April 26, 2016

Lunar Landings or Looney Tunes?

Regarded as the apex of human achievement, the landing of men on the moon by NASA, nevertheless, remains under shadows of doubt, almost half a century later. Therefore, 
the question must confront any seeker of truth: did men land on the moon or was it all staged, as a growing body of skeptics believe?

I don't intend to go over all the technical arguments in favor of, and against, the proposition that the moon-landings were faked. There are some very strong arguments that would prove that the trip to the moon and the landings and the walk-abouts could not have taken place. Such things as the Van Allen radiation belts that circle the Earth, and would be fatal to humans crossing them without adequate shielding. The absolute lack of any stars in the background of the thousands of photos taken 'on the moon.' The lack of debris and dust thrown up by the landing and take-off of the lunar landing module. The intersecting shadows that indicate multiple light sources. And on it goes!

To every argument advanced by the skeptics, apologists for NASA have supplied counter-arguments and alternative 'explanations' that rely heavily on the weight of authority.

In the end, an agnostic onlooker is still left wondering what is the truth. I have tried to find another line of logic in assessing the claims of both sides. It seems to me that one has to examine the human elements, and judge their relevance and validity.

To begin with, why is there doubt over the NASA claims in the first place? Could it be because the government has lied about so many things that the lunar-landing claims are just too 'over the moon' to swallow? Is it because there are numerous unavoidable holes in the story that make it very suspicious? For example, what about the Van Allen radiation-- how did they solve the problem? And go outside on a clear night, away from city lights, and the sky is a spectacle of dense star-light; yet not one moon photo shows a star. How do you make film that responds to 'foreground light' but not to the background?

For me, the demeanor of the astronauts themselves casts serious doubts about the whole enterprise. Consider the men who, we are told, landed on the moon. This is the most stupendous accomplishment of the human race (we are told); so you would expect the heroes to be transformed in obvious and positive ways. Yet, when you see interviews of them, and so on, they look and act strangely subdued, sullen even; anything but elated. In one classic video, Armstrong takes an angry swing at a pundit who questions whether the landing really took place! You have to wonder-- is this the conduct of men who took part in mankind's greatest achievement?

Wouldn't you expect that one of these heroes who went to the moon would have written a book about their experience... and it would be an all-time best seller? Did any of them write a book? I'm not aware of any, and I've looked into the subject more than the average TV zombie. (I could have missed it, but that just proves my point-- where's the block-buster story?) These are not men who have touched infinity; they are men who are hiding an unspeakable truth!

If that human element isn't convincing enough, just consider what happened subsequent to the alleged landings. Remember, the last mission, Apollo 17, took place in 1972. That's 44 years ago as of this writing! Four decades later, and what? Shouldn't we have built bases on the moon by now? Shouldn't mankind have, at least, gone back once again? Instead, what has occurred?

NASA suddenly decided to forget about the moon, and instead, to launch 'shuttles' to manned satellites in low Earth orbit (i.e. below the radiation belts). Even in this modest endeavor, there have been two deadly crashes of shuttles, with the loss of all crew members. Now the shuttle program has been shelved, too. The history of US space efforts in the last 40 years is a litany of technical failures offset by remarkably modest successes. Yet, we're told that they were able to send men to the moon-- and return them-- in 1969!

A few years ago, NASA launched, with nary a trace of embarrassment, a new lunar probe, which, they stated with no hint of irony, was intended to be crashed onto the moon's surface. Did you get that? The company that 'landed men on the moon,' now 41 years later, can do no better than crash a vehicle into the lunar soil! How can they say these things with a straight face? Not only that, but shortly after launch, they had to announce that there was some kind of malfunction that would have to be fixed over subsequent weeks as the vehicle moved in widening orbit around the Earth.

Folks, these people can hardly get a probe in proper working trajectory, and land it gently on the moon, 40+ years after the last supposed 'moon walk!' Does that make sense to you? Sure, they have succeeded in landing robot explorers on Mars-- I grant them that. But Mars has an atmosphere, which allows the use of parachutes and aerodynamic effects to assist with landings. In fact, why did they switch interest to Mars, when the logical next step in space travel is our moon?

Before the American achievement, the Soviet Union had launched the first Earth satellite (Sputnik, 1957), then the first living creature, a dog, into space, then the first man to orbit the Earth, and several other 'firsts' in space travel. NASA was having trouble trying to duplicate these feats, and did not have booster rockets with the lifting capacity of the Soviets. Yet, before the end of the 60's, NASA, as in a true patriotic Hollywood drama, somehow got three men to the moon and back. Amazing! Or rather, unbelievable.

One argument anti-skeptics raise in favor of the NASA story, is that the Russians would have exposed the US if the landings had been faked. On the surface, that sounds plausible. At the time, the USA and USSR were engaged in an ostensible 'space race,' each trying to demonstrate scientific superiority to the world. One problem is that Soviet criticism of US claims would have appeared as sour grapes, and unless they had robust proof of such allegations, the criticism could have back-fired. No doubt they were mindful of the PR blow-back problem. There are likely other, behind-the-scenes reasons why the Russians decided it was best to say nothing, perhaps to 'earn credits' for possible later hoaxes of their own. Who knows? Logically, they likely believed that the story would fall apart under the weight of its lies... but they underestimated the power of the Western media to fabricate reality.

Another popular defence position is that the numerous people involved in the space programs would all have to keep the hoax a secret all these years, which is highly unlikely. Again, it sounds reasonable. Yet, only a relatively few, key NASA individuals would have to know the truth; the other mission control operatives could have believed it was genuine. Those who produced the faked films and photos would have had to keep the secret, but it was in their 'best interests' to do so, especially once the story became a glowing part of US history. For the astronauts themselves, it appears that hiding the truth over their lifetimes was/is a burden that weighs on their consciences.

In the end, when I look at the arguments against the landings, and the spectacular lack of subsequent successes in space, and the shift of focus away from the moon, and the strange sullenness of the primary heroes of this epic, I am driven to conclude that, in fact, the vaunted moon missions were a giant, cold-war public relations project, hatched by the US government 'intelligence' agencies, and carried out by leading-edge, cinematic and communications agents. (In fact, much evidence points to the engagement of famed movie-maker Stanley Kubrick, as the guiding hand behind the faked video footage.)
Until coming to this conclusion, I used to believe that the explosive events of Sept. 11, 2001 represented the greatest trick of magick in modern history; but now I have to revise my thinking, and place the faked moon-landings at the top of the list. What do you think-- was it a modern marvel in space, or more fakery from the master manipulators?

Additional material:

Also, the book: One Small Step? - The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate the Earth from Space, by Gerhard Wisnewski.

No comments:

Post a Comment