As you know, the Americans were the first to land on the moon. Is it so? After all, 1/5 of the American population, including astronauts and scientists, still don’t believe it. Let's try to get to the truth by carefully examining photographs and videos taken from the surface of the Moon.
1. They refuse to answer questions from NASA journalists. They have frozen all lunar projects and are not accepting funding from other countries to land on the moon again.
2. In photographs allegedly taken on the surface of the satellite, you can see a stone with the letter “C”. This is how things are marked in Hollywood. NASA answered this question twice. The first was that the astronaut drew this letter with his finger on a stone. But since this is absolutely impossible, they later began to claim that it was just dust.
3. The lunar surface has 1/6 of the gravity of the Earth, so jumping on the Moon is higher. If you do a quick scroll through the astronauts' movements, you will notice that the people in the suits move in the same way as they would move and jump on Earth.
4. Like on Earth, on the Moon light comes from the Sun. In the photographs, shadows from objects fall in different directions. This can only happen if there are several light sources. Draw conclusions.
5. A waving American flag, planted by Armstrong. What is this? There is no air on the moon, which means there is no wind, and the flag does not stop fluttering - an inexplicable phenomenon. America explained this with a sewn-in wire, but the wire itself is also motionless.
6. Dust on the surface of the Moon is almost weightless due to the low force of gravity. When our lunar modules touch the surface of the Moon, there is a column of dust. Americans apparently have their own laws of attraction, since the photographs show that there is not a single speck of dust around the jumping person.
7. There is very high radiation on the Moon. According to the calculations of American scientists, a spacecraft landing on the moon with people should have walls 80 cm thick and made of lead. All experimental monkeys did not survive even a week after visiting the Moon. The landing of the American spacecraft took place in 1969, when NASA spacecraft had a thin surface, just a few mm, made of foil.
8. In NASA photographs from the lunar surface, no stars are visible, but only a dark sky; in Soviet photographs there are a lot of stars.
These seemingly unaccounted little things reveal the truth to the whole world. Does this mean that the Americans have not been to the moon? It’s impossible to say for certain, but draw your own conclusions...
"The flight of Apollo 8, not to mention its significant scientific contributions, stimulated a tremendous rejuvenation of the spirit of humanity, and this spirit needed rejuvenation. A year marred by two sinister assassinations (M. L. King and R. F. Kennedy), civil unrest, racial and social strife, and a failed attempt to end the war, left people feeling disillusioned. Then, at the end of the year, came Apollo 8 - an incredible adventure."
Dr Norman Vincent Peale, 33rd Degree of the Scottish Rite of Freemasons.
And Polon 8 was the last Apollo flight to leave Earth during the Johnson administration. Ten years before this launch, Lyndon Johnson had laid out America's goals in the space race, and none of them had anything to do with sending men to the moon: "control of space means control of the world. From space, the masters of infinity will be able to control the weather on Earth, cause droughts and floods, change the tides, raise sea levels, divert the Gulf Stream and change the climate..."
I figured global warming must be the cause of most of this, but I also think it's a little off topic.
To those paying close attention in the 1960s, the absurdly improbable flight of Apollo 8 should have sent a clear signal that the Apollo lunar missions would be seriously lacking in credibility. Launched on the winter solstice of 1968, Apollo 8 was only the third launch of the Saturn V rocket, and the first with a crew. The first two Saturn 5 launches, Apollo 4 and Apollo 6, were tests of a three-stage launch vehicle, which NASA called "all together" tests. These tests did not go very well.
The team of rocket scientists who developed the F-1 and J-2 rocket engines for the Apollo program were mostly former Nazis recruited as part of Project Paperclip 1 and transported first to White Sands and then to Space Marshall Center in Huntsville, Alabama (one of the best sources for information on this topic is Linda Hunt "Secret Program"(Linda Hunt Secret Agenda,St. Martin's Press, 1991), see also Tom Bauer "The Mystery of Operation Paperclip"(Tom Bower The Paperclip Conspiracy, Little, Brown, 1987)). The scientists of this group assumed that each stage of the ship would be tested separately. They reportedly discovered to their horror that NASA was neglecting such testing and going straight to "all in" tests for Apollo 4, but the American people would probably be even more horrified if they knew the truth about the past of NASA rocket scientists.
However, Apollo 4 was the very first launch of Saturn 5 and is said to have been a stunning success. However, this claim seems highly dubious given that the subsequent flight tests of Apollo 6 were marred by several malfunctions. During operation of the first stage, serious vibration problems were identified, and two of the five engines of the second stage shut down, significantly throwing the ship off course.
According to "Lunar machines", NASA was undaunted by serious problems during the flight of Apollo 6: “Despite the near-loss of Apollo 6, NASA moved forward with the launch of Apollo 8—the third flight of Saturn 5 and the first manned.” In fact, NASA was so confident that they decided to ignore safety and take a chance with Apollo 8: “The third flight of Saturn 5 will not deliver astronauts into Earth orbit, as everyone expected, but to the Moon's orbit".
If the Apollo program had been a real space exploration endeavor, it is clear that the first manned flight of Saturn V would have gone no further than low-Earth orbit as planned. This would likely be followed by an unmanned flight to the Moon, and then perhaps a "manned" flight by a dog or some other mammal. But taking logical and methodical steps towards achieving goals in space is the lot of “weaklings from Russia.” America was going to do like John Wayne 2.
Without any preliminary preparation, with a launch vehicle that had failed its last flight and not knowing whether the ship itself would survive the round trip, America was about to send men to the Moon!
Don't worry, though: NASA was confident that all the problems with Apollo 6 had been diagnosed and fixed, and in record time. Although it was not possible to inspect the problematic rocket stages, NASA's analysis team was able to masterfully identify and correct all the deficiencies so thoroughly that the new and improved Saturn V rocket did not even require flight testing to gain confidence in its proper operation. Indeed, she was ready to go all the way to the moon!
Given the US track record in the space race, which has been marked from the start by disappointments and desperate attempts to catch up with the Ivans, this was a very brave move. After the October 4, 1957 launch of the first Sputnik, a 184-pound Soviet craft, the United States attempted to respond on December 6, 1957, with the launch of Vanguard, a 3-pound sphere the size of a large grapefruit. The vanguard rose about five meters above the launch pad and exploded in all its glory in full view of a nervously watching nation.
On January 31, 1958, the United States got lucky when it officially entered the space race with the successful launch of the 31-pound Explorer 1 satellite. Meanwhile, the Soviets had already successfully launched Sputnik 3, a nearly 3,000-pound satellite described in a Time Life book. "To the moon" as a "space orbital laboratory". America clearly needed to catch up.
Once NASA engineers turned their attention to the Moon as a target for unmanned spaceflight, "disappointment" continued to be the key word. Beginning in August 1961, as part of the Ranger program, the United States began attempting to make a hard landing of an unmanned vehicle on the Moon. The first six such attempts failed. Ranger 1 and Ranger 2 failed to launch; Ranger 3 was launched successfully but missed the Moon; Ranger 4 broke down and went adrift; Ranger 5 also blacked out and missed the Moon; the cameras on board Ranger 6 failed to function, rendering it useless.
Finally, on July 31, 1964, almost three years after the first launch, Ranger 7 successfully photographed the Moon before crashing into it. Rangers 8 and 9 followed in February and March 1965. The three successful probes collected a total of about 17,000 photographs, which did not change the fact that the Ranger program had a 67% failure rate.
The following year, NASA launched two new lunar exploration programs: Surveyor and Lunar Orbiter Program. The first Surveyor took off on May 30, 1966, followed by six others and the last on January 7, 1968. The goal of the program was to attempt a soft landing on the lunar surface. Two of them, Surveyor 2 and Surveyor 4 crashed, bringing the failure rate to approximately 29%. Both the Surveyor and Ranger programs had a combined failure rate of 50%.
NASA had much more luck with the Lunar Orbiter program, which consisted of launching five satellites into lunar orbit from August 1966 to August 1967. Each of the five orbited the Moon for an average of 10 days, taking high-resolution images. In addition to mapping the lunar surface, orbiters also sent back the first images of Earth from space and the first photographs of Earth rising above the lunar horizon. In all, about 3,000 images were transmitted to Earth, at least officially.
The problem is that NASA's numbers don't seem to add up. Does it make sense that the three successful Ranger missions that aimed straight for the Moon and immediately crashed sent back 17,000 photos, and the five orbiters that spent a total of fifty-three days orbiting the moon, only sent 3,000 images? This gives a shooting speed of just over two images per hour. And the orbiters had several cameras on board.
There is little doubt that the Orbiters sent many more photographs than are claimed, of which relatively few have been published. What happened to the others? At the incredible risk of being wrong, I will still assume that NASA needed these images for another more important project: faking the Apollo flights to the Moon. Undoubtedly, all those glorious images of the Earth from space - both the Earth rising and the composite image of the spacecraft in lunar orbit - were taken from photographs taken by the Orbiters, but not published. Just like fake lunar scenes and fake lunar landscapes were edited.
A final note on the Lunar orbiters: during their flights to and around the Moon, the five satellites recorded twenty-two "micrometeorite impacts." The eight lunar modules that made the journey to the Moon apparently did not notice anything of the sort; maybe the guys just put tape over the holes.
