Historical physics. Were Americans on the Moon? Americans on the Moon: Should We Doubt Further

On July 21, 1969, American astronaut Neil Amstrong set foot on the moon. However, to this day one can hear the opinion that the American landing on the moon is a great hoax.

Lunar conspiracy theory

In 1974, the book by American Bill Keyzing “We Never Fled to the Moon” was published. It was the beginning of the spread of the theory of the "lunar conspiracy". Keyzing had reason to raise this topic, as he worked for Rocketdyne, which built rocket engines for the Apollo program.

As arguments confirming the staging of flights to the Moon, the author draws attention to the incidents of "lunar photographs" - uneven shadows, the absence of stars, the small size of the Earth. Keysing also refers to the lack of technological equipment at NASA at the time of the implementation of the lunar program.

The number of supporters of the "lunar conspiracy" grew rapidly, as did the number of revelations of a manned flight to the moon. So David Percy - a member of the British Royal Photographic Society - has already made a more detailed analysis of the photographs provided by NASA. He argued that in the absence of an atmosphere, the shadows on the moon should be absolutely black, and the multidirectionality of these shadows gave him a reason to assume the presence of several sources of illumination.

Skeptics noted other strange details - the waving of the American flag in an airless space, the absence of deep craters that should have formed during the landing of the lunar module. Engineer Rene Ralph brought up an even more compelling argument for discussion - to prevent astronauts from being exposed to radiation, spacesuits had to be covered with at least 80 cm of lead!
In 2003, the widow of American director Stanley Kubrick, Christian, added fuel to the fire, claiming that the scenes of the American landing on the moon were filmed by her husband in Hollywood pavilions.

On the "lunar conspiracy" in Russia

Oddly enough, but in the USSR no one seriously questioned the Apollo flights to the moon. In particular, materials confirming this fact appeared in the Soviet press after the first landing of the Americans on the moon. Many Russian cosmonauts also spoke about the success of the American lunar program. Among them are Alexei Leonov and Georgy Grechko.

Alexey Leonov said the following: “Only absolutely ignorant people can seriously believe that the Americans were not on the moon. And, unfortunately, this entire ridiculous saga about the allegedly fabricated Hollywood footage began with the Americans themselves. "

True, the Soviet cosmonaut did not deny the fact that some scenes of the Americans' stay on the Moon were filmed on Earth in order to give the video report a certain sequence: “It was impossible, for example, to film the real opening by Neil Armstrong of the hatch of the descent spacecraft on the Moon - there is simply no one from the surface. was removed! "

The confidence of domestic experts in the success of the lunar mission is primarily due to the fact that the process of the Apollo flights to the Moon was recorded by Soviet equipment. These are signals from the ships, and negotiations with the crew, and a television picture about the exit of astronauts to the lunar surface.

In case the signals were coming from the Earth, it would be immediately exposed.
Pilot-cosmonaut and designer Konstantin Feoktistov in his book “The Trajectory of Life. Between yesterday and tomorrow "writes that in order to reliably simulate the flight, it would be necessary" to land a television repeater on the surface of the Moon in advance and check its operation (with transmission to Earth). And on the days of the imitation of the expedition, it was necessary to send a radio relay to the Moon to simulate the Apollo's radio communication with the Earth on the flight path to the Moon. " To arrange such a hoax, according to Feoktistov, is no less difficult than a real expedition.

Russian President Vladimir Putin also spoke about the "lunar conspiracy", calling in one of his interviews "complete nonsense" the version that the United States had falsified the landing on the moon.
Nevertheless, in modern Russia, exposing articles, books, films about the impossibility of technically carrying out such a flight continue to be published, they are also scrupulously examined and criticized by the photo and video materials of the "lunar expedition".

Counter-arguments

NASA admits that they are bombarded with so many letters with this or that argument proving flight falsification that they are not able to fend off all attacks. However, some of the objections can be discarded, knowing the elementary laws of physics.

It is known that the location of shadows depends on the shape of the object casting them and on the surface relief - this explains the unevenness of shadows in lunar photographs. The shadows converging at the far point are nothing more than a manifestation of the law of perspective. The idea of ​​several sources of illumination (spotlights) is untenable in itself, since in this case each of the illuminated objects would cast at least two shadows.

The visibility of the cloth fluttering in the wind is explained by the fact that the flag was installed on a flexible aluminum base, which was in motion, while the upper crossbar was not fully extended, which created the effect of the cloth wrinkling. On Earth, air resistance quickly dampens oscillatory movements, but in an airless environment, these movements are much longer.

According to NASA engineer Jim Oberg, the most convincing proof that the flag was planted on the moon is the following fact: when astronauts passed next to the banner, it remained absolutely motionless, which would not be in the conditions of the earth's atmosphere.

Astronomer Patrick Moore knew that the stars would not be visible on the moon during the daytime before the flight. He explains that the human eye, like the lens of a camera, simply cannot adapt simultaneously to the illuminated surface of the moon and the dim sky.
It is more difficult to explain why the lander did not leave behind craters on the lunar surface, or, at least, did not disperse the dust, although NASA experts motivate this by the fact that during landing, the device significantly slowed down and landed along a sliding trajectory.
Probably the most compelling argument of the conspiracy theorists is that the ship's crew simply would not have been able to overcome the Van Allen radiation belt surrounding the Earth and would have been burned alive. However, Van Allen himself was not inclined to exaggerate his theory, explaining that the passage of the belt at high speed does not threaten astronauts.
However, it remains a mystery how astronauts escaped the powerful radiation on the lunar surface in light enough spacesuits.

Peering into the moon

In the heated debate, it was a little forgotten that the astronauts, after each successful descent, installed laser rangefinders on the moon. At the Texas MacDonald Observatory, for several decades directing a laser beam to the corner reflector of lunar installations, specialists received a response signal in the form of flashes, which was recorded by highly sensitive equipment.
For the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 flight, the LRO automatic interplanetary station took a whole series of images at the lunar module landing sites, presumably fixing the remains of the equipment of the American crews. Later, higher-resolution photographs were taken in which you can see the tracks from the rover and even, according to NASA, the chains of tracks of the astronauts themselves.
However, pictures taken by uninterested parties inspire more confidence. Thus, the Japanese space agency JAXA reported that the Kaguya spacecraft had detected possible traces of Apollo 15's presence. And an employee of the Indian Space Research Organization Prakash Chauhan said that the Chandrayan-1 apparatus received an image of a fragment of the lander.
However, only a new manned flight to the Moon can finally dot the "and".

Each nation separately and all mankind as a whole strives only forward to conquer new horizons in the field of economic development, medicine, sports, science, new technologies, including the study of astronomy and the conquest of space. We hear about big breakthroughs in the field of astronautics, but were they really? Did the Americans land on the moon, or was it one big show?

Spacesuits

Having visited the "National Museum of Air and Space of the United States" in Washington, anyone who wants to make sure: the spacesuit of the Americans is a very simple dressing gown, sewn together in a hurry. NASA claims that the spacesuits were sewn at a factory for the production of bras and underwear, that is, their spacesuits were sewn from the fabric of underpants and they supposedly protect from the aggressive space environment, from radiation that is fatal to humans. However, maybe NASA has really developed ultra-reliable suits that protect against radiation. But why then was this ultra-light material not used anywhere else? Not for military purposes, not for peaceful purposes. Why was no assistance provided with Chernobyl, albeit for money, as American presidents like to do? Well, let's say perestroika has not yet begun and they did not want to help the Soviet Union. But, for example, in 79 in the USA at the Trimile Island NPP there was a terrible accident of the reactor block. So why didn't they use robust spacesuits designed with NASA technology to eliminate radiation contamination - a time bomb on their territory?

Radiation radiation from the Sun is detrimental to humans. Radiation is one of the main obstacles to space exploration. For this reason, even today all manned flights pass no further than 500 kilometers from the surface of our planet. But the Moon has no atmosphere and the level of radiation is comparable to that of open space. For this reason, both in a manned spacecraft and in a spacesuit on the lunar surface, astronauts should have received a lethal dose of radiation. However, they are all alive.

Neil Armstrong and the other 11 astronauts lived on average 80 years, and some are still alive, for example, like Buzz Aldrin. By the way, back in 2015 he honestly admitted that he had not been on the moon.

It is interesting to know how they were able to survive so well when a small dose of radiation is enough to develop leukemia - blood cancer. As you know, none of the astronauts died of cancer, which raises only questions. In theory, you can protect yourself from radiation. The question is what kind of protection can be sufficient for such a flight. Engineers' calculations show that to protect astronauts from cosmic radiation, the walls of a ship and a spacesuit are needed at least 80 cm thick, made of lead, which, of course, did not exist. No rocket can lift such a weight.

The suits were not just hastily riveted, but they lacked the simple things necessary for life support. So in the spacesuits used in the Apollo program, there is completely no system for removing waste products. The Americans either endured with plugs in different places throughout the flight, did not write or poop. Or everything that came out of them they immediately processed. Otherwise, they would simply suffocate from their excrement. This is not because the system for removing waste products was bad - it was simply absent.

Astronauts walked on the moon in rubber boots, but it is interesting to know how they did it, if the temperature on the moon ranges from +120 to -150 degrees Celsius. How did they get the information and technology for making shoes that are resistant to wide temperature ranges? After all, the only material that has the necessary properties was discovered after flights and began to be used in production only 20 years after the first landing on the moon.

Official Chronicle

In the vast majority of space images of NASA's lunar program, stars are not visible, although they are abundant in Soviet space images. The black empty background in all photographs is explained by the fact that there were difficulties with modeling the starry sky and NASA decided to completely abandon the sky in its images. At the time the US flag was planted on the moon, the flag fluttered under the influence of air currents. Armstrong adjusted the flag and took a few steps back. However, the flag did not stop flapping. The American flag flew with the wind, although we know that in the absence of an atmosphere and in the absence of wind as such, the flag cannot flutter on the moon. How could astronauts move so swiftly on the Moon, if gravity is 6 times lower than on Earth? A quick scan of the astronauts' jumps on the Moon shows that their movements correspond to those on Earth, and the jump heights do not exceed the jump heights under gravity. You can also find fault with the pictures themselves for a long time in the difference of colors and minor blunders.

Lunar soil

During the lunar missions under the Apollo program, a total of 382 kg of lunar soil were delivered to Earth and soil samples were donated by the American government to leaders of different countries. True, without exception, the regolith turned out to be a fake of terrestrial origin. Some of the soil mysteriously simply disappeared from museums, while the other part of the soil after chemical analysis turned out to be terrestrial basalt or meteorite fragments. So BBC News reported that a fragment of lunar soil, stored in the Dutch museum Reiskmuseulm, turned out to be a piece of petrified wood. The exhibit was given to the Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Willem Dries, and after his death, the regolith went to the museum. Experts questioned the authenticity of the stone back in 2006. This suspicion was finally confirmed by the analysis of the lunar soil, carried out by specialists from the Free University of Amsterdam, the experts' conclusion was not comforting: a piece of stone is a fake. The American government decided not to comment on this situation in any way and simply hushed up the case. Similar cases also occurred in the countries of Japan, Switzerland, China and Norway. And such embarrassments were resolved in the same way, the regoliths mysteriously disappeared or were destroyed by fire or destruction of museums.

One of the main arguments of the opponents of the lunar conspiracy is the recognition by the Soviet Union of the fact of the American landing on the moon. Let's analyze this fact in more detail. The United States was well aware that it would not be difficult for the Soviet Union to come up with a rebuttal and provide evidence that the Americans had never landed on the moon. And there was plenty of evidence, including material. This is the analysis of the lunar soil, which was transferred by the American side, and this is the Apollo-13 apparatus caught in the Bay of Biscay in 1970 with full telemetry of the Saturn-5 launch vehicle, in which there was not a single living soul, there was not a single astronaut. On the night of April 11-12, the Soviet fleet lifted the Apollo 13 capsule. In fact, the capsule turned out to be an empty zinc bucket, there was no thermal protection at all, and its weight was no more than one ton. The rocket was launched on April 11, and a few hours later on the same day, the Soviet military found the capsule in the Bay of Biscay.

And according to the official chronicle, the American spacecraft orbited the moon and returned to Earth supposedly on April 17, as if nothing had happened. The Soviet Union at that time received irrefutable proof of the falsification of the landing on the moon by the Americans and it had a fat ace up its sleeve.

But then amazing things began to happen. At the height of the Cold War, when a bloody war was going on in Vietnam, Brezhnev and Nixon, as if nothing had happened, meet like good old friends, smiling, clinking glasses, drinking champagne together. This is remembered in history as the Brezhnev thaw. How can you explain the completely unexpected friendship that arose between Nixon and Brezhnev? In addition to the fact that the Brezhnev thaw began completely unexpectedly, behind the scenes, there were still gorgeous gifts that President Nixon gave personally to Ilyich Brezhnev. So, on his first visit to Moscow, the American president brings Brezhnev a generous gift - an Eldorado Cadillac, hand-assembled on a special order. I wonder for what merits at the highest level Nixon gives an expensive Cadillac at the first meeting? Or maybe the Americans were in debt to Brezhnev? And then - more. At the next meetings, Brezhnev is presented with a Lincoln limousine, followed by a sporty Chevrolet Monte Carlo. At the same time, the silence of the Soviet Union about the American lunar scam could hardly be bought for a luxury car. The USSR demanded to pay big. Is it a coincidence that in the early 70s, when the Americans allegedly landed on the moon, the construction of the largest giant, the KAMAZ automobile plant, began in the Soviet Union. It is interesting that the West allocated billions of dollars in loans for this construction, and several hundred American and European automobile companies took part in the construction. There were dozens of other projects in which the West, for such inexplicable reasons, invested in the economy of the Soviet Union. Thus, an agreement was concluded on the supply of American grain to the USSR at prices below the world average, which negatively affected the welfare of the Americans themselves.

