Rabbit Hole Express
Episode 1, ‘Question everything’
Topic: 1969 moon landing, fact or fiction?
To coincide with the anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing we have prepared the following blog (to accompany the first episode) I hope you will remember all this as you watch the documentary’s and news reports that will no doubt be all over televisionThe official story:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landings there’s also another great entry to be read here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_exploration if you have time it’s also worth reading about Neil Armstrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Armstrong
Wikipedia has this to say, but it is by no means the long version of the story
“The United States space agency NASA achieved the first manned landing on Earth's Moon as part of the Apollo 11 mission commanded by Neil Armstrong. On July 20, 1969, lunar module Eagle landed on the surface of the Moon, carrying Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Armstrong was the first human to set foot on the moon, with Aldrin being the second, while Michael Collins orbited above. Armstrong and Aldrin spent a day* on the surface of the Moon before returning to Earth.”
*21 hours 31 minuets
The story is well known and has come to be considered a massive part of human history. In theory its one of the most amazing human accomplishments since the building of the pyramids (I’ll restrain myself here)
What most people do now know however is that the first moon mission (USA) was actually on 17 August 1958 and it was aptly called ‘Pioneer 0’ its mission was to achieve lunar orbit (the moon is named Luna, it’s a moon, its not named moon) this mission is documented by NASA as a Failure as a first stage explosion destroyed it.
The first mission that NASA consider a success was on 28 July 1964 and it was called ‘Ranger 7’ its mission was to crash on the moon and return photo’s, it did this successfully returning 4308 photos there where two more of these missions before things got ‘serious’ (manned)
The USSR on the other hand has a good lead with the first ‘Lunar Impact’ taking place on 12 September 1959 and the first photo of the far (dark) side of the moon on 4 October 1959.
1959, was the first time we got a bit of our crap to land on the moon (well crash anyway) that’s impressive when you consider that one of the movies around in September 1959 was ‘Zorro, the avenger’ (
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052424/) staring Guy Williams, a forgotten classic I’m sure.
What else do we know about the moon missions? Well we know that NASA lost the original tapes (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program_missing_tapes) that worries me a little bit. Possibly the greatest moment ever caught on camera and some idiot files wrong. That worried me a lot when I first read about it.
Another part of the official story is found here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_17 it’s the story of Apollo 17, the last manned mission to the moon and it was all the way back in December 7, 1972.
Missions to Mars:
With all this moon mission talk I almost overlooked the Mars missions. The first mission to Mars was the Mariner 4 project (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariner_4) and it was launched in 1964 before we even got to the moon, you see that’s how you expect humans to do things, fast and efficiently. So what’s happened? We stopped going to the moon in 1972 so it’s a bit of an oddity that we are still trying to get to mars inst it?
Rather than going into massive detail here (as it’s not the point of this post/episode) I’ll just say that NASA and Russia have successfully got Landers on Mars and returned photographs.
The Conspiracy theory:There have been people claiming that the moon landings where faked since about July 19, 1969 (see what I did there?)
The main reason that people had doubts to begin with was because of the simple fact that it was apparently done, on the first ever attempt, that in its self was an oddity, after all the titanic (an unsinkable ship) sank on its first voyage, the Wright brothers redesigned the first aeroplane dozens of times, but NASA built a ship that could go to the moon, and it worked first time. How many cars are designed from scratch, built then started all on the first try?
That in my opinion is the founding doubt that all that follows is grown from.
One of the better articles is found on Jon King’s site over at
http://www.consciousape.com/discussion-topics/nasa-moon-landing-hoax/The obvious questions (some asked on the above site) are as follows (with my favourite one first)
- Why does the American flag ‘flap in the wind’ on the original NASA footage, when the moon’s atmosphere is supposed to be a vacuum?
- How is it that all the photographs taken by the Apollo astronauts cameras strapped to their space suits look like they were taken by professional photographers in studio conditions?