Meanwhile, NASA's manned program was also struggling. Of course, in the beginning there was the “Mercury Seven,” the first national celebrities of the space age. Immortalized in film "Guys, what we need" (The Right Stuff), the first seven astronauts were selected from among hundreds of the nation's best fighter pilots. Six of these seven—Alan Shepard, Gus Grissom, John Glenn, Scott Carpenter, Walter Schirra, and Gordon Cooper—would become the first Americans in space, but for most of them it would not be a smooth journey.
Shepard was the first to fly aboard Freedom 7, which launched on May 5, 1961. His 15-minute suborbital flight went smoothly. On July 21, 1961, Grissom follows him into Liberty Bell 7, but things don't go so well for him. Like Shepard, his flight was a simple suborbital one, but it almost cost him his life. Immediately after splashdown, the hatch on his capsule opened, and it began to draw water. Grissom got out, but his suit, which was supposed to serve as a buoyancy device, also began to take in water, dragging him down.
Grissom's situation did not improve with the arrival of the rescue helicopter, which focused solely on trying to save the capsule, ignoring the struggling astronaut, who now had to overcome the turbulence caused by the helicopter's propeller. It was only when the second rescue helicopter arrived that Grissom was lifted and found to be safe. The capsule sank to the bottom of the sea - to a three-mile depth.
Glenn was next, and he was destined to be the first American in orbit. Traveling aboard Friendship 7, launched on February 20, 1962, Glenn did end up in orbit, but NASA wasn't at all sure they could bring him back. The launch was delayed for a month while NASA sorted out various problems, but there was still another major glitch: During Glenn's second orbit, technicians on the ground determined that the heat shield needed for descent had failed.
Glenn's capsule was severely damaged during the descent, but he survived unharmed and instantly became a national hero.
Then there was Carpenter, who orbited the Earth three times on May 24, 1962, aboard Aurora 7. Almost exhausted, Carpenter barely left orbit, but due to an incorrect entry angle, he splashed down about 250 miles past his intended location and out of radio contact. It took a rescue team three hours to find him floating in the Atlantic Ocean. Some on the ground blamed Carpenter for the failure, claiming that he had wasted all the fuel by acting like a tourist out to see the sights (you can't really blame the guy for that - maybe he wished he had brought some cigar with weed).
The next to serve was Schirra, who launched on October 3, 1962 aboard Sigma 7, completing six orbits in just over nine hours. Since Shepard, this was the first flight - and the first orbital flight - without any significant failures.
The last flight of Mercury was made by Cooper, who took off on May 15, 1963 in the Faith 7 capsule. Cooper completed 22 orbits and was the first American to sleep in space. However, problems arose in the final hours when the capsule's automation failed, and Cooper had to perform the first descent entirely manually. It would be almost two years before Americans would follow Cooper into space again.
Overall, the Mercury program was largely a success in the sense that everyone came back safe and sound, but America still had a very long way to go to land men on the Moon.
Then there was the Gemini (Gemini) program, with a larger two-person capsule. Gemini, which lasted from March 1965 to November 1966, had very specific goals: to investigate the possibility of human survival in space for two weeks; practicing rendezvous and docking procedures; extravehicular activities (spacewalks) and orbit adjustments. All this had to be worked out until it became automatic.
The Gemini capsules were launched into orbit using Titan rockets, which at first were not entirely reliable: the first launch attempts ended in explosions on the launch pad. NASA eventually successfully launched two that did not explode, which they named Gemini 1 and Gemini 2. Ten manned Geminis followed, starting with Gemini 3, launched on March 23, 1965, and ending with Gemini 12, which flew on November 11, 1966.
Gemini 3's flight was short—three orbits in just under five hours. Due to equipment failure, pilots Gus Grissom and John Young were forced to land them manually, and they splashed down about sixty miles from their target. Despite this, Gemini's first manned flight was successful. Gemini 4 launched on June 3, 1965, spent just over four days in orbit and included Ed White's purported spacewalk (the NASA photos look great, as always).
After a successful launch on August 21, 1965, Gemini 5 spent almost eight days in low Earth orbit, completing 120 revolutions. The flight was highly successful, although a faulty fuel cell and failed engines created some problems for the crew.
It should be noted that upon their return, Gemini 5 pilots Gordon Cooper and Pete Conrad looked tired, exhausted and unshaven, with dirty and matted hair. In other words, they looked exactly like guys who had just spent a week in a cramped spaceship without basic hygiene should look like. Pictured below, from left to right: Conrad after returning from an eight-day flight; Lovell after returning from a four-day flight aboard Gemini 12; he is near the end of his fourteen-day flight on Gemini 7.
On the other hand, the Apollo astronauts, upon returning to Earth, looked rested, with shaved and fresh-faced faces, as if they had just spent a day at a resort. Apparently on the Apollo ships they found a place for showers and other various amenities.
The next scheduled launch was Gemini 6, scheduled for late October 1965. However, the flight was delayed due to the failure of the Agena unmanned vehicle launched as a docking target. On December 4, Gemini 7, with Frank Borman and Jim Lovell on board, began a grueling fourteen-day stay in low Earth orbit. About a week later, Gemini 6 was ready to launch again, but that launch was aborted when the engine shut down; a fatal explosion at the launch pad was narrowly avoided.
On December 11, Gemini 6 finally entered low Earth orbit and remained there for just over a day. During this time, Gemini 6 allegedly performed a rendezvous maneuver with Gemini 7, with the two spacecraft remaining side-by-side for 5.5 hours while traveling at 17,000 mph. Interestingly, between the launches of Gemini 6 and 7, a military rocket was launched, and Lovell stated that this launch was somehow related to the flight of Gemini 7.
Piloted by Neil Armstrong and David Scott, Gemini 8 launched on March 16, 1966. The purpose of the flight was to practice rendezvous and docking procedures, and to perform the first successful docking between the Gemini capsule and the Agena unmanned vehicle. It is interesting to note that both pilots chosen for this difficult flight were newbies. The crew that was originally scheduled for the flight, Elliot See and Charles Bassett, were killed a few days before the launch (February 28, 1966) when See, who was one of the best pilots in the country, crashed a T-38 Talon 3 into the wall of a building in Ste. -Louis.
As reported, Gemini 8 managed to dock with the Agena target, but trouble began almost immediately. The docked ship began to tumble violently from side to side, forcing Armstrong to detach from Agena. However, this caused the Gemini capsule to spin even more strongly. Finally, to stabilize the ship, Armstrong had to resort to turning on the descent thrusters, which forced him to immediately abort the flight. The capsule splashed down in the Pacific Ocean, on the other side of the earth from its intended location in the Atlantic.
On June 3, 1966, piloted by Tom Stafford and Gene Cernan, Gemini 9 took off. The launch was delayed due to problems with the new Agena. The goal was to once again dock with the Agena unmanned vehicle. However, this docking did not take place due to the failure of another Agen target. This was also the flight on which Cernan made his near-fatal spacewalk (there was debate on Earth about whether to cut the halyard and let him drift in space, or leave him tethered to burn during descent if he couldn't make it back to the cockpit) .
After Gemini 9, there are only three manned Gemini flights remaining, and the United States has still not come close to perfecting both docking and spacewalk procedures; and both are absolutely essential to the success of the planned Apollo missions.
Gemini 10, piloted by John Young and Michael Collins, launched on July 18, 1966 and remained in orbit for almost three days. As reported, Young and Collins achieved the first successful and stable docking of the Gemini capsule with the Agena target object. Collins also conducted a largely unsuccessful spacewalk, although not as disastrous as Cernan's previous flight.
Gemini 11, piloted by Charles Conrad and Richard Gordon, took off on September 12, 1966 and, like Gemini 10, remained in orbit for almost three days. Like Gemini 10, Gemini 11's flight included a docking with Agena and a less than successful spacewalk (Gordon).
Gemini's final flight, Gemini 12, placed Jim Lovell and Buzz Aldrin in low Earth orbit for almost four days.
Aldrin completed the first fully successful spacewalk, and both pilots again practiced docking with the Agen target. NASA had come a long way since Alan Shepard's cannon launch in May 1961, but the Moon still seemed like a distant goal. The transition from Mercury to Gemini was a natural one, from a single-person capsule to a slightly more complex two-person capsule that required a slightly larger launch vehicle. However, NASA's next step will be more like a quantum leap.
The Saturn V rocket bore little resemblance to any previous launch vehicle. Apollo flight director Gene Kranz remarked, "This was a new spacecraft. This was something we had to study from top to bottom, something we had to study from the ground up." It was a massive and complex spacecraft. Saturn V was so much larger than its predecessors that all previous manned launch vehicles - six Mercury and ten Gemini - could fit inside the body of one Saturn V.
When fully assembled, ready for launch, the Saturn V stood 363 feet tall and weighed about 6 million pounds, 90% of which was propellant. Depending on the source, it consisted of either 6 million or 9 million parts. There were three expendable stages, on top of which were the lunar, service and command modules, and all this was crowned by an emergency escape system, which was reset shortly after launch.