Also, the embargo on Soviet oil supplies to Western Europe was lifted, we began to penetrate their gas market, where we are successfully working to this day. In addition to the fact that the United States was allowed to do such a profitable business with Europe, the West, in fact, built these pipelines itself. Germany allocated a loan of more than 1 billion marks to the Soviet Union and supplied large-diameter pipes that were not produced in our country at that time. Moreover, the nature of the warming demonstrates a clear one-sidedness. The United States is doing favors to the Soviet Union while getting nothing in return. An amazing generosity that can easily be explained at the cost of silence about the fake moon landing.

By the way, recently the famous Soviet cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, who everywhere and everywhere protects the Americans in their version of the flight to the moon, confirmed that the landing was completed in the studio. Indeed, who will film the epoch-making opening of the hatch by the first man on the moon if no one is on the moon?

Destroying the myth that the Americans were on the moon is not just a minor fact. No. The element of this illusion is interconnected with all the world's deceptions. And when one illusion begins to collapse behind it, according to the domino principle, the rest of the illusions begin to collapse. It is not only misconceptions about the greatness of the United States of America that are crumbling. Added to this is the misconception about the confrontation of states. Would the USSR play along with its implacable enemy in the lunar swindle? It's hard to believe, but, unfortunately, the Soviet Union played the same game with the United States. And if this is so, then it becomes clear to us that there are forces that control all these processes, which are above the states.

• "Americans have never been to the moon"
• Vadim Rostov "So Were the Americans on the Moon?"
• "GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE AMERICAN MOON LEGEND"
• Alexander IGNATOV "ABOUT AMERICAN COLD"

Americans have never been to the moon

The proposed material is the result
Forum "Membranes"
in the period from 13.11.2002 to 20.01.2004,
using information
Forum "iXBT Hardware BBS"

FACTS REFUTING THE VERSION OF HUMAN LANDING ON THE MOON

1. Contradictions in the reports and memoirs of astronauts

Lunar module "Apollo-11"

Armstrong's enigmatic saying is known:

"And looking at the black sky without stars and planets (except for the Earth), we thought that we were on a sports field strewn with sand at night, under the dazzling beams of a searchlight" ("Earth and the Universe" 1970, No. 5).

His remarks are consistent with NASA images, which do not show stars, due to the limited capabilities of photographic equipment. However, unlike photographic film, the eye has a wider dynamic range in brightness, which makes it possible to observe both the starry sky and the contours of the lunar surface if you turn your back to the sun. Note also that in his earlier statements, he generally evaded a direct answer, arguing that he simply does not remember whether the stars were visible in the sky of the moon. He did not see the stars even through the upper viewing window (highlighted in red in the figure), being inside the lunar module, and could only observe the Earth. See the transcript of his report:

"103: 22: 30 Armstrong: From the surface, we could not see any stars out the window; but out my overhead hatch (means the overhead rendezvous window), I" m looking at the Earth. It "s big and bright and beautiful."

This is especially strange when you consider that the Sun at the time of lunar landing was shining at an angle of 10-15 degrees to the horizon, and the upper inspection hatch is oriented vertically upward. The annoying oversight of the script directors was corrected in the statements of other astronauts, as Alan Bean from Apollo 12 already observed both the stars and the Earth from the upper hatch of the lunar module (see entry 110: 55: 51). However, he also did not see stars when entering the lunar surface. Bean reveals that he took a silver star badge with him to the moon. "Descending to the lunar surface and emerging from the module's shadow, I took out this badge and threw it with force.

A silver star flashed brightly in the sun, and it was the only star I saw on the lunar surface. "
A correction in the observability of stars from the Moon is introduced later: Eugene Cernan, observing the sky from the shadow of the Apollo 17 lunar module, was able to observe individual stars (see entry 103: 22: 54).

Apollo 11 crew preflight training

Note that the astronauts' suits have side plugs that allow you to adjust the viewing slit and detune from bright light, and also used light filters. It would seem - what could be simpler: to expose a narrow viewing slit in the helmet, raise your head inside the helmet and observe not individual stars, as stated by the mentioned participants in the scenario, but a whole area of ​​the sky strewn with stars in a narrow angle bounded by the slit and the upper edge of the helmet ... Memories of astronauts contradict the clear and colorful descriptions of the starry sky that our astronauts give when they go into outer space:

"So, I am standing on the edge of the airlock in open space ... The ship, bathed in bright rays of the sun, with loose antennae-needles, looked like a fantastic creature: two television eyes followed me and seemed to be alive. The ship was equally brightly lit the sun and the light reflected from the Earth's atmosphere ... The ship rotated slowly, bathing in the solar stream. The stars were everywhere: above, below, left and right ... For me the top was where the Sun was, and the bottom was where the airlock was ship "(memoirs of Alexei Leonov from EI Ryabchikov's book" Star Trek ").

As you can see, the bright illumination of the ship and the Sun did not interfere with the observation of stars, and not one or two, but the entire sparkling starry sky.

Thus, there is both a contradiction between the statements of the Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 crews regarding the observability of stars from the upper hatch, and a contradiction with the observations of Soviet cosmonauts.

2. Height of jumps, not corresponding to lunar gravity

The most interesting and unusual thing that a person encounters during lunar landing is weak gravity compared to the earth's. The weight of an astronaut in a spacesuit on Earth is about 160 kg, on the Moon it is 27 kg, and the strength of the muscles of the astronaut's legs is unchanged. Where is the demonstration of light and high jumps? Such jumps are not only interesting for a person who first got to the moon, but would also be irrefutable proof of a lunar expedition. Such jumps are absolutely safe, since the load upon contact with the ground during the lowering remains the same as during the push, and the push is not stronger than the earth's. The safety factor of such a jump also includes the fact that with a fixed jump height, the landing time on the Moon is 2.5 times longer than the corresponding Earth time, and the speed of astronauts' reactions is unchanged. On film documents, the height of free jumps is 25-45 cm. Watch the video - you will see sluggish jumps, which are quite achievable in terrestrial conditions.

Let's see how astronauts show us high jumps "on the moon" in the video. Everyone can measure and estimate the height of an astronaut's jump, which, PLEASE NOTE, is the highest reported by NASA and had to prove the presence of astronauts on the moon. Jump height does not exceed 45 cm:

120: 25: 42 John Young jumps off the ground and salutes for this superb tourist picture. He is off the ground about 1.45 seconds which, in the lunar gravity field, means that he launched himself at a velocity of about 1.17 m / s and reached a maximum height of 0.42 m. Although the suit and backpack weigh as much as he does, his total weight is only about 65 pounds (30 kg) and, to get this height, he only had to bend his knees slightly and then push up with his legs. In the background, we can see the UV astronomy camera, the flag, the LM, the Rover with the TV camera watching John, and Stone Mountain. Scan courtesy NASA Johnson.
120: 25: 35 Timing of John "s second jump in the television record shows it lasts about 1.30 seconds and, consequently, his launch velocity is about 1.05 m / s and his maximum height is 0.34 m. Scan courtesy NASA Johnson.

These numbers are typical for an ordinary person on Earth. The jump height characteristic of any average person is 35-45 cm (this height is easy to realize: measure the height of the arm extended upwards on the wall and mark with a pencil the height of the upper point of the arm in the jump, you will see that these numbers are completely real). Note that the standards for volleyball players' jumps in training in height from a place - 57.63 cm, in length from a place - 232 cm, see.

How much should the height of the jumps on the Earth and the Moon differ under the condition of the same pushing force, provided that the mass of the astronauts dressed in a spacesuit is doubled (a spacesuit - 30 kg and a life support backpack - 54 kg, in total - 84 kg, with an astronaut weighing about 80 kg)?

To facilitate the task, consider the following physical model of a jump based on an elastic spring with a load of mass m attached to the spring (it will be shown below that the result obtained is valid for any model describing the behavior of muscles).
Let the value of the displacement of the spring X relative to the initial state be fixed (analogous to the depth of an astronaut's squat during a jump). The potential energy of the compressed spring is converted into the kinetic energy of the load mv2 / 2 and provides an increase in its potential energy mgX at the point of separation. Further, the kinetic energy mv2 / 2 is spent to ensure the jump height h:

(1) kX2 / 2 = mv2 / 2 + mgX = mgh + mgX;
(1) kX2 / 2 = mgh + mgX;
For the jump height H on the Moon, when the mass doubles due to the spacesuit (2m), and the gravity is 6 times less (g / 6), equation (1) will take the form:
(2) kX2 / 2 = 2mV2 / 2 + 2mgX / 6 = 2mgH / 6 + 2mgX / 6;
(2) kX2 / 2 = mgH / 3 + mgX / 3.
Subtracting equation (1) from (2), we find:
(3) mgH / 3-mgh + mgX / 3-mgX = 0;
(3) H = 3h + 2X

We take the squat depth X from the frame-by-frame sweep of the astronaut's jump on the Moon, it is about 20 cm, and the jump height on Earth for a person without a spacesuit is in the range of 25-35 cm, which is 10 cm below the characteristic height for an average person in sports shoes (underestimation height takes into account the possible limitation of the ankle with a spacesuit). Then on the Moon with the same pushing force for an astronaut in a spacesuit we get:

H = 115 ... 145 cm; with h = 25 ... 35 cm and X = 20 cm

As you can see, the height H is two to three times the height of the jump in the video (45 cm).

Why are we shown such a low, not expressive jump, which has nothing to do with the lunar one ?!

Maybe the chosen spring calculation model is not adequate to the muscle behavior? If so, then we take another model, in which we replace the spring force kx with the force F (x) developed by the muscles, and replace kx2 / 2 in equations (1) and (2) with the work of the force F (x), which is equal to the integral of F (x) dx on the segment [-X, 0]. This quantity is equally included in Eq. (1) and in (2), and disappears upon subtraction. Therefore, the proposed calculation scheme is invariant to the muscle force model. That is, the earth's height of the jump h (X, F) depends on the type of force and depth of squatting, but the formula for recalculating the lunar height through the earth's is unchanged. For a model in which muscle strength is constant (F) at the pushing site, equation (1) will be rewritten as:

(4) FX = mgh + mgX. Hence h = X (F / mg -1)

The lunar height H is expressed through the terrestrial one, as H = 3h + 2X, but does not contain an explicit dependence on the functional form of the force developed during the push.

So, the estimate of the lunar jump height is correct.

Jump frame

Maybe it's all about a rigid spacesuit, in which it is difficult to bend a leg?
However, on the roller, the astronaut bent his leg deep enough (the value X = 20 ... 25 cm was taken from this roller), and then the elasticity of the spacesuit should even help him to straighten his leg in the jerk, adding to the muscle force the elastic force of the compressed spacesuit. In addition, Aldrin states in his memoir that the biggest problem on the moon was to keep from jumping too high, so what kept him from jumping too high? Probably not the problem of bending the legs, then he would say that the spacesuit does not bend and interferes with jumping. In addition, it is possible from the video (a frame from it in the right figure) to make sure that the spacesuit allows you to provide any depth of squatting. So it's not about the rigidity of the suit.

Maybe it's all about traction? The adhesion could have decreased by 6 times due to the weight reduction on the Moon (for comparison, on Earth, rubber adhesion on ice is worse than on dry asphalt by 8-9 times). However, is this the case with the lunar jump? Is the comparison with a slippery surface adequate?

1. On the boots of astronauts - deep protectors that increase the grip of the shoe with the ground.

2. NASA, explaining why there is such a clear trace on the Moon, never ceased to repeat that there, due to the lack of air, the rocks do not oxidize, and therefore there is no film that prevents adhesion between dust particles, and therefore the friction coefficient of the regolith is higher than that of the earth's dust ...

3. A high jump produces a strong push and increases ground pressure due to the push force, so traction increases with the height of the jump (which is why astronauts on the Moon were trained to move by jumping, rather than walking in the usual way). This effect compensates for the loss of grip caused by the astronauts' low weight.

Thus, the comparison of lunar jumps with earth jumps on slippery ice is fundamentally wrong.

Maybe the astronauts did not guess that to demonstrate their presence on the moon, a high jump is needed, which is not available for terrestrial conditions? But there were six lunar missions, why couldn't they eliminate the demo errors ?! They present the throwing of a feather and a hammer (which is easy to obtain in any student laboratory) and do not present the most obvious and simple demonstrations. The same feather and hammer were thrown straight down, isn't it because a narrow vacuum cylinder was used? So, DEMONSTRATION EXPERIENCES CHARACTERISTIC FOR WEAK GRAVITATION AND VACUUM ARE COMPLETELY ABSENT. At the same time, the experience with a feather and a hammer indicates that the scriptwriters understood the need for demonstrations, but if they did, then why not?

Maybe the astronauts were too lazy to jump?

The first astronauts had to prove to the whole world (and this was the main task of the expedition) that they were on the moon, and not on a picnic, where you can want something, but refuse something. All actions of astronauts on the Moon were pre-planned on Earth, rehearsed, included in the flight program and were mandatory. Only one parameter in a jump - ITS HEIGHT, can indicate its lunarity. And if they were too lazy to jump, then they were too lazy to fly to the moon.

