Q: How could such a secret be kept from the world with so many people involved? (Didn't NASA have hundreds of thousands of people working on the Apollo project?)
A: This is the same logical question I asked myself, when I was challenged a few years ago to examine the evidence in Bart Sibrel's films. In fact, for most of us who research the moon landing hoax (MLH) it's a logical starting point. And from a distance, this argument appears to be an excellent refutation of the conspiracy. But let's take a closer look at what this assumption really implies.
We have been told that estimates of over 150,000 people were directly involved in the production of the first nuclear bombs, and untold numbers were indirectly involved. Almost all of them had no idea what the end result of their work was to be - they simply worked on the production of "it", whatever it was to become. So conservatively, well over 200,000 workers were involved in the Manhattan Project. And all but a handful were not allowed to know that they were creating a massive weapon of destruction. The secrecy was kept despite this large number of people. So over 20 years later, did the US government lose the ability to insure the covert operations of the military? We have no reason to deny the distinct possibility that those who worked on the Apollo Project would not be allowed to know that they were working on a massive 'weapon' of propaganda - in this case, a form of mass mind control.
2:44 - Keeping a secret by not knowing what the secret is.
Apollo was born in an age of public outcry and government-orchastrated deception, from the Vietnam War to the assassination of two Kennedy brothers, to Watergate's exposure of CIA covert operations in Laos and Cambodia.
One could argue that the same government who fooled the entire Western world for a time in these arenas, also fooled all of us when it came to Apollo.
It's one thing to fool the world, but fooling the people involved would be a different story. Or would it? Just how close were the workers to the project?
After years of continuing investigation, we the in the MLH community continue to maintain that, in fact, very few people were involved in the actual faking. Major contractors and a myriad of subcontractors, appointed by NASA, did indeed hire well over 300,000 people for the immense project.
While one team of workers developed and built LM ascent engines in one part of the country, another 'perfected' the new Apollo astronaut suit in a different state. However, despite large numbers of workers, only a handful of the contracted administrators actually spoke with executives of other companies. Those who worked on the space suit never conducted an investigation into the details of the lunar module. Who would expect them to do so? And even when considering the limited number of administrators in each contracted company, even they never sought to understand the intricacies of the entire project.
The fact is that the workers and executives of these companies could never know for certain whether or not their small piece of the Apollo puzzle traveled to the moon. Only those at the very top of the U.S. government's bureaucratic intelligence pyramid would have access to this top secret, inside information, a conspiracy whose plans would actually lie outside the normal boundaries of government and corporate compartmentalization. Only a handful of people would need to know for sure, for example, whether or not the Lunar Module landing pads of
Grumman Aircraft Engineering, Inc. would ever impact the moon's regolith.
Keep in mind, this is not like the thousands of Detroit auto workers who can go to their local dealer and test drive a car with the steering column or the engine they assembled a few weeks before. And this is definitely not like knowing whether or not Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. This was an event unlike any other ever in the history of mankind, with an exclusive set of "yes men" witnesses. This event was ironically the most publicized, and at the same time perhaps the most goverment-controlled "public" event to date. No one in the world, but 24 military-trained astronauts (including Jack Schmitt) could ultimately verify by word of mouth, the work of the 400,000 workers.
Not a single layman who worked on the spacecraft components of Apollo would ever sit in the Saturn rocket during liftoff, much less achieve lunar orbit or walk on the moon. So, as you watch the video below and see various workers and supervisors from all over the country, ask yourself, "How could even one of these people, no matter how sincerely dedicated and devoted, possibly know with any certainty that their particular product traveled to the moon and back.
Regardless of how patriotic one might feel (and under normal circumstances anyone SHOULD feel patriotic for the critical work they perform for an honest government enterprise) about their vital role in the logistics and construction of the Apollo project, all of these workers can easily be excluded from having a firsthand knowledge of the event, since none of them were purported to have traveled to the moon. So it seems we have to take twenty-four government employees (Apollo astronauts) at their word. Or are there yet others who can collaborate NASA's official story? What about all of those NASA engineers and administrators stationed at the computer consoles?
