simulating a flight to the Moon and back. Having intercepted information from Zond 4, NASA specialists at the first moment decided that the Soviet cosmonauts were flying to the Moon.
Now a few words about the videos depicting astronauts on a ship “flying to the Moon” that were shown on air. They are also of terrestrial origin and were obtained: partly in airplanes at sites free fall(simulating weightlessness), but mainly on simulators that have the dual purpose mentioned above. In the same book by Feoktistov we read:
“In Houston, we saw a special simulator for practicing mooring. This is a huge structure in which a full-scale (in size and external shape) model of the main Apollo block and a model of the lunar cabin with two training cosmonauts can move in space (lifts and carts are used, activated by commands from the coordinate movement control knob). The model of the lunar cabin is suspended in a gimbal and during the simulation of the rendezvous process, in accordance with the commands coming from the orientation control knob, the cabin with the pilots rotates in space. This leads to the fact that during control, the crew either stands vertically, or lies on their stomach, or on their side (in order not to fall, the crew was secured with a special system on guy wires). Changing the position of the body relative to the direction of gravity, of course, interferes with the work and does not in any way correspond to the flight conditions. From my point of view point of view, American specialists did this expensive construction in vain - they probably had extra funds."
No, these are not “extra funds”; this is where the flight to the Moon was filmed: the smooth movements of the astronauts in zero gravity, docking and undocking maneuvers with the lunar module, etc.
The guy rope system is apparently something close to Copperfield's cables, allowing him to float in the air and be invisible to the observer. Here they are, “lunar” technologies, which have found brilliant application in the illusionist’s attraction 30 years later!
In his book We Never Went to the Moon, Bill Kaysing, former head of technical information at Rocketdyne (which worked on the Apollo project), says that astronauts were first loaded onto the Apollo spacecraft and then unnoticed disembarked and transported by plane to Nevada. There, at a carefully guarded air base near the city of Mercury, video footage of the lunar odyssey was made. Keysing also notes that all astronauts went through a hypnotic zombie procedure. Some astronauts still believe in the reality of their lunar flight.
According to Keysing, at that time the likelihood of success of the event within the NASA organization itself was assessed as extremely low, which predetermined the entire hoax scenario.
4. Collusion between the governments of the USSR and the USA
Presumably, by the beginning of 1970, the USSR government already knew about the falsification, but there was no revelation - a political conspiracy occurred between the governments of the two countries. This is indirectly evidenced by the beginning of active interaction between countries in the space field. At the persistent initiative of NASA, work began on joint manned flights.
In the report of leading researcher V.A. Chaly-Prilutsky we read:
“Since January 1970, active correspondence began between NASA Director Dr. Thomas O. Payne and the President of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Academician M.V. Keldysh (note that then the entire soviet space officially went under the "cap" of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Therefore, all further negotiations and meetings were conducted under the patronage of the Academy of Sciences, although they were attended mainly by specialists from “space” enterprises and organizations). Dr. Payne, in letters to Academician Keldysh, proposed conducting a joint space flight with the docking of American and Soviet spacecraft. This correspondence was a success. (Note: It is clear that the decision on the part of the USSR was made at the highest level - in the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, in the Council of Ministers, in the military-industrial complex).... On October 26-27, 1970, the first meeting of Soviet and American specialists in the space field took place in Moscow.. "
Then the joint work began, culminating in the historic docking of the Soyuz and Apollo spacecraft. The “approach and docking” of the USSR and the USA was accompanied by the following events: the cancellation of the last two lunar expeditions (previously planned Apollo 18, 19) and the resignation of NASA Director Dr. Payne from his post (09.15.70).
The USSR government colluded because the United States had counter political dirt on the leadership of the USSR, accumulated over the period starting with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Under the terms of the conspiracy, the USSR, in exchange for its silence, also received economic concessions and privileges, for example, access to the Western European oil market. Until 1970, the United States pursued a tough policy of blocking oil supplies from the USSR to the West: severe pressure was exerted on European countries if they tried to cooperate with the Soviets. But from 1970 (the most likely date of collusion), the USSR began its supplies, long before the energy crisis of 1973:
"The Soviet Union began exporting oil in the 60s, first to the CMEA countries, that is, socialist countries - Eastern Europe, Vietnam, Mongolia, Cuba. This export was economically unprofitable for the Soviet Union, because in exchange for supplies of cheap oil, the USSR purchased industrial products at inflated prices.
Since the 1970s, the USSR began to export oil to Western countries, to Western Europe, primarily Germany and Italy, which were the first to make purchases."
As confirmation, we present a table of oil exports from the USSR and its distribution among Western European importing countries in 1970-1990 (million tons).
There is no doubt that after the collapse of the USSR, the lunar conspiracy was prolonged by the corrupt Yeltsin regime. The prolongation of the collusion was secured by a new interstate docking in orbit, repeating the Soyuz-Apollo docking - the project of the International Space Station (ISS). Our space luminaries have also joined the joint work with the Americans within the ISS; they can no longer expose their investor partner in falsifying the flight to the Moon.
_____________________
Note
About the project of the international space station "ALFA"
“The idea of creating the international space station (ISS) Alpha arose in the very early 90s. The transition from projects to concrete actions occurred in 1995, when NASA Director Daniel Goldin convinced US President Bill Clinton of the need for annual spending on the program.” Alpha" $2.1 billion over seven years. An important factor that contributed to the fact that the US Congress approved the allocation of $13.1 billion to NASA for the construction of the ISS was Russia's agreement to participate in this program. The project became truly international after joining it from the European Space Agency (ESA), Canada and Japan.
In accordance with the agreements reached at a meeting between Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin and US Vice President Al Gore, on August 15, 1995, Boeing, NASA's main contractor for the Alpha program, and the State Space Research and Production Center named after M. IN. Khrunichev (GKNPTSH) signed a contract worth $190 million, providing for the construction and launch into orbit of the core of the future ISS. “I consider this event symbolic,” Daniel Goldin said on this occasion. “Until now we have been competing in space, now we have the opportunity to jointly take on a major high-tech project for the benefit of all mankind.”
WHY CAN’T NASA ACCOUNT EVERYTHING?
Were there really no specialists at NASA capable of noticing and eliminating all the inconsistencies in the materials presented? They couldn’t - this is the law of the universe, a lie always remains a lie, no matter how well it is concocted. It is simply impossible to take everything into account, because the amount of work is enormous and against the background of what has been taken into account and done, punctures and inconsistencies inevitably appear; even in a real technical project, the percentage of failures is quite high and cannot be avoided. If it were possible to take into account EVERYTHING, then a lie would be equal to the TRUTH and it would be impossible to distinguish them. However, the weakness of lies lies in the fact that no matter how widely the information is presented, it is enough to point out at least one inconsistency, and the deception will be exposed. Any contradiction is evidence of falsity, and if there is at least one, pay attention, at least ONE contradiction, then ALL the material is fake, and the amount of information presented does not change anything.
WHY WERE THEY NOT EXPOSED?
1. Thousands and thousands of people were involved in a long chain of secret activities. Why are they silent?
Firstly, almost all the structural elements of the lunar program were REALLY completed: the Saturn-5 rockets and the Apollo spacecraft were manufactured.
Secondly, the number of people involved in all the details of the falsification was extremely limited. Even many of the MCC specialists, receiving the picture from the Moon, had no idea that they were watching footage in the pavilion.
2. Lack of revelations from the USSR
All technical achievements within the framework of the US lunar program were readily advertised and demonstrated to specialists from all countries. So, in 1969, at the invitation of NASA, an astronaut, Dr. technical sciences Feoktistov, who, having seen what was created as part of the lunar program, was stunned by the volume of work and enthusiastically agreed with the reality of manned flights to the Moon:
“There is no reason to suspect the Americans of imitation. In 1969, I was in America just after the astronauts returned from the Moon. I visited the factories where the Apollos were made, saw the returned vehicles. I felt them with my hands. As for the American spacesuit , then I saw it too. It was made properly. True, there was one thin place: a single-layer hermetic shell. On the other hand, this increased the mobility of a person...
Everything was correct. The only thing is that I thought that they chose the wrong pressure and composition of the atmosphere: approximately 0.35 - 0.4 atmospheres, almost pure oxygen. It is very dangerous. Although it is clear why they chose this pressure: the time to prepare for entering the lunar surface was reduced.
They say that they did not have a proven docking mechanism, but they had a radar that allowed them to work from several hundred kilometers and carry out rendezvous and docking in lunar orbit. Moreover, from the point of view of hitting the docking point, they docked more accurately. It would be difficult for us to dock with our system in orbit of the Moon..."
“And when Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins flew to the Moon, our radio receivers received signals from Apollo 11, conversations, television pictures about reaching the surface of the Moon.
Organizing such a hoax is probably no less difficult than a real expedition. To do this, it would be necessary to land a television repeater on the surface of the Moon in advance and check its operation (with transmission to Earth), again in advance. And during the days of the expedition simulation, it was necessary to send a radio repeater to the Moon to simulate Apollo radio communications with the Earth on the flight path to the Moon. And they did not hide the scale of work on Apollo. And what they showed me in Houston in 1969 (the Control Center, stands, laboratories), the factories in Los Angeles for the production of the Apollo spacecraft and the descent modules that returned to Earth, by this logic, should have been an imitation?! Too complicated and too funny."
Please note that Feoktistov actually presented a version of the falsification scenario, but cast doubt on it due to the apparent complexity of implementation. Feoktistov felt “funny” because he reasoned according to a primitive scheme, according to which the presence of individual structural elements of the program, which he “was able to touch,” is proof of the possibility of their RELIABLE AND FAILURE-FREE operation in a real flight. A CHANGE OF CONCEPTS OCCURRED: the readiness of individual elements was interpreted as evidence of a completed manned flight. Finding himself hypnotized by what he saw, he was unable to appeal to logic, which could suggest that what was presented was a necessary, but far from sufficient, condition for completing the lunar flight.
Our experts actually avoided analyzing specific photographic materials provided by NASA as proof of the flight to the Moon, limiting themselves to assessing the pre-flight technical readiness of the elements, with a complete lack of information about reliability. Taking into account the above, Feoktistov’s conclusion about the implementation of a manned flight to the Moon looks extremely ill-conceived and irresponsible. However, it was precisely such conclusions that played their fatal role in the USSR leadership’s assessment of the reality of the American lunar program (the opinions of other specialists and scientists, as well as intelligence data, were not taken into account).
Later, when intelligence efforts obtained convincing evidence of the falsification of the American landing on the moon, a political conspiracy occurred between the Brezhnev leadership and the United States. The USSR government did not dare to start a wave of revelations about the lunar scam, fearing counteractions from the United States (strengthening the foreign trade blockade, exposing the political crimes of the ruling elite, etc.). The incompetent Brezhnev government exchanged a PRICELESS DIAMOND (priority in the rocket and space race and world leadership) for a CHEAP FAKE (current economic and political benefits). By collusion, the Soviet government not only lost the Cold War, it signed the USSR's death warrant. Recognizing someone else's lies deprives a nation of independence and completely enslaves it. If until 1968 the USSR was in the lead in all aspects of the rocket and space race, then the recognition of the hoax relegated Russia to a secondary role and reoriented the nation's brains to the Western false leader, depriving the country of internal support and faith in your own strength. Our best specialists were blinded and demoralized by the US's clever information warfare tactics. This INFORMATION WEAPON continues to work against Russia, preventing it from rising from its knees.
3. Silence of scientists
1. The key point that made Soviet specialists (not privy to the existence of a behind-the-scenes conspiracy) believe in the version of the landing
Skylab station and Apollo spacecraft
Americans to the Moon, was the launch of the Skylab station into low-Earth orbit by the Saturn-5 rocket. Rocket specialists had no reason to doubt, because the reason for the failures of the USSR lunar program was the lack of a powerful rocket, and here the capabilities of Saturn-5 to launch large payloads, such as a huge and spacious laboratory station, were demonstrated.
2. NASA launched a pre-emptive strike, deliberately raising a muddy wave of “denialists” with deliberately false and ridiculous arguments. Thus, APRIORI, competent specialists who would try to raise their voice to refute the version of the moon landing were discredited. NASA, along with its accomplices (see), focused public attention on false inconsistencies and thereby diverted attention from the serious contradictions contained in the materials presented on the lunar program. Whistleblowers who fell for false contradictions were easily defeated, which created fear for their reputation among serious scientists who did not want to participate in dirty political games.
NASA has basically achieved its goal - so far practically NO major specialist, even slightly valuing his reputation and authority, has dared to OPENLY join the skeptics, and yet they, like no one else, have all the scientific and technical grounds for revelations. Moreover, some of them continue to play along with America, acting as agents of influence in the information war against Russia.