Maybe they were afraid of falling? - after all, if the spacesuit loses its tightness, then the death of the astronaut is inevitable. However, spacesuits provide protection even from micrometeorites, which fly at a speed of up to 20 kilometers per second and, like a bullet, can pierce ordinary materials, so what can we say about some kind of impact when falling? However, it's time to listen to what the astronauts themselves are saying:

"Of course, in the conditions of lunar gravity, you want to jump up. FREE JUMPS while maintaining control over movement are possible up to ONE METER. Jumps to great heights often ended in a fall. The highest jump height was two meters, that is, up to the third step of the lunar cabin ladder." .. Falls did not have any unpleasant consequences. Usually, if the balance is disturbed, the fall can be prevented by turning and walking in the direction where you fall. If the astronaut falls face down, you can easily get up without assistance. on one's own." (Neil Armstrong, Earth and the Universe, 1970, no. 5 and also see).

As you can see, our estimates of the heights of lunar jumps (1-1.5m) coincide with the ideas of NASA theorists who put this information into the mouth of Armstrong. These words of Armstrong are accompanied by rollers and. However, they cannot be considered an illustration of a FREE LUNAR JUMP. The jump is performed in such a way that the legs are not visible throughout the entire demonstration, and therefore cannot be considered evidence of a high jump. The jump with a height of about 1.5 m IS NOT FREE, since it is performed on the stairs of the lunar cabin with support on the handrail; in addition, the frame is so muddy that the figure of the astronaut can only be guessed, therefore, there is no need to talk about the reliability of the illustration either. With this quality of the roller and the presence of support, any form of falsification is possible.

So, we can summarize:

There is no FREE LUNAR JUMP demo.

Comparison of the calculated data with the demonstration free jumps and, obviously, proves that the presented jumps were performed on Earth, such a difference (several times) cannot be explained by any reasonable arguments.

The videos were filmed on Earth (they filmed the Earth jump in a suit imitating a spacesuit; then the footage was slowed down 2.5 times).

3. Contradictions in the demonstration materials related to the spacesuit.
In the video, notice the bending of the astronaut's calf muscle in the sections of his movement and jump flight shown in the right figure. The narrowing of the leg contour in the area of ​​the foot and knee is clearly visible.

ISS Astronauts / Jump Footage

This is possible only in lightweight and tight-fitting pants, but they are multi-layered (25 layers) and thick enough to hide the contours of the legs. Compare them to the spacesuits on the ISS when astronauts go into space. Compare also with the footage of pre-flight training (picture below), but there is still no increased pressure, but still the legs are in the form of columns, no bends are visible.

The video also shows how easily (at an acute angle) and quickly (0.5 sec), as if in a jacket, the astronaut bends his arm at the elbow when he "salutes" the American flag, forgetting that he is wearing a spacesuit. Is it possible to bend so lightly if he really was wearing a multi-layered spacesuit?

Preflight training footage

In the elbow joint, corrugated bushings made of extra strong rubber were used, which made it possible to bend, however, an analysis of the geometry of the elbow bend shows that when the arm is bent, the volume of the spacesuit in the elbow area must inevitably decrease, and the sharper the angle, the stronger, therefore, the arm must do work against forces of pressure, and hefty forces (the astronaut inside the spacesuit has an excess pressure of 0.35 kg / cm 2; with a sleeve diameter at the elbow of about 15 cm, the sleeve is pulled with a force of 55 ... 70 kg) ...
Thus, the ease of bending of the arm, which we see on the roller, and the degree to which the legs of the astronaut are wrapped in the legs, clearly indicate that the jump is performed in a lightweight overalls imitating a spacesuit.

Gernot Geise also draws attention to the spacesuit problem in his book "The Big Lie of the Century. Apollo's Lunar Flight" ("Der groesste Betrug des Jahrhunderts. Die Apollo Mondfruege"), which contains dozens of photographs of astronauts from the "Moon" and for comparison photos of astronauts working on the Shuttle in outer space. The author notes that the spacesuits from the "Luna" are not inflated, they have characteristic large folds of matter and bends, which are absent on the suits of the "Shuttle" astronauts, since the latter are inflated from the inside by a pressure drop of 0.35-0.4 atm.

Apollo 16 astronaut's leg

Space Shuttle Astronaut Leg

We also illustrate this idea with fragments of a photo of the leg of the Space Shuttle and Apollo astronauts, the picture on the right (you can get the full photo by clicking on these frames). It is necessary to distinguish between small folds of external tissues from voluminous folds, we are talking about the latter. The spacesuit has a reinforcing layer that separates the sealed layer (which is actually inflated) from the outer layers of the fabric, and these outer layers can have their own folds, however, the inflation of the sealed layer excludes the possibility of deep and voluminous dents in the fabric, which are visible in the figure, on the Apollo astronaut's thigh, and are absent from the Shuttle astronaut.

4. Length of jumps, not corresponding to lunar gravity

There are no long jumps, the expected length of which (at least 3 meters) at a height of 50-70 cm would correspond to lunar gravity. Available jumps (for example, roller or) are less than 150 cm long (for rollers of the type in which astronauts move at an angle to the plane of the frame, this can be established by simulating their movement in 3D graphics packages, for example, in "3D MAX").

To ensure normal traction, astronauts' movement on the Moon requires a special method, reminiscent of hare jumping or kangaroo jumping (or). The coefficient of friction there is not worse than that of the earth, but the weight of the astronaut is low, therefore, strong shocks are required for lunar movement, providing excess pressure on the ground, however, the observed jump length (movement step) has a value characteristic of terrestrial, not lunar conditions. What prevented astronauts from using the advantages of long and high jumps (with a length of 3 m at a height of 50-70 cm) for fast and convenient movement on the lunar soil? The answer is unambiguous - they were hindered by the earth's gravity, because all the jumps were performed in the pavilion. You can easily make sure that the movement by leaps is easy to reproduce on the ground, for this you need to perform a series of jumps, observing the same techniques, with the body turning sideways to the direction of movement.

INDIRECT EVIDENCE INDICATING NO
MANNERED FLIGHTS TO THE MOON

1. The Americans have not carried out a single manned flight to the Moon over the past 30 years. This is despite the fact that the current US budget is incomparable with the budget of the 60s. If a flight to the moon was made, why not reproduce it again? One of the reasons that the Americans did not fly to the moon is the fear of their own revelations, because they would have to initiate new people into the mystery of the flights of the 60-70s. This version is also supported by the absence of unmanned flights to the Moon in recent years, in fact, all programs for studying the Moon by automatic stations have been frozen.

However, after China declared its intention to land a man on the moon, the United States immediately joined the fight for lunar priority. On January 14, 2004, US President George W. Bush presented a new American space program, according to which, not earlier than 2015, but not later than 2020, the United States intends to make an expedition to the moon and begin construction of a permanent base.

2. In October 2002, it became known that NASA had hired its former engineer, and now one of the most respected experts in the history of space exploration, James Oberg, so that he, for a reward of 15 thousand dollars, in writing, refuted "the fabrications of all those who prove that the lunar epic is just a well-executed falsification. " Oberg was required to "describe the Apollo mission step by step, refuting all the insinuations point by point."

However, in November 2002, through the media, NASA announced its rejection of this intention.

Nevertheless, all over the world there are unofficial sites of the type that "refute all the known objections of skeptics." Thus, NASA's intention turned out to be carried out by someone else's hands, in an unofficial way. For example, NASA dodged the original promise and thus evaded responsibility, leaving the world community in deep confusion. The likely reason for this step was the signing of a contract (11/26/2002) between the Russian-Ukrainian company "Kosmotras" and the private American company "TransOrbital" on the use of Russian-Ukrainian conversion carrier rockets "Dnepr" (SS-18 "Satan") for the implementation of the first American commercial program of flights of small spacecraft to the Moon. The TrailBlazer probe (which was scheduled to launch in June 2003 and then postponed to October) was supposed to produce high-quality video footage of the Moon and make it possible to see the American and Soviet spacecraft that landed on the Moon and stayed there. It took the company more than two years to obtain permission for the "lunar" commercial activity - the federal authorities allegedly wanted to thoroughly make sure that the commercial ship would not pollute the Moon with biomaterial and would not damage the sites of the previous lunar landing of earthlings. On December 20, 2002, a model of the future TrailBlazer lunar spacecraft was successfully launched into a circular orbit with an altitude of 650 kilometers by the Dnepr carrier rocket. As for the lunar probe itself, according to a 2002 interview given by Denis Lurie (president of TransOrbital), the device weighing 520 kg was already 80% ready at that time. After being delivered to near-earth orbit, the TrailBlazer, equipped with a propulsion system, had to independently reach the Moon.

Nevertheless, the probe has not yet flown, which may cause confusion after such extensive preparatory work. According to the latest data, the launch has been postponed to the beginning of 2004. However, it is alarming that the launch plans for the first half of 2004 do not include TrailBlazer.

In our opinion, the failure of the flight is associated with the threat of exposure of the lunar scam of 68-72. The device did not fly, since one of the mission's tasks was video filming of the traces of the American astronauts disembarkation.

REASONS THAT MAKE THE US TO GO TO FALSE

The USA, having a serious lag behind the USSR in the space race, has set the task of getting ahead of the USSR at any cost in the program of landing a man on the moon. Realizing that this task may not be feasible, the work was carried out in two directions: the real lunar program and a fallback - falsification, in case of failure or delay of the main program.

NASA's lunar program was not brought to manned manned flights to the moon due to the threat of being ahead of the USSR. The United States had to abandon the implementation of a manned flight to the Moon and put into action a fallback option - a hoax plan for landing on the Moon.

A month before the start of Apollo-7, the Soviet probe Zond-5 (an unmanned version of the manned spacecraft 7K-L1, designed to fly around the moon by two cosmonauts), successfully circled the moon for the first time and returned to Earth, splashing down in the Indian Ocean ( the first living earthly creatures to visit the circumlunar space were turtles on the Zond-5 rocket; on September 15, 1968, this rocket orbited the Moon at a minimum distance of 1950 km). On November 10-17, 1968, the flight around the Moon was repeated by the Zond-6 spacecraft, which then landed on the territory of the USSR. NASA specialists were alarmed that the Soviet Union could send the next Zond-7 spacecraft with astronauts on board in order to once again ensure the USSR's priority - priority in a manned flight around the Moon.

In the United States, the decision to hoax a manned flight to the Moon was made, because despite the manufacture of the Saturn-5 launch vehicle and other elements of the lunar program, the work was not completed to ensure the required reliability of the elements and the delivery of a person to the Moon itself (the required reliability of each expedition is not lower than 0.99). It is known that just a few months before the announced landing of the first astronauts, the tests of the dynamic model of the lunar module ended with a crash. When descending in simulated conditions of lunar gravity, the cabin became uncontrollable, began to tumble and crashed, Armstrong, who piloted the vehicle, miraculously managed to eject. Usually, the causes of such disasters are not eliminated in a few months (for example, after the shutdowns of Shuttle, a moratorium on launches was declared for a period of more than a year).

Not everything went smoothly with the Apollo KM spacecraft. On January 27, 1967, during ground training of astronauts, a fire broke out in the Apollo crew cabin. Three astronauts were burned alive or suffocated. The cause of the fire was the atmosphere of pure oxygen, which was used in the Apollo life system. Everything burns in oxygen, even metal, so a spark in the electrical equipment was enough. Fire-fighting the Apollo took 20 months, but questions about the ship's reliability as a whole remained open. There is a report by Thomas Ronald Baron, an inspector for space flight safety, which he prepared after a tragic incident, where he justified the unpreparedness of the spacecraft for a lunar flight. Shortly after the appearance of this report, Baron and his family died in a car accident.

The idea of ​​insufficient readiness of the Americans for a lunar flight in 1968 was also voiced in the diary of N.P. Kamanin (assistant to the Air Force Commander-in-Chief for space, organizer of training for Soviet cosmonauts in 1960-1971):

“In the TASS report received today, there is information that the United States intends to fly around the Moon by the Apollo-8 spacecraft with three astronauts on board in December. , and the Saturn-5 rocket is still not reliable enough (only two launches were carried out, one of which was unsuccessful). "

In order to get a deeper understanding of what exactly did not work out in the US lunar program, let's see what happened in the USSR as part of the manned lunar flyby program

"The UR500K-L1 program envisaged firstly 10 flights of the unmanned version of the 7K-L1 spacecraft, which was later named the" Probe ", the 11th and 14th ships were to be launched with crews on board. manned flyby of the Moon, as the United States was already actively working on the Apollo program. The flight was planned for July 1967

The first spacecraft of this series was launched only on March 10, 1967 under the name "Kosmos-146". Moreover, due to a failure in the control system of the "D" rocket unit of the "Proton" carrier rocket (UR500K), instead of acceleration to the Moon, the ship was decelerated, which entered the Earth's atmosphere along a steep trajectory and collapsed.

