The Falsification of History: Our Distorted Reality

by John Hamer

  The most striking aspect of the photograph above though is not so much how a craft seemingly put together with duct tape, tarpaulin and bits of aluminium foil can perform such technologically advanced feats, but how did it manage to carry all the equipment and accessories that was necessary for it to carry in order to keep two human beings alive for three days in the most inhospitable environment man has allegedly ever visited?

  According to NASA’s own data, the lunar modules were only 12 feet in diameter. This being the case, how was it possible to accommodate all the navigational guidance equipment (in the 1960s of course, this would have been extremely bulky) and then there would have been the power supplies, the reverse thruster for landing and the powerful rocket motor required for take-off again? There would also need to be several other smaller rocket thrusters for stabilisation purposes, the massive amounts of fuel required to feed the rocket engines, especially upon take-off to accelerate enough to break-free of the moon’s gravity despite the fact that it is only 1/6th that of Earth. There would in addition need to be plenty of equipment just to sustain life for two people for several days and provide some home comforts such as places to sleep, waste management facilities, food and water supplies, oxygen for three days for two people, the list just goes on and on. The oxygen tanks in the space suits would have also needed a recharge system to enable the surface-walks to take place over a concerted period of time. A back-up oxygen system may also be needed because no chances could have been taken.

  The astronauts in addition to all of the above would also have desperately needed an air conditioning system, both in their suits and in the module itself, the capabilities of which would have to be seen to be believed. Consider this; the surface of the moon is subject to some incredible temperature swings. It can be +125pC in sunlight and -170pC in the shade with very little variation in-between these two extremes, so in the sunshine a human would be boiled alive and in the shade would be frozen solid in minutes. In order to cope with these extremes, the space-suits worn by the Apollo astronauts would have had to have technology light-years beyond what we have today, never mind in the 1960s. Also I think it quite pertinent to point out that air-conditioning systems in order to function correctly need a decent supply of air, the clue is in the name really and unfortunately air is a commodity which is apparently in fairly short supply on the moon, last time I checked. An air conditioner cannot possibly work in a vacuum. A space suit surrounded by a vacuum cannot transfer heat from the inside of the suit to anywhere else. A vacuum, as you may remember from school physics lessons, is a perfect insulator and therefore anyone would roast alive in his suit under such circumstances.

  But we are not even finished there. The mission would also require equipment to maintain the ‘ship’ and to provide it with essential spares, for emergencies. And then there would be all the testing and portable lab kits that they used to conduct experiments on the moon’s surface plus storage space for all the hundreds of pounds of moon rock that was allegedly brought back and which reportedly sits in hundreds of museums and scientific institutes around the world. The latter visits to the moon were also equipped with the ‘moon rover’. This in itself was over ten feet long with four wheels larger than the standard car wheels of today – how did they get it in, I really do wonder? Well, according to NASA itself, this beast (below) actually folded-up to be the size of a large suitcase! Can anyone with even a semi-functioning brain really accept this abject nonsense?

  The Lunar Rover – which, according to NASA folds neatly into a suitcase.

  But last and definitely not least, the astronauts would have needed power – and lots of it. The only way that the ship and its vital functions could be powered whilst it was on the moon’s surface would be with batteries, likewise anything else that needed a power supply, the life support system, the lights, the communications system, the television cameras and transmitters, the lunar rovers, the suits etc. etc. As it would also not be possible to recharge any of the batteries then they would have needed some pretty huge and powerful ones at that and these all have to be found a place in the severely restricted space on board that tiny module.

  It is also important to acknowledge that, unlike the initial launch on Earth, which involved the collective, sustained efforts of thousands of technicians of all levels and the use of many types of peripheral computer and monitoring equipment, the astronauts leaving the Moon had only themselves and some completely untested-in-that-environment, assorted ironmongery, cables and plastic upon which to rely. I personally cannot imagine how uncomfortable and scary it must have felt to be on the surface of the moon for a few days performing experiments and hopping and skipping around the place in a seemingly carefree, happy-go-lucky manner, wondering that if or when the time came, whether that completely untested contraption would actually get me back home all the way from the Moon, or even back the 70 vertical miles to the rendezvous point with the command module. Fortunately though, the completely untested-in-the-conditions-prevailing-on-the-moon lunar module worked perfectly first time and with no need for modifications or last minute hitches, despite the literally, alien environment in which it was being utilised.

  Today of course, NASA cannot even launch a highly technically-advanced space shuttle from Earth without occasional disasters, even though they have since modified their ambitions considerably. After all, sending spacecraft into low-Earth orbit (400 miles return) is infinitely more straightforward than sending spacecraft all the way to the distant Moon and back (470,000 miles). It would seem that although technology has advanced immeasurably since the Apollo Moon landings that tellingly, NASA has hugely downgraded its ambitions in space and now has a significantly worse safety record than in the 1960s, despite that downgrade.

  In 2005, NASA made this incredible statement:

  “NASA's vision for space exploration calls for a return to the Moon as preparation for even longer journeys to Mars and beyond, but there is a potential showstopper: radiation. Space beyond low-Earth orbit is awash with intense radiation from the Sun and from deep galactic sources such as supernovas. …Finding a good shield is important”. NASA spokesman, 24th June 2005

  Do they really expect us to believe that it was possible to perform the Apollo missions in the 1960s and 1970s but now, more than forty years further down the line it has suddenly become impossible to leave the vicinity of the Earth because of space radiation? Did the technology to overcome this problem then exist in 1969-72 but has been somehow, inexplicably lost or forgotten or did the Apollo missions not actually take place as described? This statement narrows down the options somewhat, I am sure you would agree. If ‘finding a good shield’ is as indeed important as I believe it most certainly is, then why can they not just simply use the technology that was deployed on the Apollo craft? No-one died at the time and certainly none of the astronauts subsequently suffered from radiation-induced problems in any way that I am aware of.