Russian scientists are already reaping the fruits of their silence and compromise, giving up priority in the rocket and space race without a fight. They now present a miserable sight: they stand with their hands outstretched, begging for pitiful crumbs from America to carry out space experiments that the “winners” order for them. Russian space science has turned into a cab driver, bringing out other people's satellites at bargain prices. Pro-American specialists like Feoktistov are still continuing their destructive work to contain the Russian space science, which he started back in 1969. Speaking on television on February 4, 2003, he stated that Russia did not need manned space, that the Mir station should have been sunk, or even better, sold to the Americans, leaving himself the role of a cab driver and technical service. Fortunately, this kind of plebeian and treacherous sentiment is typical only for a small part of Russian scientists and cosmonauts.
4. Propaganda
The Americans produced several versions of propaganda lies, taking into account the differences in the mentality of the audience. For romantically and mystically inclined natures, the statements of astronauts about their encounters with UFOs during a flight to the Moon, about secret cities and alien bases on the Moon, i.e. a motive is given to explain the reason for the fake video materials, they say they filmed everything on Earth in order to hide something like... that they saw and filmed on the Moon.
Pragmatists were divided into two classes: one proves that the materials are not fake, but the most lunar, see, others, more technically educated and unable to swallow fakery, say that some of the materials were actually filmed in the pavilion, so that it would be of better quality , this, they say, was practiced in the USSR. A typical victim of this form of deception is cosmonaut Georgy Grechko, who, while justifying the NASA version, at the same time more than once spoke on television and radio programs that, indeed, some of the NASA materials were filmed in pavilions and it was this fact that gave rise to a wave of refutations of the American landing version to the moon. Here is a fragment from his speech in a broadcast on Echo of Moscow:
I. MERKULOVA: But the Americans, when they landed on the Moon, they also saw something.
G. GRECHKO: But this is not true, because I met many times with the man who was the second to walk on the Moon, and I asked him: “Did you see the rolling fireballs that spoke to you in English? Did you say when landed, that they are already here?..." The more I spoke, the more he slowly moved away from me. But I told him: “Yes, understand, I know the answers, but you need me to refer to you, that I personally spoke to you and you personally denied it.” We are very good relations, and I am absolutely sure that he did not fool me. That's why there were no balls or angels...
V. GOLOVACHEV: Now I believe that the Americans were not on the Moon.
G. GRECHKO: But this even offends me. I'll tell you what it's all about... Where does this stupid, completely ridiculous rumor come from? The fact is that sometimes you get bad pictures in space. And I think they couldn’t resist and took the picture of the flag on the Moon. And the fact that they flew, that they filmed, that they brought samples, is the absolute truth. They tried to improve the result a little, and now they are for it...
It never occurred to Grechko that his foreign friend had been zombified by the best CIA specialists. The partnership of zombie astronauts with our cosmonauts is an excellent way of propaganda and covering up falsification, widely used by American ideologists. The latest example of such a technique is the visit (December 15, 2003) to Moscow of astronaut Eugene Cernan (Apollo 17), who, without batting an eyelid, looking honestly into the television camera, declared: “The truth does not need justifications and protection. People can think everything, whatever, but I really was there, and no one can erase the traces that I left there.”
The “strongest” material evidence of his presence on the Moon turned out to be the wristwatch in which he allegedly was on the Moon and which he annoyingly demonstrated to gullible spectators in Moscow. The instructors who sent him to Moscow to suppress the wave of revelations that had begun in the Russian media clearly overdid it with the clock, putting Cernan in a stupid position.
Another example of corporate solidarity is an article by cosmonaut Valery Polyakov (Deputy Director of the Institute of Medical and Biological Problems) in Stolichnaya Evening Newspaper No. 202-002 dated December 3, 2003:
“Those who claim that man has not landed on the surface of the Moon are not familiar with the specifics of working in space. For example, the video footage shows an American flag waving on the Moon, but there is no atmosphere, the wind has nowhere to come from. This means this is ground-based filming "I will explain this phenomenon based on medical and biological considerations. I spent about two years in zero gravity. At first I was amazed that if you look carefully at your arms and legs, you will see their vibrations. This is not a tremor from some previous social burden, it’s not in this. Having felt my pulse, I saw that these vibrations were synchronous with the activity of the heart.
In the porthole, the illumination of the observed objects changes slightly in the same rhythm. The reason is simple - a wave of blood comes from the heart, reaches the capillary vessels, carrying oxygen, carrying away carbon dioxide and toxins. This affects the body's production of visual pigments - rhodopsin and iodopsin. Similarly, with a decrease or disappearance of weight in a state of weightlessness, these vibrations of the limbs appear, which on Earth, under gravity conditions, are not noticeable. On the Moon, a person's weight is one-sixth that on Earth. And when the astronaut reaches out to the flagpole, these rhythmic vibrations of the flag create the effect that was mistaken for wind."
As we can see, the deputy director of the Institute of Medical and Biological Problems explains the vibrations of the flag by the astronaut’s pulse beats. It’s hard to imagine a more ridiculous and absurd way to defend American lies! The mentioned article by cosmonaut V. Polyakov adds another indelible stain on the entire Russian cosmonaut corps and the entire Soviet cosmonautics. In the article, he is ready to admit the possibility of falsification of the circumstances of Kennedy's assassination, but does not even allow the thought of the possibility of deception on the part of the astronauts with whom he managed to become friends, forgetting that Americans can put the interests of their country above the truth and personal relationships.
THE SITUATION AROUND CRITICISM OF NASA'S LUNAR PROGRAM
Of course, only a drone sent to the Moon can provide 100% proof of the failure of a manned flight. However, for an objective and unbiased analyst, the fact of falsification is obvious today. Especially against the backdrop of the inept attempts of the defenders of the landing version. Their helplessness and partiality sometimes take on comical forms. For example, there is not a single record from which it would follow that the astronauts FREELY observed the stars with their heads raised, and defenders of the landing version say: “They did not think of raising their heads inside the spacesuit,” or: “There was too little time to look at the stars.” .
Funny or sad?
And here’s how defenders of NASA’s version counter the fact that the Apollo 11 astronauts didn’t see the stars from the top window: “So they didn’t think to turn off the lights!”
Here is their justification for the lack of demonstrations of high free jumps: “They jumped high, they just forgot to film it,” or they also say: “They were forbidden to jump so that they would not break when falling.”
Etc. and so on.
We see that over the past 30 years there has not been a single drone launch to the Moon. The study of the Moon by automatic stations has been stopped; the presence of traces of landing on the Moon has still not been confirmed. True, in 1994, a NASA drone flew near the Moon, however, no photographs were taken of the equipment remaining on the Moon after landing (the launch platform of the lunar module, the all-terrain rover, etc.), and this is easily explained, since it simply is not there. The only thing they could show was a foggy spot that appeared to be traces of the landing.
photograph taken by "Clementine"
This is how defenders of the NASA version comment on this spot: “The American Clementine spacecraft took photographs of the lunar surface for two months at the beginning of 1994. So what? One of the photographs showed traces of the Apollo 15 landing - although not the module itself The Apollo 15 astronauts were on the lunar surface much longer than previous expeditions. Therefore, they left quite a lot of tracks and ruts on the surface from the wheels of their "lunar car". These tracks, plus the result of the impact of the gas jet of the rocket engine on the lunar surface, are visible from orbit like a small dark spot.
On the left is a photograph taken by "Clementine". The dark spot, labeled "A", is located exactly at the Apollo 15 landing site. Spots “B” and “C” are apparently traces of fresh meteorite impacts. These spots were not present in photographs from lunar orbit taken before the Apollo 15 landing. "
On our part, two more natural explanations for these photographic materials suggest themselves.
1. If spots “B” and “C” are traces of “fresh meteorites,” then why not consider spot “A” to be the trace of another meteorite?
2. Spot “A” may be a trace of the impact of a gas jet from a rocket engine of a drone flying as part of the Apollo 15 mission behind the ground, or a trace of its crash on the Moon (after all, not all unmanned missions of the Apollo program were successful).
Finally, the very nature of the spot (dimensions exceed hundreds of meters) and the resolution of the optics, in principle, do not allow it to be identified with any traces.
In the 70s, Soviet cosmonautics had every opportunity to verify the fact of the Americans landing on the Moon using a drone. Most likely, such work was carried out, for example, with the help of Lunokhod-2, however, the results turned out to be classified.
CONCLUSION
KEY POINT OF THE AMERICAN SCAM consisted of replacing the real lunar program with a mystified one, at a time when there was a threat of advance from the USSR. The Americans were unable to carry out either a manned flight around the Moon or landing a man on the Moon; the only thing they achieved was repeating the success of the USSR's lunar program. We have to admit with regret that man has still not gone beyond the limits of near-Earth space, nevertheless, the Great American Legend of landing a man on the Moon has become firmly established, entering into the consciousness of people and textbooks on astronautics. The most powerful and obvious fact that allows us to expose the American scam is the lack of demonstrations of weak lunar gravity:
There are no free jumps of the appropriate height and length to confirm the presence of man on the Moon
There is no demonstration of throwing various objects to lunar height and range, with an overview of the entire flight path
Nowhere, not in a single frame, does the lunar dust from a foot strike rise above one meter, but it should rise to 6 meters and higher.
The consequences of admitting this lie are enormous. Without receiving a timely rebuff and exposure, America realized that not only the common population of the world, but also its intellectual elite can be considered fools and donkeys.
Thus, in the struggle for WORLD DOMINANCE and sole power, America decided to take a desperate step - it carried out a hoax of manned flights to the Moon. The success of this scam was facilitated by our space specialists, who played the role of the TROJAN HORSE in the complete defeat of the Soviet lunar program, which consistently led to the transfer of the palm to the United States in science, technology, politics and military potential, and ultimately to the collapse of the once powerful USSR.
Our cosmic luminaries continue to calmly observe how LIES are being spread in universities about the brilliant successes of Americans in the exploration of the Moon, trampling and belittling the successes of domestic cosmonautics. This is despite the fact that the lunar race was actually won by the USSR. After all, it was the USSR that was the first in the world to make an unmanned flight (with living beings on board) around the Moon.
After all, it was the USSR that was the first to create a lunar rover and deliver it to the Moon and was the first to obtain lunar soil. The only thing our cosmic luminaries can do is write memoirs under the humiliatingly shameful title - “How We Lost the Moon.” The time is not far off when our compatriots will throw off the yoke of American propaganda, remember their national pride and give an adequate assessment of such cowardly and shameful actions of our space specialists, who have stained themselves with a treacherous and destructive conspiracy for the country.
Links
1. Jumping movements of astronauts on the Moon:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/apollo/MOVIES/a01708av.avi (1.8 MB).
2. Jump on the stairs of the lunar cabin:
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.v1113715.mov (4 MB).
3. Demonstration high jumps:
http://history.nasa.gov/40thann/mpeg/ap16_salute.mpg (2.4 MB).
4. Standards for standing long and high jumps during training for volleyball players:
http://nskvolley.narod.ru/Volleynet/Techniks/IsometrVoll.htm
5. Reports of NASA's intentions to write a book proving the fact of astronauts flying to the Moon:
http://saratov.rfn.ru/cnews.html?id=3754
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/sci/tech/newsid_2418000/2418625.stm
http://www.itogi.ru/paper2002.nsf/Article/Itogi_2002_11_05_12_0004.html
Reports of NASA abandoning plans to write a book:
http://www.atlasaerospace.net/newsi-r.htm?id=610
http://www.aerotechnics.ru/news/news.asp?id=1338
6. Address of the vaccine website, designed to induce a feeling of fear for your sanity when trying to expose NASA’s lunar scam:
http://www.skeptik.net/conspir/moonhoax.htm
7. http://schools.keldysh.ru/sch1216/students/Luna2002/chelovek_na_lune.htm
8. Astronaut falls and deep squat jump:
http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/solarsys/raw/apo/apo17f.avi
9. NASA ANSMET Antarctic project to search for meteorites:
http://www.meteorite.narod.ru/proba/stati/stati4.htm
10. Reconstruction of pavilion filming
http://mo--on.narod.ru/inc_2_5.htm
11. Trampoline
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/a16v.1701931.ram
12 http://www.aviaport.ru/news/Markets/15966.html
13. http://www.alanbeangallery.com/lonestar.html
14. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11.postland.html
15. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a12/a12.postland.html
16. Jumping-movements
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v_1670930.mov
Publications on the same topic
17. Controversy with defenders of the NASA version
18. Contradictions and oddities in materials on the American lunar program
19. Article by Yu.I.Mukhin
20. Interview with Andrey Ladyzhenko
21. A site that analyzes the trajectories of dust from the rover, the trajectories of throws, etc.
22. Article by Yu.I. Mukhin on falsification of lunar soil
So were the Americans on the moon?