In the same year, three more unsuccessful attempts were made to launch the unmanned 7K-L1 to the moon. One of the ships, named "Kosmos-154" and launched on April 8, due to the failure of the "D" block, remained in Earth's orbit on September 28, and on November 22, during the launch into orbit, accidents occurred with the "Proton" carrier rockets. On March 2, 1968, the next spacecraft was launched, called "Zond-4". Due to the failure of the orientation system, it was not possible to direct it to the Moon, it entered a highly elliptical orbit around the Earth. "

We see that all launches of unmanned spacecraft were aimed at circling the moon, and not at tests in near-earth orbit. In light of the above, it is reasonable to assume that the Americans also launched their unmanned Apollo 4 and Apollo 6 to the Moon. It would be strange not to test the expensive Saturn-5 on the route for which it was created - if a launch is made, then this launch should be aimed at the moon. However, due to some problems with Saturn-5 or because of the failure of the orientation system of the Apollo spacecraft, they could not be put into orbit to the Moon, they only entered a highly elliptical orbit around the Earth, like our Probe-4. The Americans were smart enough to say that they had planned so. NASA then realized that they did not have time to ensure the proper reliability of the launch and return of the Apollo spacecraft with the crew - the USSR with its Probes was stepping on its heels. A hoax plan was adopted, involving the delivery of only unmanned ships to the moon. They were not fatal for drones: depressurization, strong overloads during acceleration and deceleration and entering the atmosphere. Finally, the absence of an atmosphere and life systems inside the drone favorably distinguished it from the manned Apollo spacecraft with a fire hazardous oxygen atmosphere. Moreover, the Americans were even satisfied with the complete destruction of the ship in the Earth's atmosphere upon their return, because the astronauts were waiting for it on Earth. It was only important not to miss too much past the calculated landing point. The reliability of the Apollo at that time was sufficient to carry out such an unmanned mission, but not acceptable for manned flights. The level of development of space technology 60-70 in terms of ACS and coolant did not meet the requirements for the reliability of human delivery to the Moon.

The fact that at that time the reliability of the Saturn-Apollo system was not sufficient for a manned flight to the Moon is also confirmed by the words of Werner von Braun, addressed to Armstrong and sounded in the film shown on December 21, 2003 by ORT:
"From the point of view of statistics, I have very bad prospects (this is him about his illness before his death) ... but you know how deceiving statistics can be. After all that happened, I should have been in prison, and you should have died in space ... "

Werner von Braun's words eloquently indicate that, according to NASA's statistical estimates, Armstrong had little chance of returning from the moon.

SAMPLE SCENARIO OF NASA FALSIFICATIONS
AND CONSIDERATIONS OF GOVERNMENTS

1. The launches of all Saturn-5 rockets were made in the UNMANNED version. All lunar missions, from Apollo 8 to Apollo 17, were unmanned. The spacecraft to be launched consisted of two modules: the Apollo module (an unmanned version of the Apollo KM spacecraft), designed to fly around the moon, and the lunar automatic vehicle (lunar), designed to land on the moon and deliver soil to Earth. It is possible that not one, but several lunars were placed on board the ship, to increase the reliability of the operation as a whole. The spacecraft entered a circumlunar orbit, after which the lunar detachment took place, followed by a lunar landing.

There are two possible scenarios for returning to Earth. The first is the launch of the lunar rovers from the Moon to deliver the soil on board the Apollo CM and the return of Apollo with the soil capsule. The second scenario is the autonomous return of the lunars to Earth (if this particular version is correct, then the meaning of unofficial statements about the appearance of some UFOs and their pursuit of Apollo on the trajectory of their return to Earth becomes clear).

Due to the lack of reliability of the lunars during operations at the stages of lunar landing, launch, docking with Apollo (according to the first version), landing (according to the second version), some of them, or all of them, suffered an accident. Most likely, in the first Apollo missions it was not possible to obtain soil, the only thing they successfully coped with was the delivery and installation of repeaters and corner reflectors on the Moon.

2. Lunar Soil.

The article and the website are devoted to a detailed analysis of the problem of the lunar soil. Analysis of the data provided in these articles allows us to conclude:

1. By the time of the exchange of soil between the USSR and the USA (1971), the Americans did not have samples of lunar soil, and the USSR did not publicly declare this, which suggests that by this time there had already been some political conspiracy between the leadership of the USSR and the USA

2. The lunar soil was obtained by the Americans in later expeditions, and in an insignificant amount. However, about 400 kg of soil was declared. The lion's share of this soil is obtained in terrestrial conditions.

3. Film and photographic materials.

Cinema photography was carried out in the pavilion and on the training ground of the secret US Air Force base known as Zone-51, with the corresponding imitation of the lunar landscape and the use of scenery made from numerous photographs accumulated during the operation of drones. Simulation of lunar gravity was carried out by slowing down the playback speed of video frames by 2.5 times (by that time, the Americans already owned the technology of video recording of images on magnetic tape). The movement of the rover on the Moon was reproduced in the same way: it was driven at a speed of 30-40 km per hour on the sandy ground of the polygon, which created a sufficient height of dust rise, and then the video was slowed down by the same 2.5 times. In order to reconstruct the pavilion filming, you can speed up the "moon" videos (originals from NASA) by 2.5 times, or watch two of them, already accelerated.

It is important to note that compared to videos, still images are of a significantly higher quality (very sharp). This is easily explained if we take into account that for photography, the ground was imitated by fine dust (dust powder), while for videos, coarse sand is needed, which easily settles in the air atmosphere of the pavilion (fine dust would expose the absence of a vacuum due to hanging in the air)

Reducing the sharpness of the videos allowed the sand to be passed off as fine dust - lunar regolith.

It should also be noted that simulators made within the framework of the lunar program had a dual purpose - they could be used both for training astronauts and for filming. Here's what you can read about this in the book of the cosmonaut Feoktistov:
“From the airfield we drove to the base in Langley, where they showed us a simulator for practicing manual control during lunar landing. When working out the descent, dynamic processes were simulated (rates of descent and horizontal movement, angular acceleration of the cabin, etc.) The conditions of sun illumination of the landing site were also simulated. For this, the development could be carried out at night, and the searchlights were raised and lowered, simulating different angles of the Sun's elevation above the moon's horizon. "

There are two possible scenarios for simulating MCC negotiations with astronauts

1.With the use of a repeater.

A repeater is delivered to the moon by a drone, and the following radio exchange scheme is organized: MCC >> ground point for receiving and transmitting information >> Lunar repeater >> MCC. From the ground point of information transmission and reception, the video image is transmitted to the MCC through the lunar repeater. In this case, the scoring of the transmitted videos by astronauts is carried out during a communication session with the MCC either in real time, or the videos are voiced in advance.

2. With the use of video reproducing equipment. A VCR with a pre-recorded radio exchange program is installed on board the lunar.

The repeater (or tape recorder) was also installed on the Apollo unmanned spacecraft to simulate negotiations with astronauts during the "flight to the moon". Note that a similar communication scheme was used on Zonda-4 (an unmanned version of a Soviet spacecraft designed for two cosmonauts to fly around the moon). During the Zonda-4 flight, Popovich and Sevastyanov were in the Evpatoria Mission Control Center, in a special isolated bunker, and for six days they negotiated with the Mission Control Center through the Zonda-4 repeater, thereby simulating a flight to the Moon and back. Having intercepted the information from the Zonda-4 board, NASA specialists at the first moment decided that the Soviet cosmonauts were flying to the Moon.

Now a few words about the videos showing the astronauts on the ship "flying to the moon" that were shown on the air. They are also of terrestrial origin and were obtained: partly in airplanes in free fall areas (simulating weightlessness), but mainly on simulators with the above-mentioned dual purpose. In the same book by Feoktistov we read:

“In Houston, we saw a special simulator for practicing docking. This is a huge structure in which a full-scale (in size and external shape) model of the main Apollo unit and a model of a lunar cabin with two training cosmonauts can move in space (lifts and trolleys are used, The mock-up of the lunar cockpit is suspended in a gimbal and during the imitation of the rendezvous process, in accordance with the commands from the attitude control knob, the cockpit with the pilots rotates in space. control, the crew either stands vertically, then lies on their stomach, then on their side (in order not to fall, the crew was fixed with a special system on stretchers.) Changing the position of the body relative to the direction of gravity, of course, interferes with the work and does not correspond to the flight conditions. point of view, this expensive construction was done by American specialists in vain. more importantly, there were extra funds "

No, these are not "extra funds", it was here that the flight to the Moon was filmed: smooth movements of astronauts in zero gravity, docking-undocking maneuvers with the lunar module, etc.

The stretching system is, apparently, something close to Copperfield's cables, allowing him to float in the air and be invisible to the observer. Here they are, the "lunar" technologies that have found brilliant application in the attraction of the illusionist after 30 years!

In his book We Never Fought the Moon, Bill Kaysing, a former chief of technical information at Rocketdyne (part of the Apollo project), says that astronauts were first loaded onto the Apollo spacecraft and then unnoticed landed back and flown to Nevada. There, at a closely guarded airbase near the city of Mercury, video footage of the lunar odyssey was made. Keyzing also notes that all the astronauts went through a hypnotic zombie procedure. Some astronauts still believe in the reality of their lunar flight.

At that time, according to Keysing, the probability of success of the event within the organization of NASA itself was assessed as extremely low, which predetermined the entire scenario of hoaxes.

4. Collusion of the governments of the USSR and the USA

Presumably by the beginning of 1970, the USSR government already knew about the falsification, but no exposure followed - there was a political conspiracy between the governments of the two countries. This is indirectly evidenced by the beginning of active interaction between countries in the space field. At the persistent initiative of NASA, work began on joint manned flights.

In the report of the leading researcher V.A. Chaly-Prilutsky we read:

"Since January 1970, an active correspondence began between NASA Director Dr. Thomas O. Payne and the President of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Academician M.V. Keldysh (note that then the entire Soviet space was officially under the heading The meetings were held under the auspices of the Academy of Sciences, although they were mainly attended by specialists from "space" enterprises and organizations.) Dr. Payne, in letters to Academician Keldysh, proposed conducting a joint space flight with the docking of American and Soviet spacecraft. This correspondence was a success (Note. It is clear that the decision on the part of the USSR was made at the highest level - in the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU, in the Council of Ministers, in the military-industrial complex) .... 26-27.10.70 the first meeting of Soviet and American specialists in the space field was held in Moscow ... "

Then the joint work began, culminating in the historic docking of the Soyuz and Apollo spacecraft. The "rapprochement and docking" of the USSR and the USA was accompanied by the following events: the cancellation of the last two lunar expeditions (previously planned Apollo 18, 19) and the departure of NASA Director Dr. Payne from his post (15.09.70).

The government of the USSR conspired, since the United States had a counter political compromising material on the leadership of the USSR, accumulated over the period beginning with the Cuban missile crisis. Under the terms of the collusion, the USSR also received economic concessions and privileges in exchange for its silence, for example, access to the Western European oil market. Until 1970, the United States pursued a tough policy of blocking oil supplies from the USSR to the West: tough pressure was put on European countries if they tried to cooperate with the Soviets. But from the 70th year (the most likely date of the collusion), the USSR began its deliveries, long before the energy crisis of 73:
"The Soviet Union began exporting oil in the 60s, first to the CMEA countries, that is, the socialist countries - Eastern Europe, Vietnam, Mongolia, Cuba. This export was economically unprofitable for the Soviet Union, because in exchange for cheap oil supplies, the USSR bought industrial products at inflated prices.

Since the 1970s, the USSR began exporting oil to Western countries, to Western Europe, primarily Germany and Italy, which were the first to start purchasing. "

In support of this, we present a table of oil exports from the USSR and its distribution among Western European importing countries in 1970-1990 (million tons).

There is no doubt that after the collapse of the USSR, the lunar conspiracy was prolonged by the corrupt Yeltsin regime. The prolongation of the collusion was secured by a new interstate docking in orbit, which repeated the Soyuz-Apollo docking - the project of the International Space Station (ISS). Our space luminaries also docked to work with the Americans on the ISS, and it became too much for them to expose the investor partner in the falsification of the flight to the Moon.

_____________________

Note
About the project of the international space station "ALFA"

“The idea of ​​creating the International Space Station (ISS) Alpha emerged in the very beginning of the 90s. The transition from projects to concrete actions took place in 1995, when NASA Director Daniel Goldin convinced US President Bill Clinton of the need for annual spending on the program“ Alpha "$ 2.1 billion over seven years. An important factor that contributed to the fact that the US Congress approved the allocation of NASA $ 13.1 billion for the construction of the ISS, was Russia's consent to participate in this program. The project became truly international after joining him by the European Space Agency (ESA), Canada and Japan.

In accordance with the agreements reached at a meeting between Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin and US Vice President Albert Gore, on August 15, 1995, Boeing, NASA's head contractor for the Alpha program, and the M. V. Khrunichev (GKNPTSKH) signed a contract in the amount of 190 million dollars, providing for the construction and launch into orbit of the core of the future ISS. “I think this event is symbolic,” said Daniel Goldin in this regard. “Until now, we have competed in space, now we have the opportunity to jointly take on a large high-tech project for the benefit of all mankind.”

WHY CANNOT NASA COUNT EVERYTHING?

Was there really no specialists at NASA who were able to notice and eliminate all discrepancies in the submitted materials? They could not - this is the law of the universe, a lie always remains a lie, no matter how well it was cooked up. It is simply impossible to take everything into account, because the volume of work is enormous and against the background of what was taken into account and done, punctures and inconsistencies inevitably appear, even in a real technical project, the percentage of failures is quite large and cannot be avoided. If EVERYTHING could be taken into account, then the lie would be equal to the TRUTH and it would be impossible to distinguish them. However, the weakness of lies lies in the fact that no matter how widely the information is presented, it is enough to indicate at least one discrepancy, and the exposure of the deception will take place. Any contradiction is a proof of falsity, and if there is at least one, pay attention, at least ONE contradiction, then ALL the material is fake, and the amount of information presented does not change anything at all.