  Lead is the usual method of choice for radiation-shielding, but the issue is that lead is so heavy and impractical for use in anything but static situations on Earth. Attempting to build spaceships with a four feet thick lead encasement is far from practical as the Russians themselves discovered when they calculated that this was in fact the only way that they could penetrate the Van Allen Radiation Belts with a human cargo in the 1960s. Maybe this was why they simply ‘gave-up’ on the race to be first to the moon?

  We will now turn our attention to the photographs asserted to have been taken on the moon by the intrepid Apollo astronauts. In actuality the very existence of the photographs is a technical impossibility. Unfortunately it would simply not have been possible to capture any of the images allegedly shot on the Moon in the manner that NASA describes them to have been obtained. In the 1960s, camera technology was very limited in comparison to today’s and the cameras used by the astronauts, Hasselblads, although they were probably the best and most sophisticated on the market at that time, the simple fact is that they were incapable of gene
rating the images claimed to have been taken on the moon, under the circumstances in which they were supposedly taken.

  Cameras of those far-off times before micro-chip technology were not very ‘intelligent’, so every function had to be performed manually. The photographer had to manually focus each shot by squinting through the viewfinder and rotating the lens until the scene came into focus. The correct aperture and shutter speeds had to be manually selected for each shot also, in order to ensure the correct exposure time for the circumstances. This also required peering through the viewfinder, to meter the shot. Finally, each shot had to be properly composed and framed, which obviously also required looking through the viewfinder.

  The problem for the astronauts was that the cameras were mounted on their chests, which made it completely and utterly impossible to see through the viewfinder to meter, frame and focus the shots. Everything, therefore, was total guesswork and focusing would have been entirely guesswork also, as would the framing of each shot. An experienced photographer can fairly accurately estimate the exposure settings, but the astronauts lacked this experience and they were also doubly handicapped by the fact that they were viewing the scenes through heavily tinted visors, which meant that what they were seeing was not what the camera was focusing upon.

  To add to their not inconsiderable problems, they were wearing space helmets that seriously restricted their field of vision, along with enormously bulky, pressurised gloves that severely limited their hand and finger movements. The odds therefore of them getting even one of those three elements (exposure, focus and framing) correct under the prevailing conditions on any given shot would have been exceedingly low and yet, amazingly enough, on the overwhelming majority of the photos, they got all three right.

  “For those who don’t find that at all unusual, here is an experiment that you can try at home: grab the nearest 35MM SLR camera and strap it around your neck. It is probably an automatic camera so you will have to set it for manual focus and manual exposure. Now you will need to put on the thickest pair of winter gloves that you can find, as well as a motorcycle helmet with a visor. Once you have done all that, here is your assignment: walk around your neighborhood with the camera pressed firmly to your chest and snap a bunch of photos. You will need to fiddle with the focus and exposure settings, of course, which is going to be a real bitch since you won’t be able to see or feel what you are doing. Also, needless to say, you’ll just have to guess on the framing of all the shots. You should probably use a digital camera, by the way, so that you don’t waste a lot of film, because you’re not going to have a lot of ‘keepers’. Of course, part of the fun of this challenge is changing the film with the gloves and helmet on, and you’ll miss out on that by going digital. Anyway, after you fill up your memory card, head back home and download all your newly captured images. While looking through your collection of unimpressive photos, marvel at the incredible awesomeness of our Apollo astronauts, who not only risked life and limb to expand man’s frontiers, but who were also amazingly talented photographers. I’m more than a little surprised that none of them went on to lucrative careers as professional photographers.” David McGowan, 2009

  Despite all the acclaim he has received for his exploits as an astronaut, Neil Armstrong clearly has been unjustly denied recognition of his astounding abilities as a photographer. Some may argue that he clearly was not in the same league as say, David Bailey or Lord Lichfield, but I would disagree. Those two individuals created some stunning pictures throughout their careers, but could they have done so whilst wearing a spacesuit, gloves and helmet and with their cameras mounted on their chest and whilst working in an environment that featured no air, one-sixth gravity, and utterly stupefying extremes of heat and cold? I seriously doubt it.

  Even more tellingly, the designer of the particular type of Hasselblad cameras ‘used on the moon’, has publicly stated to all who were prepared to listen that it would be impossible to use his cameras in the way described and under those circumstances, but of course this has not been widely reported and subsequently air-brushed from history. In addition, the film used must have been a hitherto unknown and since-forgotten variety of ‘super-film’ designed to withstand temperature fluctuations of over 300pC and also to withstand the lethal Van Allen radiation on the way home. Even relatively low-level radiation in airport X-ray machines has been known to totally ‘wipe’ conventional celluloid film.

  Next, I would also like to ask the question; where are all the stars in the moon photographs? Not a single photograph allegedly taken from the surface of the moon shows even so much as one star in the background. Because of the prevailing circumstances and a single-light source only (the sun), there should have been a vista almost filled with tiny blazes of light, in any direction away from the sun. More stars then you could ever possibly see on even the clearest of nights on Earth because, the moon has no atmosphere to distort and dim the images. This phenomenon is explained away by NASA and its shills as being due to the fact that setting the exposure level to take account of the brightly glaring spacesuits would mean that the stars would be rendered invisible. However, this does not explain why in instances where the exposure was of a much lower level than when taking shots with the bright space suits, that stars still did not show, even on those photos.

  For example, the scenes below which are obviously not very well lit, would have required a long enough exposure that would have been certain to capture every star in that part of the sky. So where are they all?

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Note the shadows at 90p to each other

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