- How did they transport the Lunar Rover? There are no photos of it on the side of the LM or of it being setup. This would have been worth documenting for the training manual alone I would have thought.
- Dodgy lighting, look at shadow’s and placements. There are photos with wrong numbers of people on, photos with too many shadows and photos with dubious mountain ranges.
- There were no scorch-marks left on the moon’s surface when the Apollo Landing Module blasted off and headed back to earth? Possibly due to the lessened gravity there would be little to no crater but you would at least see a blackened scorch. (the LM would only have to output enough force to counter the moons gravity so a crater may not appear as most people expect)
Before I go into more depth is worth saying that there is a census that the official version of events is the ‘common sense’ version and anything else is just silly, well if we did go to the moon or not, I think that is good to question the official version of any massive event.
It’s good to question, it’s never bad, it can never be bad and if you believe the official version then maybe you will appreciate the following points as a good read, after all as a believer of the accepted ‘facts’ you have probably never looked in the topic that deeply, no one writes blogs defending the common consensus do they.
Video (just some links):The Apollo 11 mission videos are now available from NASA in HD
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/hd/apollo11.html
It is worrying however as these restored tapes are talked about very differently as this link
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/110442/WORLD-EXCLUSIVE-NASA-finds-missing-moon-landing-tapes tells us how NASA as found the missing tapes and is quashes the conspiracy nutters, but then this link
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090717/ap_on_sc/us_sci_moon_video gives us the more realising report that Hollywood film makers have restored the public footage that NASA have gathered up over the years…. Only one can be true as they both link to the same video footage that I linked above from NASA directly.
Photography:NASA recently provided some ‘evidence of the moon Apollo missions in the form of some vague images
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html if these pictures are proof then obviously Photoshop is a tool for making proof. Better images have been made my debunkers just for fun.
One of the many convincing conspiracy videos out there is found here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22pk2polNeA as with most videos it talks about photographic manipulation and compositing.
This video is called ‘NASA, proof of image tampering’. The video is obviously made by someone with serious skills in the field of photography. Is it really proof? No. anyone who knows their way around Photoshop this well may have created the edits they are showing, assuming the images are what they claim they are then yes, there pretty darn good proof.
Another of the image examination
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11725837/Apollo-Hoax it’s pretty good and uses less Photoshop style shots than the you-tube video I linked.
Cross hairs:I wont go into massive detail about what is detailed in the above likes but it talks about how the cameras had black cross hair’s painted in a glass plate between the lens and the film, this would have made it impossible for anything to be between the cross hair and the film, meaning the corsair would always be 100% visible on every photo, this however is not the case. There are dozens of photos where object on the picture obscure the cross hair, NASA say that this is due to high contrast colour bleeding, in simple a bright enough white on a black background would cause the white to obscure the black of the cross.
I see what NASA are saying here, and I would agree but with the photograph having only the natural light of the sun (as NASA tell us that no additional light sources where taken on the mission) then if it happened on one photo is should have happened on most the others, I say most as there will be times when the light is angled wrong for the effect to happen, at best the effect should be visible on enough of the photo’s for it to be commonly understood, also, this effect only happens on earth with superbly powerful lights and almost never with high quality film (did NASA really cut costs with that specially ordered Kodak film that they had?)
Shadows:Another one of the widely talked about issues with the moon landing is the problem with the inconsistent shadows. There are many examples of shadows being cast at varying angles and even examples of the shadow length changing from shot to shot, assuming NASA want to stick to the story that no additional lighting was supplied then how is it possible for any substantial change in shadow length without changing location? (Height is always a factor)
There is also the issue of the video showing pictures being taken with light hitting the scene form one direction and then the correlating image shows light coming from different angles. With no additional light source this implied that the astronauts rotated the Lander as well as the rocks in the scene to ensure a good shot with maximum consistency.