WHY ARE THEY NOT DISCLOSED?

1. Thousands and thousands of people were involved in a long chain of secret events. Why are they silent?

Firstly, almost all structural elements of the lunar program were REALLY fulfilled: Saturn-5 rockets and Apollo spacecraft were manufactured.

Secondly, the number of those familiar with all the details of the falsification was extremely limited. Even many MCC specialists, receiving a picture from the "Moon", had no idea that they were watching the footage in the pavilion.

2. Lack of revelations from the USSR

All technical advances in the US lunar program were readily advertised and demonstrated to specialists from all countries. So, in 69, at the invitation of NASA, an astronaut, Doctor of Technical Sciences Feoktistov visited the United States, who, seeing what was created under the lunar program, was stunned by the amount of work and enthusiastically agreed with the reality of manned flights to the moon:

"There is no reason to suspect the Americans of imitation, there is. In 69 I was in America just after the astronauts returned from the Moon. I visited the factories where the Apollo were made, I saw the returned vehicles. I felt them with my hands. As for the American spacesuit. I saw it too. Made as it should. True, there was one thin place: a single-layer hermetic shell. On the other hand, this increased the mobility of a person ...

Everything was correct. The only thing - I thought that they had chosen the wrong pressure and composition of the atmosphere: about 0.35 - 0.4 atmospheres, practically from pure oxygen. It is very dangerous. Although it is understandable why they chose this pressure: the time to prepare for the exit to the lunar surface decreased.

They say that they did not have a perfect docking mechanism, but they had a radar that made it possible to work from several hundred kilometers and carry out rendezvous and docking in the lunar orbit. Moreover, from the point of view of getting into the docking station, they docked more accurately. It would be difficult for us to dock with our system in the orbit of the Moon ... "

“And when Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins flew to the moon, our receiving radio equipment received signals from the Apollo 11 board, conversations, a television picture about the exit to the lunar surface.

Arranging such a hoax is probably no less difficult than a real expedition. To do this, it would be necessary to land a television transponder on the lunar surface in advance and check its operation (with transmission to Earth), again in advance. And on the days of the imitation of the expedition, it was necessary to send a radio relay to the Moon to simulate the Apollo's radio communication with the Earth on the flight path to the Moon. And they did not hide the scale of work on Apollo. And what they showed me in Houston in 1969 (Control Center, stands, laboratories), factories in Los Angeles for the manufacture of Apollo spacecraft and the descent vehicles that returned to Earth, according to this logic, should have been an imitation ?! Too hard and too funny. "

Pay attention - Feoktistov actually presented a version of the falsification scenario, but he questioned it due to the apparent complexity of the implementation. Feoktistov found it "funny", because he reasoned according to a primitive scheme, according to which the presence of individual structural elements of the program, which he "could feel", is proof of the possibility of their RELIABLE AND RELIABLE operation in real flight. THERE WAS A CHANGE OF CONCEPTS: the readiness of individual elements was interpreted as evidence of a completed manned flight. Finding himself hypnotized by what he saw, he could not appeal to logic that could suggest that what was presented is a necessary, but far from sufficient, condition for performing a lunar flight.

Our specialists actually evaded the analysis of specific photographic materials provided by NASA to prove the flight to the Moon, limiting themselves to assessing the pre-flight technical readiness of the elements, in the complete absence of information about the reliability. With this in mind, Feoktistov's conclusion on the implementation of a manned flight to the Moon looks extremely ill-considered and irresponsible. However, it was precisely such conclusions that played their fatal role in assessing the reality of the American lunar program by the Soviet leadership (the opinions of other specialists and scientists, as well as intelligence data, were not taken into account).

Later, when the intelligence efforts obtained convincing facts of falsification of the American landing on the moon, there was a political conspiracy between the Brezhnev leadership and the United States. The government of the USSR did not dare to start a wave of exposing the lunar scam, fearing counter-actions from the United States (strengthening the foreign trade blockade, exposing the political crimes of the ruling elite, etc.). The mediocre government of Brezhnev exchanged the PRIME DIAMOND (priority in the rocket and space race and world leadership) for a CHEAP FORGET (current economic and political benefits). By their collusion, the Soviet government not only lost the Cold War, it signed the USSR's death warrant. Recognition of someone else's lies deprives the nation of independence and completely enslaves it. If until 1968 the USSR was in the lead in all aspects of the rocket and space race, then the recognition of the hoax threw Russia into secondary roles and reoriented the nation's brains to the Western false leader, depriving the country of internal support and faith in its own strength. Our best specialists were blinded and demoralized by the clever reception of information warfare by the United States. This INFORMATION WEAPON and now continues to work against Russia, not allowing her to rise from her knees.

3. Silence of scientists

1. The key point that made Soviet specialists (not privy to the existence of a behind-the-scenes collusion) believe in the landing version

Skylab station and Apollo spacecraft

Americans to the moon, was the launch of the Saturn-5 rocket of the Skylab station into low-earth orbit. The rocket specialists had no reason to doubt, because the lack of a powerful rocket was the reason for the failure of the USSR's lunar program, and here the capabilities of Saturn-5 were demonstrated to withdraw large payloads, such as a huge and spacious laboratory station.

2. NASA launched a preemptive strike by deliberately raising a turbid wave of "rebuttals" with deliberately false and ridiculous arguments. Thus, APRIORI discredited competent specialists who would try to raise their voices to refute the version of the landing on the moon. NASA, together with its accomplices (see), focused public attention on false discrepancies and thereby distracted attention from the serious contradictions contained in the submitted materials on the lunar program. The whistleblowers, who fell for false contradictions, were easily defeated, which gave rise to serious scientists who did not want to participate in dirty political games, fear for their reputation.

NASA has basically achieved its goal - so far, practically NO ONE major specialist, who values ​​his reputation and his authority at least a little, has not dared OPEN to join the skeptics, and after all, they, like no one else, have all the scientific and technical grounds for revelations. Moreover, some of them now continue to play along with America, playing the role of agents of influence in the information war against Russia.

Russian scientists are already reaping the fruits of their silence and compromise, yielding priority in the rocket-space race without a fight. They are now a wretched sight: they stand with an outstretched hand, begging for pitiful crumbs from America, for example, to conduct space experiments ordered by the "winners". Russian space science has turned into a cab, bringing out other people's satellites at bargain prices. Such pro-American specialists as Feoktistov continue their destructive work to contain Russian space science, which he began back in 1969. Speaking on 4 February 2003 on television, he said that Russia did not need manned space, that the Mir station should have been sunk, or even better, sold to the Americans, leaving himself the role of a cab and technical service. Fortunately, this kind of plebeian and treacherous sentiment is characteristic of only a small proportion of Russian scientists and cosmonauts.

4. Propaganda

The Americans issued several versions of propaganda lies, taking into account the differences in the mentality of the audiences. For romantically and mystically inclined natures, the statements of astronauts about their encounters with UFOs during a flight to the moon, about secret cities and bases of aliens on the moon, i.e. a motive is given explaining the reason for the fake video materials, they say they filmed everything on Earth in order to hide something like that ... that they saw and filmed on the Moon.

Pragmatists were divided into two classes: one of them prove that the materials are not fake, but the most lunar ones, see, others, technically more educated and unable to swallow a fake, say that some of the materials were actually filmed in the pavilion, so that it was of better quality , this, they say, was practiced in the USSR. A typical victim of this form of deception is cosmonaut Georgy Grechko, who, while justifying the version of NASA, at the same time repeatedly spoke out in television and radio broadcasts that, indeed, some of NASA's materials were filmed in pavilions and it was this fact that gave rise to a wave of denials of the version of the American landing to the moon. Here is an excerpt from his speech on the Ekho Moskvy program:

I. MERKULOVA: But when the Americans landed on the moon, they also saw something.

G. GRECHKO: But this is not true, because many times I met the person who was the second to enter the moon, and asked him: “Have you seen rolling fireballs that spoke to you in English? have landed, that they are already here? ... "The more I spoke, the more he slowly moved away from me. But I told him: "Yes, understand, I know the answers, but I need to refer to you, that I personally spoke to you and you personally denied it." We are on very good terms, and I am absolutely sure that he did not fool my head. Therefore, there were no balls, no angels ...

V. GOLOVACHEV: Now I believe that the Americans were not on the moon.

G. GRECHKO: But this is even insulting to me. I'll tell you what the matter is ... Where does this stupid, completely ridiculous rumor come from? The thing is, sometimes you get bad pictures in space. And I think that they could not resist, and they took a picture of the flag on the moon. And the fact that they flew, that they filmed, that they brought samples, this is absolutely true. They tried a little to improve the result, and now they are for it ...

It never occurred to Grechko that his foreign friend had been brainwashed by the best CIA specialists. The commonwealth of zombie astronauts with our astronauts is an excellent way of propaganda and cover for falsification, widely used by American ideologists. The last example of such a reception is the arrival (12/15/2003) in Moscow of astronaut Eugene Cernan (Apollo 17), who without batting an eye, honestly looking at the TV camera, said: “Truth does not need excuses and protection. People can think everything, whatever, but I really was there, and those traces that I left there, no one can erase. "

The most "strong" material evidence of his presence on the moon was the wristwatch in which he was allegedly on the moon and which he intrusively demonstrated to gullible spectators in Moscow. The instructors who sent him to Moscow to repay the wave of revelations in the Russian media that had begun, clearly overdid the clock, putting Cernan in a stupid position.

Another example of corporate solidarity is an article by cosmonaut Valery Polyakov (deputy director of the Institute of Medical and Biological Problems) in the "Stolichnaya Vechernaya Gazeta" # 202-002 dated 3.12.2003:

“Those who claim that a person did not land on the lunar surface are not familiar with the specifics of working in space. For example, the video footage shows how the American flag flutters on the moon, but there is no atmosphere, the wind has nowhere to come from. "I will explain this phenomenon based on biomedical considerations. I spent about two years in zero gravity. At first it struck me that if you look closely at your arms and legs, you will see their vibrations. This is not a tremor from some previous social burdens, this is Feeling my pulse, I saw that these vibrations are going in sync with the activity of the heart.

In the window, the illumination of the observed objects changes slightly in the same rhythm. The reason is simple - a wave of blood goes from the heart, reaches the capillary vessels, carrying oxygen, carrying carbon dioxide and toxins. This affects the production of visual pigments in the body - rhodopsin and iodopsin. Similarly, with a decrease or disappearance of weight in a state of weightlessness, these vibrations of the limbs appear, which on Earth, in conditions of gravity, are not noticeable. On the Moon, a person's weight is one-sixth of that on Earth. And when the astronaut reaches out to the flagpole, these rhythmic vibrations of the flag produce what was mistaken for the wind. "

As you can see, the deputy director of the Institute of Biomedical Problems explains the flag fluctuations by the beats of the astronaut's pulse. A more ridiculous and absurd way of shielding American lies is hard to imagine! The aforementioned article by cosmonaut V. Polyakov adds one more indelible stain to the entire Russian cosmonaut corps and the entire Soviet cosmonautics. In the article, he is ready to admit the possibility of falsification of the circumstances of the assassination of Kennedy, but does not even admit the thought of the possibility of deception on the part of astronauts with whom he managed to make friends, forgetting that Americans can put the interests of their country above the truth and personal relationships.

SITUATION AROUND THE CRITICISM OF NASA'S LUNAR PROGRAM

Of course, only a drone sent to the Moon can provide one hundred percent proof of the failure of a manned flight. However, for an objective and unbiased analyst, the fact of falsification is already obvious today. Especially against the background of inept attempts by the defenders of the landing version. Their helplessness and partiality sometimes take on comical forms. For example, there is not a single record from which it would follow that the astronauts were free to observe the stars, lifting their heads, and the defenders of the landing version say: "They did not think to raise their heads inside the spacesuit," or: "There was too little time to look at the stars." ...
Funny or sad?

And here is how the defenders of the NASA version fend off the fact that the Apollo 11 astronauts did not see the stars from the upper window: "So they did not guess to turn off the light!"

Here is their justification for the lack of demonstrations of high free jumps: "They jumped high, they just forgot to film it on tape," or they also say: "They were forbidden to jump so that they would not crash when falling."

Etc. etc.

We see that in the last 30 years there has not been a single drone launch to the Moon. The study of the Moon by automatic stations has ceased, the presence of traces of a landing on the Moon has not yet been confirmed. True, in 1994, a NASA drone flew near the Moon, however, no pictures of the equipment left on the Moon after landing (the launch platform of the lunar module, the rover, etc.) were taken, and this is easily explained, since it simply is not there. The only thing they were able to show was a foggy spot that stands out as the traces of the landing.

photograph taken by "Clementine"

Here's how the defenders of the NASA version comment on this spot: "The American spacecraft" Clementine "carried out photographs of the lunar surface for two months in early 1994. And what? The Apollo 15 astronauts have been on the lunar surface much longer than previous expeditions, so they left on the surface quite a few tracks and ruts from the wheels of their "lunomobile." like a small dark speck.