SECRET RESEARCH N2(22) 2000Vadim Rostov
We received a letter from the Kemerovo region from a journalist and veteran of the Great Patriotic War Boris Lvovich Khanaev. He's writing:
“Dear editors! I am a regular reader of your very popular and entertaining newspaper. The weekly newspaper “Krugozor” is published in Novokuznetsk, which published the article that I am sending you. Don’t be too erudite person to see the inconsistency of the statements of the famous anomalous researcher Yuri Fomin regarding the lies of the Americans about visiting the Moon. In this regard, I sent a note to Krugozor (attached a copy) “Spitting at Apollo.” However, apparently due to the events in Yugoslavia, fearing reproach for curtsying towards the United States, the newspaper refused to publish it. Hoping that your newspaper is more courageous and closer to this topic, I ask you to publish my note, supplementing the publication with your commentary."
We regret to inform you that our reader was mistaken in expecting us to stigmatize blatant attempts to cast a shadow on the veracity of the Americans' claims about their walks on the Moon. In the second issue of the newspaper for 1998, we published our analysis of all the statements and arguments available to us from skeptics, primarily American, proving that in reality NASA did not land astronauts on the Moon (at most, only once or twice, and the rest of the landings were filmed in pavilions on Earth and were broadcast, perhaps, from the Apollo spacecraft, which were just flying around the Moon). In our publication, we presented a large number of facts indicating that the doubts of skeptics are certainly justified.
As for Yu. Fomin’s article in Krugozor, it repeats 3-4 really serious, but long-known arguments of skeptics, but the rest, apparently, the author’s independent reasoning is completely irrational, such as, for example, the accusation of the USSR that it condoned the cover-up truth, having been bribed by the US with supplies of wheat. The article also contains a lot of inaccuracies. For example, the United States spent not 250 billion dollars on the lunar program, but 24.
In B.L. Khanaev’s letter, we, alas, did not find the answer to those several serious questions mentioned by Yu. Fomin (Armstrong’s flag flapping in the hot lunar wind, the prints of his soles on the lunar soil devoid of absolutely moisture, etc.). Our reader believes that there is no point in wasting time on analyzing these issues - for the reason that “everything speaks about the reality of flights to the Moon.” And he illustrates this “reality” with an article from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, which, of course, says that the Americans were on the Moon, and also gives as an argument summary the results of the US lunar program and - as news - a story about the Soviet lunar program, which ended in failure. So what? We did not see any arguments here and, in fact, no polemics. The fact that we never flew to the Moon cannot in any way be evidence that the Americans were there. Quite the opposite.
B.L. Khanaev also has thoughts with which we cannot agree. He explains the disasters of our lunar carrier N-1 solely by “pomp, the desire to report success, even to the detriment of the business itself.” We must say that we have been preparing a publication about the Soviet lunar program for a long time (it will appear in the newspaper in the near future) and have collected a lot of factual material. The failure of the Soviet lunar program is not at all explained by the “desire to report.” This failure, according to NASA, was determined by only two factors: poor funding for the project ($4 billion versus 24 American dollars) and intrigues between design bureaus, in which the leaders of the USSR intervened (which, however, could only delay the program, but in no way make it impossible) . As a matter of fact, Moscow closed the lunar project in 1976 for the reason that the “lunar race” was lost and further failures in it would only damage the image of the USSR as a space power - it became clear that the lunar project, in principle, could not be solved with available forces in the foreseeable future future, and the amount of funding actually did not play any role here. And we would add one more decisive factor: the technology of those years, in principle, did not make it possible to send a manned spacecraft to the Moon. And if von Braun, the author of the V-2 rocket, created the Saturn 5 carrier, which ensured a manned flight around the Moon, then the Apollo spacecraft themselves (whose structural details, unlike the Saturn 5, are still NASA keeps it secret) raise, to put it mildly, a lot of questions among specialists.
A comparison of the lunar programs of the USSR and the USA inevitably gives rise to thousands of questions. The Americans (none of whom suffered from radiation sickness) walked on the Moon in rubber-fabric spacesuits, which were almost a hundred kilograms lighter than Leonov’s lead lunar spacesuit prepared by the USSR. And their spacesuits are inexplicably an order of magnitude lighter and thinner than all the modern spacesuits of the Americans (Space Shuttle) and Russians that fly near the Earth today, although they are protected from solar radiation by the Earth’s atmosphere, and this protection is not on the Moon. Yes, for example, fantastic paintings of Soviet cosmonaut artists (Leonov and others) from a set of postcards from 1972: cosmonauts in super-heavy spacesuits are walking on the Moon, covering themselves with large special shields from the radiation of the Sun. This radiation on the Moon is many times more deadly than in near-Earth orbits and can burn an astronaut’s spacesuit to ashes, so without special shields the spacesuit cannot be protected in any way - this is the opinion, we note, precisely of the astronauts who paint pictures of the settlement of the Moon.
In the absence of the necessary computer control, Leonov’s flight (and his landing on the Moon, takeoff from the Moon, etc.) depended entirely on the will of Chance and on the capabilities of the pilot, where almost all the most important stages of the program were determined by his reaction and the supposed (!) correctness of the actions. Even if N-1 sent Leonov to the Moon and his lunar module did not malfunction (which is extremely unlikely), his chances of completing the program and not dying were assessed by the program managers as depressingly low. As Leonov himself said, when landing on the Moon, he had to look askance through a small window at the approaching surface and at the decisive moment launch the braking engines - and if he had launched them half a second earlier or later, he would have died. But how do we know here on Earth what and how Leonov could see at the moment of landing through the window? Everything was done for the first time, and everything indicated that if the project was feasible, it would only be done in several decades.
But even in the United States at that time there were no computers that would eliminate the use of such decisive factors as the reaction of pilots in key phases of flight. But everything went surprisingly smoothly for them, although according to the theory of probability, these landings on the Moon could not have happened at all due to thousands of possible failures and due to the fact that no one could foresee what would actually happen during the flight at all times. phases. Yes, there was a misfire with Apollo 13, which circled the moon without landing, but skeptics in the United States argue that the accident (which threatened the death of astronauts even before approaching lunar orbit) was used to shade the truth of other flights, and nothing does not indicate that Apollo 13 was actually supposed to land on the Moon and not just fly around the Moon.
Let us note that at that time the USA lagged behind the USSR in astronautics by ten years, and their breakthrough in the lunar program, obviously ensured only by von Braun’s creation of the powerful Saturn-5 rocket, did not in any way mean a breakthrough in all other areas of astronautics, without which the lunar project could not be realized and, in principle, technologically, could not be carried out. Without having the same experience as we have in manned space flights and operating experience space modules(which was a top secret), but having an inevitable series of constant and natural failures and disasters in near-Earth orbits, the Americans, nevertheless, carried out everything without a hitch (except for the 13th Apollo, which also, in general, was successful) Apollo lunar landings. And this, as many Soviet space designers recall, was an incomprehensible mystery, a sensation. And for them, experts in the problem, it looked completely inexplicably implausible. Let us note that this is the opinion of the people who sent the first artificial Earth satellite in the history of Mankind into space, the first dog-cosmonauts and, finally, the first man in space - Yuri Gagarin, and who actually saw the whole range of technological problems of astronautics that were unknown to the Americans at that time.
Generally speaking, the fact that after December 1972 the Americans have never flown to the Moon and have no plans to fly there again in the foreseeable future raises certain suspicions. The only argument that there is nothing interesting to Americans on the Moon, that everything there has been discovered and studied by Americans, is ridiculous. Astrobusinesses, corporations and institutions in the USA, Europe and Japan have offered and are constantly offering NASA a huge number of lunar projects, which, unlike Apollo, would be financed not by the US budget, but by themselves, and which would bring enormous profits due to the exploitation of lunar resources . NASA rejects all of these projects, justifying the refusal by the development of other non-lunar projects, which, however, are an order of magnitude less profitable. Many respected scientists from different countries have already expressed the opinion that NASA is purposefully rejecting all lunar projects. Never once, however, has there been an official accusation that NASA is simply technically incapable, even with its current highest level of technology, to lower a manned vehicle to the Moon. Although many corporations have long suspected or known that this is indeed the case.
NASA's ban on lunar programs is believed to have political reasons. And although NASA does not plan flights to the Moon, these flights are actively being prepared by Europe and Japan. In the next 10-20 years, they are the ones who plan to create bases on the Moon - on their own.
And here’s a scary question: will they find the Apollo modules on the Moon?
In our previous publication on this topic, we listed the questions (a small part of them) that the American lunar program raises, primarily among the Americans themselves. Neither NASA nor the US official authorities answered these questions in any way, have not answered in the time that has elapsed since publication, and, apparently, do not intend to answer in principle. Let us briefly repeat the circumstances that cast doubt on the US lunar program.
THERE IS NO SMOKE WITHOUT FIRE
When the Americans received information about the launch of the first artificial satellite Earth, and subsequently the first cosmonaut, the reaction of both the official authorities and the scientific community and, of course, the American press was equally categorical: the Russians are fooling the world. For quite a long time, America did not want to believe the historical success of the Russians.
The point here is not only that the cheerful Russian cosmonauts offended the pride of the Yankees, who consider themselves the navel of the Earth. Although they are really offended, and are still offended, despite the fact that in other countries and in Russia itself they have long forgotten about the intensity of the space race of those years. For the Russians, the space race had a political meaning in those years as a competition between two systems; Nowadays, after the collapse of communist ideology, Russians look at this race as if from the outside, as a historical incident. But the Americans, both then and now, perceive Gagarin’s flight from the point of view of infringed chauvinism, as a slap in the face to the navel of the Earth, which has zones of its strategic interests everywhere in the world - including in space. It is still perceived to this day as the greatest disgrace of the nation. But, we repeat, this is not the only issue.
Further space successes The Americans were also touched to the quick by the Soviet authorities and the entire Soviet people, but no one in the USSR even thought of openly and universally calling the Americans liars. The Soviet authorities simply, to one degree or another, suppressed US achievements in the space field. In addition, the Soviet authorities themselves never engaged in falsification in any situations related to space.
To compare the situation, one should pay attention to the fact that no one, either here or abroad, ever, after the American accusations of falsification, questioned the launch of Sputnik, Gagarin’s flight and all other Soviet space programs. There are no such accusations and cannot be: there are no grounds for such accusations, and the materials from space flights do not even raise a shadow of suspicion about their authenticity.
It is quite natural to assume that it was the Americans themselves, the only ones in the world who doubted the integrity of space researchers, and who were at that time most predisposed to falsification in this area. If they claimed that it was possible to falsify space achievements, then they knew that it was indeed possible, and they knew how to do it in practice. This means that, indeed, “for a rainy day” or in some other way, a falsification program was created by analysts and scientists - on orders from above. It existed as a fallback option for cases where US prestige was at stake and the consequences of failure would be catastrophic. There were no restrictions for such situations: the goal must be achieved at any cost.
And the goal of the lunar program is obvious and unscientific: to atone for the shame of the Russian slap in the face and create a cult for the American mass consciousness, as American experts themselves claim. Thus, flights to the Moon - according to the American authorities - simply had no right not to take place. For America, this was the most important political issue of the era. Just three weeks after the first American astronaut flew into space, John Kennedy solemnly promised an offended America that within ten years the Americans would land on the Moon. The promise was kept.
Perhaps the Americans actually went to the moon - once or twice. But there are many facts indicating that either the entire US lunar program, or its part directly related to landings on the lunar surface, starting with the failures of Apollo 13, is a falsification - expensive and done quite professionally, but inevitably having weaknesses that many, many researchers discover.
PUNCTURES
A lot of them. Too many for one space program. Moreover, there are no questions about all other NASA programs, starting with the launch of monkeys into space (not one lived even eight days after the flight - all, like flies, died from radiation) and ending with the space shuttles.
“NASA deceived America” is the title of the book by the scientist and inventor Rene, one of many on this issue. He expressed many doubts about the reliability of the landing of American astronauts on the moon. The main ones are briefly summarized as follows:
1. Gravity
A quick view of astronauts jumping on the Moon shows that their movements correspond to movements on Earth, and the height of the jumps does not exceed the height of jumps in Earth's gravity, although the gravity on the Moon is one-sixth that of Earth. Pebbles falling from under the wheels of the American lunar rover during flights after Apollo 13, when viewed at an accelerated rate, behave in an earthly manner and do not rise to a height corresponding to the force of gravity on the Moon.2. Wind
When the US flag was planted on the moon, the flag fluttered under the influence of air currents. Armstrong straightened the flag and took a few steps back. However, the flag did not stop fluttering. This cannot be explained by any “internal vibrations of the flag” or its “internal energy”.3. Pictures
Lunar images have specific, inconspicuous crosses due to the operation of the equipment. Without these crosses, not a single photograph of the lunar expedition should exist. However, contrary to all other images taken during other space programs, in many lunar photographs the crosses are either missing or located under the image, which raises doubts that the images were actually taken by lunar equipment.A number of photographs allegedly taken on the Moon are presented in various NASA publications with cropping and corrections: in some places shadows have been removed and retouching has been applied. The same images that NASA provided to the public at different times look different and irrefutably prove the presence of editing.
