renots
09-15-2000, 07:59 PM
I remember in the 70's when I was growing up in South America, it was pretty common knowledge that the Apollo Moon Landing footage was faked. Once I moved back to the US the story was a little different...
~~~
from a web ad (http://www.aulis.com/nasa2.htm) for a video
WHAT Happened on the MOON?
An investigation into Apollo
The main thrust of this video is to question the entire validity of the official record of mankind’s exploration of the Moon. Sending men to the Moon and bringing them back safely is widely held to be the greatest technical achievement of mankind so far. In fact the greatest achievement of the second millennium. Indeed the landing of the Apollo astronauts on the Moon is now considered by many to be the benchmark by which human endeavour is measured.
A benchmark which might well be invalid.
At the dawn of the new millennium some thirty years later, our present state of technology is inadequate for the safe passage of human beings through the potentially lethal radiation that awaits all those who venture through the Earth’s radiation belts into deep space, whether they be en route to the Moon, to Mars or beyond.
Have we lost the technology to travel safely into deep space since Apollo? Or did we not have it in the first place?
This story of Project Apollo presents an alternative viewpoint. The material in this video uncovers the numerous inconsistencies in the official NASA record of manned missions to the Moon. The anomalies highlighted bring into total question whether, over the period of three years from 1969, twelve named Apollo astronauts really did travel through deep space, and walk upon the surface of our celestial neighbour, the Moon.
New evidence throws into serious doubt the authenticity of the Apollo record and suggests that NASA hoaxed the photographs taken on the ‘surface of the Moon’. This aspect of the lunar photography is dealt with in Part One. Part Two looks at the dangers of space radiation that have to be overcome by those journeying beyond our atmosphere. And Part Three examines the evolution of the rocket industry and the problems inherent in getting astronauts-together with their equipment-out to the Moon and then back again, alive and well.
This production is the result of painstaking and extensive research. You will hear the testimony of many people from various disciplines and hear from individuals who, together with those who have left a legacy of visible clues, can be truthfully called ‘Whistle-Blowers’.
So did the now famous Apollo astronauts sacrifice their personal integrity on the altar of NASA’s reputation? Did other unnamed surrogate astronauts sacrifice their lives? And if so, for what reason?
Was it to cover for the fact that in the late 1960s it was not possible to guarantee the safe return to Earth of the Apollo astronauts? Such a scenario would answer that inevitable question ‘Why?’ And justify the serious anomalies in the official record which this investigation reveals.
Could it be the case that NASA publicly stated that it was doing things one way, when in fact plans were in place to proceed in a very different manner? Was it realised very early on that apart from the unpredictable radiation hazards-and the massive technological challenges-the lunar environment itself created yet another set of insurmountable problems?
In the case of major news stories here on Earth, many journalists witness and comment on news events. But once the Apollo astronauts had been launched, it was no longer possible to independently verify the authenticity of any communication, as the Apollo comms links were controlled by none other than NASA itself. In these circumstances, how could we know for sure that the images of those ‘live’ events were actually occurring at that moment?
The Apollo lunar surface pictures have been presented to the entire world as authentic, actual photographs of this most significant event: Mankind’s first steps onto a planet other than his home. To ignore or dismiss the questions raised by the discovery of even one technically defective photograph purporting to be a part of this official record is to maintain the status quo and side-step the serious issues raised in this investigation.
One single contradictory example would be enough to demonstrate that there is a problem with the integrity of the material published by NASA. There are many such examples presented in this video. The lack of continuity between the still photographs and the ‘live’ TV coverage of the same events, the Whistle-Blowing inherent in the lighting of these images, the faked set-ups, the clues hidden in the astronauts’ exchanges with Mission Control, the serious problems associated with radiation, as well as space technologies that did not always perform to specification.
So why aren’t professionals in the aerospace industry speaking out? What could be the reason for such reticence? Well in fact, some have spoken out. A growing number of intelligent, thinking people are beginning to realise that all was not well with Apollo.
In September 1999 it was reported by journalist Graham Birdsall that at the First Pacific UFO conference in Hawaii, the astronaut Dr Brian O’Leary (who worked alongside the likes of Armstrong and Aldrin for many years) commented:
“If some of the film was spoiled, it’s remotely possible they [NASA] may have shot some scenes in a studio environment to avoid embarrassment.”
For an 'insider' to consider this faking a possibility is quite remarkable. When that individual worked for NASA in the 1960s and specifically on the Apollo 11 mission during 1967 and ’68, this really is some statement.
All these matters underline one simple fact: A representative of humanity may well have gone to the Moon in 1969, but the images published by NASA of a manned lunar landing do not appear to be the true and accurate record of such an event. From the sheer weight of evidence the firm conclusion of this investigation has to be that, in the case of Apollo, NASA stated that the agency was doing things one way when in fact a hidden, surrogate program proceeded in a very different manner.
During the 1986 Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, the eminent physicist Richard Feynman found that NASA’s analysis, claims and methodology were consistently incorrect. In a lengthy paper (that was so embarrassing for NASA it was relegated to a mere appendix within the Commission’s final report) Feynman made several observations that seem remarkably applicable to the NASA of eighteen years previously. He wrote:
“It would appear that, for whatever purpose, be it for internal or external consumption, the management of NASA exaggerates the reliability of its product, to the point of fantasy.”
And:
“When playing Russian roulette the fact that the first shot got off safely is little comfort for the next.”
Feynman finished his report with these words:
“NASA owes it to the citizens from whom it asks support, to be frank, honest and informative. And so that these citizens can make the wisest decisions for the use of their limited resources for a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations-for nature cannot be fooled.”