Could it be that they were receiving various bits of preprogrammed or live, simulated data from a script, which was fed to all of them by a computer simulation program originating from a central location? If you look at the footage ten seconds prior to launch, they are all kicked back as if "watching television", just like the rest of us. But what exactly were they watching on their consoles? As you will see in the video below, Mission Control technicians were operating during training completely at the mercy of the simulation. And during these mission simulations, the crew which was supposed to send men to the moon and back - had failed countless times.
And since they continually failed in the simulation, it becomes even more evident that they would also be at the mercy of those who could manipulate the mission programming during the "real" event.
Keep in mind that the technicians at Mission Control in Houston, Texas may not have been part of the conspiracy at all. These individuals were to simply read the information on their monitors and make decisions based on the computer's output data. They did not need to know or care where the data came from.
And where did they get this data from? They did not get it from the general public, they got it from the NASA owned tracking stations, and quite possibly filtered through NASA HQ in Washington, D.C.
Everything the Deep Space Network “received” from the moon was relayed over telephone lines to the people at Houston. So all NASA would need do is pass simulated data from pre-arranged tapes over to Houston, and the technicians would automatically assume it was the real deal.
In the documentary Failure Is Not An Option , Apollo Flight Director Gene Kranz was quoted as saying: “The simulations were so real that no controller could discern the difference between the training and the real mission.” That's quite a bold and revealing statement coming from the man in charge of Mission Control.
3:39 - Kranz states that controllers would not know the difference between simulations and the "real" Apollo missions.
This took care of the data, but what about verbal communications? At the same time, the astronauts also loosely followed a voice script, and they would communicate live, as trained, to follow instructions both from overt and covert sources. If you watch the video below (produced by Wil Tracer), at the end you will hear a clandestine voice prompting them to "talk".
Apollo 11's journey to the moon's surface was supposed to be the greatest event in human history, yet to this day the world knows the names of only three solitary, firsthand eyewitnesses to that event, and those three men were not in the private sector. They were in fact government employees. They seem trustworthy, but can we take them at their word that they traveled 240,000 miles to the moon and back? Was it all above board?
Three of Sibrel's films expose this clandestine voice on an alternate channel, apart from CapCom, giving scripted instructions directly to the Apollo 11 crew. We can only speculate what intelligence organization might have handled staffing of the real consoles.
We cannot over emphasize the fact that, for the first time ever, no independent press coverage of such an historical event was permitted.
The key word is independent. What about tracking the Apollo spacecraft?
No individual or group, other than the U.S. Government, can attest to having tracked the Apollo spacecrafts all the way to the moon and back.
Apollo claims to have communicated on radio frequencies not allocated to radio hams. Was this done simply for national security, or to totally minimize any independent verification by a curious public? At best, the few radio hams who claim to have picked up Apollo transmissions can only attest to having picked up signals whilst the craft was on or near the moon, and if they were lucky a handful of signals on the return trip home - but nothing that can't be pulled off with an unmanned craft and in some cases "moon relay (bounce)".
One such Ham operator, Paul Wilson, was quoted to saying: “The moon is always in view of ...NASA's primary tracking stations... , but not so for the amateur. Some of the most exciting events and transmissions from the Apollo mission always seem to occur when the moon is below the horizon for the continental United States astronomer!” If that weren't enough, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) effectively policed what these individuals could and could not reveal to the public. “Important! FCC regulations prohibit disclosure of the content of communications not intended for the public. Thus, it is illegal to inform the press or any other third party of the content of any information directly received from the Apollo communications link.” How can radio hams be regarded as independent verification when the FFC restricts what little of their data they can release to the public?
Summary
Really it wouldn't have mattered if there were ten people involved in the hoax or tens of thousands of people involved in the hoax. Secrets of such magnitude have historically been covered up for so long. On the Russian side, the USSR had constructed two top secret moon programs to try and win the moon race. The L1 project would send a two-man Zond capsule (basically a Soyuz, but without the orbital module) around the moon. The L3 project used a Saturn-sized rocket known as the N-1 to launch a Russian lunar lander. The Zond was launched but never crewed and the N-1 failed miserably four times, although their LK lunar module was smuggled into earth orbit thrice.