The 138-foot first stage had five massive F-1 rocket engines, and each consumed about three tons of fuel per second. Fuel came from a 331,000 gallon tank of liquid oxygen and a 203,000 gallon tank of purified kerosene, all of which was consumed in just two and a half minutes, producing about 7.5 million pounds of thrust (160 million horsepower).
After the first stage separated at an altitude of approximately thirty-five miles, the 82-foot second stage began firing, propelled by five J-2 rocket engines. J-2s burned a mixture of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, throwing the ship to an altitude of 115 km. After the second stage separated, the 61-foot third stage, powered by a single J-2 engine, took over and launched the spacecraft into low-Earth orbit.
As the publisher noted Time-Life, "at this point, the third stage will not be jettisoned, but instead will be fired again three hours later and will propel Apollo toward the Moon. At a distance of 10,350 miles from Earth, the command module, powered by the service module, will undock from the third stage and make a half-turn back and will rotate towards the third stage, and the lunar module shroud on the third stage will open, the command module will dock with the lunar module (which should carry the astronauts from the command module to the Moon), and then pull it out of the third stage after completing another half-rotation, two modules, nose. to the nose, they will go towards the Moon."
Sounds simple enough. Now I understand why they managed to pull it off every time - not like those problematic Agena devices. Time-Life also enlightens us on the details of the pin-to-cone docking mechanism: "The pin, a 10-inch cylinder protruding from the nose of the command module, must be inserted into a cone-shaped receptacle - the LM docking socket... When the pin finds its place, automatic spring latches close them together. The entire pin-cone mechanism will be removed, freeing up space in the tunnel through which the astronauts will enter the LM. Inside the command module, the pilot turns a switch that releases the LM."
Below is a picture of the command module's docking probe, the LM's docking socket (the LM is supposedly in low-Earth orbit during the alleged Apollo 9 flight, in another impressive image from NASA's collection), and - a close-up - of how the mechanism was supposed to work. Interestingly, it remains unexplained how, after removing the pin-cone mechanism, the LM was able to dock with the command module a second time after his return from the surface of the Moon.
Although I am sure that these empty-headed people
BAUT forum will be able to explain this too. Maybe they can also explain why the Space Shuttle never flew to the Moon? I was thinking about this the other day when I was reading yet another bunch of "advocacy" chatter about how once you're in low Earth orbit, 90% of the trip to the Moon is already behind you.
You see, "advocates" argue that comparing the distances that astronauts travel in space today (200 miles) with the distance they traveled back in the magical 1960s (234,000 miles) is completely unfair, because, who knows? Any fool, in the first two hundred miles the main work is done. Once you are in low Earth orbit, the next step is quite simple - briefly fire the engines and shoot out of orbit, heading for the Moon. And going back is just as easy - you turn around the Moon and roll back to the Earth. Almost no fuel is even required, it all just happens like... you know, like free falling through the emptiness of space.
However, if this is indeed the case, then why has not one of the Space Shuttles - for more than a quarter century, while the program has been in existence - ever flown around the Moon? The Apollo 13 crew supposedly flew in a lunar module made of Popsicle sticks and duct tape, and yet the apparently much more complex space shuttle couldn't turn around there and back? Indeed?!
Why couldn't he just use the old launch method to fly to the Moon and back on any of his flights? And please, let's not use the old excuse: "there's no reason to do it because there's nothing interesting to explore there," because it's clear that this is bullshit. The space shuttle is much better shielded than the Apollo ships, and has enough fuel and supplies for the entire journey. Indeed, astronauts today should be able to travel to the Moon and back in relative comfort.
So why was this never done? Apollo 8 did all this back in 1968, which I mentioned at the beginning of this article before I got hopelessly distracted. More on this next time.
Translator's Notes
1 Operation Paperclip was a program of the United States Office of Strategic Services to recruit scientists from the Third Reich to work in the United States after World War II.
2 John Wayne, 1907-1979 - American actor, who was called the king of the western.
3 Northrop T-38 Talon is an American two-seat supersonic jet trainer.
Each nation individually and all of humanity as a whole strives only forward to conquer new horizons in the field of economic development, medicine, sports, science, new technologies, including the study of astronomy and space exploration. We hear about big breakthroughs in space exploration, but did they really happen? Did the Americans land on the moon or was it just one big show?
Spacesuits
Having visited the “US National Air and Space Museum” in Washington, anyone can verify that the American spacesuit is a very simple robe, hastily sewn. NASA states that the spacesuits were sewn at a factory for the production of bras and underwear, that is, their spacesuits were made from the fabric of underpants and they supposedly protect from the aggressive space environment, from radiation that is deadly to humans. However, maybe NASA really has developed ultra-reliable suits that protect against radiation. But why then was this ultra-light material not used anywhere else? Not for military purposes, not for peaceful purposes. Why was no assistance provided with Chernobyl, albeit for money, as American presidents like to do? Okay, let’s say perestroika hasn’t started yet and they didn’t want to help the Soviet Union. But, for example, in 1979 in the USA, a terrible reactor unit accident occurred at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant. So why didn’t they use durable spacesuits developed using NASA technology to eliminate radiation contamination - a time bomb on their territory?
Radiation from the sun is harmful to humans. Radiation is one of the main obstacles in space exploration. For this reason, even today all manned flights take place no further than 500 kilometers from the surface of our planet. But the Moon has no atmosphere and the level of radiation is comparable to outer space. For this reason, both in a manned spacecraft and in a spacesuit on the surface of the Moon, astronauts had to receive a lethal dose of radiation. However, they are all alive.
Neil Armstrong and the other 11 astronauts lived an average of 80 years, and some are still living, like Buzz Aldrin. By the way, back in 2015 he honestly admitted that he had never been to the moon.
It is interesting to know how they were able to survive so well when a small dose of radiation is enough to develop leukemia - blood cancer. As we know, none of the astronauts died from cancer, which raises only questions. Theoretically, it is possible to protect yourself from radiation. The question is what protection can be sufficient for such a flight. Engineers' calculations show that to protect astronauts from cosmic radiation, the walls of the ship and spacesuit needed to be at least 80 cm thick and made of lead, which, naturally, was not the case. No rocket can lift such weight.
The suits were not just hastily riveted together, but they lacked simple things necessary for life support. Thus, the spacesuits used in the Apollo program completely lack a system for removing waste products. The Americans either endured it with plugs in different places throughout the entire flight, without peeing or pooping. Or they immediately recycled everything that came out of them. Otherwise, they would simply suffocate from their excrement. This does not mean that the system for removing waste products was bad - it was simply absent.
Astronauts walked on the moon in rubber boots, but it is interesting to know how they did it when the temperature on the moon ranges from +120 to -150 degrees Celsius. How did they obtain the information and technology to make shoes that could withstand wide ranges of temperatures? After all, the only material that has the necessary properties was discovered after the flights and began to be used in production only 20 years after the first landing on the Moon.
Official chronicle
The vast majority of space images from NASA's lunar program do not show stars, although Soviet space images have an abundance of them. The black empty background in all the photographs is explained by the fact that there were difficulties with modeling the starry sky and NASA decided to completely abandon the sky in its photographs. When the US flag was planted on the moon, the flag fluttered under the influence of air currents. Armstrong straightened the flag and took a few steps back. However, the flag did not stop fluttering. The American flag fluttered with the wind, although we know that in the absence of an atmosphere and in the absence of wind as such, a flag cannot flutter on the Moon. How could astronauts move so quickly on the Moon if gravity is 6 times lower than on Earth? A quick view of astronauts jumping on the Moon shows that their movements correspond to movements on Earth, and the height of the jumps does not exceed the height of jumps in Earth's gravity. You can also find fault with the pictures themselves for a long time regarding the differences in colors and minor mistakes.
Lunar soil
During the lunar missions under the Apollo program, a total of 382 kg of lunar soil was delivered to Earth, and samples of the soil were presented by the American government to leaders of different countries. True, all regolith, without exception, turned out to be a fake of terrestrial origin. Part of the soil mysteriously simply disappeared from museums; another part of the soil, after chemical analysis, turned out to be terrestrial basalt or meteorite fragments. So BBC News reported that a fragment of lunar soil stored in the Dutch museum Rijskmuseulm turned out to be a piece of petrified wood. The exhibit was given to Dutch Prime Minister Willem Dries and after his death the regolith went to the museum. Experts doubted the authenticity of the stone back in 2006. This suspicion was finally confirmed by an analysis of lunar soil carried out by specialists from the Free University of Amsterdam; the expert conclusion was not reassuring: the piece of stone was a fake. The American government decided not to comment on this situation in any way and simply hushed up the matter. Similar cases also occurred in the countries of Japan, Switzerland, China and Norway. And such embarrassments were resolved in the same way, the regoliths mysteriously either disappeared or were destroyed by fire or the destruction of museums.