Left - photograph taken by "Clementine". The dark spot marked with the letter "A" is located exactly at the Apollo 15 landing site. Spots "B" and "C" are apparently traces of fresh meteorite impacts. Photos from lunar orbit taken before the Apollo 15 landing did not show these spots. "

From our side, two more natural explanations of these photographic materials suggest themselves.

1. If spots "B" and "C" are traces of "fresh meteorites", then why should spot "A" not be considered a trace of another meteorite?

2. Spot "A" may be a trace of the impact of the gas jet of the rocket engine of a drone that flew in the framework of the Apollo 15 mission behind the ground, or a trace of its crash on the Moon (after all, not all unmanned missions of the Apollo program were successful).

Finally, the very nature of the spot (its dimensions exceed hundreds of meters) and the resolution of the optics, in principle, do not allow it to be identified with any traces.

Soviet cosmonautics in the 70s had every opportunity to verify the fact of the Americans landing on the moon using a drone. Most likely, such work was carried out, for example, with the help of Lunokhod-2, however, the results turned out to be classified.

CONCLUSION

THE KEY MOMENT OF THE AMERICAN SCAM consisted in the substitution of a real lunar program for a mystified one, at a time when there was a threat of being ahead of the USSR. The Americans were unable to carry out either a manned flyby of the Moon or a manned landing on the Moon, the only thing they achieved was to repeat the success of the USSR's lunar program. We have to state with regret - man still has not gone beyond the near-earth space, nevertheless, the Great American legend about the landing of a man on the moon has become firmly established, having entered the consciousness of people and textbooks on astronautics. The most powerful and obvious fact that makes it possible to expose the American scam is the lack of demonstrations of weak lunar gravity:

There are no free jumps of the corresponding height and length, confirming the presence of a person on the moon

There is no demonstration of throwing various objects to the lunar height and range, with an overview of the entire flight path

Nowhere, not in a single frame, the moon dust from the impact of the foot does not rise above one meter, but should rise 6 meters or more.

The consequences of admitting this lie are enormous. Not receiving timely rebuff and exposure, America realized that fools and donkeys can be kept not only by the common population of the world, but also by its intellectual elite.

Thus, in the struggle for WORLD DOMINANCE and one-man power, America decided to take a desperate step - implemented the mystification of man's flights to the moon. The success of this scam was facilitated by our space specialists, who played the role of the TROYAN HORSE in the complete defeat of the Soviet lunar program, which consistently led to the transfer of the palm tree to the United States in science, technology, politics and military potential, and as a result - to the collapse of the once mighty USSR.

Our cosmic luminaries continue to calmly observe how a LIE is implanted in universities about the brilliant successes of the Americans in the exploration of the Moon, trample and belittle the successes of Russian cosmonautics. This is despite the fact that the lunar race was actually won by the USSR. After all, it was the USSR who was the first in the world to make an unmanned flight (with living beings on board) around the Moon.

After all, it was the USSR that first created the lunar rover and delivered it to the moon and was the first to receive lunar soil. The only thing that our cosmic luminaries are enough for is to write a memoir under a humiliatingly shameful title - "How We Lost the Moon". The time is not far off when our compatriots will throw off the yoke of American propaganda, remember their national pride and give an adequate assessment of such cowardly and shameful actions of our space specialists, who have stained themselves with a treacherous and fatal collusion for the country.

Links
1. Jumping-moving astronauts on the moon:
http://www.nasm.si.edu/apollo/MOVIES/a01708av.avi (1.8 MB).
2. Jump on the stairs of the lunar cabin:
http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11.v1113715.mov (4 MB).
3. Demonstration high jumps:
http://history.nasa.gov/40thann/mpeg/ap16_salute.mpg (2.4 MB).
4. Norms of long and high jumps from a spot in training volleyball players:
http://nskvolley.narod.ru/Volleynet/Techniks/IsometrVoll.htm
5. Messages about the intentions of NASA to write a book proving the fact of the flight of astronauts to the moon:
http://saratov.rfn.ru/cnews.html?id=3754
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/russian/sci/tech/newsid_2418000/2418625.stm
http://www.itogi.ru/paper2002.nsf/Article/Itogi_2002_11_05_12_0004.html
Reports of NASA abandoning its intention to write a book:
http://www.atlasaerospace.net/newsi-r.htm?id=610
http://www.aerotechnics.ru/news/news.asp?id=1338
6. The address of a vaccine site designed to cause fear for their sanity when trying to expose NASA's lunar scam:
http://www.skeptik.net/conspir/moonhoax.htm
7.http: //schools.keldysh.ru/sch1216/students/Luna2002/chelovek_na_lune.htm
8. Astronaut falls and jump from deep squat:
http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/solarsys/raw/apo/apo17f.avi
9. NASA ANSMET Antarctic Meteorite Search Project:
http://www.meteorite.narod.ru/proba/stati/stati4.htm
10. Reconstruction of pavilion filming
http://mo--on.narod.ru/inc_2_5.htm
11. Jumping on a trampoline
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/a16v.1701931.ram
12 http://www.aviaport.ru/news/Markets/15966.html
13.http: //www.alanbeangallery.com/lonestar.html
14.http: //www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11.postland.html
15.http: //www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a12/a12.postland.html
16. Jumping-moving
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v_1670930.mov

Publications on the same topic
17. Controversy with the defenders of the NASA version
18. Contradictions and oddities in the materials on the Americans' lunar program
19. Article by Yu.I. Mukhin
20. Interview with Andrey Ladyzhenko
21. A site that analyzes rover dust trajectories, throw trajectories, etc.
22. Article by Yu.I. Mukhin about falsification of lunar soil

So were the Americans on the moon?

SECRET RESEARCH N2 (22) 2000
Vadim Rostov
We received a letter from the Kemerovo region from the journalist and veteran of the Great Patriotic War Boris Lvovich Khanaev. He's writing:

"Dear editors! I am a regular reader of your very popular and entertaining newspaper. The weekly newspaper" Krugozor "is published in Novokuznetsk, which has published an article that I am sending you. You do not need to be too erudite to see the inconsistency of the statements of the famous researcher of the anomalous Yuri Fomin regarding the lies of the Americans In this regard, I sent a note to the “Krugozor” (copy attached) “Spit at Apollo.” However, apparently due to the events in Yugoslavia, fearing reproach for curtsey towards the United States, the newspaper refused to publish. that your newspaper is more courageous and close to this topic, I ask you to print my note, supplementing the publication with your commentary. "

We regret to inform that our reader was mistaken in the expectation that we would stigmatize insolent attempts to cast a shadow on the veracity of the Americans' claims about their walks on the moon. In the second issue of the newspaper for 1998, we published our analysis of all the statements and arguments of skeptics available to us, primarily American ones, proving that in reality NASA did not land astronauts on the moon (maximum - only once or twice, and the rest of the landings were filmed in pavilions on Earth and were broadcast, possibly from the Apollo spacecraft, which only flew around the moon). In our publication, we have cited a large number of facts indicating that doubts of skeptics are certainly justified.

As for the article by Yu. Fomin in "Krugozor", it repeats 3-4 really serious, but long-known arguments of skeptics, but the rest, apparently, the author's independent reasoning is completely out of the ordinary, such as, for example, the accusation of the USSR that he condoned the cover-up. truth, being bribed by the US with wheat supplies. The article also contains a lot of inaccuracies. For example, the United States spent not $ 250 billion on the lunar program, but $ 24.

In the letter of B.L.Khanaev, we, alas, did not find the answer to those several serious questions mentioned by Y. Fomin (Armstrong's flag waving in the hot lunar wind, the imprints of its soles on the lunar soil completely devoid of moisture, etc.). Our reader believes that there is no point in wasting time analyzing these issues - for the reason that "everything speaks about the reality of flights to the moon." And he illustrates this "reality" with an article from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, where, of course, it is said that the Americans were on the moon, and also gives as an argument a summary of the results of the US lunar program and - as news - a story about the Soviet lunar program, which ended in failure. So what? We did not see any arguments here and, in fact, no polemics. The fact that we never flew to the moon can in no way be evidence that the Americans were on it. Quite the opposite.

B.L.Khanaev also has thoughts with which we cannot agree in any way. He explains the catastrophes of our lunar carrier N-1 exclusively by "splendor, a desire to report on success, even to the detriment of the cause itself." I must say that we have been preparing a publication about the Soviet lunar program for a long time (it will appear in the newspaper in the near future) and have collected a lot of factual material. The failure of the Soviet lunar program is not explained at all by the "desire to report." This failure was determined, according to NASA, by only two factors: poor financing of the project (4 billion dollars against 24 US dollars) and intrigues between the design bureaus, in which the leaders of the USSR intervened (which, however, could only delay the program, but in no way make it impracticable) ... As a matter of fact, Moscow closed the lunar project in 1976 for the reason that the "lunar race" was lost and further failures in it would only damage the image of the USSR as a space power - it became clear that the lunar project, in principle, could not be solved with available forces in the foreseeable the future, and the size of funding did not really play any role here. And we would add one more decisive factor: the technologies of those years, in principle, did not make it possible to send a manned spacecraft to the Moon. And if von Braun, the author of the V-2 rocket, created the Saturn-5 launch vehicle, which provides a manned flight around the Moon, then the Apollo ships themselves (whose structural details, unlike Saturn-5, are still NASA keeps a secret) cause, to put it mildly, a lot of questions from specialists.

Comparison of the lunar programs of the USSR and the USA inevitably raises thousands of questions. The Americans (none of whom got sick with radiation sickness) walked on the Moon in rubber-cloth spacesuits, which were almost a hundred kilograms lighter than Leonov's lead lunar spacesuit prepared by the USSR. And their spacesuits are inexplicably an order of magnitude lighter and thinner than all modern spacesuits of the Americans (Space Shuttle) and Russians that fly near the Earth today, although they are protected from solar radiation by the Earth's atmosphere, and this protection is not on the Moon. For example, here are the fantastic pictures of Soviet cosmonauts-artists (Leonov and others) from a set of postcards in 1972: astronauts in super-heavy spacesuits are walking on the moon, covered with large special shields from the sun's radiation. This radiation on the Moon is many times more lethal than in near-earth orbits and is capable of burning an astronaut's spacesuit to ashes, so there is no way to protect the spacesuit without special shields - this is the opinion, we note, of astronauts who paint pictures of the population of the Moon.

In the absence of the necessary computer control, Leonov's flight (and his landing on the moon, takeoff from the moon, etc.) depended entirely on the will of Chance and on the pilot's capabilities, where practically all the most important stages of the program were determined by his reaction and the expected (!) Correctness of actions. Even if N-1 sent Leonov to the Moon and his lunar module did not malfunction (which is extremely unlikely), his chances of completing the program and not dying were estimated by the program leaders depressingly low. As Leonov himself said, when landing on the moon, he had to lean over, look through a small window at the approaching surface and at the decisive moment start the brake engines - while if he had started them half a second earlier or later, he would have died. But how do you know here on Earth what and how Leonov could see at the moment of landing through the window? Everything was done for the first time, and everything indicated that if the project was feasible, then only after a few decades.

But even in the United States at that time there were no computers that made it possible to exclude the use of such decisive factors as the reaction of pilots in key phases of flight. But everything went surprisingly smoothly for them, although, according to the theory of probability, these landings on the moon could not have taken place at all due to a thousand possible failures and due to the fact that no one could foresee what would actually happen during the flight at all of his phases. Yes, there was a misfire with Apollo 13, which flew around the moon without landing, but skeptics in the United States argue that the accident (which threatened the death of astronauts even before approaching lunar orbit) was used to shade the truth of other flights, and at the same time nothing does not indicate that Apollo 13 really should have landed, and not just circled the moon.

Note that the USA at that time lagged behind the USSR in cosmonautics for a dozen years, and their breakthrough in the lunar program, which was evidently provided only by von Braun's creation of the powerful Saturn-5 rocket, in no way meant a breakthrough in all other areas of cosmonautics, without which the lunar project could not be realized and, in principle, technologically could not be carried out. Not having the same experience as ours in manned space flights and experience in operating space modules (which was a top secret), but having an inevitable series of constant and natural failures and disasters in near-earth orbits, the Americans, nevertheless, without a hitch, spent all (except for the 13th Apollo, which, in general, was also successful) the Apollo lunar landings. And this, as many Soviet space designers recall, was an incomprehensible mystery, a sensation. And for them, experts in the problem, it looked completely inexplicably implausible. Let us note that this is the opinion of people who sent into space the first artificial satellite of the Earth in the history of Mankind, the first astronaut dogs and, finally, the first man in space - Yuri Gagarin, and who actually saw the entire amount of technological problems of cosmonautics that were not known to the Americans at that time.

Generally speaking, the fact that after December 1972 the Americans never flew to the moon and are not going to fly there again in the foreseeable future arouses certain suspicions. The only argument that there is nothing interesting for the Americans on the moon, that everything there is openly and studied by the Americans, is ridiculous. Astrobusiness, corporations and institutes of the USA, Europe and Japan have proposed and are constantly offering NASA a huge number of lunar projects, which, unlike Apollo, would be financed not by the US budget, but by themselves and which would bring huge profits due to the exploitation of lunar resources ... All these projects NASA rejects, justifying the refusal by the development of other non-lunar projects, which, however, are an order of magnitude less profitable. Already many reputable scientists from different countries have expressed the opinion that NASA is purposefully rejecting all lunar projects. True, there has never been an official accusation that NASA is simply not technically capable, even with its current highest level of technology, to lower a manned spacecraft to the moon. Although many corporations have long suspected or know that this is indeed the case.