These programs involved tens of thousands of scientists, engineers and
physicists. And yet the entire Soviet Moon Program was effectively covered up and denied until the fall of the Soviet Union. No one outside a tiny Soviet Elite ever knew of the N-1 launches. They Soviets officially denied that they were even trying to get to the moon, this cover-up subsequently became known as The Real Moon Landing Hoax. [1] The Russians involved thousands of people and had no problem covering this up. Are we to believe the Americans could not do likewise with their equivalent program?
With Cold War Propaganda tensions running high, those who knew the truth went along with the deception to fool both the Soviets and the American citizens that we had technological superiority - and to keep the contrived 'arms race' going.
In 1957 Time Magazine had on its cover "The Smartest Man in America" (the latest winner of the most popular TV trivia game show at that time.) It was later uncovered that the contestant received the answers in advance from the show's producers because he was widely loved by the viewers. In fact, one hundred twenty contestants and staff initially swore on the Bible during a grand jury investigation that the television show was not rigged. Most later recanted, and it is now known they all lied. If all these people were willing to lie for a little money, how much more for alleged national security and a career's worth of money? The fact is, Time Magazine was wrong. The best way to fool the world was to fool the media. NASA did this in large part by keeping the media ignorant of the facts altogether, as James Webb had during the Apollo 1 fire investigation, beginning with the failure to report the deaths to the press for two full hours. It was after the tragedy that New YorK Times would nickname the space giant: "Never A Straight Answer", and the trend has continued up to this very day.
The press would be controlled, completely. The entire civilized world, including the 400,000 workers who built Apollo essentially saw the exact same thing as you and I saw on television. The astronauts went up the launch pad elevators in front of witnesses, and they emerged from floating capsules in front of witnesses, an the public press was only granted access to these two single events in each and every Apollo moon mission. The government maintained complete control over the video, audio and data, and to this day, much of the documentation of the Apollo missions remains classified.
The raw film evidence (as seen in the AFTH, LLC films), sent to Bart Sibrel from NASA's Johnson Space Center (first brought to the public's attention in 2000) proves that Apollo never took men to the moon. Q: What about all of the people who seem to be refuting the Moon Landing Hoax, point-by-point?
A: Given the pride associated with this alleged accomplishment, it is natural that many people seek to refute our claims. It is not difficult to make up a plausible-sounding argument to refute almost any claim. However, we have yet to see any such argument that does not fail under critical examination.
The fact is, what the majority of these refuting individuals do is not so much refuting the argument. What they more commonly do is build up arguments based on misrepresentations of their opponents positions, or based on misrepresentation of scientific and historical facts, or just generally based on outright false statements, erroneous data, even denials of facts.
For example. In the Apollo 15 videos we see the flag waving as David Scott runs past it. This would suggest that the flag waved because it was pushed by air. But the detractors insist that it must be either static electricity attracting the flag or Scott bumping the corner with his elbow. Both of these responses are wrong and can be easily shown to be wrong.
If it were static electricity, the flag would have been pulled towards Scott's spacesuit. Instead the first movement of the flag is away from him. Nylon (such as what the flag is made of) and Teflon (which makes up the outer layer of the spacesuit) are at opposite ends of the triboelectric series. Therefore, according to Coulomb's Law, if the flag was moved by static electricity the flag should be moved towards the spacesuit. Because Coulomb's Law states that opposite charges attract. Clearly, it can't be static electricity moving the flag as it's first movement is away from Scott, not towards him. The static electricity excuse is in direct violation of Coulomb's Law.
As for David Scott bumping the flag, it is clear in the video footage that the flag started moving before he reached the flag's corner. Ironically this was even confirmed by one of the defenders of the moon landings! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0
I think you get what we mean when we say: we have yet to see any such argument that does not fail under critical examination . This is typical of virtually all the responses we get from our detractors. And even after they have been proved wrong six ways to sunday they still persist with the argument and attack those who disagree with them on a very personal level. It is for this reason why we have come to know these individuals as "propagandists", because it is clear that what they say is nothing more than propaganda.