One of the main arguments of opponents of the lunar conspiracy is the recognition by the Soviet Union of the fact of the Americans landing on the moon. Let's analyze this fact in more detail. The United States understood perfectly well that it would not be difficult for the Soviet Union to issue a refutation and provide evidence that the Americans never landed on the moon. And there was plenty of evidence, including material evidence. This is the analysis of lunar soil, which was transferred by the American side, and this is the Apollo-13 apparatus caught in the Bay of Biscay in 1970 with full telemetry of the launch of the Saturn-5 launch vehicles, in which there was not a single living soul, there was not a single astronaut. On the night of April 11-12, the Soviet fleet lifted the Apollo 13 capsule. In fact, the capsule turned out to be an empty zinc bucket, there was no thermal protection at all, and its weight was no more than one ton. The rocket was launched on April 11 and a few hours later on the same day, the Soviet military found the capsule in the Bay of Biscay.
And according to the official chronicle, the American spacecraft circled the Moon and returned to Earth supposedly on April 17, as if nothing had happened. At that time, the Soviet Union received irrefutable evidence that the Americans had faked the moon landing, and it had a fat ace up its sleeve.
But then amazing things began to happen. At the height of the Cold War, when a bloody war was going on in Vietnam, Brezhnev and Nixon, as if nothing had happened, met like good old friends, smiling, clinking glasses, drinking champagne together. This is remembered in history as the Brezhnev Thaw. How can we explain the completely unexpected friendship between Nixon and Brezhnev? Apart from the fact that the Brezhnev thaw began completely unexpectedly, behind the scenes, there were gorgeous gifts that President Nixon personally gave to Ilyich Brezhnev. So, on his first visit to Moscow, the American president brings Brezhnev a generous gift - a Cadillac Eldorado, hand-assembled by special order. I wonder for what merits at the highest level Nixon gives an expensive Cadillac at the first meeting? Or maybe the Americans were indebted to Brezhnev? And then - more. At subsequent meetings, Brezhnev is given a Lincoln limousine, and then a sporty Chevrolet Monte Carlo. At the same time, the silence of the Soviet Union about the American lunar scam could hardly be bought with a luxury car. The USSR demanded to pay big. Can it be considered a coincidence that in the early 70s, when the Americans allegedly landed on the moon, the construction of the largest giant, the KAMAZ automobile plant, began in the Soviet Union. It is interesting that the West allocated billions of dollars in loans for this construction, and several hundred American and European automobile companies took part in the construction. There were dozens of other projects in which the West, for such inexplicable reasons, invested in the economy of the Soviet Union. Thus, an agreement was concluded on the supply of American grain to the USSR at prices below the world average, which negatively affected the well-being of the Americans themselves.
The embargo on the supply of Soviet oil to Western Europe was also lifted, and we began to penetrate their gas market, where we continue to operate successfully to this day. Apart from the fact that the United States allowed such profitable business with Europe, the West, in fact, built these pipelines itself. Germany provided a loan of more than 1 billion marks to the Soviet Union and supplied large-diameter pipes, which at that time were not produced in our country. Moreover, the nature of warming demonstrates a clear one-sidedness. The US is doing favors for the Soviet Union while getting nothing in return. Amazing generosity, which can easily be explained by the price of silence about the fake moon landing.
By the way, recently the famous Soviet cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, who everywhere defends the Americans in their version of the flight to the Moon, confirmed that the landing was filmed in the studio. Indeed, who will film the epoch-making opening of the hatch by the first man on the moon if there is no one on the moon?
Busting the myth that Americans walked on the moon is not just an insignificant fact. No. The element of this illusion is interconnected with all the world's deceptions. And when one illusion begins to collapse, the rest of the illusions begin to collapse after it, like a domino principle. It is not only misconceptions about the greatness of the United States of America that are crumbling. Added to this is the misconception about the confrontation between states. Would the USSR play along with its irreconcilable enemy in the lunar scam? It's hard to believe, but, unfortunately, the Soviet Union played the same game with the United States. And if this is so, then it now becomes clear to us that there are forces that control all these processes that are above the states.
Conversations that Apollo was a scam, in which the launches of the Saturn 5 launch vehicles were real at best, began already in December 1968, during the Apollo 8 flight around the Moon. The campaign to “expose” Apollo begins in 1974, with the publication of the first book on this topic, entitled “We Never Flew to the Moon: The Thirty Billion Fraud,” written by Bill Kaising and Randy Reid. Moreover, Kaising worked at the Rocketdyne company, where engines for the Saturn 5 were manufactured. This fact gave special weight to his opinion.
|
Americans haven't been to the moon The role of the USSR Official position of Russia Chinese scientists refute US lunar mission The Big Space Lie About the Moon Landing |
The theory of falsification of the US lunar program received its most vivid expression in the feature film “Capricorn-1”, filmed in the same USA in 1978. He talked about how NASA faked the flight using special effects. True, not to the Moon, but to Mars, but the hint was obvious.
The famous American film director Stanley Kubrick, the author of 2001: A Space Odyssey, admitted that, at the request of NASA, he imitated some alleged episodes of astronauts’ activities on the Moon on the set. But there's no malicious intent here: NASA just wasn't sure that the TV broadcast from Selene's surface would be of high enough quality to give viewers an idea of what the astronauts were doing there. So the agency recreated on Earth what should have happened on the Moon.
The most famous Russian author, Yuri Mukhin, wrote the book “Anti-Apollo: The US Moon Scam.” A relatively new argument in anti-Apollo conspiracy theories concerns the engine. If the United States was really able to create such a powerful oxygen-kerosene engine as the F-1 in the mid-1960s (there were five of them on the Saturn 5), then why did they turn to Russia with a request in the late 1990s? sell them the almost half as powerful RD-180, which also runs on oxygen and kerosene?
Is this not confirmation that the Saturn 5 was actually a flying “rattle”, the purpose of which was to create the impression of a super-powerful carrier, supposedly capable of delivering people to the Moon?
They flew to the moon, but lost the films...
That circumstance also raises serious suspicions. that along with the original video recording of the first steps of people on the Moon, films with telemetry recordings of the operation of the lunar module systems and data transmitted via telemetry to Earth about the health of Armstrong and Aldrin during their stay on the Moon also disappeared: in total, about 700 boxes with various kinds of films . However, according to Florida Today, film and television evidence of not only the Apollo 11 mission, but also all eleven Apollo flights, including near-Earth, lunar and landing flights, has gone missing. Total – 13,000 films.
Lies to save the nation
The Americans are a people who have fooled, are fooling, and are fooling all of humanity. Of course, among them there are many honest people who do not want to hide the truth. But the “discoverer” of the North Pole, the American Robert Peary, cannot be included among them. Only in 1970, a parking lot was found in Greenland where Piri sat for two months, not intending to go to the Pole. And then he came and told everyone that he was there. Piri's diaries found in the parking lot told about everything.
But who cared then? The spoon is on its way to dinner... The train has already left, and now the Americans will forever be proud of their Piri, the “discoverer” of the North Pole. You can still read in some geography textbooks that the first person to visit the North Pole was the American Robert Peary. So it is now, all space passions remained in the 20th century, so the Americans will forever remain the people who were the first to set foot on the moon.
Ambitious America, which considered itself the greatest country in the world, could not tolerate the space successes of the USSR.
President Kennedy had no choice but to arrogantly declare:
“By the end of the decade we will land on the moon. Not because it is easy, but because it is difficult.”
America, busy bombing Vietnam, threw crazy money at the Great Task - to wipe the nose of the Russians.
And so in 1969, in the presence of almost a million people gathered at the cosmodrome, a super-powerful giant, the Saturn 5 launch vehicle, launched live.
She carried the Apollo spacecraft and three astronauts. Apollo flew up to the Moon, the landing module separated from it, which landed safely on the Moon, and Neil Armstrong climbed out of the capsule, saying the prepared words: “This is a small step for a person, but a huge step for all humanity” .
For some reason, the American’s eyes do not shine with happiness, like our Yuri’s. The astronauts who “have been to the Moon” are extremely taciturn and do not strive for meetings, unlike our sociable cosmonauts. Armstrong generally lived in a castle with a descending bridge. So 82-year-old Neil Armstrong took his secret to the grave on August 24, 2012.
The world applauded. The Americans planted their flag, collected stones, took pictures, made a movie...
Then the capsule took off from the landing module, docked with Apollo, then a successful splashdown in the Pacific Ocean and the triumph of America at all times.
Triumph, but my mother-in-law doesn’t believe it!
It was America's name day, she went crazy with happiness; neither before nor after have Americans rejoiced so much. Then there were five more successful expeditions...
Of the Soviet space minds, no one doubted it except General Designer Mishin, who replaced the deceased Korolev. During the live report, he smoked all the time and repeated:
“This is impossible, Apollo will not be able to break away from the earth’s orbit and head towards the Moon...”
One must think he knew what he was saying... But then the cheerful voice of the American commentator said: "Apollo has left Earth's orbit and is heading towards the Moon" . Mishin could not understand anything, got up, walked out, slamming the door... He realized that the Americans are smarter than us. We all believed in it, but my wise mother-in-law never wanted to believe it.
Then the voices of skeptics began to be heard more and more often, claiming that there were no flights to the Moon, but there was a hoax. The American space agency NASA shook its finger at this and stated that it would not discuss this issue with anyone. Why discuss with cretins? And journalists and their fellow bloggers turned out to be such idiots...
From his thorough works, a book by Yu. Mukhin was first published "Anti-Apollo" .
