The Falsification of History: Our Distorted Reality (66 page)

The Lunar Rover – which, according to NASA folds neatly into a suitcase.

But last and definitely not least, the astronauts would have needed power – and lots of it.
 
The only way that the ship and its vital functions could be powered whilst it was on the moon’s surface would be with batteries, likewise anything else that needed a power supply, the life support system, the lights, the communications system, the television cameras and transmitters, the lunar rovers, the suits etc. etc.
 
As it would also not be possible to recharge any of the batteries then they would have needed some pretty huge and powerful ones at that and these all have to be found a place in the severely restricted space on board that tiny module.

It is also important to acknowledge that, unlike the initial launch on Earth, which involved the collective, sustained efforts of thousands of technicians of all levels and the use of many types of peripheral computer and monitoring equipment, the astronauts leaving the Moon had only themselves and some completely untested-in-that-environment, assorted ironmongery, cables and plastic upon which to rely.
 
I personally cannot imagine how uncomfortable and scary it must have felt to be on the surface of the moon for a few days performing experiments and hopping and skipping around the place in a seemingly carefree, happy-go-lucky manner, wondering that if or when the time came, whether that completely untested contraption would actually get me back home all the way from the Moon, or even back the 70 vertical miles to the rendezvous point with the command module.
 
Fortunately though, the completely untested-in-the-conditions-prevailing-on-the-moon lunar module worked perfectly first time and with no need for modifications or last minute hitches, despite the literally, alien environment in which it was being utilised.

Today of course, NASA cannot even launch a highly technically-advanced space shuttle from Earth without occasional disasters, even though they have since modified their ambitions considerably.
 
After all, sending spacecraft into low-Earth orbit (400 miles return) is infinitely more straightforward than sending spacecraft all the way to the distant Moon and back (470,000 miles).
 
It would seem that although technology has advanced immeasurably since the Apollo Moon landings that tellingly, NASA has hugely downgraded its ambitions in space and now has a significantly worse safety record than in the 1960s, despite that downgrade.

In 2005, NASA made this incredible statement:

“NASA's vision for space exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond, but there is a potential showstopper: radiation.
 
Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas. …Finding a good shield is important”.
 
NASA spokesman, 24th June 2005

Do they really expect us to believe that it was possible to perform the Apollo missions in the 1960s and 1970s but now, more than forty years further down the line it has suddenly become impossible to leave the vicinity of the Earth because of space radiation?
 
Did the technology to overcome this problem then exist in 1969-72 but has been somehow, inexplicably lost or forgotten or did the Apollo missions not actually take place as described?
 
This statement narrows down the options somewhat, I am sure you would agree.
 
If ‘finding a good shield’ is as indeed important as I believe it most certainly is, then why can they not just simply use the technology that was deployed on the Apollo craft?
 
No-one died at the time and certainly none of the astronauts subsequently suffered from radiation-induced problems in any way that I am aware of.

Lead is the usual method of choice for radiation-shielding, but the issue is that lead is so heavy and impractical for use in anything but static situations on Earth.
 
Attempting to build spaceships with a four feet thick lead encasement is far from practical as the Russians themselves discovered when they calculated that this was in fact the only way that they could penetrate the Van Allen Radiation Belts with a human cargo in the 1960s.
 
Maybe this was why they simply ‘gave-up’ on the race to be first to the moon?

We will now turn our attention to the photographs asserted to have been taken on the moon by the intrepid Apollo astronauts.
 
In actuality the very existence of the photographs is a technical impossibility.
 
Unfortunately it would simply not have been possible to capture any of the images allegedly shot on the Moon in the manner that NASA describes them to have been obtained.
  
In the 1960s, camera technology was very limited in comparison to today’s and the cameras used by the astronauts, Hasselblads, although they were probably the best and most sophisticated on the market at that time, the simple fact is that they were incapable of generating the images claimed to have been taken on the moon, under the circumstances in which they were supposedly taken.
 

Cameras of those far-off times before micro-chip technology were not very ‘intelligent’, so every function had to be performed manually.
 
The photographer had to manually focus each shot by squinting through the viewfinder and rotating the lens until the scene came into focus.
 
The correct aperture and shutter speeds had to be manually selected for each shot also, in order to ensure the correct exposure time for the circumstances.
 
This also required peering through the viewfinder, to meter the shot.
 