Now, that's not to say that we always got it right. It is unfortunate that mistakes have been made by MLH researchers who have misinterpreted evidence and subsequently propagated falsehoods in regard to certain aspects of how the MLH was accomplished. But despite these overlooked errors, the truth still stands, and will stand for all time apart from human imperfection. When looked at as a whole, ignoring the common straw man arguments put forth by the Apollo propagandists, the evidence proves the hoax. Q: What about the moon rocks?
A: When NASA chief scientist James Garvin appeared on C-SPAN (4-17-2005.), viewers were invited to call in to speak with Mr. Garvin. At 13 minutes and 51 seconds into the program, one caller from Middleburg, New York stated that his father worked for the Defense Department during Apollo, and told told his son (the caller) that NASA never took men to the moon - that the technology didn't exist back then, and that lunar landings were a Hollywood-type production. He then asked Mr. Garvin what proof he had that the Apollo moon missions were real. Oddly, as if scripted, the host of the show placed a moon rock in front of Garvin during the question, and then gave Garvin's credentials.
"I like to tell children, I've never met a rock that lied to me ." - James Garvin, NASA Chief Scientist
Garvin responded that the proof is in the life experiences and the words of the astronauts who allegedly went there. In addition, the proof was in the moon rocks, even though the caller had seen a facsimile of a moon rock in Tokyo back in 1970, and the caller claimed that this was no proof at all.
Garvin also claimed that: "The fingerprint of where these rocks came from is totally uniquely different than what we have here on earth." This statement is in direct contradiction to various scientists and geologists, such as Eugene Hartmann and Jay Melosh, that the moon rocks have chemistry, mineralogy, isotopes, and elements EXACTLY THE SAME AS EARTH . In fact, it was because of these similarities to earth rocks - together with their supposed lack of water - that prompted Hartmann to create his Giant Impact Theory.
So is the testimony of the astronauts a reliable source of proof? What about their testimony about the rocks? In 1969, Armstrong and Aldrin gave a fake rock to the Dutch Prime Minister. Why? And what are the implications of this? Someone at NASA had to know it was a fake. And what about the astronauts? If they don't know what a real moon rock would be like, how can the public possibly know?
It is possible that the moon rocks were manufactured. With limitless black-op funding, the 'military interests' of NASA have access to the best ceramics labs on the planet. These rocks are most likely altered meteorites that were retrieved on Earth and then cataloged in advance for use on the "missions". Von Braun, the director of the program, visited Antarctica a few months before the missions began, in order for his team to retrieve these meteorites.
In 2006, the European Space Agency (ESA) crashed their SMART-1 space probe into the moon. It crashed into the lunar maria. This probe kicked up plumes of moon dust that scientists could analyze using radio telescopes. What they discovered was that the rocks actually on the moon are mineralogically different to those collected by Apollo astronauts. If I go to the moon and bring a rock back for analysis, and then send an unmanned probe up to analyze the same material, I would expect to get the exact same results.
By the way, it is a federal crime for a civilian to be in possession of an Apollo moon rock, so how can there truly be independent verification?
Q: Wouldn't the Russians find out and then tell the world?
A: The space race and the arms race were false dichotomies, designed to do many things but mainly consolidate global power and line the pockets of elite international financiers who profit from what President Dwight D. Eisenhower called the military industrial complex. At the upper levels of power, the Cold War was part of a larger, long term plan to move the world into global governance. A partial reason for the conspiracy against JFK is that he directly threatened the plan to play out in many areas of their documented agenda. One such area he directly threatened was the false paradigm of Communism versus Capitalism, by proposing a joint US-Soviet maiden voyage to the moon, and quite possibly an early end to what we view as an arms race. This would very likely in turn also end the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the Vietnam War, and the public's perceived need to continue anti-communist military buildups into the 1980s.
Did JFK also get wind of the hoax? Given his trip to NASA facilities just prior to his death, it is unlikely that he knew of any plan to fake the landings. But, there is no doubt that any surviving whistle blower would turn to this president in particular, if JFK had begun to successfully turn back the tides of global tyranny aimed at the sovereignty of the United States. Revealing the hoax would topple the perception that the banking elite who funded both the Soviets and the US were at odds, when in fact they simply shared different means to the same ends and therefore could not be at odds. They were in fact the same people - the same elite families and the same group of international bankers we see in power to this day.