4. Stars
The vast majority of space images from NASA's lunar program do not show stars, although Soviet satellite images their complete abundance. The black, empty background of all the photographs is explained by the difficulty of modeling the starry sky: the forgery would be obvious to any astronomer.5. Radiation
Near-Earth spacecraft are much less susceptible to the harmful effects of solar radiation than a ship located far from the Earth. According to American experts, walls with 80 centimeters of lead are needed to protect a spacecraft flying to the Moon. Otherwise, the astronauts will not survive even a week and will die, just as all the American astronaut monkeys died from radiation. However, NASA spacecraft in the 60s had sides made of aluminum foil several millimeters thick.6. Spacesuits
When the daytime lunar surface heats up to 120 degrees, the spacesuit needs to be cooled, which, according to modern American experts in space flights, requires 4.5 liters of water. The Apollo spacesuits had 1 liter of water and were practically not designed for work in lunar conditions.The suits were made of rubberized fabric without any significant protection from cosmic radiation. The Apollo spacesuits of the 60s are significantly smaller than the Soviet and American spacesuits used today for short periods of time in space. Even with today’s level of technology development, it is impossible to fit into such spacesuits a supply of oxygen for 4 hours, a radio station, a life support system, a thermal control system, etc., which, judging by the legend of the 60s, the Apollo astronauts had more than modern astronauts.
7. Fuel
In 1969, Armstrong and Aldrin literally the last straw of fuel heroically landed Apollo 11 weighing 102 kg on the Moon. Apollo 17, weighing 514 kg, landed on the Moon without any problems with exactly the same fuel supply. This glaring discrepancy is not explained by anything, and, in fact, it is impossible to explain it by “saving on maneuvers” or “finding a shorter path to the Moon,” as any specialist in this field will confirm.8. Landing
The jet stream emanating from the nozzle of the vehicle being lowered to the Moon should have completely scattered, under conditions of low gravity, all the dust - practically weightless - from the surface within a radius of at least hundreds of meters. In airless space, this dust should rise high above the surface of the Moon and fly away in a whirlwind kilometers from the place of the ship’s descent, which was observed during all landings of Soviet lunar modules. However, in American photographs - contrary to all science and common sense - we see how a newly arrived astronaut cheerfully jumps from the landing vehicle into the dust untouched by any influence and tramples in the dust under the supposed nozzle, leaving his historical traces everywhere.9. Information leak
Astronaut Aldrin's memoirs describe a party in narrow circle astronauts, where those present watched a film showing the adventures of Fred Hayes on the moon. Hayes did all sorts of steps, then tried to stand on the step of the moon rover, but the step crumbled as soon as he stepped on it. However, Fred Hayes never walked on the moon. He is a member of the infamous Apollo 13 mission that did not land on the surface of the Moon.Either all Apollo flights were fakes, or for each flight a fictitious landing option was created that could work at the right moment.
There are a lot of other facts. During the “live broadcasts from the Moon,” viewers several times caught the eye of strange things, such as, for example, a blatant letter S written in paint on one of the “untouched” lunar rocks and accidentally caught in the frame in one of the “lunar” reports.
The falsification was such a pearl from all the holes of the lunar project that tens of thousands of Americans - not Russians at all - filled up television, NASA and the White House with bags of indignant letters.
This has never happened before or after the lunar epic. No response was given to any letter.
10. Privacy
In 1967, 11 astronauts died under questionable circumstances. Seven died in plane crashes, three burned in the test capsule. According to American researchers of the issue, these were “dissenters.” The most high mortality rate in the camp of American astronauts exactly corresponds to the most dubious NASA program.There is plenty of evidence of the CIA's direct involvement in the lunar program. Facts have been published in the United States indicating not only the participation of the CIA in the planning and management of the lunar project, but also the participation of the CIA in financing the space program. Of course, the lunar project is strategic for US interests, and its secrets must be protected by the relevant services. To be protected - but no more. If the project is funded, funded and managed by the CIA, then it is not a scientific project, but a dirty political scam.
Contrary to general delusion(perhaps existing mainly in Russia) about the continuity of space program specialists who worked earlier and continue to work in the space field today, American specialists - a couple of hundred people who worked on the lunar program - have sunk into oblivion. They are either no longer found, or they do not give interviews, or they have passed on to another world. They are forgotten by everyone. Can't even find their names. Archives considered lost are unavailable. A lot of materials relating to flights to the Moon were destroyed. And those materials that remained were subjected to the most severe censorship and, quite possibly, processing, representing today the Legend of the Moon, designed for faith and created according to the canons of biblical epics as part of the justification of the exclusivity of the American nation. This is precisely the role that the American landing on the moon plays in the American consciousness, and this circumstance should not be downplayed.
Even if someone in power in the United States sees the light, having received facts about the falsification of the lunar project (perhaps everyone in the American elite knows about this and this is not news to them), this someone will not do anything to debunk the myth, because to debunk the myth of the Moon means to cover America with such shame, from which it will never wash off in its entire subsequent history. Therefore, it is stupid to wait for any official clarification on this issue: there will never be one.
The CIA shut the talkative mouth and destroyed evidence and archives, down to technological design drawings. Many argue that the spacecraft after Apollo did not land on the Moon, but only flew around it, without the technical ability to land and carry out the activities provided for by the project. Their lunar epic was filmed from start to finish on Earth even before the flight began, and lunar soil samples were delivered earlier (or not delivered at all). It is argued that the lunar expeditions after Apollo 13 did not produce any new results, but are only - in their achievements - a shadow of previous flights. It is quite possible that the Apollo 13 flight itself did not include a landing on the Moon, which had to be falsified, and the falsification failed due to an accident that occurred on approach to the Moon and threatened the entire fate of the expedition with mortal danger. At least, this is the only way to explain the existence of a NASA film starring Apollo 13 crew member Fred Hayes, in which he did tricks on the Moon without ever having been there.
IMAGE ANALYSIS
The American magazine Fortean Times (N94) expressed further doubts about the reliability of NASA's lunar epic when it published an article by David Percy, "The Dark Side of the Lunar Landings." The author of the material quite rightly draws the reader’s attention to the fact that all evidence and reports about the flights of American astronauts to the Moon are presented by NASA to history and to the world community only in the form of photographic images, film films and - in later flights - television footage. Since there are no independent witnesses to these “actual events,” humanity has no choice but to condescendingly believe the words of NASA and the photographic materials presented by NASA.
In fact, humanity has no evidence at all that we have ever touched the Moon with our feet, except for those photographs that NASA chose to publish and inform the world public. In his article, David Percy, an expert in the analysis of photographs and television images, argues that in the images presented by NASA (and NASA presented only the best, from its point of view, images, without ever showing tens of thousands of other frames to anyone) there are clearly many doubtful moments.
David Percy argues that there is a very likely possibility that NASA falsified photographic and television footage of the moon landings between 1969 and 1972. After conducting detailed photographic analysis of the images, Percy obtained strong evidence of falsification of the lunar photographs. The expert argues that we have no right to call such images genuine, and NASA has no reasonable defense to such accusations. Having examined many lunar photographs, Percy discovered fraud in the production of frames, in their editing, in their retouching. David Percy introduced a set of photographic rules and examined NASA lunar images according to them. You can get acquainted with some of the conclusions of the American expert.
Photographic Rule Number 1:
Light travels in straight, parallel lines at any given moment. The shadow directions are parallel because the light comes from the Sun over 90 million miles away.
Image 1: Look at the first photo: typical tree shadows. Draw virtual parallel lines of shadows - the shadow side of the trees coincides with them. No special features. This is not surprising.
Image 2. Now compare with a panoramic photo supposedly taken on the Moon. Can you determine where the light sources are? Not very far! These shadows are not parallel.
Image 3. In this photograph they converge to a very specific point on the supposedly lunar surface. This is an impossible situation for natural sunlight. Also keep in mind that in the picture the shadow side, contrary to the laws of lunar illumination, is not dark, and besides, the shadow side of the astronaut’s mirrored helmet reflects a bright light source. Very surprising! The length of a day on the surface of the Moon lasts 14 Earth days, but in NASA images the length of the shadows changes as the supposed lunar tasks progress (taking several hours of work or several days). The length of the shadows is in clear contradiction with the angular height of the sun during supposed lunar flights.
Image 4: For example, during the Apollo 11 lunar landing, the sun was 10 degrees above the horizon, but the images show 30 degrees or higher! Is this a NASA puncture, or low sunlight Is it simply technically impossible to recreate on a film set?
Measuring the shadow lengths within any part of a given image (as well as in lunar television frames) proves the presence of more than one light source, and the light sources are sometimes installed at different heights! It is clear that if the image were genuine, it could not have different shadow directions.
Image 5. The same story with shadows in this photo.
Image 6. We find something similar here: here are the main problems with the shadows of the stones. Long shadows, short shadows, gray shadows, dark shadows, some filled with light, some not filled - - obvious fake!
Image 7: This television picture is another example of differential shadow lengths. In addition, there is visual evidence of the use of a large, very close, ARTIFICIAL light source.
Image 8. This television image shows the reflection of rays from a light source occupying approximately 25% of the convex glass of an astronaut's helmet. This obviously indicates the use of a super-light source of incredible size, placed extremely close to the scene of action. A glaring fact.
Photographic Rule Number 2:
Light in a vacuum has extremely high contrast - that is, it is very bright on the Sun side and very dark on the shadow side. The Moon has absolutely no atmosphere that would help fill or soften the shadows with light. Consider the photograph taken by the Apollo 16 expedition (photo 9). It was made not in a vacuum, but in an atmosphere.
Calculations show that during the alleged flight of Apollo 17 the angle of the Sun was approximately 5 degrees above the horizon, but the angle of the Sun in the photographs is much greater (see photo 10).
CONCLUSIONS
Only a handful of letters to the Fortean Times in response to David Percy's publication contained suggestions for further research on the issue and expressed agreement with the expert's conclusions. The rest of the mail (more than the journal had ever received before) consisted of indignant and angry petitions questioning Percy's rules, refuting his photographic research, and ridiculing his conclusions. However, not a single qualified refutation or review of Percy's research has been received from his thousands of American opponents. The criticism was purely emotional character. Many offended readers said they would no longer read the Fortean Times. An attempt was made to take away from the ignorant American man in the street the main thing he is proud of - the American illusion of his own exceptionalism.
The rare sober attempts to refute Percy's conclusions with arguments contained only two dubious theses: firstly, the astronauts' cameras could have had a bent lens, and therefore the pictures turned out crooked; secondly, on the crooked terrain, the shadows are crooked and look in different directions. All this would be funny if it weren't so sad.
The magazine was going to collect comments on this matter from scientists working in the space industry, but the topic was hushed up, and the Fortean Times never returned to it.
This is exactly the situation when you can get hit in the teeth very hard.
OUR OPINION
If you, dear reader, see in this article only food for thought, and wait for some other official statement from government departments to prove the falsification of NASA’s lunar project, then you will not receive this statement for the reasons already mentioned. There will be no statements on this topic, because this is not a scientific issue, but a political one, this is the foundation of US ideology, its most important link. But such issues are not subject to international discussion today. Even the very news of the creation in the United States of a commission to verify the reality of flights to the Moon - even without the results of its work - will so irreparably and tragically undermine the image of the United States in the eyes of the world community that this is not a sphere of abstract research, but represents a primary ideological issue of US national security. which necessarily provides for the presence of oversight bodies in the CIA and FBI for maintaining the lunar status quo as the greatest national value. Therefore, the secret will remain a secret. For the time being, of course, until the Russians, Europeans, and Japanese visit the Moon. If they do not find evidence of American landings on the Moon, the United States will immediately cease to be a world power.
We do not make a final and unconditional conclusion that the Americans were not on the Moon at all. We only state that there is no reliable evidence for this assertion.
GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE AMERICAN MOON LEGEND
In accordance with the Apollo program, in the period 1969-1972, according to myth, nine expeditions were sent to the Moon. Six of them ended with the “landing of twelve astronauts on the surface of the Moon” in an area supposedly from the Ocean of Storms in the west to the Taurus Ridge in the east. The tasks of the first two expeditions were limited to flights in selenocentric orbits, and the “landing of astronauts” on the surface of the Moon in one of the expeditions was canceled, allegedly due to the explosion of the oxygen tank for fuel cells and the support system, which occurred two days after launch from Earth. The damaged Apollo 13 spacecraft flew around the Moon and returned safely to Earth.
The first landing site was allegedly chosen in the Sea of Tranquility. Neil Armstrong (ship commander) and Colonel Edwin Aldrin (lunar cabin pilot) landed here in the Eagle lunar cabin on July 20, 1969 at 20:17. 43 p. GMT and transmitted to Earth: “Houston, Tranquility Base speaking, Eagle has landed.” Armstrong lowered the ladder to the loose soil and said: “This is a small step for a man, but a giant leap for humanity.”