NASA's ban on lunar development is believed to have political reasons. And although NASA does not plan flights to the moon, these flights are actively being prepared by Europe and Japan. In the next 10-20 years, it is they who are planning to create bases on the moon - on their own.

And here is the question that makes you scared: will they find the Apollo modules on the Moon?

In our last publication on this topic, we listed the questions (a small part of them) that the American lunar program raises - primarily from the Americans themselves. Neither NASA nor the US official authorities have answered these questions in any way, have not answered in the time since publication and, apparently, do not intend to answer in principle. Let us briefly repeat the circumstances that raise doubts about the US lunar program.

THERE IS NO SMOKE WITHOUT FIRE

When the Americans received information about the launch of the first artificial Earth satellite in the USSR, and after that the first cosmonaut, the reaction of both the official authorities and the scientific community and, of course, the American press was equally categorical: the Russians are fooling the world. For quite a long time, America did not want to believe the historical success of the Russians.

The point here is not only that the cheerful Russian cosmonauts insulted the pride of the Yankees, who imagine themselves to be the navel of the Earth. Although they are really insulted, and insulted to this day, despite the fact that in other countries and in Russia itself, they have long forgotten about the intensity of the space race of those years. For Russians, the space race had a political meaning in those years as a competition between two systems; in our time, after the collapse of the communist ideology, Russians look at this race as if from the outside, as a historical incident. But the Americans, both then and now, perceive Gagarin's flight from the point of view of strangled chauvinism, as a slap in the face to the navel of the Earth, which has zones of its strategic interests throughout the world, including in space. Perceived to this day as the greatest disgrace of the nation. But, we repeat, this is not the only point.

The further space successes of the Americans also hurt the Soviet authorities and the entire Soviet people, but it did not even occur to anyone in the USSR to openly and everywhere call Americans liars. The Soviet authorities simply, to one degree or another, hushed up the achievements of the United States in the space field. In addition, the Soviet authorities themselves never and in any situations related to space, did not engage in falsification.

To compare the situation, one should pay attention to the fact that no one, either here or abroad, has ever questioned the launch of the satellite, the Gagarin flyby and all other Soviet space programs after the American accusations of falsification. There are no such accusations and cannot be: there are no grounds for such accusations, and the materials of space flights do not even arouse a shadow of suspicion of their reliability.

It is quite natural to assume that it was the Americans themselves, the only ones in the world who doubted the decency of space explorers, and were at that time most prone to falsification in this area. If they argued that it was possible to falsify cosmic achievements, then they knew that it was really possible, and they knew how to do it in practice. This means that analysts and scientists have really created a falsification program "for a rainy day" or in some other way. It existed as a fallback in cases where the prestige of the United States was at stake and the consequences of failure would be catastrophic. For such situations, there were no restrictions: the goal must be achieved at any cost.

And the goal of the lunar program is obvious and unscientific: to make up for the shame of the Russian slap in the face and create a cult for the American mass consciousness, as American experts themselves claim. Thus, flights to the moon - in the opinion of the American authorities - simply had no right not to take place. For America, this was the most important political issue of the era. Just three weeks after the flight of the first American astronaut into space, John F. Kennedy solemnly promised an outraged America that in less than ten years the Americans would land on the moon. The promise was kept.

Perhaps the Americans actually visited the moon - once or twice. But there are many facts indicating that either the entire lunar program of the United States, or part of it directly related to landings on the lunar surface, starting with the failures with Apollo 13, is a falsification - - expensive and made quite professionally, but inevitably has weaknesses, which are discovered by many, many researchers.

PUNCHES

A lot of them. Too many for one space program. Moreover, there are no questions about all other NASA programs, starting with the launch of monkeys into space (none survived even eight days after the flight - everything died like flies from radiation) and ending with space shuttles.

"NASA deceived America" ​​- this is the name of the book of the scientist and inventor Rene, one of many on the subject. He expressed many doubts about the reliability of the landing of American astronauts on the moon. The main ones can be summarized as follows:

1. Gravity

A quick scan of the astronauts' jumps on the Moon shows that their movements correspond to those on Earth, and the jump heights do not exceed the jump heights under terrestrial gravity, although gravity on the Moon is one-sixth of that of the Earth. The pebbles falling from under the wheels of the American lunar rover in flights after Apollo 13, when viewed at a faster rate, behaves in an earthly manner and does not rise to a height corresponding to the force of gravity on the Moon.

2. Wind

At the time the US flag was planted on the moon, the flag fluttered under the influence of air currents. Armstrong adjusted the flag and took a few steps back. However, the flag did not stop flapping. This cannot be explained by any "internal vibrations of the flag" or its "internal energy".

3. Pictures

Lunar images have specific subtle crosses due to the operation of the equipment. Without these crosses, not a single photograph of the lunar expedition should exist. However, contrary to all other images taken during other space programs, in many lunar photographs the crosses are either missing or located under the image, which raises doubts that the images were actually taken by lunar equipment.

A number of photographs allegedly taken on the Moon are presented in various NASA publications with cuts and corrections: in some places, shadows have been removed, retouching has been applied. The same images that NASA made available to the public at different times look different and prove irrefutably a montage.

4. Stars

In the vast majority of space images of NASA's lunar program, stars are not visible, although they are abundant in Soviet space images. The black empty background of all photographs is explained by the difficulty of modeling the starry sky: the forgery would be obvious to any astronomer.

5. Radiation

Near-Earth spacecraft are much less susceptible to the destructive effects of solar radiation than a ship far from Earth. According to American experts, walls with 80 centimeters of lead are needed to protect a spacecraft flying to the moon. Otherwise, the astronauts will not survive even a week and will die, as all American astronaut monkeys died from radiation. However, NASA spacecraft in the 60s had sides made of aluminum foil several millimeters thick.

6. Spacesuits

When the daytime lunar surface is heated to 120 degrees, the spacesuit must be cooled, which, according to modern American space flight experts, requires 4.5 liters of water. The Apollo suits had 1 liter of water and were practically not designed to work in lunar conditions.

The suits were made of rubberized fabric without any significant protection from cosmic radiation. The Apollo spacesuits of the 1960s are much smaller than the Soviet and American spacesuits used today for short-term space walks. Even with the current level of technology development, such spacesuits cannot fit a supply of oxygen for 4 hours, a radio station, a life support system, a thermoregulation system, etc., which, according to the legend of the 60s, Apollo astronauts had more than modern astronauts.

7. Fuel

In 1969, Armstrong and Aldrin, literally on the last drop of fuel, heroically landed an Apollo 11 weighing 102 kg on the moon. Apollo 17, weighing 514 kg, landed on the moon without any problems with exactly the same fuel supply. This blatant discrepancy is not explained by anything, and, in fact, it is impossible to explain it by "saving on maneuvers" or "finding a shorter path to the Moon", which will be confirmed by any expert in this field.

8. Landing

The jet stream, beating from the nozzle of the spacecraft descending to the Moon, should have completely scattered all dust - practically weightless - from the surface within a radius of at least hundreds of meters under conditions of low gravity. In airless space, this dust should rise high above the surface of the Moon and fly away in a whirlwind for kilometers from the place of descent of the ship, which was observed during all landings of Soviet lunar modules. However, in American photographs - contrary to all science and common sense - we see how a newly arrived astronaut cheerfully jumps from a lander into the dust untouched by any impact and tramples in the dust under the supposedly nozzle itself, leaving its historical traces everywhere.

9. Information leak

In astronaut Aldrin's memoir, there is a description of a party in a narrow circle of astronauts, where those present watched a film showing the adventures of Fred Hayes on the moon. Hayes did all sorts of steps, then tried to stand on the step of the lunar rover, but the step crumbled as soon as he stepped on it. However, Fred Hayes has never been to the moon. He is a member of the infamous Apollo 13 flight, which did not land on the lunar surface.

Either all Apollo flights were falsifications, or for each flight a fictitious landing option was created that could be triggered at the right time.

There are many other facts as well. During the "live broadcasts from the moon", the viewers several times came across strange things, such as the frank letter S, written with paint on one of the "untouched" moonstones and accidentally caught in the frame in one of the "lunar" reports.

Falsification is such a pearl from all the holes in the lunar project that tens of thousands of Americans - not Russians at all - filled up TV, NASA and the White House with bags of indignant letters.

This has never happened either before or after the lunar epic. No reply was given to any letter.

10. Confidentiality

In 1967, 11 astronauts died under dubious circumstances. Seven died in plane crashes, three were burned to death in a test capsule. According to American researchers of the issue, they were "dissenting". The highest mortality rate in the camp of American cosmonauts corresponds exactly to the most dubious NASA program.

There is ample evidence of direct CIA involvement in the lunar program. In the United States, facts have been published that speak not only of the CIA's participation in the planning and management of the lunar project, but also of the CIA's participation in financing the space program. Of course, the lunar project is strategic for the interests of the United States, and its secrets must be guarded by the appropriate services. Protected - but no more. If a project is funded by the CIA, planned and managed by it, then this is not a scientific project, but a dirty political scam.

Contrary to the general misconception (perhaps existing mainly in Russia) about the continuity of space program specialists who worked early and continue to work in the space field today, American specialists - a couple of hundred people who worked on the lunar program - have sunk into oblivion. Either they are no longer to be found, or they do not give interviews, or they have left for another world. They are forgotten by everyone. Not even their names can be found. Archives considered lost are unavailable. Destroyed a lot of materials related to flights to the moon. And the materials that remained were subjected to the most severe censorship and, quite possibly, processing, representing today the Legend of the Moon, calculated on faith and created according to the canons of biblical epics in the framework of justifying the exclusivity of the American nation. This is precisely the role that the American landing on the moon plays in the American mind, and this circumstance should not be underestimated.

Even if someone from the powers that be in the United States will see the light, having received at their disposal facts about the falsification of the lunar project (perhaps everyone knows about this in the American elite and this is not news to them), this someone will not do anything to debunk the myth, because to debunk the myth of the moon means to cover America with such a shame, from which it will never be cleansed in all subsequent history. Therefore, it is foolish to wait for any official clarifications on this issue: there will never be any.

The CIA shut the mouth of the chatty, destroyed evidence and archives down to the technological drawings of the structures. Many argue that the spacecraft after Apollo did not land on the moon, but only flew around it, without being technically able to land and carry out the activities envisaged by the project. Their lunar epic was filmed from beginning to end on Earth even before the start of the flight, and samples of the lunar soil were delivered earlier (or not delivered at all). It is argued that the lunar expeditions after Apollo 13 did not yield any new results, but are only - in their achievements - a shadow of previous flights. It is quite possible that the Apollo 13 flight itself did not provide for a landing on the Moon, which was supposed to be faked, and falsification failed because of an accident that happened on the approach to the Moon and threatened the entire fate of the expedition with mortal danger. At least that's the only way to explain the existence of a NASA film starring Apollo 13 crewman Fred Hayes, in which he made tricks on the moon without ever being on it.

ANALYSIS OF IMAGES

Another doubts about the reliability of NASA's lunar epic were expressed by the American magazine "Fortean Times" (N94), having published an article by David Percy "The Dark Side of the Lunar Landings". The author of the material quite rightly draws the reader's attention to the fact that all the evidence and reports on the flights of American astronauts to the Moon are presented by NASA for history and for the world community only in the form of photographic images, film films and, in later flights, television frames. Since there are no independent witnesses to these "factual events", mankind has no choice but to condescendingly believe the words of NASA and the photographs provided by NASA.

In fact, humanity has no evidence whatsoever that we have ever touched the moon with our feet, other than the photographs that NASA has chosen to publish and inform the world public. In his article, David Percy, an expert in the analysis of photos and television images, argues that in the images submitted by NASA (and NASA presented only the best, from its point of view, images, never showing tens of thousands of other frames to anyone), many doubtful moments.

David Percy argues that there is a very likely possibility of NASA falsifying photographic and television footage of moon landings between 1969 and 1972. Through detailed photographic analysis of the images, Percy obtained strong evidence of the lunar imagery being falsified. The expert argues that we have no right to call such images genuine, and NASA has no reasonable defense against such accusations. After examining many lunar photographs, Percy discovered a fraud in the production of frames, in their editing, in their retouching. David Percy presented a series of photographic rules and explored NASA's lunar images according to them. You can get acquainted with some of the conclusions of the American expert.

Photographic Rule Number 1:

Light travels in straight, parallel lines at any given moment. The shadow directions are parallel because light is coming from the Sun from more than 90 million miles away.

Image 1. Look at the first photo: typical tree shadows. Draw virtual parallel lines of shadows - they match the shadow side of the trees. No special features. This is not surprising.

Image 2. Now compare with a panoramic image allegedly taken on the moon. Can you determine where the light sources are? Not very far! These shadows are not parallel.

Image 3. In this photograph, they converge to a well-defined point on the supposedly lunar surface. This is an impossible situation for natural sunlight. Also keep in mind that the shadow side in the picture is not dark, contrary to the laws of moonlight, and besides, the shadow side of the astronaut's mirrored helmet reflects bright light sources. Very amazing! The length of a day on the lunar surface lasts 14 Earth days, but in NASA images, the length of the shadows changes in the course of the alleged lunar missions (taking several hours of work or several days). The length of the shadows is in clear contrast with the angular height of the sun during the supposedly lunar flights.