It is frequently claimed that the USSR was able to track the Apollo spacecraft with their radio telescopes. We ask, which radio telescopes? In actuality, Russia had no way of tracking their own Luna probes all the way to the moon and in that sense no way to prove that they really got there. So they relied heavily on Jodrell Bank to track these spacecraft for them. How could Russia have tracked Apollo all the way to the moon and back when they couldn't even track their own spacecraft.
Of course in his book "Two Sides Of The Moon", cosmonaut Alexei Leonov claims that he and military comrades tracked Apollo 11 during descent and during the moonwalk from Moscow. These claims are outright false. Records show that during both the lunar touchdown and moonwalk, Moscow was on the far side of the earth. Radio transmitters and radio receivers operate by line of sight. The dishes must be precisely aimed at each other. If one of them is out of sight the signal will not be received. So how could Leonov have tracked Apollo 11 directly from Moscow as he claimed? It is quite clear that Leonov is outright lying to protect NASA.
Remember, these are the individuals who would have supposedly blown the whistle on NASA had they found out that they were faking anything. Why would a Russian cosmonaut lie to protect the lies of NASA? First, since 1963 Russia has been allowed to buy tons of American wheat at half than half market value. It's no different to all those free trade deals that the US currently has with the Chinese. Second, both the US and the USSR are now working together on joint-space missions. Such missions like ASTP, Mir and the ISS. Many American astronauts have been launched into space aboard the Soyuz, both whilst the shuttle program was active and grounded. And these joint-flights continue. It's been no secret that after NASA grounds the shuttle later this year, Russia will happily ferry US astronauts on the Soyuz.
If you want to get an idea of what Russia truly thought about sending astronauts to the moon. According to the book Journey To Tranquility: in 1963 Sir Bernard Lovell was given a tour of all Soviet observatories and space facilities. He was then instructed by the USSR to pass on the following message to NASA deputy administrator Hugh Dryden: "The Russians could see no immediate way of protecting cosmonauts from the lethal effects of solar radiation." Q: Why hasn't someone come forward?
A: Who would listen, and who would believe them? This illusion is so pridefully ingrained in everyone's mind that it isn't even questioned. Furthermore, would you want to be the one to ruin the international reputation of America? (Plus one risks possible blackmail, bribes, and/or death threats . . . to family members as well.) In addition, one astronaut coming forward to clear his own conscious is an inadvertent condemnation of all of the other astronauts. It is one thing to ruin your own life and reputation, yet what about others who are not willing to do so? All of them have built fame and wealth on their celebrity of having supposedly walked on the moon.
Bill Kaysing claimed that Apollo astronaut Jim Irwin contacted him, and then died four days later. In the video below, Kaysing, the Grandfather of the Moon Landing Hoax, also talks about Thomas Ronald Baron who died one week after whistle blowing on NASA before Congress. In addition, one of our own investigators has spoken on the phone to Scott Grissom, also featured in the video below. Scott knows that his father was murdered on Pad 34. He just doesn't know why he was murdered.
Q: What about laser reflectors on the moon (allegedly left by Apollo) that scientists bounce light beams off of?
A: The Russians have successfully placed such reflectors on the surface of the moon, yet they have never claimed to have put a man on the moon. The reflectors were dropped there by unmanned probes. It should also be noted that the moon's surface will naturally reflect signals; communications were carried out as early as the 1950s by bouncing signals off of the moon.
Q: How could the scientists of the world be fooled?
A: When scientists fail to require independent duplication of such an outlandish claim after over 30 years have passed, science is degraded to the status of being just another religion. NASA claims to have sent men 240,000 miles in 1969. However, since 1972 no one has gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. This is a case of the scientists of the world not doing their jobs, and otherwise being caught asleep at the wheel. Or is as simple as that? Ben Stein's documentary film exposes the danger of military/government funding in science and it's subsequent loss of objectivity. This was the second dire warning given to us by Dwight D. Eisenhower just before leaving office. Ironically, Eisenhower is credited with creating NASA, but Apollo was in it's embryo stage when he made his farewell speech. Let's take a look at his warning, and see how Eisenhower envisioned the end of objective science in the public domain.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." - President Dwight D. Eisenhower
The leading scientists today who say that the Van Allen Radiation Belt is not lethal (who were generally in preschool at the time of the first alleged moon landing) do so by the following deduction: "The Apollo astronauts went through the radiation belt on their way to the moon and survived, so it must not be lethal." They are, of course, assuming that the missions were authentic, when, in fact, they were not.