Recently published work by physicist A. Popov "Great Breakthrough or Space Scam" represents a huge amount of analyzed facts, which can only be dismissed with the Main Argument in All Disputes - You fool, you don’t understand anything!
The blogosphere is divided into three unequal parts: skeptics; American fans; and the most numerous wise comrades - those who don’t give a damn.
Persistent whys
— Why do the shadows cast by stones clearly converge at an angle, while the shadows from the Sun are always parallel? Spotlight in the studio?
— Why is the surface of the moon illuminated unevenly, while the Sun should illuminate everything equally? Not enough lighting fixtures?
— Why is a crushed cockroach visible in the photograph of Armstrong’s footprint?
— Why do astronauts jump 50 cm in film footage, when they should be 2 meters?
- Why, when every gram of roads had to be transferred to an electric car (rover) and ridden on it?
— Why does the dust from under the wheels of the rover swirl as if in the air?
— Why do the shadows give the calculated height of the Sun 30 degrees, while at that time it was at an angle of 10 degrees?
— Why is the astronaut clearly visible even when the Sun is shining directly at his back? Backlight?
— Why are the stars not visible in the lunar sky?
— Why did the engines of the landing module have to sweep away tons of dust (Armstrong wrote: “We raised dust hundreds of meters”), but under the engine nozzles the dust was pristinely untouched, as if the module had been installed with a truck crane? Etc.
Skeptics of lunar flights argue that astronauts’ 80-centimeter-thick spacesuits on the Moon can serve as salvation from radiation.
— One American specialist generally claims that for a living creature the radiation belt around the Earth is insurmountable.
— During the “flight” to the Moon, Armstrong wanted to go out into space for a walk to get some ice. The footage of Armstrong's spacewalk coincides one-on-one with the footage of astronaut Shepard's spacewalk from the Gemeny spacecraft three years earlier. Only in mirror reflection and the color is slightly changed.
— Footage of how the Earth gradually decreases in size as Apollo moves away from it - a cartoon made from one photograph.
— “The Moon Is Coming” is a similar cartoon.
— A spectacular movie of a flight over the Moon, when the shadow falls on the craters - filming of a huge lunar globe that NASA has.
— The Lunomobile cannot fit into the capsule in size, even when folded.
— During the preparation of “flights to the Moon,” 11 astronauts died in car accidents and otherwise. Sad record. Silence the mouths of those who disagree?
Launch vehicle
Saturn 5 launch vehicle
Some conspiracy theorists believe that the Saturn V rocket was never ready for launch, citing the following arguments:
After the partially unsuccessful test launch of the Saturn 5 rocket on April 4, 1968, a manned flight followed, which, according to N.P. Kamanin, was a “pure gamble” from a safety point of view.
In 1968, 700 employees of the Marshall Space Research Center in Huntsville, Alabama, where the Saturn V was developed, were fired.
In 1970, at the height of the lunar program, the chief designer of the Saturn 5 rocket, Wernher von Braun, was relieved of his post as director of the Center and removed from the leadership of rocket development.
After the end of the lunar program and the launch of Skylab into orbit, the remaining two rockets were not used for their intended purpose, but were sent to the museum.
The absence of foreign cosmonauts who would fly on Saturn 5 or work on the super-heavy object launched into orbit by this rocket - the Skylab station.
Lack of further use of F-1 engines or its descendants on subsequent rockets, in particular, use instead of them on the powerful Atlas-5 rocket.
Fragment of the program “Postscript” with Alexey Pushkov from 04/13/2019
Also considered is the version about NASA's failures in the creation of hydrogen-oxygen engines. Proponents of this version claim that the second and third stages of the Saturn 5 had kerosene-oxygen engines, like the first stage. The characteristics of such a rocket would not be enough to launch Apollo with a full-fledged lunar module into lunar orbit, but would be enough to fly around the Moon with a manned spacecraft and drop a greatly reduced model of the lunar module onto the Moon.
Photoshop made its way to the moon
Retouched NASA image in original and gamma-corrected form. After gamma correction, digital retouching of the scanned image appears on the photograph.
Retouched NASA image in original and gamma-corrected form. After gamma correction, digital retouching of the scanned image appears on the photograph.
The main exposer of this entire lunar production turned out to be... Photoshop. No one knew that 30 years after the “moon landing” this damned computer program for image processing would appear. When, with her help, maximum brightness and contrast were added to the photographs, instead of an absolute black sky, painted backdrops appeared in the photographs, on which streaks of light from the spotlights and shadows from the astronauts became clearly visible. And there were traces of retouching literally everywhere. The photo was especially touching: the astronaut near the American flag, directly above the flag is the distant Earth. With an increase in brightness and contrast, the astronaut’s shadow became clearly visible in the lunar sky, and the Earth turned out to be a cardboard circle,
And then some more cunning mathematicians, combining two photographs taken with a pause of a few seconds (hence, the camera moved 20 centimeters to the side), calculated the distance to the lunar mountains, which are visible behind the astronauts. According to the globe, they are 5 kilometers away, according to measurements - 100 meters. A backdrop with painted mountains, definitely. And the line between the sandbox and the backdrop is very clearly visible...
Then American fans admitted through clenched teeth: “Well, yes, some things were filmed in Hollywood for clarity. These are Americans. But they were, were, were on the moon!
What color is the Moon? According to NASA, the Moon is gray; according to Soviet scientists, it is brown. On December 15, 2013, the Chinese space mission Chang'e-3 transmitted images from the Moon: The Moon is brown! Then NASA supporters (Vitaly Egorov, aka Zelenyikot) caught on and came up with an explanation: “the white balance was simply not adjusted on the cameras.” This video proves NASA supporters wrong.
Convincing proof of the falsity of photographs allegedly taken on the Moon, which simultaneously show an astronaut, an American flag and the Earth. The proof is based on an analysis of the Earth's appearance using the Celestia astronomy program.
The video uses photographs taken by NASA, whose materials are the property of all mankind. Photos published on flickr by link.
This video was published under the terms of the free Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
To the moon - without preparation?
The hundred-meter-tall Saturn 5 was supposed to deliver a module with a capsule the height of a three-story building to the Moon. The first test of the rocket was called successful. But during the second unmanned takeoff, the rocket began to wobble and explode.
Fragment of the program “Postscript” with Alexey Pushkov dated September 30, 2017.
Yale University professor David Gelernter, science adviser to the American president, denies even the possibility that Americans were on the moon. And he gives reasons...
“How can we organize a mission to Mars for an American team by the mid-2030s if we haven’t even been to the Moon? The idea itself is ridiculous, as is the entire Obama administration.”- said the scientist. — “The Apollo landing is a hoax in human history worse than global warming.”
What is logical to assume in such cases? That's right, you need to test the rocket in unmanned mode until it flies like a clock. Then, again, without pilots, you need to send it to the Moon with its help and carry out all the necessary operations. It is clear that there must be many tests and, according to statistics, half of them will fail.
But in just three weeks, the Americans are sending three astronauts to the Moon. Apollo 8 made a remarkable orbit around the Moon and returned beautifully to Earth. Also, Saturn 5 let us down by throwing Apollo 9, 10 towards the Moon. And then it was the turn of Apollo 11 with Armstrong and others. And everything went as expected. The most complex space technology suddenly refused to fail. Which god helped the Americans?
The lander has never landed on the Moon without people. The landing capsule, accordingly, did not take off.
However, all six American expeditions to the Moon went off without a hitch. According to the theory of probability, this simply could not happen
Our lunar rocket took off four times and exploded four times, after which the Soviet program was closed, since the Americans “were ahead of us anyway.”
And it was supposed to first send two lunar rovers to our satellite. They had to carefully examine the landing site and choose the most level one. Because if the tilt is more than 12 degrees, the landing module will either not land or the capsule will not take off from it.
Then a spare rocket was supposed to land using radio beacons from the lunar rovers. If it landed safely, lunar rovers would examine it to ensure that it could launch safely from the Moon. Only then would they launch the module with ONE astronaut. A second cosmonaut, and also a lunar mobile, is an unaffordable luxury when every gram counts.
The Americans were not bothered by these little things. After all, the cosmic God kept them.
Fantastic landing accuracy
And on another issue, the Americans rubbed our noses in the air – exactly the landing (splashdown). During landing, Gagarin was carried hundreds of kilometers away; they searched for him from helicopters for almost a day. And then the hits weren’t much closer.
But the splashdown accuracy of the American return capsules was from 2 to 15 kilometers. Amazing result. Ours gnashed their teeth with envy... And only towards the end of the 80s it became clear that, according to the laws of physics, landing with an accuracy of more than 40 kilometers is unattainable. But in the 60s no one knew this yet.
Stones were collected on the moon. Where should we go?
And further. The Americans collectively “collected” as much as 400 kilograms of soil on the Moon. The Soviet automatic station Luna-16 brought only 100 grams. When the Americans were offered to exchange samples for research, they delayed for almost three years and only in 1972 they gave us as much as... 3 grams.
Skeptics claim that it was then, finally, that the Sequeir automatic station secretly flew to the Moon and brought back the same hundred grams of lunar powder. But no one has ever seen those 400 kilos of moon rocks; they are kept behind seven locks and are not given out to anyone.