Many websites and documentaries that try to debunk the conspiracy theory talk about how the moon is not an even ‘set’ and the shadows anomalies can be explained by uneven ground, but as many documents I have linked state, the shadows are cast by light sources reflected in the subject visors, showing a massive while light, these visors are shaped in a way that makes the things it reflect look smaller not larger, so if it is the sun why isn’t it just a pin prick of light?
The Camera:The camera’s in question where chest mounted and had no view finders so the pictures where taken using the ‘point, click and hope’ method that often results in terrible ‘wonky’ pictures.
The Photos we see however are all studio perfect, and I understand that of the thousands of photos that where taken there will no doubt be the occasional lucky one but even so, with such perfectly framed and lit photographs it would take time and planning even in a studio.
The chest mounted cameras used where The Hasselblad 70mm EDC (
http://www.myspacemuseum.com/apollocams.htm#The%20Hasselblad%2070mm) they where only modified in minor ways to allow easier loading of the magazine as well as a harness for mounting it on the space suits
If you look at any of the official videos of the cameras being used on the moon you will see that the astronauts had to lean back and bend knees to get the camera to point forwards correctly, take this into consideration as well as the inability to accurately change the light and exposure settings on the camera (as space suit gloves where too cumbersome to allow this) it’s a wonder any of the pictures came out at all.
Also the camera’s where not modified in any major way so how exactly did the film survive the radiation levels that would have been encountered while on the moon as well as while passing through the Van Allen belt? (The radiation belt that exists around earth) there should at least be some bleaching of the film going on, or some erroneous burns made from radiation particles. But no, there isn’t one photograph that I can find with any sort of damage, and nowhere in NASA’s documentation does it mention spoiled films magazines.
The Television camera lenses that NASA used on the Apollo 11 mission where specially ordered night lenses to code with the low lighting levels on the moon and on the approach to the moon, this makes sense to anyone who knows even a little about photography but the lenses used on the astronauts camera’s where never noted by any official document or documentary to be low light lenses, we are led to believe that these cameras where using stock lenses, even high quality stock lenses are not light enhancing.
I went to the effort of finding the NASA gallery
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/kippsphotos/apollo.html should make it pretty easy to check those images if anyone has the know-how. Although if the space mission where faked then no doubt NASA would have updated the ‘edits’ as they where discovered, so really you want older versions of the pictures not the ones on the live servers.
Another small point I have here is that how strange it is that they took a 60 million dollar moon car on the mission but no one took equipment to look at the starts from the moon, there’s not one picture of the stars from any moon mission. Why not? It would have been the most amazing thing to happen in space photography ever.
Gravity and motion:No matter how much I ponder it that flag wavering bothers me...
Why would it wave, shouldn’t it just slowly drop as a flag on earth does when there’s no wind? There’s an article here
http://www.spaceref.com/telescopes/Can-you-see-objects-left-behind-on-the-Moon.html it claims that the motion of the flag was the result of a faulty telescopic rod.
The moons not without gravity, it has low gravity, there’s a difference there, what it has is zero wind so this rod would have accounted for the flag not dropping as a flag does on earth but would that account for 20+ hours of movement? I doubt it. But as we know the height of the flagpole it certainly made those shadow anomaly articles easier for those researchers to write.
Another of the famous scenes took place on a later Apollo mission; it was of an astronaut dropping a feather and a hammer, and as theory dictates that gravity is independent of motion and weight then with no atmospheric resistance both should fall evenly.
This experiment was proven and filmed, excellent, except that my webcam and I would be able to duplicate this experiment with a weighted feather and a slowed down video. I am not sure why the debunkers point me to this sequence as it’s so simply reproduced.
Another gripe I have is the close up of the moons surface as the Lunar module landed, its scale looks all messed up and the rotation seems all wrong for the speed and distance that is documented. I don’t know much about effects models but it looks like one to me, and a lot of people who researched much more than me think so too, especially since NASA built a massive scale model of the moons surface on a big round ball for the purpose of selecting a landing site
There is also the question of the landing video that is often seen, its the sequence where one of the astronauts is giving telemetry and other relevant technical information as they approach the moons surface, this is the scene I spoke about above but this time I’m talking about the sound, you can hear the mighty engines firing even through the walls of the Lander, fine, this I understand but why isn’t there motion distortion on the voice of its narrator? If you try to speak while driving over gravel in a car your voice is often distorted because of the vibration of the vehicle, why isn’t this also the case when sitting on top of a firing jet engine?