These scientists also tend to overlook facts, and just generally don't double and triple check them. For example: they claim an hour's trip through the radiation belts is too brief to cause radiation sickness. This is not what James Van Allen told us in his March 1959 Scientific American article: "The discovery is of course troubling to astronauts, somehow the human body will have to be shielded from radiation, even on a rapid transit through the region." At lowest, according to Russian radiation health officer E.E. Kovalev, the radiation belts are 312.5rad/hr. 500rad is the lethal dose for humans. To minimize the doses, you'd need to get through the belts much quicker than one hour. In practical terms - less than a minute! At this dose rate, even a minute's exposure would result in 5.2rem. That's not dangerous, but it's more than the 1rem NASA claims the Apollo crews absorbed in the belts.
Then there is the classic tale that only major solar flares can hurt you and only minor ones took place during Apollo. Wrong again, according to the 1963 Marshall Space Flight Center book "Astronautical Engineering & Science" we are told that even minor flares can deliver 25rem/hr depending on how many centimeters of water shielding is used, and the records do show that there were major flares during the missions of Apollo.
A: Well in fact, they have. Here is an article that focuses on Sibrel's work. However, in reality, most of us realize that news media organizations are in the entertainment and propaganda business. On the one hand, they figure that confronting such an emotional issue is not likely to boost their ratings. Since only a small percentage of those in the U.S. believe the landings were not authentic, most news media organizations don't want to risk offending their viewers. The moon landings are a large part of the folklore we've come to believe as patriotic. Just as the American Revolution was offensive to Tories and Great Britain in general, so too is this information considered to be too volatile - both to scientific America and to the majority of mankind who've yet to see the real evidence. Q: What about Apollo 13?
A: The fact is, none of the Apollo missions ever left earth orbit. After interest petered out following Apollo 12 (the second trip), an element of "jeopardy" was introduced to draw attention back to the alleged drama of the missions.
The "near-disaster" also contributed to another purpose. It got the program cancelled. As a military operation, Apollo's ultimate goal was to beat the Soviet Union to the moon. That objective was achieved with Apollo 11 and this pretty much nullified any point in continuing the project. But the scientific community already had even more ambitious plans: a base on the moon, manned missions to mars by 1982, even a manned fly-by around Venus as early as 1973!
These proposals certainly sound spectacular, but they served no purpose for the military objective. The point of Apollo was to get to the moon first, that's all. NASA couldn't just simply call it quits once they completed Apollo 11. Not when all these other space travel ideas were rearing to go. They needed a convenient excuse that would prevent all of this and also reduce the amount of faking they needed to do. So on Apollo 13 they pretended that an oxygen tank exploded and nearly cost the crew their lives. As a result the Apollo program was cancelled, Apollo's 18-20 were scrubbed, and all proposals of moon bases and exploration of other planets were rejected.
They still had Apollo's 14-17 to go. But much like Apollo 11 with its grainy pictures, NASA found ways to decrease or degrade the remaining footage they had to fake. The aftermath of Apollo 13 enabled NASA to stay closer to home and focus on real stuff for awhile, like the shuttle and ISS.
This makes Apollo 13 the most deplorable of all the missions. The nation held midnight prayer vigils for the astronaut's safe return, all the while they casually coasted around the earth in a completely sound orbiting vehicle - just so NASA would have the excuse they needed. Q: If A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon is such Earth-shattering evidence, why are you selling it instead of offering it for free?
A: The film is Earth-shattering evidence, indeed. The fact is that investors put up $500,000.00 to produce the film and $250,000.00 combined for the other three films and relevant research. They would like to recoup a little of it. This is simply the concept of exchange; when someone does work to provide you with something of value, you compensate them when you receive benefit from that work. Much of the work now also goes into spreading the word so that others might understand the implications of such a cover-up, research of all the media and data that is presently accessible, and keeping up to date with the latest developments of this cover-up and it's implications for future, manned space exploration.