It was for this phrase that the Americans started the scam and, I must say, there are no complaints about this phrase - it’s spectacular. According to legend, the first American “astronauts on the Moon” allegedly took many photographs of the lunar landscape, including rocks and plains, and collected 22 kg of samples of lunar soil and rocks, which, after returning to Earth, were to be studied at the Lunar Exploration Laboratory in Houston. Being the first to leave the lunar cabin and the last to enter it, Armstrong spent 2 hours and 31 minutes on the Moon; in total they were on the Moon for 21 hours and 36 minutes.
The next Apollo 12 flight took place on November 14-24, 1969, with US Navy pilots Charles Conrad and Alan Bean landing on the Moon. Conrad and Bean allegedly delivered 33.9 kg of “Lunar Soil” samples. We spent 31 hours 31 minutes on the Moon, of which 7 hours were on the surface of the Moon. 45 min.
The world's idiot had to be kept in suspense, and, according to the laws of dramatic art, the flight of the ship with N13 could not be successful. The alarming expectations of the boobies were justified: on April 11, 1970, Apollo 13 launched, heading for landing in the area of the Fra Mauro crater. Two days after launch, an oxygen tank for fuel cells and a life support system allegedly exploded in the engine compartment of the main unit. Mission control in Houston ordered the crew to cancel the landing and fly around the Moon before returning to Earth. If the Apollo 13 lunar cabin had not had a reserve of oxygen, crew members James Lovell, John Swigert and Fred Hayes might have suffocated due to lack of oxygen. Having adjusted the trajectory using the engine of the landing stage of the ship, the astronauts circled the Moon and rushed towards the Earth. Using the lunar cabin as a “rescue boat”, on April 17, after undocking, they managed to move into the descent module and splash down safely. Happy ending!
From January 31 to February 9, 1971, the Apollo 14 expedition took place. Astronauts Alan Shepard and Captain Edgar Mitchell “landed” their lunar cabin in the area of the Fra Mauro crater, spent about 9 hours on the lunar surface and collected 44.5 kg of lunar rock samples. In total they were on the Moon for 33 hours. 30 min.
With the help of television cameras, a report was made for Earth viewers from the landing site of the lunar cabin. Shepard could be seen taking out three golf balls and, using some kind of long-handled instrument like a golf club, making three shots. TV viewers were amazed by the unprecedented American achievements.
The legend was perfected - what kind of cowboy is this without a car? And during the expedition on the Apollo 15 spacecraft, a small four-wheeled car with an electric engine was delivered to the “Moon” - the “Lunomobile”.
The landing site for Apollo 15 was the area of Hadley's Furrow in the foothills of the Apennines. During the expedition, which took place from July 26 to August 7, 1971, the ship's crew received a lot of data both on the lunar surface and from selenocentric orbit. On the lunar rover, Scott and Irwin explored the mountain slopes for 18 hours and 36 minutes. and collected 78.6 kg of rock and soil samples. We were on the moon for 66 hours. 54 min.
Having received samples of “lunar rocks” from the “seas”, NASA specialists chose the plateau in the area of the Descartes crater as the “landing site” of the Apollo 16 spacecraft (April 16-27, 1972) - the continental part of the surface, which, according to observations from the Earth, had lighter color, where, as it was believed, the composition of the soil and rocks should be completely different than in the “darker” lowlands. John Young and Charles Duke "landed" safely in the lunar cabin, while Navy Lieutenant Commander Thomas Mattingly remained in selenocentric orbit in the main block. Young and Duke spent 20 hours and 14 minutes on the lunar surface (outside the lunar cabin). and collected 95.2 kg of samples. In three trips they traveled about 27 km on the lunar rover. American scope! We spent 71 hours on the moon. 14 min.
And finally, the last expedition “to the Moon” - Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt, crew members of Apollo 17 (December 7-19, 1972). They spent 22 hours and 5 minutes on the lunar surface, performed a number of experiments and collected 110 kg of lunar soil and rock samples. They traveled 35 km by car, and spent a total of 74 hours on the Moon. 59 min.
So, according to the American lunar legend, American astronauts spent almost 300 hours on the Moon, of which 81 hours were on the surface of the Moon, and brought back 384.2 kg of lunar soil from there.
ABOUT AMERICAN SLAVES
Hello, dear Yuri Ignatievich! Having become acquainted with your articles about the Americans’ stay on the Moon, and also having read the article by V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov “Did the Americans fly to the Moon?” (http://www.skeptik.net/conspir/moonhoax.htm), I thought I should state my point of view. The article by V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov, despite the authors’ claims to originality, can be called such with a very big stretch.
Judging by some signs, the authors were ideologically inspired for this article by the website http://www.clavius.org: there you can find a lot of things that strongly “correlate” with the main arguments of V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov.
Further, their article was quite deliberately written in such a grandiose way and, what is even more significant, in the form of criticism of other authors who write on the same topic. This style is familiar to me. It is actually a psychological weapon. It is very difficult to answer, even if you have something to object to, since this will already be criticism in response to criticism. In other words, the answer to the article by V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov will be a three-story structure, which will be almost impossible for the reader to understand (or, in any case, there are few such readers who have the patience).
But, nevertheless, one must still pay attention to such zoils as V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov, otherwise things will be bad. The fact is that after their article, many of those who doubted whether the Americans were on the Moon no longer doubt: the amount of material presented crushed them. Therefore, I am sending my article for examination. It seems to me that these good fellows should be punished. So that it would be discouraging.
As a naturally curious person, I learned about the American conquest of the Moon a long time ago, in 1969, when I was eight years old. I remember listening with delight to those short messages on the radio broadcast by the official Soviet press, and saw in the conquest of the Moon only a symbol of the greatness of humanity, nothing more. The image of the American people in my mind seemed to split into two. One American people opened a new era in space by conquering the Moon. Another was bombing Vietnam at the same time, and for this he was thoroughly beaten with Soviet weapons - the best weapons in the world at that time - so much so that the only thing missing was Levitan’s loud voice with his victorious: “Our troops continued to grind manpower and equipment enemy." The child's mind is cosmopolitan, and both of these images of the American people coexisted peacefully in my head. I accepted the fact of the conquest of the Moon by the Americans straight away and lived with this belief for many years, not really paying attention to the fact that serious passions were flaring up around this conquest (more precisely, I did not even suspect their existence).
However, in the spring of this year I saw a TV show (somewhere in April) in which the question was raised as to whether the Americans were on the Moon. The disputing parties stood, as they say, to the death in defending their positions, so I even thought: well, that’s it, here’s a ready-made reason for the Third World War. But after watching the discussion, I started thinking: what, in fact, is behind this serious fuss?
And the beast runs to the catcher: almost by accident I found the website of the Skeptics Club and saw there the article “Did the Americans fly to the Moon?” V. Yatskina and Y. Krasilnikov (http://www.skeptik.net/conspir/moonhoax.htm). Perhaps in another situation I would not have paid attention to it, but interest in the issue raised in the title of the article had already appeared after watching the TV program, so I found time for the entire article. I read it and thought about it.
And there was something to be done. The fact is that the defeat (or should I say pogrom?) organized by the authors of the article read for other authors (in particular, Yu. Mukhin, M. Zubkov) left an ambivalent impression.
On the one hand, versatile argumentation, scrupulous calculations, constant references to source materials, an abundance of graphic material - in a word, honor and praise to the authors for their titanic work, both in quantity and quality. Is it a joke to say: 93 A4 pages!
But, on the other hand, in addition to the method, there is also such a thing as the purpose of the article. What about her? In fact it turned out that original target- to convince the reader that the Americans were on the Moon - by Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov, willingly or unwillingly, it turned out to be replaced by something completely different. It became criticism of other authors (Yu. Mukhin, M. Zubkov and, probably, many others). Moreover, the criticism is special - “selective”: pull out a piece of text and start jesuitically bashing this piece.
Using Yandex, I found articles by Yu. Mukhin (http://www.duel.ru/200001/?1_5_1) and M. Zubkov (http://www.abitura.com/not_only/hystorical_physics/moon.html) to get to know them in the original and find out whether they deserved such treatment.
I don’t argue that, as authors, they are emotional, even, probably, excessively, sometimes they draw very sharp conclusions. In addition, in the article by M. Zubkov, much is taken from the article by Yu. Mukhin. But even if both of them are 100% wrong, and M. Zubkov’s work contains few of his own ideas, is this a reason for an article that, instead of “Did the Americans fly to the Moon?” would it be more correct to call it “Anti-Mukhin” (or “Anti-Zubkov”), given the extremely personalized nature of the criticism it contains?
After thinking, I decided: the path of “selective” war, which V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov embarked on, is not the true path of scientific skepticism. This road is a dead end. And this must be shown to the authors, and in the very style they chose. In a word, try to convince the authors that the Moon is the Moon, and simplicity is enough for every wise man...
1. The article begins with an analysis of the most odious moment of the American lunar film, video and photo galleries - the anomalous behavior of shadows cast by various bodies on the lunar surface.
For example, this is a photo that I copied from an article by V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov. If in the article by respected authors all the photos were given in some single numbering, then it would be much easier for me to refer to these numbers; but since they are not there, you will have to insert photographic materials this way. True, there is another reason to take the photo from the article by V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov. The fact is that those numerous addresses on the NASA website that are given in their article, when trying to load the corresponding pages, return the stereotypical response “Site not found” or “Unable to establish a connection to the server.”
People who do not believe in Americans being on the Moon (in particular, Mr. Percy) have two complaints about this photo: why do the shadows of the astronauts, almost the same height, have such different lengths? And why do they also have different directions?
Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov are convinced that “... the sun's rays fall on the surface very gently, and the direction and length of the shadow can change noticeably even due to small irregularities.” In support of this, they cite the model drawings presented below: a view of two cylinders and their shadows from the side (left picture) and from above (right picture), taken, according to them, from the site http://www.clavius.org/.
Yes, indeed, model drawings convincingly prove that the different lengths of the astronauts’ shadows in the photo may well be explained by the unevenness of the lunar surface.
But can these irregularities explain the different directions of the shadows in the above photo? This does not follow from the model drawings, and therefore it is necessary to look at the problem from the point of view of the general principles of geometric optics.
According to the latter, if the dimensions of the light source are much larger than the dimensions of the illuminated bodies and the distances between them (for example, when the light source is the Sun), and the illuminated bodies themselves are parallel (for example, two vertically placed cylinders in model drawings), then their shadows will also be parallel. In addition, the body and its shadow will be in the same plane. This is exactly what we see in the model drawing on the right: the shadows are almost parallel, and each pair of “cylinder - its shadow” forms a plane.
But in the photo, the astronauts' shadows are by no means parallel. What could be the reason for this?
Obviously, such a picture could arise if:
A) the light source is a point source, that is, its dimensions are small compared to the distances to the illuminated objects. If such a light source and the illuminated objects form an acute triangle, then the shadows of the objects will fan out;
b) the source of light is the Sun, but the objects themselves are not located in the same plane. For example, the cylinders in the model drawings do not appear to be strictly parallel to each other (unless this is due to distortions that occur when projecting three-dimensional objects onto a plane), so I noted above: “they practically parallel."
If we assume that the astronauts were illuminated by the Sun, then version a) is excluded, and the strange behavior of the shadows can only be explained by version b). But is it applicable?
Theoretically - yes. To do this, it is only necessary that the distance between the astronauts' heads be greater than the distance between the points at which the astronauts' feet touch the lunar surface (as if, say, they stood with their backs to each other and each of them leaned forward a little). The result would be a picture similar to the model drawing on the right, in which there is a small angle between the shadows (about 2°). The situation in the model figure could well be explained if we assume that one of the cylinders deviated slightly to the right, and the other, on the contrary, to the left. True, the model drawing rejects this hypothesis (the cylinders look like dots from above), but in fact it is completely confirmed by the experiment that formed the basis for the model drawings (see http://www.clavius.org/shadlen.html, Fig.3- 5; if you look closely, the top of the cylinders in Fig.5 is slightly tilted to the right, and accordingly the shadows are not strictly parallel).
Let's return to the photo of the astronauts. Each of them takes a step with their knees more or less bent and also slightly bent at the waist. Judging by the photo, they are also slightly tilted forward, while the angles of inclination are approximately equal. In addition, the astronauts stand with different angles rotation in relation to the viewer (this is everyone who looks at the photo). The astronaut on the left turned slightly to face the viewer (at an angle of approximately 45°), the astronaut on the right, on the contrary, turned away from the viewer and stands almost sideways to him (and even shows his back a little). With such a “disposition”, the distance between the astronauts’ heads will most likely be even less than between the points at which their legs touch the Moon (in extreme cases, these two distances will be almost equal). In other words, there are no conditions for the fan-shaped divergence of their shadows. These shadows, if extended to straight lines, should intersect (or, in extreme cases, be parallel).
Since, in spite of everything (in this case, of course, primarily in spite of the Sun), the shadows inexorably diverge, and the angle of divergence is simply absurdly large, then, therefore, version b) disappears. And then, to explain the divergence of shadows, we need to use version a). But this means that the different directions of the shadows in the photo could not have arisen if the light source had been the Sun.