In total, the Americans gave us 28 grams of regolith - lunar sand, of which three of our automatic stations delivered about three hundred grams. Moonstone - not a single one!
There was a case. when they gave some prince a pebble, but after the prince’s death this pebble turned out to be a piece of petrified wood.
Fragment of the program “Postscript” with Alexey Pushkov from December 23, 2017.
They tracked and tracked, but they didn’t track down
The Americans, like the gypsies who inflate a nag with air in order to sell it to it, fictitiously increased the size of the launch rocket. A. Popov analyzed the take-off of the Saturn-5 rocket frame by frame. And this is what I discovered. A quarter of a second before the separation of the first stage, a bright explosion occurs on the surface of the rocket. And to a hundredth part it becomes clear how the outer hull of this colossus has collapsed, under which a much smaller body of the much less powerful American Saturn 1 rocket was discovered.
The same evil tongues suggested that the Americans simply increased the size of the Saturn 1 with the help of a casing. When it took off and disappeared from view, its remains fell into the ocean.
Unfortunately, our prominent specialist and honored cosmonaut, respected Alexei Leonov, like everyone else, fell for the American bait of deception. He fiercely defends the Americans and repeats all the time: “We tracked all stages of the Apollo flight.” Alas, they didn’t track...
Our space specialists followed the flight just like the whole world, i.e. according to the “picture” provided by NASA. Only two Soviet scientific vessels that were in the Atlantic Ocean could monitor the takeoff of Saturn 5. So, an hour before takeoff, our ships were surrounded by the American Navy and helicopters, which turned on their jammers at full power.
Kennedy's plans are not destined to come true
Yes, at first the Americans honestly and enthusiastically set out to realize Kennedy's dream. But a few years later, having lost 25 billion, they became convinced that this was not yet possible. We need more weeks, months, years, billions, billions... But the Russian turtles have already flown around the Moon. How could this be explained to taxpayers, to Congress?
And then NASA and the CIA created the Great Cold War Hoax.
Of course, many of us want the Russian tricolor to be the first flag planted on the Moon.
But, most likely, it will be a Chinese flag.
The role of the USSR
Yu. A. Gagarin and S. P. Korolev
One aspect of the "moon conspiracy" theory is also attempts to explain the Soviet Union's recognition of the American landing on the Moon. Proponents of the “moon conspiracy” theory believe that the USSR did not have convincing evidence of NASA fraud, other than incomplete human intelligence data (or that the evidence did not appear immediately). The possibility of a conspiracy between the USSR and the USA to conceal the alleged scam is assumed. The following versions of the reasons are cited that could prompt the USSR to enter into a “lunar conspiracy” with the USA and stop its lunar flyby and lunar landing manned lunar programs in the last steps of implementation:
1. The USSR did not immediately recognize the scam.
2. The leadership of the USSR refused public exposure for the sake of political pressure on the United States (through threats of exposure).
3. In exchange for silence, the USSR could receive economic concessions and privileges, such as supplies of wheat at low prices and access to the Western European oil and gas market. Possible assumptions also include personal gifts to the Soviet leadership.
4. The United States had political dirt on the leadership of the USSR.
Fragment of the program “Postscript” with Alexey Pushkov from November 18, 2017.
Fragment of the program “Postscript” with Alexey Pushkov from 12/09/2017.
Opponents express doubts on all points:
1. The USSR closely monitored the US lunar program both according to open sources and through a wide network of agents. Since falsification (if there was one) would require the participation of thousands of people, among them with a very high probability there would be an agent of the Soviet secret services. In addition, the lunar mission was subject to continuous radio and optical surveillance from various points in the USSR, from ships in the World Ocean and, possibly, from aircraft, and the information received was immediately checked by specialists. In such conditions, it is almost impossible not to notice anomalies in the propagation of radio signals. In addition, there were six missions. Therefore, even if the deception had not been detected immediately, it would have been easily detected later.
2. This would probably have been possible in the 1980s, but not in the conditions of the “Moon Race” and the Cold War. In the USSR and in the World in those years there was euphoria from the successes of the Soviet cosmonautics, which reinforced the thesis, fundamental for the USSR and all Marxist movements, about the “superiority of the socialist system over the capitalist one.” For the USSR, defeat in the “Moon Race” had significant negative ideological consequences both within the country and in the world, but proof of the failure of the United States and falsification (if it really took place) was a very strong trump card in promoting the ideas of Marxism in the world, which would give new breath to communist movements in the West, which by that time began to lose popularity. Against this background, possible bonuses from a “collusion” with the United States would not look very tempting for the USSR. We should not forget that the late 1960s and early 1970s in the United States were marked by a fierce internal political struggle, and if there had been falsification, it could have been exposed by American politicians themselves during the struggle. In this case, the USSR would not have gained anything from its silence.
3. The principle of Occam’s razor applies here. The reasons for the USSR's entry into the Western European oil and gas market have been well studied and to explain them there is no need to involve a possible conspiracy between the USA and the USSR. The price for the supply of wheat to the USSR was, although slightly lower than the exchange market, but this was due to the huge volumes of supplies, self-pickup of products by the Soviet merchant fleet and a payment system favorable to the West. The version about personal gifts is completely doubtful, since in such a vitally important issue for the superpowers, these gifts obviously had to be very valuable. It’s even difficult to guess their content here. In addition, after the collapse of the USSR, information about them would probably become publicly available.
4. Both before the start of the “Moon Race” and after it The United States carried out a continuous and harsh information campaign to discredit the leadership of the USSR, using both real compromising materials and fakes created by the intelligence services. Among state leaders, a kind of “information immunity” to this kind of propaganda has developed and it is unlikely that in such a situation any new materials would have been taken seriously with political consequences for the USSR.
Fragment of the program “Chapman Secrets. What really happened there?” from 06/02/2017
Official position of Russia
Making it clear to the public that there should be no doubt about the truth of the statement about the flights of American astronauts to the Moon, neither the top leadership of the country nor domestic official science, in response to a direct question, provides a single piece of evidence that would eliminate all doubts and become an unconditional confirmation of their correctness positions on this issue.
And if Russia, as one of the leading space powers in the world, and in the 20th century the USSR is a leader in the space race, cannot cite through the lips of its leader or official science a single convincing fact that proves or disproves the flights of American astronauts to the Moon, then all the information about these flights, published in textbooks, scientific and popular science literature, shown in newsreels, posted in the media, the Internet, displayed on postage stamps, badges, coins, etc., is a simple repetition of the version proposed by the Americans and is based either on the naive faith of people into this version, or, most likely, on the fulfillment by the authors of this product of the will of senior state officials.
What Putin says about the moon landing
What is the position of official Russia today on the issue of American astronauts flying to the Moon? This question is best asked to the head of state, who, by virtue of his status, should be better informed than anyone else about the authenticity of this global event.
A. Anisimov: Good afternoon, Vladimir Vladimirovich, my name is Alexey Anisimov, Novosibirsk city. I have a question. Do you think the Americans landed on the Moon, well, landed on the Moon?
V.V. Putin: I think yes.
A. Anisimov: There is a version that...
V.V. Putin: I know this version, but it seems to me that it is impossible to falsify such an event. This is the same as some who claim that on September 11, the Americans themselves blew up these twin towers and they themselves directed the actions of the terrorists. It's complete nonsense! Brad, this is impossible! ...Complete nonsense! The same applies to the moon landing: it is impossible to falsify an event of this scale.
A. Anisimov: Thank you.
V.V. Putin: We can say that Yuri Gagarin did not fly - anything you want can be invented. Meanwhile, let us not forget about this, after all, our compatriot took the first step into space.
What conclusions can be drawn from this dialogue?
First. V.V. Putin knows the version according to which the Americans faked flights to the Moon.
Second. It turned out that V.V. Putin, being the head of state - a pioneer in space exploration, forty years after the flights of American astronauts to the Moon, does not have reliable data that would allow him to unambiguously answer the question posed: yes, American flights to the Moon are reality, their reliability confirm such and such facts.
Third. V.V. Putin, although he had the opportunity to request information confirming or refuting the official version of the flights of American astronauts to the Moon, from the archives of the special services, the foreign policy department and scientific organizations involved in the study of space, but for unknown reasons did not do this, but expressed my point of view as an ordinary citizen who does not always have the opportunity to obtain reliable information from competent sources.
V.V. Putin’s point of view is that American astronauts landed on the Moon, although no new evidence is provided to support this, it just seems to him that it is impossible to falsify an event of such a scale.
But if enough money is allocated, then anything can be falsified. The only problem is the quality of the fake. And the higher the quality, the more likely the falsification will be perceived as reality.
But, as you know, doubts about the reliability of American flights to the Moon arose in the United States immediately after the completion of these flights and were not dispelled for forty years. It is believed that the basis for these doubts was the results of a close study of materials related to the flights of American astronauts to the Moon, but it can be assumed that the primary source of these doubts was a leak of information made intentionally or accidentally by one of the organizers or performers of the lunar flights.
But be that as it may, in reality, in the end V.V. Putin turned out to be right that it is impossible to falsify such an event, and to be more precise, it is impossible to pass off the falsification of such an event as reality.