In addition, this work is foundational in holding the U.S. government accountable for it's present domestic and foreign policies, which are counter to our founding principles and all that the founders stood for in insuring our liberties.
Twenty bucks for all this work and a half-a-million dollar film is not bad.
(The lie cost every single citizen in the entire country $800 -- the truth for those who purchase a DVD?... $25.) Q: Can't you see the artifacts left from the alleged moon missions through a powerful telescope?
A: Depends on who you're asking. Propagandists claim no such telescope exists. But Joss Hawthorn of the Anglo-Australian Observatory stated in 2006 that the Gemini telescope is capable of seeing them. All it needs is adaptive optics to overcome the distorting effects of the atmosphere. These optics have long since been installed on the telescope, but to date the results of lunar observation have yet to be revealed to the public. We're still waiting on them to tell the world that they've seen the six LM descent stages and three lunar rovers.
We can see the higher resolution advantages of adaptive optics from the private sector on a much, much, much smaller telescope than the Gemini, through the efforts of John Lenard Walson (see video below).
Q: Unmanned probes such as Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and SELENE photographed lunar terrain that looks identical or at least close enough to that photographed on the Apollo missions. If Apollo was faked, how did NASA know what the landscape looked like before these Post-Apollo missions?
A: They knew what the terrain looked like because they had Pre -Apollo photography. Between 1966 and 1967, NASA launched at least five Lunar Orbiter (LO) spacecrafts. These unmanned probes had cameras with resolution of 1 meter per pixel. In other words the smallest object these craft can see is 1 meter wide. All astronomers and space historians know perfectly well that these spacecraft mapped 99% of the lunar surface, including all six landing sites. In fact it was from these photos that NASA picked these landing sites. You think NASA would randomly pick a location on the moon, and then hope it's safe to land a probe there?
All NASA would need to do is use this imagery for reference when building the moon sets, models and props - because every place the astronauts allegedly explored was previously photographed by Lunar Orbiter.
Here is a CNN article excerpt boasting of the high resolution photos that LRO would provide to prove the landings were real once and for all.
Could moon landings have been faked? Some still think so
A cult of conspiracy theorists believe NASA faked the Apollo moon landings
The U.S. wanted to avoid embarrassment and trump the Soviets, hoax theorists say
Theorists point to "inconsistencies" in NASA photos and TV footage
A poll shows 6 percent of Americans believe the Apollo moon landings were faked
Updated 10:11 a.m. EDT, Fri July 17, 2009
In its information campaign against Apollo's "debunkers," NASA may have a potent ace up its sleeve, however. Its Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is now circling the moon with powerful cameras, snapping crisp pictures that could reveal Apollo 11's Eagle lander squatting on the moon's surface.
Then again, conspiracy theorists may just say NASA doctored the photos.
"Will the LRO's incredibly high-resolution images of the lunar surface, including, eventually, the Apollo landing sites, finally quell the lunacy of the Moon Hoax believers? Obviously it won't," writes astronomer Phil Plait in his blog on Discover magazine's Web site. "These true believers don't live in an evidence-based world."
Q: You claim that the radiation in space would have killed the Apollo astronauts. Well what about the Zond 5? That Soviet space flight carried turtles around the moon and those turtles survived.
Q: Are there other overlooked anomalies, not associated with the filming or photography of the missions?
A: Yes, there is one such anomaly that is very puzzling - a type of 'lie detector" built into the human soul. The phenomenon though quite strange, seems to be worth considering simply because when one tries to duplicate the effect with their own voice, it cannot be done. We know that there are many mysteries in the world that are yet to be uncovered, much less understood. One of those mysteries has come to be known as "reverse speech". Logic would tell us that this is not how the world works, but when statistical probability is considered - the 'impossible' .... becomes very likely. Again, it is easy to discount this discovery as nonsense, until one considers the repeated occurrence of Apollo's consistent negative message.
CLICK HERE to take a look at reverse speech research, and then decide for yourself if and what secrets the Apollo astronauts and others are unknowingly revealing to us behind their words.