So what have we got? The appeal of Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov to the unevenness of the lunar surface convincingly explains only half of the anomalous behavior of the shadows in the photo - that they have different lengths. But the fact that the shadows have different directions is not explained by the hypothesis put forward by the authors [the version b) I proposed is more suitable for this role]. Hence, the incident that befell the authors became inevitable.
Let me remind you that they initially announced a very loud promise: “... the sun’s rays fall on the surface very gently, and the direction and length of the shadow can noticeably change even due to small irregularities” - that is, the authors threatened to explain not only the change in length through irregularities shadows, but also changing their direction. However, in the three subsequent paragraphs they wrote, they did not say a single word about how an uneven surface could lead to different directions of shadows! Not a single one! This is understandable: an uneven surface cannot have anything to do with this phenomenon, since this would contradict the foundations of geometric optics. Moreover, the authors of the article are well aware of this. It was the latter circumstance that did not allow them to refer to the site http://www.clavius.org, where, by the way, an attempt was made to explain why the shadows still diverge. But! The tension of this explanation is so blatant that common conscience did not allow the authors of the article to refer to it. And in order not to be unfounded, I will cite comments from the site http://www.clavius.org/shadlen.html, Fig.8
Two cylinders illuminated by a lamp from a distance of 0.5 m (the lamp is slightly away from the axis connecting the cylinders) http://www.clavius.org/shadlen.html, Fig.9
The same cylinders and a lamp (the cylinders and the lamp form an acute isosceles triangle).
Here's what the website says: “Figs. 8 and 9 demonstrate this empirically. Fig. 8 shows that the length of the shadow of the closer object is shorter. It also shows that the shadows diverge in distance. However this effect will be mitigated in a more realistic lighting design. In Fig. 9 the objects are a similar distance from the light, but are separated laterally as theorized by Bennett and Percy to explain Fig. 6. However we can see that the shadows will appear to diverge, whereas in Fig. 6 the shadows appear to converge slightly." The translation goes something like this: “The experiments in Figures 8 and 9 show that the shadows diverge. However, in the case of natural light, the divergence effect will be mitigated. Although in figure 6 the shadows seem to converge.”
It was necessary to think of something like that! Conduct a school experiment by illuminating objects 5-10 cm in size (!!!) with a laboratory lamp (!) from a distance of 50 cm (!!), that is, an experiment that completely reproduces version a), and, as if nothing had happened, declare, that the same thing will be observed in the case of natural light, that is, the Sun. The effect will just be softened, and so - no difference. Well, stormy Applause turning into ovation! (When I wrote the last phrase, I remembered General Charnota from Bulgakov’s “Run”: “Yes, Paramosha, I am a sinful person, but you!”)
Either great ignorance, or petty fraud - only this was shown by the Americans in their comments on this experience. But there is no explanation for the strange behavior of shadows on the Moon.
However, be that as it may, Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov realized what was happening in time and were embarrassed to include this “explanation” in their article. One must think that the poor Americans burned with shame when they read this absurdity on the website http://www.clavius.org/.
Therefore, if Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov still sincerely believe that the unevenness of the lunar surface explains the different directions of shadows cast by astronauts in the rays of the Sun, then they should first defend the corresponding discovery of a priority nature in scientific circles. And on its basis, prove that the anomalous direction of the shadows in the photo has a strictly scientific explanation, simultaneously making barbs at Mr. Percy, who was the first to draw attention to these anomalies.
2. The article continues with an analysis of two more photos, in which anomalous behavior of shadows on the Moon also occurs. The essence of the complaints against these photos from people who are not inclined to accept the fact that Americans were on the Moon is that if the shadows are imagined as segments lying on straight lines, then these straight lines will intersect.
In their analysis, Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov consider two photographs (color and black and white), one of which is presented immediately after the paragraph, and the second below.
This time, Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov already find an explanation for shadows, which seem unnatural to many, in such a concept of projective geometry and fine art as perspective (by the way, it is very likely that the idea was also inspired by the site http://www .clavius.org, which mentions perspective). Apparently, the explanations given by the authors for the anomalous behavior of shadows in the first example, when they referred to the unevenness of the lunar surface, even to them seemed so... uneven and crooked (like a Turkish saber) that they considered it best to refresh the “paradigm”. And accordingly, they cite as an illustration a classic example of perspective on Earth - this is a photo of railway tracks.
Well, the analogy of railroad tracks appearing to converge on the horizon can, albeit with great stretch, be applied to a lunar photo. I say “with great stretch”, because the apparent convergence at one point of the straight lines formed by the continuations of the shadows of the astronaut and the module, according to earthly standards simply unthinkable. The fact is that the astronaut and the module are, to be honest, quite close to each other, and therefore we must simultaneously assume that the unnaturally rapid convergence of shadow extensions at one point (as a consequence of the perspective effect) is also explained by other factors: for example, close the horizon on the Moon, maybe something else.
But what about this black and white photo of the Apollo 14 lunar module and astronaut A. Shepard, which was taken from a high point - above the lunar module and the height of a person, as can be judged by the figure of the astronaut located to the left of the module? Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov are convinced that “There is the same tendency for the directions of shadows to converge to the point of the horizon, located somewhere near the left border of the frame.”
Let's analyze this statement in detail.
2.1. First of all, there is no tendency for the directions of shadows to converge, which Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov talk about. The directions of the shadows cast by the lunar module and the rocks in the foreground, if these shadows are continued further to the right edge of the photo, will diverge like a fan (this can be seen with the naked eye). In the photo, straight lines drawn from the stones and the lunar module to the side will converge, opposite to the shadows, that is, straight lines connecting the stones and the module with the intended light source.
Thus, Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov made a mistake. In any other situation, it could be ignored. But not now. The tone in which their article was written makes any mistake, including this one, unforgivable, because it is only possible to criticize with such arrogance as they allowed themselves to be, being holier than the pope. Otherwise, any little thing will be counted, even this.
2.2. Further, the cases of perspective that we encounter in terrestrial conditions have the peculiarity that parallel lines seem to the observer to diverge in the foreground and converge in the depths and (or) in the background (to confirm this, I strongly recommend taking another look at the photographs of railway paths). Because of this, it would not occur to anyone to ask the question: what is the distance from the observer to the perspective point? It will not come, because perspective is a visual image, devoid of spatial coordinates in a physical sense, that is, such a question is meaningless.
And what about the photo of the Apollo 14 lunar module and astronaut A. Shepard?
Continuations of the shadows of objects (the module and stones) fan out towards the right edge of the photo, and the straight lines connecting the objects with the supposed light source tend to the left edge of the photo. According to the authors of the article, they all converge at one point, which is located somewhere near the left border of the frame and which, strictly speaking, represents the point of perspective. Now let's pay attention to these points:
- the shadow of the lunar module is almost parallel to the foreground (inclination angle less than 2°), that is, the continuation of the shadow of the module towards the light source will be almost perpendicular to the left border of the frame;
- a little to the left of the astronaut’s figure, a large cross is clearly visible, which, other things being equal, should correspond to the center of the frame. But with the current photo dimensions of 80x66 mm, the coordinates of the cross are 19 mm from its upper border and 36 mm from the left border. This must be understood in the sense that the original frame was significantly larger than this photo: at a minimum, it was cropped at the top by 28 mm and at the left by 8 mm.
One way is to estimate the total height of the lunar module and platform. Although exact number in the articles by Yu. Mukhin, V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov, but comparisons of this height with the flag, astronauts, and the crew compartment of the Apollo spacecraft on the model of the Saturn 5 launch vehicle suggest that it is about 7 meters . To a point located somewhere near the left border of the frame and at which, according to Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov, the convergence of the directions of the shadows takes place, approximately six heights of the lunar module will fit; in other words, from it to the perspective point there are 42 meters.
Another method (control) is based on the figure of an astronaut, who is located at approximately the same distance from the shooting point as the lunar module. From the module to the left border of the photo, approximately 23 astronauts will fit, which is equivalent to 44 meters. Considering that the original frame is cropped on the left (by about 10% of the current photo size), the perspective point will not be on the horizon, not in the depth of the frame, and not in the background, as is usually the case with the perspective effect in terrestrial conditions. It will appear on the surface of the Moon within the reach of the photographic lens as a real geometric point.
Compare this with what was said above about the perspective point: it is a visual image that does not have spatial coordinates in the physical sense.
2.3. And finally, the quoted phrase “There is the same tendency for the directions of shadows to converge towards a point on the horizon located somewhere near the left border of the frame” does not stand up to any criticism at all if you try to draw as plausibly as possible the continuation of the shadows towards the light source (see supplemented with colored lines photo of the Apollo 14 lunar module and astronaut A. Shepard). The photo shows in blue a line that continues the shadow of the module towards the light source, lines of other shades - the continuation of the shadows cast by the stones towards the light source (I drew segments, if possible laying them off from the ends of the shadows of objects, to make it easier to determine what color which shadow corresponds). So what is discovered?
There is no trace of the convergence trend that Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov saw. And it’s not surprising: the quality of the image was already initially such that any conclusions could be drawn and refuted on its basis. In other words, if Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov were guided by common sense and were not driven by the desire to tease Yu. Mukhin and M. Zubkov in every word they say - whether they should or should not - then they simply would not even undertake to comment on how -In this way, this photo is out of harm’s way, as they say. We would limit ourselves to the color photo that was given first, and that would be enough. But since they thought that they could do everything, what should they do now? Let them blame themselves.
If parallel lines seem to converge in the background, then, according to Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov, this is perspective (see photo depicting the shadow of an astronaut and the lunar module). If they seem to be converging already on the left border of the photo, and at different points, then, according to Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov, this is also a perspective (see photo with the image of the lunar module and astronaut Alan Shepard). Well, what if, what if, parallel lines seem to converge at a point that is closer to the foreground than to the background? How, for example, in this photo, which the authors could not really explain (I drew shadows on it to straight lines), is this, again, perspective?
However, even without unnecessary irony, it is clear that with the flexibility of argumentation that Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov demonstrate when using the concept of perspective, one can prove with the greatest ease whatever one wants. And as was already the case in the first example, we again see a new word in science, said by Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov - this time in projective geometry. They just need to hurry to stake out priority before some quick Yankee does it for them - after all, they are so greedy for priorities...
Conclusion. There are enough various kinds of controversial judgments, not very convincing arguments, shaky constructions, direct exaggerations and simply comic moments in the article by V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov for a dozen similar analyzes. But I limited myself to analyzing only the very first two paragraphs of their article. There are at least two reasons for this.
Firstly, there is no reason to become like respected authors in the critical craft - after all, in this case, criticism will grow unimaginably and will be many times larger in volume than their article, which, thank God, is no longer small.
Secondly, does it even make sense to analyze the article further, if already in the very first two examples (the most odious, by the way, in the lunar odyssey of the Americans), the authors of the article succeeded in only one thing - the skill of making unfounded conclusions?
Therefore, it is better to pay attention to something more important.
The fact is that the main question is: were the Americans on the moon? - remains unanswered to date.
It is very possible that the Americans were on the Moon. Well, in that case, years later the Moon will be called New America.
It is very possible that they did not land on it. In this case, someday the next US president will say this out loud when delivering a message to the people. And later in his speech he will say that all the efforts made in 1969-72. in order to convince the world community of the successful implementation of the American lunar program are justified, because these efforts were aimed at protecting the democratic freedoms and values of the Western world from the encroachments of communist totalitarianism. Are you saying that this is absurd and that it cannot happen? Well why not?
Shortly before the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, one of the most senior representatives of the US presidential administration (we will not name names, so as not to inadvertently offend anyone), speaking at the UN, convinced delegates that Iraq has weapons mass destruction and that, in this regard, a preventive war must be launched against him without delay. For greater persuasiveness, he publicly shook a bottle of Iraqi bacteriological weapons over his head. At that moment, the audience in front of televisions all over the world stood on end with horror. For some, it’s the thought of what this bottle could do in a hall crowded with delegates if, for good measure, a representative of the US presidential administration’s hand trembles and he accidentally drops the bottle on the floor. For others, it comes from the lesson of immense hypocrisy and endless lies that, without hesitation, a representative of the US presidential administration taught to the whole world.
The logical end to this story was recently put on television by one of the highest-ranking political figures in Great Britain and big friend President of the United States (again, we will not name names so as not to inadvertently offend anyone). This figure honestly said that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction before the Anglo-American invasion. And no less honestly he added that the war launched against Iraq under the pretext of destroying its weapons of mass destruction was justified.
In a word, the biblical commandments are hopelessly outdated. If you were hit on the left cheek (I mean a representative of the US presidential administration with his bubble at the UN), then it is not at all necessary to substitute your right cheek, because they will hit it anyway, without waiting for your invitation (I mean a high-ranking political figure in Great Britain). So nothing prevents President R. Nixon’s sincere speech regarding the Apollo 11 moon landing from ever receiving its logical conclusion in an equally sincere speech by another US president, who will say that although this did not happen , but it was necessary.
