Selling A Bridge In Brooklyn

I am increasingly coming to the opinion that most of what we know about the Apollo Moon landings is a fraud.  This is not to say that I am convinced no one went to the Moon, only that the public spectacle was staged all or in part.

As soon as I was able to rationally take apart an argument, say around 12 or 13 years old, I began to question certain aspects of the Apollo landings.  There were things that didn't make sense, or were at least unclear, such as how the "moonsuits" exchanged heat in a vacuum.

I dismissed most of this as idle speculation.  Being a child of the 60s, I practically idolized astronauts and voraciously consumed every tidbit that escaped the NASA PR machine.  It was all so amazing and exciting.  Yet, it was the PR aspects and the amazement generated that eventually led me to question what I had seen even more deeply.

As I grew older, I developed a very healthy and abiding distrust of anything a government said or did.  There was the constant finger-pointing at Soviet media with the mantra that it was all propaganda.  If the Soviets could do it, I reasoned, so could the US.  Further study of Leni Riefenstahl's films for the Nazi regime

I came to the conclusion that all mass media was little more than cheerleading for whatever government it served.  When I read the theories of Edward Bernays, and the ability of media to influence behavior and beliefs, I began to see the mechanics of the media in action every time I sat in front of the TeeVee.

Once I began my career in media, I not only saw, but learned how to do it and made a decent living doing it.  However, the better I go at it, the less I consumed it, and finally, the more I questioned anything I had ever seen in the media.

And that, despite my early indoctrination - especially through the space program - led me to carefully research any and all assumptions I made, figuring a vast amount of my beliefs were pounded into my brain through the media.

Ultimately, I have been forced to give up one of my sacred cows: the belief that everything the public was told about the space program and the Moon landings was false from top to bottom.

I haven't given up my conclusion that someone went to the Moon, but the story and images we were fed in the public were primarily fabricated for mass consumption.  The strongest argument in favor of this view is simply that the US could not afford to fail because, 1) the amount of money spent had to be justified to the public with results, 2) the geopolitical war for hearts and minds against the Soviet Union had to be won, and 3) a strong cover story for the real space program had to be concocted .

The Apollo program consumed US$29.3 billion by 1972, when the program was cancelled.  That would be well over US$120 billion today.  Furthermore, the public goal of reaching the Moon by 1969, combined with the massive pressure to defeat the Soviets in the propaganda wars would have made a successful landing mandatory.  An accident would have delayed the program at least a year, as the Apollo 1 fire did, and a failure to meet the public goals would have meant Congressional hearings and investigations into where all that money went.

The Cold War was one of pure ideology.  A Soviet success, particularly the "first-evers", was a major defeat for the Capitalists.  If the Soviets were perceived to have a better system than the West by dint of their technological wizardry, it was seen as a defeat for the "free" world which obviously could not compete.  This was seen as dangerous for its ability to attract other nations into the Soviet sphere of influence.  This was unthinkable in the US weltanschauung.

In the end, though, the public space program was a necessary cover for the real space program.  Showing the public the "current" state-of-the-art in space travel made for plausible denial of the much more exciting, but highly secretive technology in use by the "dark" programs.

It is a fact publicly acknowledged that NASA operated two space programs.  On the one side were the "space planes" like the X-15 that were close to achieving orbit (if they hadn't already).  On the other hand, there was the rocket program that was less elegant and more brutish, but if everyone believed that was the only way to get "out there", then the US' enemies would put all their efforts into building their own rockets, rather than competing with simple and reusable planes.

The cover story aspect also explains why the public space programs of the world have not progressed beyond low Earth orbit (LEO) in the last 50 years.  Despite the fact that space technology was born practically overnight in historical terms, it has virtually stalled in the last half-century.  By convincing the public that rockets were the "only" answer to achieving orbit, no one would believe that more advanced and exotic propulsion existed, and would keep the world focused in the wrong direction while the real tech was developed.

Once we accept that three very powerful motivations existed to falsify the public record, then everything else becomes suspect.  Money, humiliation and ideological failure would make any government seriously consider falsifying huge events, since it is well established that swallowing huge lies is much easier than small ones, as we have clearly seen with the JFK assassination and the 9/11 attacks, which provide historical bookends to the Apollo program.

Having decided that the public spectacle of Apollo would have had to be faked, due to the tremendous pressures placed on it, then it is only a matter of analyzing the evidence, looking for the "seams" in the fabric.

The are many eloquent and detailed investigations out there that detail all the various evidence for fakery. Everything from the laws of physics to photographic retouching have been put forward.  The only response from NASA is either silence or a condescending snicker at the "absurdity" of such a thing.  However, neither of these responses is an answer, only a dismissal.

Certainly, the behavior of the 12 men who comprised the faces of the "Man on the Moon," is telling in its own right.  The public and private statements and actions from Gus Grissom and Neil Armstrong to Ed Mitchell and Pete Conrad do little to allay suspicions, and in some cases appear to purposely increase them.

As for NASA, they have done little but present some fuzzy orbital photos of the "landing" sites and have dared the world to set foot near those sites.  That sounds more like an agency covering something up, rather than celebrating a magnificent triumph.

If you still cling to the fantasy of NASA's Apollo program, then consider this: the RS-18 ascent rocket used on the return part of the lander produced 3,500 pound-feet of thrust using Aerozine-50 fuel with N2O4 oxidizer in a hypergolic reaction.  The engine had no throttle.  The astronauts stood at their stations with no support of any kind.

When that RS-18 rocket lit up, the astronauts would have been flattened against the floor for at least a few seconds during acceleration.    Furthermore, Aerozine-50 and N2O4 produce thick red clouds of exhaust when combined.  Watch any of the videos showing the LM launching from the Moon and listen to the audio, as well.  The astronauts are not flattened against the floor.  In fact, they don't even grunt trying to resist the force of acceleration.  Nor do the ascent videos show any sign of thick red smoke, or even exhaust of any kind.

I have very little doubt that people have been and continue to go to the Moon.  However, I find little convincing evidence that the Apollo program that the public was fed had anything to do with the events they purport to document.

Unraveling the Apollo Lie is the first step in trying to figure out what is really going on in space.  I imagine the answer is likely far more mind-blowing than most of us are ready to accept all at once.