The response from the highest-ranking official does not contain any new information confirming the presence of American astronauts on the Moon, but only indicates that the head of state has his own personal opinion on this issue, based on indirect data and analogies.
It is surprising that the official, who by his status has access to any information owned by the state, did not provide a single fact, including from competent sources, confirming the authenticity of these flights, although he is familiar with the version of falsification of flights.
Thus, the head of state’s answer to the question of whether the Americans landed on the Moon did not put an end to the dispute about NASA’s possible falsification of manned flights to the Moon.
Roscosmos has no information
Having expressed his opinion on this issue, V.V. Putin outlined the position of the state, namely, the flights to the moon announced by the Americans are true. This position is supported not by facts, but by the authority of the head of state, and, by default, Russian government structures and official science should be guided by this position.
However, having received the idea that flights to the Moon are a reality, Russian government agencies and official science did not receive convincing facts from either NASA or the country’s leadership confirming the reality of these flights to present to the public.
The question of the Americans being on the Moon was raised before V.V. Putin and in 2012.
Thus, V. Grinev in his article “To be or not to be?” ( Newspaper “In Their Own Names”, N14, April 2, 2013) writes:
“In December of last year, a conference was held by Russian President V.V. Putin, at which anyone could ask the head of state a question of interest to him... and I asked the question in writing: “Were the Americans on the Moon or not?” . The question was not voiced on air, but an answer was soon received from the president’s reception that my question had been accepted and sent to Roscosmos. After some time, a response was received from Roscosmos signed by the Chief Scientific Secretary of the NTS A.G. Milovanov. …Turns out, “Roscosmos does not have information confirming your point of view regarding the American landing on the Moon”. ...You can understand A.G. Milovanov’s answer from two angles: either A.G. Milovanov really does not know about the landing (or non-landing) of Americans on the Moon - which is impossible to believe, or A.G. Milovanov, for one reason or another - what’s more likely is that he didn’t consider it necessary to be frank with me.”
At first glance, it would seem that the right decision was made - to transfer this issue to the relevant department dealing with space issues. But neither Roscosmos nor its predecessors participated in NASA’s program to send a man to the Moon and, accordingly, do not bear any responsibility for the accuracy of reports about these flights. Therefore, formally, Roscosmos cannot have information either confirming or refuting the landing of American astronauts on the Moon.
Of course, an agency such as Roscosmos can be imagined as an expert whose activities are most closely related to the issue under discussion and which, by dealing with space issues, can resolve a long-standing dispute. However, as can be seen from the excerpt from the letter from the Chief Scientific Secretary of the NTS of Roscosmos, Roscosmos is not an expert on this issue. And how can he take on such a role when such famous cosmonauts as G.M. Grechko and A.A. Leonov, who has no doubts about the flights of American astronauts to the Moon, allows the Americans to carry out additional filming of “lunar episodes” in the studio.
The question arises: where should the question about the reliability of the lunar expedition be directed? Without a doubt, to the foreign intelligence service (formerly the KGB of the USSR) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. During the Cold War, employees of these departments successfully obtained information important for the security of our country (atomic weapons, military-technical developments, the enemy’s military potential, etc.). It is impossible to imagine that such strategically important information as the first manned flight to the Moon would go unnoticed by these departments.
However, as follows from the above article, the task of confirming or denying the presence of American astronauts on the Moon is placed before Roscosmos, as if the duties of this agency or its predecessors included determining the reliability of information provided by other states in the field of space exploration.
Roscosmos is formally right in answering that it does not have information confirming the falsification of the landing of American astronauts on the Moon. Firstly, Roscosmos officially could not obtain such information from any sources (from senior management, other ministries and departments, foreign states and citizens), Secondly, the task of analyzing and assessing the reliability of information about the flights of American astronauts to the Moon was not set before Roscosmos.
The response from Roscosmos does not refute, but also does not prove, the version accepted by the state that flights of American astronauts to the Moon actually took place.
It would probably be more correct to ask Roscosmos to present evidence confirming the flights of American astronauts to the Moon. But since V.V. Putin cited only one indirect argument as confirmation of these flights, then, apparently, for Roscosmos it would be a problematic task to prove the presence of American astronauts on the Moon.
Voluntary moratorium on the dissemination of information about these flights will allow not to “lose face” and preserve the scientific authority of the authors of works on the flights of American astronauts to the Earth’s natural satellite in the event of receiving direct evidence of the falsification of lunar expeditions by the Americans.
Chinese scientists refute US lunar mission
Chinese scientists began exploring the Moon not so long ago. And the first practical results were obtained about 10 years ago, when the research apparatus was launched “ Chang'e-1"to the Earth's satellite. Over the course of a year, Chang'e 1 collected and transmitted data. These were photographs of the surface, from which a three-dimensional map was subsequently formed.
The second launched device studied a certain area of the Moon, where it was planned to land the next lunar module called “ Chang'e-3" in 2013. China has become the third country in the world to successfully land a research vehicle on the surface of the earth's satellite. However, for technical reasons the module was unable to complete all tasks.
In addition, Chinese scientists are constantly monitoring the space object using modern telescopes and equipment. The purpose of these studies is a detailed study of the surface of the Moon, as well as the search for a landing site for US astronauts. Parts of the proposed American lunar landing site were photographed, as well as an area within a radius of 50 kilometers around.
During these observations, it was possible to examine the lunar craters in detail. Even traces of impacts from large meteorites were visible. The giant Red Star telescope was aimed precisely at the place that, according to NASA documents, is listed as the area where the American lunar module was left after the Apollo expedition. However, the landing stages of the American spacecraft, as well as the Stars and Stripes, never came to the attention of scientists.
Based on the research, Chinese representatives made a statement on the official website of the Chinese Space Agency that the Americans have not been to the Moon.
This caused a strong reaction from the public, due to the fact that many do not believe in flights of astronauts from America to the Moon.
Fragment of the program “Postscript” with Alexey Pushkov from 12/01/2018.
The big US space lie about the moon landing
Russia has been and remains a leading space power. But at the same time, she literally has to survive in a serious struggle for orbit. Those who are commonly called “our Western partners” directly declare their superiority in space. And they try to achieve this superiority by all available means. Dozens of military satellites are being launched into the sky, announcing missile threats and preparing to fly to Mars. At the same time, the struggle is not always fair. For example, Russian cosmonauts in foreign blockbusters are shown as unshaven men in earflaps. Or they completely forget about their existence. At the same time, Americans fly into space using Russian engines and undergo training at Russian cosmonautics centers. So who is the boss in orbit?
Video from the Zvezda TV channel from 10/08/2018 │ “Hidden threats” with Nikolai Chindyaykin
At the end of last week, American scientists released data according to which the majority of participants in manned flights to the Moon died from severe cardiovascular diseases, while for other astronauts this cause of death is much less common. According to researchers, this is a consequence of the radiation dose received in space. The news caused a mixed reaction, and the debate about the reliability of NASA's lunar program flared up again. At the request of the Life editors, Vitaly Egorov, popularizer of astronautics and press secretary of the Dauria Aerospace company, spoke about the main misconceptions and stereotypes that constantly accompany many discussions about people on the Moon.
NASA, of course, had pavilions with a mock-up of the lunar module and an imitation of the lunar surface. There was a test site where lunar craters were simulated. But all this was created and used to train astronauts, so that unusual conditions would be more familiar to them and allow them to work more efficiently. This is a normal stage of preparation for any mission. In the same way, Soviet lunar rover drivers trained at the training ground in Crimea and on the volcanoes of Kamchatka. And not in order to fake pictures from the Moon, but to be prepared for what awaits them there. Those images that are officially listed as lunar are actually taken on the Moon and can be analyzed for consistency with satellite images of the lunar surface.
The myth “they filmed in a pavilion” is adhered to by many Russian cosmonauts and space specialists who have no doubt about the authenticity of the American flights to the Moon. Our cosmonauts say: “They flew, but some details of the landing could have been filmed on Earth and shown just for clarity - what it was like there.” In my opinion, this position is partly forced, as our specialists protect themselves from the need to explain all sorts of controversial aspects of photo and video shooting with a waving flag or the absence of stars in the sky and the like.
2. The flag is waving, but the stars are not visible
A frequently encountered argument in discussions, which, in the opinion of its arguers, should prove a conspiracy. But, firstly, actually flying to the Moon and filming the Moon landing are two different things, and one does not exclude the second. Secondly, you need to know the conditions on the surface a little better and watch videos and photos more carefully. As for the flag, everything is simple, the astronaut just waves it with his hand. If you watch not five seconds of filming of the flag installation, but take a longer recording - they are all now published on the YouTube video service - then you can see a direct connection between the “draft” and the astronaut who approaches the flag. He grabbed the flag - the wind rose, let go of the flag - the wind died down. And so on several times.
As for the stars that are not in the photo from the Moon, this can also be explained simply: they landed during the day. Although the sky on the Moon is black, the cameras were set to shoot in daytime conditions, because the brightness of the Sun on the Moon is even higher than on Earth. If you look at the footage taken on the International Space Station, you will also not see stars in the black sky if the filming was carried out on the sunny side of the Earth.