The American moon landing has both supporters and opponents.
Both give a lot of arguments in their favor.
The arguments of those who believe that there was a landing are usually as follows:
1. It is impossible to keep such a large-scale falsification a secret, because thousands of NASA employees must have participated in it.
2. If the falsification was exposed, the reputational losses of the United States would be too great; the Americans could not take such a risk.
3. There were several Apollo missions; they couldn’t fake them all.
4. There are traces of landing on the Moon.
5. The Soviet Union recognized the landing, which means everything happened.
But the skeptics’ arguments are also weighty:
1. The American flag in the footage is waving as if there is wind, but this is impossible.
2. In some photographs, shadows are visible during processing, as if the shooting took place in a pavilion.
3. In 1968, immediately before the launch of the lunar mission, 700 developers of the Saturn-5 launch vehicle were fired, which is very strange.
4. The F-1 engines were not used or developed further, Russian RD-180s began to be used instead, which is very illogical if the F-1 was allowed to carry the mission to the Moon.
5. The lunar soil delivered by the lunar mission has disappeared somewhere.
The lists of arguments can be continued on both sides.
But I want to draw attention to something that rarely gets the spotlight.
Look at the photos of the American landing:
And now on photographs of the lunar surface taken by the Chinese Chang'e-3 probe in 2013:
Does anything seem strange to you?
Pay attention to the color of the surface. It's noticeably different. In American photographs, the surface of the Moon is gray, almost without tint, although the colors on the American flag and parts of the equipment are quite distinct, right down to the shades - which means that everything is in order with the color rendition. And in photographs from the Chinese probe, the surface of the Moon is yellow-brown, not gray at all.
Why did this happen?
Maybe the Americans landed in some special place on the Moon with gray soil?
In the gray area? In the gray zone?
Or maybe they didn’t land...
After all, you will agree that it is quite strange that in 1969 such a technically complex mission was carried out, a powerful launch vehicle with powerful engines was developed, and 45 years later the Americans not only cannot repeat their success, but are also switching to Russian engines instead of using their F- 1 or its modifications.
If everything went so well in 1969, then why today do Americans have neither their own engine nor a launch vehicle?
The other day another commercial building exploded Falcon rocket 9.
Why, 45 years later, do the Americans have such problems with launches, if back in 1969 they solved such a technically complex problem as launching into space a rocket capable of reaching the Moon, lowering to its surface a module with two (!) astronauts and the fuel necessary for launch? from the lunar surface?
For reference: the mass of the command module is 28 tons, the mass of the lunar module is 15 tons.
To deliver such a mass to the Moon, to lower 15 tons to the Moon and return three astronauts back to Earth, and after 45 years to use Russia’s services to deliver astronauts to the ISS and regularly lose their own trucks is either a severe technical regression, or the previous success was greatly exaggerated.
Regarding the launch from the surface of the Moon:
The gravity on the Moon is 6 times less than on Earth, but it is not zero. And lifting two astronauts into lunar orbit, and not just any orbit, but a strictly defined one, so that they return to the ship and then to Earth is not an easy task.
There is a suspicion that to solve this problem on the Moon, it is necessary to build a small launch complex, and not just drop the lunar module, which itself will then launch “from the ground.”
Proponents of landing in response to the “low jumps” of astronauts on the Moon say that in spacesuits with life support systems you cannot jump high, even on the Moon. Right. But it follows from this that launching from the Moon is also not as easy as it might seem to some.
It turns out that it was difficult for them to jump on the Moon, but it was easy to take off.
Once - and straight from the ground into orbit, and on the first try.
Logically, before landing two astronauts on the Moon, it was necessary to lower an automatic module - exactly the same one in which the astronauts would later fly, only without the astronauts. And for it to take off and go into orbit.
It is quite strange to make the first attempt to descend to the Moon and return with two astronauts at once.
See how astronautics developed:
First they launched the satellite. And not alone. Then the dogs were released. Then Gagarin flew. Then there were several more launches. And only then a spacewalk was made and group flights began.
And in the American lunar program, the last test mission was Apollo 10, which included only a flyby of the Moon, but there was no landing of the lunar module and, accordingly, no launch from the Moon. And after this, the immediate landing of astronauts on the Moon, two of them (that is, a group landing) and a successful launch from the Moon, on the first attempt.
The stages of landing the lunar module and launching from the Moon without astronauts or with one astronaut were not completed - two were immediately landed.
Let's summarize the above:
1. The color of the surface of the Moon in American photographs differs from those from the Chinese probe.
2. The F-1 engine, on which the lunar program was carried out, was not developed and used by the Americans in the future.
3. The Americans did not have a powerful and reliable launch vehicle for 40 years after the lunar mission.
4. The landing on the Moon was carried out, having passed the intermediate stage with the descent and launch of the apparatus without a crew.
5. Two astronauts landed on the Moon at once, and not one, which would have been easier, if only for reasons of saving mass, and therefore fuel for braking during landing and launching from the Moon.
6. There was no launch pad on the Moon. Whether it is needed or not is a complex question, but for some reason it seems to me that for the launch of a multi-ton module with two astronauts, some kind of launch pad, albeit a simple one, is still needed.
From this we can draw the following conclusion:
There really was a launch to the Moon. And the Americans flew to the moon, more than once. But an unmanned vehicle descended to the surface, without astronauts. And he most likely did not start from the surface of the Moon at all.
Thus, the Americans did not skip the stage of landing the automatic module on the moon - they carried out this stage and stopped there, passing off the descent of the automatic vehicle as the landing of astronauts.
And the astronauts remained in orbit of the Moon, from where they conducted their reporting.
That is, there was a mission to fly to the Moon, but there was also an element of falsification. It was both.
In this case, it turns out that supporters of the version that the Americans were on the Moon and skeptics who dispute the American lunar program are also partially right.
The version that the Americans flew to the Moon, but did not land on it, immediately explains all the known facts and answers all the arguments presented on both sides:
1. Since there were flights to the Moon, keeping the landing falsification a secret was not difficult, because thousands of NASA employees witnessed the launch, but none of them were on the Moon. Only they themselves and a few other people from the management knew that the astronauts remained in orbit.
2. It is extremely difficult to expose this falsification, so the United States risked virtually nothing. The risk that the astronauts would not be able to launch from the Moon was an order of magnitude greater than the risk of exposure. And the United States could not admit that they reached the Moon, but the descent did not take place; this would have angered taxpayers, whose billions went to a banal flyby of the Moon.
3. Several Apollo missions were needed to leave more equipment at different landing sites. Roughly speaking, to inherit. And at the same time to master the entire budget of the program. It was impossible to leave the budget underutilized and return the money to the treasury.
4. The Soviet Union recognized the landing because it turned out to be easier to admit than to challenge. To challenge the landing, you had to fly yourself, and this is very expensive and risky. To challenge the landing, you had to successfully land and take off yourself. Probably the Soviet leadership realized that the mission of landing a man on the Moon and successfully launching him back was beyond technical capabilities and decided to give up. The media effect of the American message about the landing on the Moon was so strong that it became useless to argue without landing yourself, and there was no possibility of landing in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the USSR decided to recognize the landing and beat the United States in another area by building a manned orbital station, which is what it did.
5. The Americans stopped using the F-1 engine due to the fact that its performance was not as high as stated. Apparently because of this, they refused to send astronauts to the Moon - they simply could not deliver enough mass to the Moon to provide the descent vehicle with fuel for a soft landing and return launch. And the descent module itself was probably also delivered to the Moon in a lightweight and simplified version, just to lower the equipment to the surface.
Most likely, the management of the lunar program realized during the test missions that the mass restrictions imposed by the engines and launch vehicle did not allow delivering to the Moon a device capable of reliably lowering astronauts to the surface and launching them back.
But the American space bosses could not admit that the mission had hit a limitation and that the stomping on the Moon would not take place - they risked paying with positions, and the United States would find itself sitting in a puddle, because it had spent a lot of money, and ultimate goal have not reached. And this also meant a complete loss to the Soviet Union in the space race.
It was impossible to admit that we had reached the flight but couldn’t land.
The reputation of the United States and the positions of big bosses, right up to the president, were at stake, because the senators would place all the blame for the fiasco on him. After all, the senators who voted for the lunar program had to somehow explain to taxpayers who was to blame - not to take the blame on themselves.
The risk of losing astronauts who would land on the Moon but not be able to take off was even worse. Losing astronauts on the Moon would not only be a failure of the program, but also a national tragedy.
Therefore, the management of the lunar program came up with their own “cunning plan” - we fly to the Moon, drop equipment on the surface, talk on the air about “a huge step for all of humanity” and no one will prove anything.
Since the leadership of the lunar program understood the complexity of the task of landing on the Moon, they most likely understood that the Soviet Union would not land in the coming years either. And in twenty years, either the donkey will die or the emir will die. Either war or one of two things.
And the most interesting thing is that this is what happened - 45 years have passed since the lunar program, and no one has visited the Moon.
The calculation turned out to be correct.
For 45 years, no one has been able to convincingly challenge the landing of astronauts on the Moon. Because no one else has been there. And NASA understood this. Because better than anyone else they knew the complexity of the task of landing on the surface and launching back.
It’s just that NASA soberly assessed the risks and realized that the most reliable thing was to throw “hardware” on the Moon and broadcast “a big step for all mankind.” And the whole world will be so impressed that no one will believe in the little trick at the final stage of the mission.
Or maybe NASA hoped that they wouldn’t have to deceive for long, that they would receive a new budget, modify the engines and land for real. But in reality it simply became unnecessary, because spending gigantic amounts of money to take the “second step” was no longer considered necessary either in the USA or in the USSR.
However, if you don’t like this version, you can try to explain in your own way all the oddities listed above - the color of the surface of the Moon, the unused F-1 engine, as well as the lack of powerful and reliable launch vehicles by the Americans 45 years after the triumphant delivery of a multi-ton complex to Moon and back.
But no matter what arguments are given for or against the landing, it is not yet possible to definitively prove or disprove one or another version.
To find out the truth and put an end to the controversy about the landing of American astronauts on the surface of the Moon in 1969, someone else needs to be there too.
And when someone else goes to the Moon and comes back, we will be able to check whether steps on the Moon look like this, as the Americans showed us, whether the descent and landing look like this, whether it looks like this lunar surface and whether it was even possible to land on the moon and launch back with the technology that existed in 1969.
MOSCOW, July 20 - RIA Novosti. The famous cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, who personally prepared to participate in the Soviet lunar exploration program, denied many years of rumors that American astronauts were not on the Moon, and that the footage broadcast on television around the world was allegedly edited in Hollywood.
He spoke about this in an interview with RIA Novosti on the eve of the 40th anniversary of the first landing in the history of mankind by US astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin on the surface of the Earth's satellite, celebrated on July 20.
So were the Americans or were they not on the moon?
“Only absolutely ignorant people can seriously believe that the Americans were not on the Moon. And, unfortunately, this whole ridiculous epic about footage allegedly fabricated in Hollywood began precisely with the Americans themselves. By the way, the first person who began to disseminate these rumors, he was imprisoned for libel,” Alexey Leonov noted in this regard.
Where did the rumors come from?
“And it all started when, at the celebration of the 80th birthday of the famous American film director Stanley Kubrick, who based his brilliant film “2001 Odyssey” on the book of science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke, journalists who met with Kubrick’s wife asked to talk about her husband’s work on the film in Hollywood studios. And she honestly reported that there are only two real lunar modules on Earth - one in a museum, where no filming has ever been carried out, and it is even forbidden to walk with a camera, and the other is located in Hollywood, where, in order to develop the logic of what is happening on the screen, Additional filming of the American landing on the Moon was carried out,” the Soviet cosmonaut specified.
Why was studio additional filming used?
Alexey Leonov explained that in order for the viewer to be able to see on the movie screen the development of what is happening from beginning to end, elements of additional shooting are used in any movie.
“It was impossible, for example, to film Neil Armstrong’s real opening of the hatch of the descent ship on the Moon - there was simply no one to film it from the surface! For the same reason, it was impossible to film Armstrong’s descent to the Moon along the ladder from the ship. These are the moments that were actually filmed Kubrick in Hollywood studios to develop the logic of what was happening, and laid the foundation for numerous gossips that the entire landing was allegedly simulated on the set,” explained Alexey Leonov.
Where truth begins and editing ends
“The real shooting began when Armstrong, who first set foot on the Moon, got used to it a little, installed a highly directional antenna through which he was broadcasting to Earth. His partner Buzz Aldrin then also left the ship on the surface and began filming Armstrong, who in turn filmed its movement on the surface of the Moon,” the astronaut specified.
Why did the American flag fly in the airless space of the moon?
“The argument is made that the American flag fluttered on the Moon, but it shouldn’t have. The flag really shouldn’t have fluttered - the fabric was used with a rather rigid reinforced mesh, the panel was twisted into a tube and tucked into a cover. The astronauts took with them a nest, which they first inserted " , - explained the “phenomenon” Alexey Leonov.
