As stated, I believed in the Apollo missions for forty years. During that time no one would ever convince me that the whole thing was staged. Although this was purely an act of FAITH on my part because I'd never bothered to really delve into the minutiae. It was only after some issues cropped up which were tangential to NASA that I realized it really was the last institution I should be trusting.
I mean, just look at the farrago of lies which is the Apollo I fire. NASA passes the "accident" off as an unfortunate coalescence of haste and over enthusiasm.
Yet almost no-one is aware of the fact that Gus Grissom had become so frustrated with the complete and utter SHAMBLES which was the Apollo capsule that he'd gone so far as to pick the biggest lemon he could find from his orchard and hung it PUBLICLY on the craft using a coathanger for everyone to see and called a PRESS CONFERENCE to air his views.
Of course, it was just
PURE CO-INCIDENCE that prior to the "Plugs Out" test which involved pressurizing the Apollo capsule to 20PSI of PURE OXYGEN (a combination which both the Apollo mission controllers and the designers of the capsule KNEW to be potentially LETHAL because of the propensity for just about any substance including fire-retarding asbestos to catch fire at the slightest opportunity) the Apollo capsule had been stuffed to the gunnels with just about every flammable and toxic substance NASA could lay its hands on. Just as it was
PURE CO-INCIDENCE that the door mechanism had been changed making it practically impossible for anyone to escape in an emergency. Just as it was
PURE CO-INCIDENCE that the team meant to oversee the test which normally surrounded the capsule were for some strange reason not at their posts.
But in a flash fire situation it's doubtful they could have cranked open the door and extracted the three astronauts before they were overcome anyway - right?Well, that was certainly the story - UNTIL safety supervisor Thomas Ronald Barron made the ASTONISHING claim that Grissom, Chaffee & White had first reported the fire a full
FIVE MINUTES prior to the only communications transcript NASA released which led everyone to believe the three astronauts were incinerated in seconds. And it was just
PURE CO-INCIDENCE that Grissom suddenly found he couldn't communicate with the tower prompting an exasperated comment,
"How the hell are we supposed to go to the moon if we can't communicate between three buildings"?Just as it was
PURE CO-INCIDENCE that days prior to the accident enquiry when he was about to release a DAMNING FIVE-HUNDRED PAGE safety report which would have undoubtedly sunk the program Barron and his wife were killed when their car mysteriously stalled on a level-crossing and they were crushed beneath a freight train. And the
CO-INCIDENCES just kept piling up when contrary to state law both bodies were cremated without autopsy.
And yet we are supposed to have FAITH in NASA?
As for the moon landings - I suspect that many people can't see the truth PRECISELY BECAUSE the deception is literally staring them in the face.
Regarding the supposed cooling systems in both the suits and the Lunar Excursion Module - it really isn't difficult to determine that even the notion is patently LUDICROUS.
Turn your oven to 180 degrees centigrade and leave it for a few minutes to warm up. Now open the door and stick your hand in. In that brief moment you can tolerate the heat you are getting just a taste of what both cooling systems had to overcome for hours - even days.
According to NASA's own specifications the moonwalkers were cooled by barely more than THREE LITRES of water circulating through both the backpack and the suit and then vented onto the heat exchanger (did anyone SEE ice crystals escaping into the vacuum?) - which of course reduced the level of water each time. And this is BEFORE the suit's reflectivity becomes compromised by lunar dust.
And as for the LEM - think of 190 degrees beating down on every square inch of its paper-thin skin. And if we are to believe Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin it was so COLD inside the LEM they were
"constantly shivering". Laughable!
Think of Neil Armstrong's quiet, assured and professional tone as he hunts for a safe place to land the LEM. Now think of the
ROCKET MOTOR which is barely more than a
COUPLE OF METRES below his feet delivering five-figures of thrust. Boy! NASA must really have spent big on high-technology sound-proofing because Armstrong never raised his voice once.
And whilst we are at it - the hypergolic fuel NASA claims was used burns up at around 4,000/5,000C. Are we to supposed to believe the moon's surface is so heat-resistant that instead of turning to LAVA immediately below the LEM (bear in mind that many earth rocks are reduced to this state at 1,000C) it retarded the heat as well as any heat-shield?
As for the photographs - even though there's plenty of evidence of multiple shadows (remember, the astronauts brought no separate light sources according to the manufacturers of the camera - Hasselblad) - as a Canon-accredited photographer who has worked extensively with fast lenses and multiple flash packs I tend to concentrate purely on LIGHT.
You see - anyone who understands the full significance of the
INVERSE SQUARE LAW, f-stops and dynamic range must instantly realise there's something very WRONG with many of the photographs.
Given that the sun effectively functions as a
point-source of light any original and unaltered photograph which features significant light fall-off that cannot be explained by the casting of shadows can
ONLY be fake. There are no ifs and buts about this and if you think so you really don't understand the INVERSE SQUARE LAW which is ... well ... an
IMMUTABLE LAW.
As for those photographs in which the "sun" backlights the scene and yet the subject is clearly visible (rather than turning to a silhouette) despite the fact that the camera is stopped down to such an extent that everything in the scene is PIN SHARP and yet the photographer is not using a tripod - LAUGHABLE.
If you have a camera, remote trigger and a flash do yourself a favour and try to recreate that shot in low light whilst handholding at f/22 or above using everyday items. A flash is a good analogue for the sun providing you don't place it close.
When you have finished let me know how you got on.