Dust:Many people on many sites and forums have pointed out that as the lunar rover sped off into the distance on those famous video’s the dust should have been thrown higher and further than it would on earth, if fell show on the video but did not go as far as it should in low gravity with no atmosphere.
The Lander module its self is another dust issue, why wasn’t the feet of the module covered in dust? That engine that landed it safely should have kicked up a mighty storm but apparently it’s not enough to leave traces on the feed of the module. With the modules lower portion being so reflective and those pictures being so good quality (dubiously) shouldn’t the most minor specs of dust be visible? People have from time to time pointed out that with the engines on minimum thrust and the Lander coming down at a slight angle it would minimise the dust build up. I agree, but even minimum dust is enough to dirty the bottom area of the Lander.
The thrust used on the Lander on the way down had to support the quite significant weight of the module so with the energy being focused for maximum efficiency it would have been far hotter in the centre than a lot of debunkers give it credit for, even in low gravity that fuel was still hot, yet people still say that the low gravity explains the lack of dust and scorch marks.
When the Lander left the moon is used a fuel that is known to burn with red smoke output, on the video of the module leaving the moon then there is no red smoke, this is strange as at the time it was hypothesised that the red mist it would generate may even have been visible from earth. Remember that this module was supposed to have been using ten thousand pounds of thrust.
Keeping Cool:
The PLSS units that the astronauts wore (the life supporting backpacks, more info here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_Life_Support_System ) keep the individual at a constant temperature, when they go into a cold area it heats them up and cools them in heat. All the research I can find implies that they use water based radiator technology, so, why wasn’t there some kind of steam output then the units where trying to keep the individual cool?
The reason I ask this is that when you are cooling anything using water you do so by moving the heat away from the radiator as fast as possible, as we know that the temperature difference between lit and dark areas of the moon is vast and instant then this would have been very important. So, you can cool water by venting steam or with a cold air fan, as there where no vents on the PLSS I have to assume it has some system for expelling the heat. This remains a mystery to me.
There is also the question as to if the backpack could regulate heat fast enough to keep the occupant safe and comfortable.
There have been no links in a while so here is another great site
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.htmlMars missions:The mars missions returned some interesting photo’s, they are well known as they are more recent than the moon ones. However upon inspection by those people with Photoshop skills you can shift the hue of the pictures giving you a more natural tone, with blue sky and red tinted rocks, looks more like Nevada than Mars, links:
http://www.rense.com/general9/color.htm and
http://www.xfacts.com/spirit2004/ and
http://www.marsanomalyresearch.com/ as well as many of other sites.
Debunking us nutters:Most the people working under the official story miss the glorious opportunity to debunk us nutters, you see there is a woman in Australia named Una Ronald who claims she saw a phantom coca-cola bottle float past the screen on the live cast. Even though there where some interesting things done with the video feed from Australia she remains the only person to have ever seen this coke bottle and I cant find any blogs or video’s that do anything to back up her story. It’s an easy one to poke fun at us with but on one uses it because it’s such an unknown story. To be honest even me and my ridiculously open mind think there’s a good chance that she is made of crazy glue and drinks inane monkey juice.
With any good conspiracy there’s always some one trying to blindly defend the official version of events, but for a change when it comes to this topic we have an excellent well thought out site available
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/ this site is unusual to me because its so well put together, usually it’s the conspiracy sites that have all the skills and the official story has the news media and the occasional government organisation defending it not individuals with little to no real motive.
In the case of this website though, we have some really truly wonderful work. The writer breaks down step by step every point that conspiracy sites and documentaries raise and tells us why it’s wrong.