Finally, each shot had to be properly composed and framed, which obviously also required looking through the viewfinder.

The problem for the astronauts was that the cameras were mounted on their chests, which made it completely and utterly impossible to see through the viewfinder to meter, frame and focus the shots.
 
Everything, therefore, was total guesswork and focusing would have been entirely guesswork also, as would the framing of each shot.
 
An experienced photographer can fairly accurately estimate the exposure settings, but the astronauts lacked this experience and they were also doubly handicapped by the fact that they were viewing the scenes through heavily tinted visors, which meant that what they were seeing was not what the camera was focusing upon.

To add to their not inconsiderable problems, they were wearing space helmets that seriously restricted their field of vision, along with enormously bulky, pressurised gloves that severely limited their hand and finger movements.
 
The odds therefore of them getting even one of those three elements (exposure, focus and framing) correct under the prevailing conditions on any given shot would have been exceedingly low and yet, amazingly enough, on the overwhelming majority of the photos, they got all three right.

“For those who don’t find that at all unusual, here is an experiment that you can try at home: grab the nearest 35MM SLR camera and strap it around your neck.
 
It is probably an automatic camera so you will have to set it for manual focus and manual exposure.
 
Now you will need to put on the thickest pair of winter gloves that you can find, as well as a motorcycle helmet with a visor.
 
Once you have done all that, here is your assignment: walk around your neighborhood with the camera pressed firmly to your chest and snap a bunch of photos.
 
You will need to fiddle with the focus and exposure settings, of course, which is going to be a real bitch since you won’t be able to see or feel what you are doing.
  
Also, needless to say, you’ll just have to guess on the framing of all the shots.
 
You should probably use a digital camera, by the way, so that you don’t waste a lot of film, because you’re not going to have a lot of ‘keepers’. Of course, part of the fun of this challenge is changing the film with the gloves and helmet on, and you’ll miss out on that by going digital.
 
Anyway, after you fill up your memory card, head back home and download all your newly captured images.
 
While looking through your collection of unimpressive photos, marvel at the incredible awesomeness of our Apollo astronauts, who not only risked life and limb to expand man’s frontiers, but who were also amazingly talented photographers.
 
I’m more than a little surprised that none of them went on to lucrative careers as professional photographers.”
  
David McGowan, 2009

Despite all the acclaim he has received for his exploits as an astronaut, Neil Armstrong clearly has been unjustly denied recognition of his astounding abilities as a photographer. Some may argue that he clearly was not in the same league as say, David Bailey or Lord Lichfield, but I would disagree.
 
Those two individuals created some stunning pictures throughout their careers, but could they have done so whilst wearing a spacesuit, gloves and helmet and with their cameras mounted on their chest and whilst working in an environment that featured no air, one-sixth gravity, and utterly stupefying extremes of heat and cold?
 
I seriously doubt it.

Even more tellingly, the designer of the particular type of Hasselblad cameras ‘used on the moon’, has publicly stated to all who were prepared to listen that it would be impossible to use his cameras in the way described and under those circumstances, but of course this has not been widely reported and subsequently air-brushed from history.
 
In addition, the film used must have been a hitherto unknown and since-forgotten variety of ‘super-film’ designed to withstand temperature fluctuations of over 300
p
C and also to withstand the lethal Van Allen radiation on the way home.
 
Even relatively low-level radiation in airport X-ray machines has been known to totally ‘wipe’ conventional celluloid film.

Next, I would also like to ask the question; where are all the stars in the moon photographs?
 
Not a single photograph allegedly taken from the surface of the moon shows even so much as one star in the background.
 
Because of the prevailing circumstances and a single-light source only (the sun), there should have been a vista almost filled with tiny blazes of light, in any direction away from the sun.
 
More stars then you could ever possibly see on even the clearest of nights on Earth because, the moon has no atmosphere to distort and dim the images.
 
This phenomenon is explained away by NASA and its shills as being due to the fact that setting the exposure level to take account of the brightly glaring spacesuits would mean that the stars would be rendered invisible.
 
However, this does not explain why in instances where the exposure was of a much lower level than when taking shots with the bright space suits, that stars still did not show, even on those photos.

For example, the scenes below which are obviously not very well lit, would have required a long enough exposure that would have been certain to capture every star in that part of the sky.
 
So where are they all?