The Falsification of History: Our Distorted Reality (67 page)

One could also legitimately question why there were no specific attempts to photograph the stars themselves?
 
It would surely have made a beautiful visage, one never able to be seen from Earth and a change from all the pictures of the lander and the rover, moon rocks and mountains etc.

“It’s as if someone went to Niagara Falls and the only photos they brought back were of the car they drove, sitting in a nondescript parking lot.”
 
David McGowan, 2009

In fact the astronauts were asked this very question about the stars at their press conference, post splash-down and the almost disinterested answer came back to the effect that they ‘did not even notice’ the stars in the sky!
 
Did not even notice them – excuse me?
 
It must have been the single-most wonderful sight they saw on the whole trip, the vast, unimaginable vista of all of creation stretched out before them to infinity.
 
That is if they went in the first place, which of course they did not.
 
Amazing is it not how lying is so difficult to permanently maintain?
 
And speaking of the press conference, if you have never seen the footage of this event, the DVD is available to buy at a very reasonable price on the Internet and I would strongly suggest that you track it down and do so.
 
What is so striking and revealing about this is the absolute downbeat demeanour of the astronauts themselves throughout the entire session.
 

If someone had just completed the most wonderfully uplifting experience and had been on the most incredible adventure ever undertaken by the human race in its entire history, would I be wrong to suggest that they may have appeared happy, elated and exhilarated, flushed with success, even self-satisfied and have a feeling of great achievement that they would wish to share with the world?
 
Obviously someone forgot to tell them this then in that case.
 
I have never seen a more morose, sullen, disinterested, less co-operative bunch of people in my entire life.
 
Anyone would have thought that they did not really go to the moon at all and were resentful of being ‘put on the spot’ and having to ‘think on their feet’ to answer all the awkward, unplanned-for questions they were being asked, including the one about the stars.
 

However, I think we may all have guessed the answer as to why NASA was so extremely coy about the star photography.
 
Could it have possibly had anything to do with the fact that the moon is at a different angle to the stars in comparison with the Earth, albeit a barely detectable one, given the vast distances involved?
 
And this would then have been guaranteed to constitute proof that the photographs had actually been taken on Earth as it would have only taken one vigilant, enthusiastic amateur astronomer somewhere in the world to find the nearest stars, take a few quick measurements and calculations and the whole thing would have been blown wide-open forever.

There are also issues with the shadows depicted in the photographs taken ‘on the moon’ as is pointed out by many a moon-landings sceptic.
 
Indeed there are pictures that show the indisputable existence of two light sources, totally impossible of course in the case of the photographs in question.
 
NASA itself states unequivocally that the only source of light utilised on the moon, was indeed the sun, so this all begs the question, how can these photographs be genuine?

Note the shadows at 90
p
to each other

The other contentious issue with the above photograph is the height from which it must have been taken if we are to accept NASA’s implicit assertions, that it was a) taken on the moon and b) taken from a camera mounted on the astronaut’s chest.
 
Was he stood in a convenient nearby crater perchance?
 
And another point about shadows concerns the fact the moon is a world of extremes.
 
Extremes of both temperature and also of light and dark, black and white.
 
Entirely due to its lack of atmosphere, the moon not only has extremely contrasting temperatures in and out of the sun, but this is also true of light and shade.
 
In the sun, the light is utterly brilliant (in the sense of brightness and not in terms of quality!) and yet in the shadows it experiences an almost total inky blackness.
 
However, in the majority of moon photos, the shady areas are anything but black, more of a watery grey colour, which is even more evidence of secondary light sources casting unintended illumination on the blackness.
 
Here is allegedly the first ever photograph taken by human hand on the surface of the moon:

No problem there you may think?
 
But you would be wrong.
 
Leaving out the unlikely fact that it is once again almost perfectly ‘composed’, it shows clear evidence of secondary light sources evidenced by the top of the white bag and the ‘United States’ placard amongst several other examples.
 
Below is probably the most iconic of all the moon photographs purporting to depict Buzz Aldrin as photographed by Neil Armstrong.

There are many issues with this photograph too.
 
Again the composition is almost perfect, Buzz’s spacesuit looks badly pressurised and the depth of field is also lacking, invalidating the reason that NASA tells us that stars are not visible in the darkness of the sky.
 
Then there is the noticeable lack of any shadowing on Buzz’s spacesuit.
 
He is casting a shadow on the ground, but there is no corresponding shadowing of his body. Even here on Earth, that is only possible with a secondary light source.
 

Next, stars are by no means the only omission from the photographs.
 
Also conspicuous by its absence is any evidence that the module actually landed on the lunar surface under its own power.
 
Surely as a result of the reverse thrust from a 10,000lb rocket engine there would be some sort of sign in the surrounding dust in the form mainly of a massive displacement having taken place, perhaps a small crater or at the very least, evidence of dust being caked on the lander’s legs?
 
Even NASA’s own artist depictions of the landings show these phenomena, so why do the photographs show no evidence of this fact?

As may be seen in the photograph below, not a single trace of any dust displacement whatsoever, exists directly below the rocket nozzle.
 
Nor is there any evidence of scorching or displacement of any of the small moon rocks.
 
The intense heat from the rocket motor should also have turned some of the dust to a glass-like substance and again no evidence of this is apparent.

Now let us turn our attention to the ‘magic’ space suits worn by all the Apollo astronauts.
 
These suits were designed to provide all the elements needed to keep alive their human hosts in the most hostile place that human beings have allegedly ever visited.
 
Not only were they able to protect the astronauts from the searing 125
p
c heat in the sunlit areas of the moon, but they were apparently also able to revert to the opposite extreme in an instant in order to protect the wearer from the numbingly cold -170
p
c upon stepping fr
om sunlight into the shade.
 
A supreme feat of technological prowess, I am sure you would agree.
 
In addition to this, they were equipped with life-support systems in the guise of providing oxygen and eliminating CO2 emissions as well as the ability to process both liquid and solid bodily wastes.
 

The suits would also have to be pressurised in order for the human body to survive and the evidence for this fact is most definitely absent from all the extant photographs of the astronauts in situ on the moon.
 
Had the suits been at all pressurised, then their wearers would have in essence resembled the ‘Michelin man’ in the famous tyre advertisements, but of course that would not have created the same aesthetically pleasing effects for the TV cameras and the huge audience ‘back home’.
  

In addition to all of the above, the suits also would have had to provide the astronauts with full body armour to protect them from the millions of meteroids from which the moon is under almost constant, relentless attack.

“Meteoroids constantly bombard the Moon.
 
Apollo moon rocks are peppered with tiny craters from meteoroid impacts.
 
This could only happen on worlds with so little atmosphere, such as the Moon.
  
Meteroids are nearly-microscopic specks of space dust that fly through space at speeds often exceeding 50,000 mph – ten times faster than a speeding bullet.
 
They pack a considerable punch …the tiny space bullets can plow directly into Moon rocks, forming miniature and unmistakable craters”.
 
David McKay, NASA spokesman

According to NASA itself then, every single piece of moon rock is covered with these minute craters and show evidence of multiple collisions from these tiny but deadly missiles.
 
So in effect what NASA is saying is that the moon is not a safe place to be, with a constant hail of these minute 50,000 mph bullets raining-down on the surface of the moon and it would only need one, just one to penetrate the ‘pressurised’ suit of an astronaut and there is no way he would be making the return trip home again.
 
Fortunately, none of the astronauts on any of the missions, nor the landing modules, nor the moon rovers were ever hit by any of these dangerous, ever-present ‘space-bullets’.