In the case of why the Van Allen belt didn’t radiate the astronauts to death it explains by claiming that the speed was increased to minimise exposure, it’s the same logic as running through a rain storm to get less wet.
Time you are exposed and the distance you travel are separate arguments to be had, if you travel through a pool of water 2 meters wide at twice the speed you usually travel are you only as wet as you would have been if the water was 1 meter wide? Well, I suppose, maybe (I can’t think why though) but drenched is still drenched no matter what the speed, and unlike water radiation poisoning can not be corrected with a good quality towel and hot cup of soup.
Also, is it worth mentioning that EVERY manned space slight other than the Apollo missions has taken place beneath this radiation belt?
There is an idea that I didn’t mention above that if you speed up the film of the moon walks then the gravity looks more earth like, the reason I did not mention it in my article was because it can be countered by pointing out that even though this is true its still true if the video is genuine and the gravity has less of a hold so speeding it up DOES make is appear more like gravity’s hold is stronger. Logical, isn’t it (see, I have researched both sides of this topic)
When this website debunks the point by talking about speeding up film of people running to make them look like athletes I was surprised. I’m not sure what the writes point is there. It goes on to say that the movement of the dust is proof that it was filmed on the moon. More suspect logic when you consider that the movement of the dust is an entire topic in its self.
I don’t mean to debunk that debunker but my opinions on this are based of reading everything I could get from the official and reputable sources THEN and only then did I look at the conspiracy, but most of the alternative sites I had asked the same questions that I had already formed in my little mind.
I won’t pick on him any more though. It seams mean. In all seriousness thought my point here is that often people counter the conspiracy by spewing up the most obvious thing that they can think of, often putting no where as much research in a the ‘nutters’ who question the story.
Also apparently the Hubble Space Telescope is not powerful enough to see the equipment left behind by the Apollo missions. But it can see other galaxies? I’m not sure I am well versed enough in the technology to argue that one but it seems to me to be more than a little suspect.
There is even one documentary (‘what happened on the way to the moon’) that has a NASA scientist who actually says that the reason that there’s no point asking questions about the pictures/shadows/lights/dust/quality or anything else is because “it did happen so what’s the point wasting time trying to prove correct thinks we know to be true” in my mind, asking questions about things, any reason in fact is always a good thing, I cant think of a time when questioning something is ever a ‘waste of time’ as he so brilliantly put it.
There are also people who use the wonderful line “we will never know for certain so what’s the point in wasting time on it?” yeah, this IS the same thing phrased a bit differently. The point is simply that if we stop questioning things then we will end up believing everything we see on television and never learning anything new ever again.
Even if I’m wrong and so is every person that has ever doubted this then WHY has NASA never officially sat down with the conspiracy researchers and answered there questions one by one?
If the official story is so true the why is it so hard to defend? Because, as NASA so eloquently puts it ‘NASA is not accountable to the public’ I want to know why it’s not accountable, why aren’t all Government agencies and contractors accountable for everything? Isn’t that what the idea of public service I all about?
For those who are deep inside that rabbit hole:This is NOT the point of this post/episode so I have not supplied many links or other information, but I think most of our listeners/reader will have heard about it.
One of the problems I face while thinking about the moon landings being faked is how there are other theories about humanities space adventures that add a whole new layer to the debate.
The idea is that mankind has been in contact with none terrestrial super powers since at least before World War 2 (I’m being conservative) and that as far back as that we had bases as far out as Mars and was using alien technology to travel back and forth.
Edgar Dean Mitchell was the sixth man on the moon and sensationally he announced on an English radio show (The Night Before, Kerrang radio) that he had seen NASA employees talking on monitors to alien officers who where aboard the international space station. As well as being personally briefed on human-alien relations and politics. (This statement has not been responded too by any official spokesperson)
There are even claims of doctored photos of Mars that hide massive pipes and structures. Are they hiding human or alien structures though?