~~~
what do you folks think?
;0)
~~~
from a web ad (http://www.aulis.com/nasa2.htm) for a video
WHAT Happened on the MOON?
An investigation into Apollo
The main thrust of this video is to question the entire validity of the official record of mankind’s exploration of the Moon. Sending men to the Moon and bringing them back safely is widely held to be the greatest technical achievement of mankind so far. In fact the greatest achievement of the second millennium. Indeed the landing of the Apollo astronauts on the Moon is now considered by many to be the benchmark by which human endeavour is measured.
A benchmark which might well be invalid.
At the dawn of the new millennium some thirty years later, our present state of technology is inadequate for the safe passage of human beings through the potentially lethal radiation that awaits all those who venture through the Earth’s radiation belts into deep space, whether they be en route to the Moon, to Mars or beyond.
Have we lost the technology to travel safely into deep space since Apollo? Or did we not have it in the first place?
This story of Project Apollo presents an alternative viewpoint. The material in this video uncovers the numerous inconsistencies in the official NASA record of manned missions to the Moon. The anomalies highlighted bring into total question whether, over the period of three years from 1969, twelve named Apollo astronauts really did travel through deep space, and walk upon the surface of our celestial neighbour, the Moon.
New evidence throws into serious doubt the authenticity of the Apollo record and suggests that NASA hoaxed the photographs taken on the ‘surface of the Moon’. This aspect of the lunar photography is dealt with in Part One. Part Two looks at the dangers of space radiation that have to be overcome by those journeying beyond our atmosphere. And Part Three examines the evolution of the rocket industry and the problems inherent in getting astronauts-together with their equipment-out to the Moon and then back again, alive and well.
This production is the result of painstaking and extensive research. You will hear the testimony of many people from various disciplines and hear from individuals who, together with those who have left a legacy of visible clues, can be truthfully called ‘Whistle-Blowers’.
So did the now famous Apollo astronauts sacrifice their personal integrity on the altar of NASA’s reputation? Did other unnamed surrogate astronauts sacrifice their lives? And if so, for what reason?
Was it to cover for the fact that in the late 1960s it was not possible to guarantee the safe return to Earth of the Apollo astronauts? Such a scenario would answer that inevitable question ‘Why?’ And justify the serious anomalies in the official record which this investigation reveals.
Could it be the case that NASA publicly stated that it was doing things one way, when in fact plans were in place to proceed in a very different manner? Was it realised very early on that apart from the unpredictable radiation hazards-and the massive technological challenges-the lunar environment itself created yet another set of insurmountable problems?
In the case of major news stories here on Earth, many journalists witness and comment on news events. But once the Apollo astronauts had been launched, it was no longer possible to independently verify the authenticity of any communication, as the Apollo comms links were controlled by none other than NASA itself. In these circumstances, how could we know for sure that the images of those ‘live’ events were actually occurring at that moment?
The Apollo lunar surface pictures have been presented to the entire world as authentic, actual photographs of this most significant event: Mankind’s first steps onto a planet other than his home. To ignore or dismiss the questions raised by the discovery of even one technically defective photograph purporting to be a part of this official record is to maintain the status quo and side-step the serious issues raised in this investigation.
One single contradictory example would be enough to demonstrate that there is a problem with the integrity of the material published by NASA. There are many such examples presented in this video. The lack of continuity between the still photographs and the ‘live’ TV coverage of the same events, the Whistle-Blowing inherent in the lighting of these images, the faked set-ups, the clues hidden in the astronauts’ exchanges with Mission Control, the serious problems associated with radiation, as well as space technologies that did not always perform to specification.
So why aren’t professionals in the aerospace industry speaking out? What could be the reason for such reticence? Well in fact, some have spoken out. A growing number of intelligent, thinking people are beginning to realise that all was not well with Apollo.
In September 1999 it was reported by journalist Graham Birdsall that at the First Pacific UFO conference in Hawaii, the astronaut Dr Brian O’Leary (who worked alongside the likes of Armstrong and Aldrin for many years) commented:
“If some of the film was spoiled, it’s remotely possible they [NASA] may have shot some scenes in a studio environment to avoid embarrassment.”
For an 'insider' to consider this faking a possibility is quite remarkable. When that individual worked for NASA in the 1960s and specifically on the Apollo 11 mission during 1967 and ’68, this really is some statement.
All these matters underline one simple fact: A representative of humanity may well have gone to the Moon in 1969, but the images published by NASA of a manned lunar landing do not appear to be the true and accurate record of such an event. From the sheer weight of evidence the firm conclusion of this investigation has to be that, in the case of Apollo, NASA stated that the agency was doing things one way when in fact a hidden, surrogate program proceeded in a very different manner.
During the 1986 Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, the eminent physicist Richard Feynman found that NASA’s analysis, claims and methodology were consistently incorrect. In a lengthy paper (that was so embarrassing for NASA it was relegated to a mere appendix within the Commission’s final report) Feynman made several observations that seem remarkably applicable to the NASA of eighteen years previously. He wrote:
“It would appear that, for whatever purpose, be it for internal or external consumption, the management of NASA exaggerates the reliability of its product, to the point of fantasy.”
And:
“When playing Russian roulette the fact that the first shot got off safely is little comfort for the next.”
Feynman finished his report with these words:
“NASA owes it to the citizens from whom it asks support, to be frank, honest and informative. And so that these citizens can make the wisest decisions for the use of their limited resources for a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations-for nature cannot be fooled.”
~~~
what do you folks think?
;0)