3. Films with video recording of the first landing disappeared
This myth has some basis, although it does not fully correspond to reality. All photographs and videos taken by cameras on the lunar surface by the Apollo 11 expedition have been preserved and have now been published. The footage of the live television broadcast, which was conducted from the Moon to the NASA receiving station and distributed to various television studios, was re-recorded. Since everyone already saw the television broadcast, and the recordings of these frames were stored in television studios, NASA did not particularly value the magnetic reels with the broadcast in its archives and lightly re-recorded them when such a need arose in the 80s.
They only realized it in the 2000s: as it turned out, the recordings at television studios remained with a great loss of quality, while NASA stations received a higher-quality signal. The broadcast sources were never found, so they tried to improve the quality with the help of specialists from Hollywood. Therefore, Hollywood now officially took part in the preparation of recordings of the lunar landing, and this is openly written on the NASA website. However, this does not cast doubt on the fact of the first landing and the five subsequent ones, the records of which were no longer lost.
4. After the completion of the lunar program, the Saturn 5 rocket disappeared without a trace.
A myth based on the fact that it is now impossible to resume production of this rocket, since all the performers and contractors of this system have long disappeared or changed their direction of activity. In addition, the difference in the capabilities of the rocket of the 60s, which launched 140 tons into low Earth orbit, and modern rockets, whose record is only 28 tons, is very surprising.
The Saturn 5 itself has not disappeared; NASA has two samples of the rocket, which are located in the museums of the Space Center. Johnson (Houston) and Kennedy Space Center (Cape Canaveral). Plus, there are several dozen F1 engines, which provided the outstanding capabilities of the rocket. Now NASA has a small group that is engaged in reverse engineering: based on surviving samples, it develops a new version of the engine using modern technologies. But this work is not a high priority because NASA has engines that are superior to the F1 in a number of ways.
In a similar way, the Soviet N1 and Energia missiles “disappeared.” Now, if there is a conversation in Russia about creating a super-heavy rocket, they talk about work practically from scratch, and not a return to the Soviet legacy.
The most important contribution of the lunar program remained in the form of the enormous experience of US space technology developers, who were able to translate it into the Space Shuttle program. If NASA's entire lunar program took place in Hollywood, then America simply would not be physically able to implement the space shuttle program. Let me remind you that if you count the shuttle itself, the Space Shuttle system launched up to 90 tons into low Earth orbit.
5. Now America doesn’t have its own rocket engines, which means it didn’t have them before
The successful sale of Russian RD-180 and RD-181 engines in the United States created a misconception among some Russians that America had forgotten how, or even did not know how, to make rocket engines.
Here, too, it is easy to dispel doubts with two simple facts: the most powerful Delta IV Heavy rocket to date is American, and it is equipped with American RS-68 engines.
These engines are oxygen-hydrogen and are inherited from the Space Shuttle program. Their problem is their high cost, so it is more profitable for the United States to buy Russian ones.
The most powerful rocket engines of our time - more powerful than the F1 and RD-171 - are solid propellant SRBs, which also remained from the shuttle. The SRB is now being installed on the new super-heavy rocket SLS, which should launch 70 tons into low Earth orbit. SRBs were the reason why NASA did not resurrect the F1.
For more applied tasks such as launching satellites or supplying the ISS, the United States uses both Russian engines and the American Merlin from SpaceX.
6. Taking off from the Moon requires a rocket and a spaceport, but they weren’t there.
Actually they were. The lunar landing module was not only a means of soft landing, but also a take-off device. The upper part of the module was not only a cabin for astronauts, but also a launch rocket, and the lower part of the landing module acted as a cosmodrome.
To launch from the surface of the Moon and enter lunar orbit, much less energy is required than to launch from Earth, since there is less gravity, no atmospheric resistance, and a small payload mass, which is why large rockets can be dispensed with.
7. All lunar soil has disappeared or is being carefully hidden by NASA
During six lunar landings, astronauts were able to collect and deliver 382 kilograms of lunar samples. Most are now stored at the Lunar Sample Laboratory in Houston. About 300 kilograms are now truly inaccessible for research: they are stored in a nitrogen atmosphere so that terrestrial conditions, primarily atmospheric oxygen, do not lead to changes and destruction of the samples. At the same time, about 80 kilograms of samples are available for study by scientists around the world, including Russian ones, and if desired, one can find scientific publications that compare lunar meteorites, samples from Soviet stations and samples delivered by Apollo astronauts.
In Russia, anyone can see a few grains of lunar soil at the Memorial Museum of Cosmonautics in Moscow. There is both Soviet and American lunar soil.
Some soil samples delivered by the Apollo program were indeed stolen or disappeared into museums and institutions, but this is a small percentage of the total amount of lunar rocks and dust delivered.
For those interested in the topic, I can recommend a photo report by the young Russian cosmonaut Sergei Kud-Sverchkov, who visited the Lunar Sample Laboratory excursions and posted photographs on his blog.
8. Cosmic radiation should kill everyone
Today the press often discusses cosmic radiation along the way. In the context of these conversations, the question is raised about how people flew to the Moon if radiation is so dangerous.
To understand the difference in flight conditions, it is worth remembering that a flight to Mars takes a year and a half, and a flight to the Moon under the Apollo program takes less than two weeks. If you carefully study the results of studies of the influence of cosmic radiation during a flight to Mars, you can find out that during 500 days of flight an astronaut will receive a dose approximately one and a half times higher than the permissible dose.exposure level. If for astronauts this level corresponds to a 3 percent increase in the threat of cancer, then a flight to Mars already provides 5 percent of this threat. By comparison, smokers increase their risk of cancer by 20 percent.
The design of the spacecraft should also be taken into account. The lunar module did not have additional radiation protection, but its skin included an aluminum body, a hermetic shell, and multilayer thermal protection, which created an additional shield from cosmic particles. However, only 40 percent of the lunar module area directly protected pilots from space conditions. In other areas of the surface they were additionally covered by a multi-meter service compartment with equipment and rocket fuel and a landing module.
We should not forget about the Soviet and then Russian experiments on studying cosmic radiation. Now the Phantom and Matryoshka experiments are being implemented on the ISS, and the Phantom flew to the Moon in Zond-7, which made it possible to assess the degree of damage to humans by streams of cosmic particles. In general, the conclusions are encouraging: if there are no solar flares, then you can fly. If it were not possible, then Roscosmos probably would not be working on the lunar program for the end of the 2020s and would not be making plans to build a lunar base.
Political leaders of the USSR immediately congratulated the United States on its successful lunar program, and Russian cosmonauts and scientists still express confidence in the reality of landing people on the Moon. Conspiracy believers have to explain this somehow in order to remain committed to their idea. And so the idea was born that the USSR was also in the conspiracy. As arguments in favor of a conspiracy, facts from the history of our countries that relate to the period of détente of international tension are usually cited: arms limitation, trade cooperation, the Soyuz-Apollo program.
Despite the fact that the Soviet Union has no longer existed for a quarter of a century, there is, of course, no documentary evidence of any of its participation in the Moon conspiracy. Moreover, not a single piece of evidence has appeared from contemporaries that could confirm the fact of such a conspiracy. Although now, it would seem, nothing stands in the way of bringing the Americans to clean water.
10. No one saw traces of astronauts on the Moon, and the “landing site” is forbidden to be examined and studied
The most powerful modern telescopes on Earth are unable to see traces of the lunar landing. They can see surface features measuring 80-100 meters, which is much larger than the size of the lunar module. The only way to see the lunar modules and astronaut tracks is to send a satellite to the Moon or a lunar rover to the surface.
Over the past 15 years, satellites from Europe, India, Japan, China, and the USA have been sent to the Moon. But only the NASA LRO satellite was able to see it more or less qualitatively. The detail of his images is up to 30 centimeters, it allows you to see the lunar modules, scientific equipment on the surface, paths trodden by astronauts, and traces of lunar rovers.
Satellites of India and Japan tried to examine traces of American landings, but the detail of their cameras at 5-10 meters did not allow them to see anything. The only thing that was possible was to identify the so-called halo - a spot of light soil that arose from the impact of the rocket engines of the landing stages. Japanese scientists, using stereo photography, were able to recreate the landscapes of the landing sites, and they showed full compliance with what is visible in the astronauts’ photographs: large craters, mountains, plains, faults. In the 60s there was no such technology, so it would not have been possible to simulate the landscape in the pavilion.
In 2007, the Google Lunar X PRIZE competition was announced for the development of a private lunar rover, which must reach the Moon and cover a certain distance. The winner should be paid up to $30 million. The competition offers an additional $2 million Legacy Award to the team whose rover can photograph one of the Apollo lunar modules or Lunokhods. Fearing that hordes of private robots will rush to historic landing sites, NASA has issued recommendations not to get too close to the landing sites, so as not to trample the astronauts' footprints and damage historical monuments. Currently, only one of the competition teams has announced that they are going to take a look at the Apollo 17 landing site.
In 2015, a group of space engineers appeared in Russia who undertook to develop a microsatellite capable of reaching the Moon and photographing the Apollo landing sites, Soviet Lunas and Lunokhods with a quality exceeding NASA LRO. Funding for the first part of the work was sought through crowdfunding. There are no funds yet to continue the work, but the developers do not intend to stop and hope for the support of large private investors or the state.