The whole Garry McKinnon (
http://freegary.org.uk/) case is rumoured to be based on his knowledge of off-world officers being documented by the pentagon.
You see, the problem is that if the governments of the world have been going as far out as Mars for the last 60+ years then why do they need to fake a moon landing?
Possibly NASA and the ‘real’ space agency are not affiliated and NASA’s work represents what we can do without alien interference, or possibly the whole thing was just cheaper to fake than to do for real.
If we have bases all over the solar system then maybe the whole moon mission pledge as given by JFK was nothing more than an exorcise in misdirection to keep our minds away from the UFO obsession of the time because public interest in a fake moon mission was safer.
All this may explain why all three Apollo 11 astronauts resigned shortly after the mission.
Also, what’s with this moon bombing stuff?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=nasas-mission-to-bomb-the-moon-2009-06Anyone who thinks we did go to the moon:
After reading all of this you may be sick of the whole conspiracy theory now, and that’s okay.
If you have read every word above and looked at the links out of curiosity but in the end you think it’s all too nit picky and daft then thanks for making it this far. Thanks for taking the time to look at this and ask ‘why do those people think this?’
All too often people dismiss an unusual idea as they don’t want their perception of reality challenged, I have seen people defend the common belief without any clue why. As I keep saying no matter what you believe about this topic or any other, it’s always good to find out why you believe what you do.
David Icke’s work first led me to really understand the following quotes they are more relevant today than when they first left the lips of the men who uttered them.
“Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance” who said that little gem? It was Albert Einstein, a man who all of us united can say “clever bloke” with no one disagreeing.
Another little gem worth keeping inside your head is the wonderful words that Ghandi said “Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth ”
I would like to add, that if mankind did set foot on the moon, after spending so much money that could have saved so many lives, fed so many starving people and cured so many diseases then why are we so proud? Forget the moon; let’s use all those resources on ending suffering here on earth.
Personally I believe:If your asking me, I think it was faked, I think that there’s a good chance we have been there using our own technology in the time since then, and with astronauts who’s names we will never know but going in 1969?
As for the possibility of alien technology being used? I doubt it; it’s just cheaper and easier to use a film studio. If you have really been there using more advanced technology then its even easier to fake, you know what your faking.
Also I DO think that it’s possible to keep this secret. If no one has owned up to what really happened with 9/11 and no governments never owned up to having Ghandi killed then yes there are ways of keeping massive secrets, just ask the man on the grassy knoll, he’s pretty good at secrets.
Remember how news agencies used re-enacted scenes (touted as real footage) of the sinking of the ship Lusitania to bring American into world war one? Well, its common knowledge now for anyone who is interested but still this proves that this kind of thing CAN be done.
How about how the BBC admit to using faked news reports to convince Germany that allied troops where inside areas that whey where not in world war 2? These things do happen and you only have to keep the secret until no one cares any more, then it all comes out.
Disinformation is an art and can be used against anyone it needs to be, it’s a weapon.
I think there’s a fantastic chance that we have a ‘real’ space program but why would you televise what could have been a suicide mission? That wouldn’t have made the USSR look very bad would it?
Faking it was cheaper, safer and just more logical. Imagine the idea that there would be dead astronauts orbiting our planet, rotting in a metallic tomb for all time, not good for NASA’s image is it?
Even the names of the astronauts sound like fiction, if Neil Armstrong isn’t a sci-fi name then just call me Rick Random (that was the name of a 50’s comic book hero btw.)
As much as I personally believe that the whole NASA story is a publicity stunt to keep America looking good, I think that the real space program that Edgar Mitchell seams to know a lot about is far beyond anything that people could imagine.
In short I think that the Apollo missions where fake, but real missions happened, are happening and while we are all worrying about shadows and dust on pictures we are missing the obvious and very real change that those pictures where taken on the moon by people with far more advanced technology than the Apollo 11 crew.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, your thoughts are welcome.