“To argue that the entire film was shot on Earth is simply absurd and ridiculous. The USA had all the necessary systems that monitored the very launch of the launch vehicle, acceleration, correction of the flight orbit, flight around the Moon by the descent capsule and its landing,” - concluded the famous Soviet cosmonaut.
What did the “moon race” lead to between two space superpowers?
“My opinion is that this is the best competition in space that humanity has ever carried out. The “moon race” between the USSR and the USA is the achievement of the highest peaks of science and technology,” says Alexey Leonov.
According to him, after Yuri Gagarin's flight, US President Kennedy, speaking in Congress, said that the Americans were simply too late to think about the triumph that could be achieved by launching a man into space, and therefore the Russians triumphantly became the first. Kennedy's message was clear: within ten years, land a man on the moon and return him safely back to Earth.
“This was a very right step by a great politician - he united and rallied the American nation to achieve this goal. Huge funds were also involved at that time - 25 billion dollars, today it is, perhaps, all fifty billion. The program included a flyby of the Moon, then Tom Stafford's flight to the hover point and selection of a landing site on Apollo 10. The departure of Apollo 11 included the direct landing of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the Moon. Michael Collins remained in orbit and waited for the return of his comrades," - said Alexey Leonov.
18 Apollo-type ships were made to prepare for the landing on the Moon - the entire program was implemented perfectly, except for Apollo 13 - from an engineering point of view, nothing special happened there, it simply failed, or rather, one of the fuel elements exploded , the energy weakened, and therefore it was decided not to land on the surface, but to fly around the Moon and return to Earth.
Alexey Leonov noted that only the first flyby of the Moon by Frank Borman, then the landing of Armstrong and Aldrin on the Moon and the story of Apollo 13 remained in the memory of Americans. These achievements united the American nation and made every person empathize, walk with their fingers crossed and pray for their heroes. The last flight of the Apollo series was also extremely interesting: American astronauts no longer just walked on the Moon, but drove on its surface in a special lunar vehicle and took interesting photographs.
In fact, it was the peak of the Cold War, and in this situation, the Americans, after the success of Yuri Gagarin, simply had to win the “moon race.” The USSR then had its own lunar program, and we also implemented it. By 1968, it had already existed for two years, and crews of our cosmonauts were even formed for the flight to the Moon.
On censorship of human achievements
“The American launches as part of the lunar program were broadcast on television, and only two countries in the world - the USSR and communist China - did not broadcast this historical footage to their people. I thought then, and now I think - in vain, we simply robbed our people ", the flight to the Moon is the heritage and achievement of all mankind. The Americans watched Gagarin's launch, Leonov's spacewalk - why couldn't the Soviet people see this?!", laments Alexei Leonov.
According to him, a limited group of Soviet space specialists watched these launches on a closed channel.
“We had military unit 32103 on Komsomolsky Prospekt, which provided space broadcasts, since there was no control center in Korolev at that time. We, unlike all other people in the USSR, saw the landing of Armstrong and Aldrin on the Moon, broadcast by the USA throughout world. The Americans placed a television antenna on the surface of the Moon, and everything they did there was transmitted through a television camera to Earth, and several repetitions of these television broadcasts were also made. When Armstrong stood on the surface of the Moon, and everyone in the USA clapped, we are here in the USSR , Soviet cosmonauts, also crossed their fingers for luck, and sincerely wished the guys success,” recalls the Soviet cosmonaut.
How the Soviet lunar program was implemented
“In 1962, a decree was issued, signed personally by Nikita Khrushchev, on the creation of a spacecraft to fly around the Moon and the use of a Proton launch vehicle for this purpose. accelerating block. In 1964, Khrushchev signed a program for the USSR to carry out a flyby in 1967, and a landing on the Moon and return to Earth in 1968. And in 1966, there was already a resolution on the formation of lunar crews - a group was immediately recruited to land on the Moon,” recalled Alexey Leonov.
The first stage of the flight around the Earth's satellite was to be carried out by launching the L-1 lunar module using a Proton launch vehicle, and the second stage - landing and returning back - on a giant and powerful N-1 rocket, equipped with thirty engines with a total thrust of 4.5 thousands of tons, with the rocket itself weighing about 2 thousand tons. However, even after four test launches, this super-heavy rocket never flew normally, so it had to be abandoned in the end.
Korolev and Glushko: the antipathy of two geniuses
“There were other options, for example, using a 600-ton engine developed by the brilliant designer Valentin Glushko, but Sergei Korolev refused it, since it worked on highly toxic heptyl. Although, in my opinion, this was not the reason - just two leaders , Korolev and Glushko - could not and did not want to work together. Their relationship had its own problems of a purely personal nature: Sergei Korolev, for example, knew that Valentin Glushko had once written a denunciation against him, as a result of which he was sentenced to ten years When Korolev was released, he found out about this, but Glushko didn’t know that he knew about it,” said Alexey Leonov.
A small step for a man, but a giant leap for all mankind
On July 20, 1969, NASA's Apollo 11, with a crew of three astronauts: Commander Neil Armstrong, Lunar Module Pilot Edwin Aldrin, and Command Module Pilot Michael Collins, became the first to reach the Moon in the USSR-US space race. The Americans did not pursue research objectives in this expedition; its goal was simple: to land on the Earth’s satellite and return successfully.
The ship consisted of a lunar module and a command module, which remained in orbit during the mission. Thus, of the three astronauts, only two went to the Moon: Armstrong and Aldrin. They had to land on the moon, collect samples of lunar soil, take photographs on the Earth's satellite and install several instruments. However, the main ideological component of the trip was the hoisting of the American flag on the moon and the holding of a video communication session with the Earth.
The launch of the ship was observed by US President Richard Nixon and the scientist-creator of German rocket technology, Hermann Oberth. At the cosmodrome and mounted observation platforms the start was watched in total about a million people, and the television broadcast, according to the Americans, was watched by more than a billion people around the world.
Apollo 11 launched toward the moon on July 16, 1969 at 1332 GMT and entered lunar orbit 76 hours later. The command and lunar modules were undocked approximately 100 hours after launch. Despite the fact that NASA intended to land on the lunar surface in automatic mode, Armstrong, as the commander of the expedition, decided to land the lunar module in semi-automatic mode.
The lunar module landed in the Sea of Tranquility on July 20 at 20 hours 17 minutes 42 seconds GMT. Armstrong descended to the surface of the Moon on July 21, 1969 at 02:56:20 GMT. Everyone knows the phrase he said when he set foot on the moon: “That’s one small step for a man, but one giant leap for all mankind.”
15 minutes later Aldrin walked onto the moon. The astronauts collected the required amount of materials, placed instruments and installed a television camera. After that, they placed an American flag in the camera's field of view and conducted a communication session with President Nixon. The astronauts left a memorial plaque on the Moon with the words: “Here people from planet Earth first set foot on the Moon. July 1969 AD. We come in peace on behalf of all Mankind.”
Aldrin spent about an hour and a half on the moon, Armstrong - two hours and ten minutes. At the 125th hour of the mission and the 22nd hour of being on the Moon, the lunar module launched from the surface of the Earth's satellite. The crew splashed down on the blue planet approximately 195 hours after the start of the mission, and soon the astronauts were picked up by an aircraft carrier that arrived in time.
Half a century later, the flight to the Moon still remains a mystery for many people: were American astronauts really on the Moon back in 1969? For the first time in the history of mankind, was a resident of America able to land on the Moon on his own, and then return back to Earth? Or did the Americans decide to fake it in the lunar race between the USA and the USSR? Let's try to figure it out.
After the first successful flight into space in the history of mankind, which was accomplished by Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin on April 12, 1961, US President D. Kennedy in May of the same year set a goal: by the end of the decade, an American must land on the Moon. He was prompted to make this statement by the first defeat in the lunar race between the USA and the USSR.
Active and long preparation began. More than a dozen spacecraft were launched by the Americans into space before the space crew went to the Moon. When all the tests were completed, the crew was determined and prepared, and the spacecraft was built, the decision was made - it was time to fly.
On July 16, 1969 at 13:32 American time, the Apollo 11 spacecraft was launched, containing the command ship Columbia and the lunar module Eagle. The space crew consisted of three people: Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin Aldrin. Their expedition lasted 8 days: from July 16 to July 24, 1969. 4 days after the launch, on July 20, Aldrin landed the Eagle, which also contained Armstrong, on the surface of the Moon. The third crew member was waiting for his colleagues in the command module in orbit near the moon.
The first to set foot on the surface of an unknown celestial body was the ship's commander, Neil Armstrong. With the words: “This is one small step for a man, but a giant leap for humanity,” he stepped onto the lunar soil with his left foot. This happened on 07/21/69 at 2:56 American time. After some time, Aldrin joined him.
After a successful descent to the Moon, the Americans collected 22 kg of lunar soil, took a photo of the footprint on the soil, erected a US flag at the landing site and installed scientific instruments. At this moment, the cosmonauts constantly transmitted their actions and feelings to the control center via radio communications, and were also under the gun of a television camera that broadcast everything live, and even received words of gratitude from R. Nixon, the President of the United States.
After all the necessary manipulations were completed, Armstrong and Aldrin returned to the module. Their stay on the lunar surface took them 2 hours 32 minutes, and the maximum distance from the lunar module was 60 m.
In total, the astronauts spent 21 hours and 37 minutes on the lunar surface. After which they returned to the command module, which later successfully splashed down in the Pacific Ocean.
Flight of American astronauts to the Moon, fact or fiction?
In the 70s, after the end of the American lunar program, a certain “Moon Conspiracy Theory” began to gain popularity sharply. The gist of it was that the Americans never actually landed on the Moon, and NASA actually faked all the lunar landings. This theory appeared as a result of the fact that the United States was largely behind the USSR in the lunar race. And in order not to lose face in front of other countries, she faked the Apollo 11 landing on the moon.
Some "strange" facts, which prompted the formation of the lunar conspiracy:
1. Waving flag
Probably the most common argument in favor of a lunar conspiracy. The point is that there is no wind on the Moon, and the flag in the recording made at the time of installation is waving. In fact, everything here is extremely simple. The flag was hung on an L-shaped flagpole, which did not imply ideal tension. Thanks to the folds on the flag, it appears as if it is developing in the photo. You can also make sure that the flag is motionless if you look at several photos in a row in which the position of the astronaut changes, but the flag does not.
2. You can't see the stars in the photo
This statement also has its own explanation. The stars are not visible in the photo for one reason - the landing took place during the daytime. Another factor is the Sun, whose brightness on the surface of the Moon is many times greater than on Earth. It is precisely because the shooting took place during the daytime on the sunny side that the stars are not visible in the photo.
3. Jumps too short
The recordings show the astronauts making high jumps. And, according to conspiracy supporters, these jumps must be much higher than what is seen on the recordings. Because on the Moon the force of gravity is 6 times less than on Earth. However, there is an explanation for this too. While the weight of the astronauts changed, their mass remained unchanged, which means the effort required to jump remained the same. Also, due to the inflation of the spacesuit, the quick movements necessary to make a high jump are difficult. When jumping high, the astronaut is more likely to lose his balance. Its loss can lead to damage to the integrity of the space suit, support system pack or helmet.
4.Studio additional shooting
Another frequent lunar conspiracy argument is the theory that the American moon landing was filmed on a soundstage in Hollywood. We will give a refutation of this “fact” from the words of cosmonaut A. Leonov, who says that there was studio filming. But there was only additional filming, created so that every viewer could see everything from beginning to end. According to Leonov, there was no one on the surface of the Moon to film Armstrong’s opening of the descent ship’s hatch. Or there was no one to film Armstrong descending the stairs from the ship. That's what the studio reshoot was for.
5. How to take off from the surface of the Moon
Another fact is that in order to take off from the surface of the Moon, you need a cosmodrome and a rocket, but there were none on the Moon. They were there, but not in the literal sense: a large rocket and a huge spaceport. No. Everything is actually simpler. The lunar module was not only a means of landing, but also a means of takeoff. The lower part of the module acted as a cosmodrome, and the upper part acted as a rocket, which also served as a cabin for the astronauts. To take off from the surface of the Moon and fly to its orbit, you need much less energy than to launch to it from Earth. Therefore, there was no need for a large rocket.
As it turns out, for every argument there is a counterargument that proves the entire falsity of the lunar conspiracy theory. One has to imagine how many people worked on the Apollo project, and it would have been impossible to force them to keep a secret about the “false” flight for so long. In addition, the reputation of the United States was at stake, which would have suffered significantly if the falsification was exposed. Also, NASA would not have to stage 6 moon landings, including after Apollo 11. It would be enough to act out just his flight. Well, in conclusion, the USSR, which was the enemy of the United States in the lunar race, was well aware of the difficulties its competitors had to face, and always recognized that the Americans landed on the Moon.
To believe or not to believe in the lunar conspiracy theory is everyone’s business. The only difference is that there is no reason to believe in it.