The Falsification of History: Our Distorted Reality (68 page)

In 2004 President George W Bush announced that the US planned to return to the moon, but that it would take at least fifteen years to achieve this feat.
 
Pardon me?
 
Fifteen years with 21st century technology and know-how to achieve what took only eight years with 1960s technology – amazing stuff indeed.
 
Of course no-one from the mainstream bothered to ask the obvious question as to why it would take almost twice as long with 21st century technology than it did with technology from 40+ years previously, even with the distinct benefit of having ‘done it before’!
 

However, US Republican senator, Sam Brownback did express a form of disdain at the President’s statement by showing his disgust as follows... “You’ve got the Chinese saying they’re interested – we don’t want them to beat us to the moon!”
 
Obviously someone else who in the heat and excitement of the moment forgot that of course, it had actually been done before.
 

“Conspiracy theories are always difficult to refute because of the impossibility of proving a negative.”
 
NASA spokesman, July 2009, in response to the so-called moon-landing deniers

This of course is a truly bizarre statement because of course it is not NASA that is being asked to ‘prove a negative’.
 
NASA is being asked to in effect prove that they DID land on the moon and not that they did not.
 
This should be a comparatively easy task if it did happen.
 
For starters they could make available all the allegedly missing data and film and all the blueprints of the hardware that they say they used to achieve this amazing feat and also provide a credible reason for the fact that most of the photographs they allege that were taken on the moon are provably fake.

One of the major problems that the Grumman, the company who designed and built the lunar landers, team faced was how to successfully insulate the entire vehicle from the intense heat of the unshielded sun not to mention the all-but ignored problem of intense space radiation.
 
The spacecraft would have had to have been insulated almost perfectly because there were huge fuel tanks in there and the fuel would boil if not adequately protected.
 
Also, the huge temperature variations on the Moon would cause the craft to buckle and warp which would be disastrous.
 
It may also have been a tiny bit uncomfortable for the astronauts too.
 
Since weight was a huge issue, heavy heat shields could not be used but as luck would have it, the DuPont Corporation had developed a new material, aluminised Mylar.
 
It was gold in colour and supposedly if it was built-up to around twenty-five layers, it would prove to be an excellent insulator.
 
DuPont’s space-age material can be obtained very inexpensively today and is still a very lightweight material.
 
I wonder why it should be then that we never see spaceships wrapped in it any longer?

Then in 1970, just as the whole world was getting complacent about how easy it was to get to the moon and back having now done it on two separate occasions, enter stage right, Apollo 13.

On the 13th April 1970, Apollo 13 was on its way to the moon for the next scheduled moon landing (the 3rd) when disaster struck.
 
Apollo 13’s command and service modules were allegedly rendered powerless by an explosion on the ship whilst around 200,000 miles from home on the outbound leg of the journey.
 
This caused the three astronauts on board to have to retreat into the lunar landing module, whose functions were still operational, in order to survive.
 
Not only did this allegedly keep the three astronauts alive but the lunar lander’s engine also enabled them to ‘sling-shot’ around the moon using centrifugal force and plot a course back to Earth.
 
However, the Apollo 13 astronauts were then faced with another life-threatening situation; carbon dioxide was rapidly building in the ship’s confined airspace.
 
Lithium hydroxide cartridges were supposed to be available to remove the carbon dioxide, but there was a limited supply of these cartridges in the lander.
 
As luck would have it though, there were additional cartridges in the command module but unfortunately these were incompatible; the command module’s cartridges were square while those in the lander module were round.

So what did the intrepid crew do to overcome this problem?
 
They used duct tape and tubing from the spacesuits, plus an ‘old sock’ according to one of the trio, Gene Cernan, to rig-up a temporary fix and enable the incompatible cartridges to work as normal.
 
It was indeed fortunate that next week’s laundry was just lying around there on the floor.
 
There were no seats in the lander as it had been decided that they would just add unnecessary weight.
 
And also, there was just barely room for two people in the space allegedly now being occupied by three.
 
All three, had this been a real life-and-death situation would have been wearing bulky spacesuits, boots, gloves and helmets.
 
Somehow, they had to co-exist for four days and during that time all that separated them from the extreme hazards of outer space was a double layer of aluminum foil.
 
One microscopic meteoroid or one misplaced foot would result in immediate destruction of the ship and instant death for the three ‘heroes’.

I wonder why it is by the way, that the Apollo 13 astronauts were said to have been very cold throughout their return flight in their allegedly crippled ship?
 
As recalled by Jim Lovell… “The trip was marked by discomfort beyond the lack of food and water.
 
Sleep was almost impossible because of the cold.
 
When we turned off the electrical systems, we lost our source of heat and the sun streaming in the windows didn’t much help … It wasn’t simply that the temperature dropped to 38
p
F,
(4
p
c) the sight of perspiring walls and wet windows made it seem even colder.
 
We considered putting on our spacesuits, but they would have been bulky and too sweaty … We found the CM a cold, clammy tin can when we started to power up.
 
The walls, ceiling,
floor, wire harnesses and panels were all covered with droplets of water.”

Where does one begin to analyse all that?
 
For starters, why were they short of food and water at all?
 
The trip had been curtailed by at least three days and as for the sun ‘streaming in through the windows’, how could the sun generating as it did, around 125
p
c of heat, not make a significant difference?

And what about the water droplets covering the interior of the command and lunar modules?
 
Would not most of those droplets have become airborne in a zero-gravity environment?
 
Would not the inside of the module have looked something akin to a child’s snowstorm-globe?
 
All utterly preposterous nonsense, I am afraid.

In 1929, the famous German film-maker, Fritz Lang, produced a film by the name of Die Frau in Mond which translates into English as The Woman in the Moon.
 
Did this film provide the blueprint for the ritualistic procedures that were adopted for the Apollo programme?
 
As can be seen in the still-shots below, all of the elements were present; the unnecessary vertical construction of the spaceship in a specially built hangar, the grand opening of the massive hangar doors, the excruciatingly slow roll-out of the upright rocketship from the hangar to the launch pad, the raucous crowds watching the spectacle live and even the now ubiquitous ‘countdown’ sequence.
 
Even the shedding of two stages of the ship was there. In other words, the only elements of the performance that the public ever actually witnessed were all lifted directly from a forty-year-old (at the time) silent film.

Fritz Lang’s technical adviser on the film was Herman Oberth, considered to be one of the three founding fathers of rocketry and assisting Oberth on the film project, according to the Time-Life book To the Moon, was one of his brightest students, nineteen-year-old Wernher von Braun.
 
A decade-and-a-half later, both Oberth and von Braun would be recruited through Project Paperclip (see WWII chapter for more details) and brought to America to work on, among other things, the Apollo programme, whose modus operandi just happened to very closely match that of the very same fake moon-launch Oberth and von Braun had colluded upon forty years earlier.