Image 4. For example, during Apollo 11's lunar landing, the sun was 10 degrees above the horizon, but the images show 30 degrees or more! Is this a NASA puncture, or is low sunlight simply technically impossible to recreate in a film set?

Measurement of shadow lengths within any part of a given image (as well as on lunar television frames) proves the presence of more than one light source, and the light sources are sometimes installed at different heights! It is clear that if the image were authentic, it could not have different directions of shadows.

Image 5. The same story with shadows in this picture.

Image 6. We find the same thing here: here are the main problems with the shadows of the stones. Long shadows, short shadows, gray shadows, dark shadows, some filled with light, some not filled - obviously fake!

Image 7. This TV picture is another example of differential shadow lengths. In addition, there is visual evidence of the use of a large, very close, ARTIFICIAL light source.

Image 8. This television image shows the reflections of a light source covering approximately 25% of the convex glass of the astronaut's helmet. This clearly indicates the use of a super light source of incredible size, mounted extremely close to the scene. Glaring fact.

Photographic Rule Number 2:

Light in a vacuum has an extremely high contrast - that is, it is very bright on the sun side and very dark on the shadow side. There is absolutely no atmosphere on the moon that would help fill or soften the shadows with reflections. Consider the photograph taken by the Apollo 16 expedition (Photo 9). It is not made in a vacuum, but in an atmosphere.

Calculations show that during the alleged Apollo 17 flight, the Sun's angle was approximately 5 degrees above the horizon, but the Sun's angle in the images is much larger (see photo 10).

CONCLUSIONS

Only a handful of letters that came to the Fortean Times in response to David Percy's publication contained suggestions for ways to investigate the issue further and agreed with the expert's findings. The rest of the letters (more than ever received by the magazine ever before) consisted of outrageous and angry petitions in which Percy's rules were questioned, his research into photographs was refuted, and his conclusions were ridiculed. However, not a single qualified refutation or review of Percy's research came from his thousands of American opponents. The criticism was of a purely emotional nature. Many outraged readers said they refused to read the Fortean Times anymore. They tried to take away from the ignorant American man in the street the main thing he is proud of - the American illusion of his exclusiveness.

Rare sober attempts to reasonably refute Percy's conclusions contained only two dubious theses: first, the astronauts' cameras could have a bent lens, and therefore the pictures turned out to be crooked; secondly, on the curve, the terrain and the shadows are crooked and look in different directions. All this would be funny if it were not so sad.

The magazine was about to collect comments from scientists working in the space industry, but the topic was hushed up, and the Fortean Times did not return to it again.

This is exactly the situation when they can be very hard to kick in the teeth.

OUR OPINION

If you, dear reader, see in this article only material for thought, and to prove the falsification of the NASA lunar project will wait for some other official statement from government departments, then you will not wait for this statement for the reasons already mentioned. There will be no statements on this topic, because this is not a scientific question, but a political one, this is the foundation of the US ideology, its most important link. And such issues today are not subject to international discussion. Even the very news of the creation in the United States of a commission to verify the reality of flights to the moon - even without the results of its work - will so irreparably and tragically undermine the image of the United States in the eyes of the world community that it is not an area of ​​abstract research, but represents the primary ideological issue of US national security. which necessarily provides for the presence in the CIA and the FBI of oversight bodies for the preservation of the lunar status quo as the greatest national value. Hence, the mystery will remain a mystery. For the time being, of course, until the Russians, Europeans, and Japanese have visited the moon. If they do not find confirmation of the American landing on the moon, the United States will cease to be a world power at that very hour.

We do not make the final and unconditional conclusion that the Americans have not been to the moon at all. We only state that there is no reliable evidence for this assertion.

GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE AMERICAN MOON LEGEND

In accordance with the Apollo program in the period 1969-1972, according to the myth, nine expeditions were sent to the Moon. Six of them ended with the "landing of twelve astronauts on the lunar surface" in the territory, allegedly, from the Ocean of Storms in the west to the Taurus ridge in the east. The tasks of the first two expeditions were limited to flights in selenocentric orbits, and the "landing of astronauts" on the lunar surface in one of the expeditions was canceled, allegedly due to the explosion of an oxygen tank for fuel cells and a support system, which occurred two days after the launch from Earth. The damaged Apollo 13 spacecraft flew around the Moon and returned safely to Earth.

The first landing site was chosen, allegedly in the Sea of ​​Tranquility. Neil Armstrong (commander of the ship) and Colonel Edwin Aldrin (pilot of the lunar cockpit) landed here in the lunar cabin "Eagle" on July 20, 1969 at 20 hours 17 minutes. 43 p. GMT and broadcast to Earth: "Houston, Tranquility Base says, Eagle has landed." Armstrong lowered the ladder to the loose ground and said: "This is a small step for man, but a huge leap for mankind."

It is for the sake of this phrase that the Americans started a scam and, I must say, there are no complaints about this phrase - it is spectacular. According to legend, the first American "astronauts on the moon" allegedly took many photographs of the lunar landscape, including rocks and plains, collected 22 kg of samples of lunar soil and rocks, which, after returning to Earth, were to be studied at the Lunar Research Laboratory in Houston. Leaving the first from the lunar cabin and the last to enter it, Armstrong spent 2 hours 31 minutes on the moon, in total on the moon they were 21 hours 36 minutes.

The next flight of Apollo 12 took place on November 14-24, 1969, when US Navy pilots Charles Conrad and Alan Bean descended to the Moon. Konrad and Bean allegedly delivered 33.9 kg of Lunar Soil samples. There were 31 hours 31 minutes on the Moon, of which 7 hours were on the surface of the Moon. 45 minutes

The world dolt had to be kept in suspense, and, according to the laws of dramatic art, the flight of the ship with N13 could not be successful. The anxious expectations of the boobies were justified: on April 11, 1970, Apollo 13 was launched, heading for landing in the area of ​​the Fra Mauro crater. Two days after the launch, an oxygen tank for fuel cells and life support systems allegedly exploded in the engine compartment of the main unit. The flight control center in Houston ordered the crew to cancel the landing and, having flown around the moon, return to Earth. If there were no oxygen reserves in the Apollo 13 lunar cabin, crew members James Lovell, John Swidget and Fred Hayes could suffocate from lack of oxygen. Correcting the trajectory with the help of the engine of the landing stage of the ship, the astronauts flew around the moon and rushed to Earth. Using the lunar cabin as a "rescue boat", on April 17, after undocking from it, they managed to transfer to the descent vehicle and safely land on the water. Happy end!

From January 31 to February 9, 1971, the Apollo-14 expedition took place. Astronauts Alan Shepard and Captain Edgar Mitchell "landed" their lunar cabin near the Fra Mauro crater, spent about 9 hours on the lunar surface and collected 44.5 kg of lunar rock samples. In total, they were on the moon for 33 hours. 30 minutes.

With the help of television cameras for television viewers of the Earth, a report was carried out from the landing site of the lunar cabin. Shepard could be watched as he took out three golf balls and, using some long-handled tool like a golf club, made three hits. Television viewers were dumbfounded by the unprecedented American accomplishments.

The legend was improving - what is this cowboy without a car? And on an expedition on the Apollo 15 spacecraft, a small four-wheeled vehicle with an electric motor, the "lunomobile", was delivered to the Moon.

The landing site for Apollo 15 was the Hadley furrow area in the foothills of the Apennines. During the expedition, which took place from July 26 to August 7, 1971, the ship's crew received a lot of data both on the lunar surface and from the selenocentric orbit. Scott and Irwin explored the mountain slopes on the lunar rover for 18 hours and 36 minutes. and collected 78.6 kg of rock and soil samples. There were 66 hours on the moon. 54 minutes

Having received samples of "lunar rocks" from the "seas", NASA experts chose the Apollo 16 spacecraft (April 16-27, 1972) to "land" on the plateau near the Descartes crater - the continental part of the surface, which, according to observations from Earth, had a lighter color, where it was believed that the composition of the soil and rocks should be quite different than in the "darker" lowlands. John Young and Charles Duke successfully "landed" in the lunar cockpit, while Navy Lieutenant Commander Thomas Mattingly remained in selenocentric orbit in the main unit. Young and Duke spent 20 hours 14 minutes on the lunar surface (outside the lunar cabin). and collected 95.2 kg of samples. In three exits, they traveled about 27 km on the lunar rover. American sweep! There were 71 hours on the moon. 14 minutes

And finally, the last expedition "to the moon" - Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt, crew members of the Apollo 17 spacecraft (December 7-19, 1972). They spent 22 hours 5 minutes on the lunar surface, performed a series of experiments and collected 110 kg of samples of lunar soil and rock. They traveled 35 km by car, and in total were on the moon for 74 hours. 59 minutes

So, according to the American lunar legend, American astronauts stayed on the Moon for almost 300 hours, of which on the surface of the Moon - 81 hours, and delivered 384.2 kg of lunar soil from there.

ABOUT AMERICAN COLD

Hello, dear Yuri Ignatievich! Having got acquainted with your articles about the stay of the Americans on the Moon, as well as having read the article by V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov "Did the Americans fly to the Moon?" (http://www.skeptik.net/conspir/moonhoax.htm) I thought I should state my point. The article by V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov, despite the authors' claims to originality, can be called such with a very big stretch.

The site http://www.clavius.org ideologically inspired the authors to write this article, judging by some indications: there you can find a lot of things that strongly “correlate” with the main arguments of V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov.

Further, their article is quite deliberately written so grandiosely large and, what is even more important, in the form of criticism of other authors who write on the same topic. This style is familiar to me. It is actually a psychological weapon. It is very difficult to answer, even having something to object to, since this will already be criticism in response to criticism. In other words, the answer to the article by V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov will be a three-story structure, which will be practically impossible for the reader to understand (or, in any case, there are few such readers who have enough patience).

But, nevertheless, it is necessary to pay attention to such zoils as V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov, otherwise things will be bad. The fact is that after their article, many of those who doubted whether the Americans were on the moon no longer doubt: the amount of material presented crushed them. Therefore, I am sending my article for examination. It seems to me that these good fellows should be punished. To be discouraged.

As a naturally inquisitive person, I learned about the conquest of the Moon by the Americans a long time ago, in 1969, when I was eight years old. I remember that I listened with enthusiasm to those short messages on the radio that were given by the official Soviet press, and saw in the conquest of the moon only a symbol of the greatness of mankind, nothing more. The image of the American people, as it were, doubled in my mind. One American people ushered in a new era in space by conquering the moon. Another was bombing Vietnam at the same time, and for this he was excellently beaten with Soviet weapons - the best weapon in the world at that time - so much so that only the loud voice of Levitan with his victorious voice was missing: “Our troops continued to grind manpower and equipment enemy ". Children's minds are cosmopolitan, and both of these images of the American people coexist peacefully in my head. I accepted the fact that the Americans had conquered the Moon on the move and lived with this faith for many years, not paying much attention to the fact that serious passions flared up around this conquest (more precisely, I did not even know about their existence).

However, in the spring of this year, I saw a TV show (sometime in April), in which the question was raised just whether the Americans were on the moon. The disputing parties stood, as they say, to the death in defending their positions, so I even thought: well, that's it, here's a ready reason for the Third World War. But after watching the discussion, I wondered: what, actually, is behind this serious fuss?

The beast runs to the catcher: almost by chance I found the site of the Skeptics Club and saw there an article "Did the Americans fly to the moon?" V. Yatskin and Y. Krasilnikov (http://www.skeptik.net/conspir/moonhoax.htm). Perhaps, in a different situation, I would not have paid attention to it, but interest in the issue raised in the title of the article has already appeared after I saw the TV show, so I found the time to write the entire article. I read it and thought.

And there was something. The fact is that the rout (or is it better to say a pogrom?), Arranged by the authors of the article read for other authors (in particular, Y. Mukhin, M. Zubkov), left an ambiguous impression.

On the one hand, versatile argumentation, scrupulous calculations, constant links to source materials, an abundance of graphic material - in a word, honor and praise to the authors for the titanic - both in quantity and quality - work. No joke to say: 93 A4 pages!

But, on the other hand, in addition to the method, there is also such a concept as the purpose of the article. And what is she? In fact, it turned out that the original goal - to convince the reader that the Americans were on the moon - was replaced by Messrs V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov with something completely different. It was criticism of other authors (Y. Mukhin, M. Zubkov and, probably, many others). Moreover, the criticism is special - "selective": to pull out a piece of text and start waving this piece in a Jesuitical manner.

With the help of Yandex, I found articles by Y. Mukhin (http://www.duel.ru/200001/?1_5_1) and M. Zubkov (http://www.abitura.com/not_only/hystorical_physics/moon.html) to get to know them in the original and find out if they deserved such treatment.

I do not argue how the authors are emotional, perhaps even unnecessarily, sometimes they draw very harsh conclusions. In addition, in the article by M. Zubkov, much is taken from the article by Yu. Mukhin. But even if both of them are 100% wrong, and in the work of M. Zubkov there are few of his own ideas - is this a reason for the article, which instead of "Did the Americans fly to the moon?" Would it be more correct to call it "Anti-Mukhin" (or "Anti-Zubkov"), given the extremely personified nature of the criticism it contains?

After thinking it over, I decided: the path of "selective" war, which V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov embarked on, is not the true path of scientific skepticism. This road is dead end. And this must be shown to the authors, and in the very style that they have chosen. In a word, try to convince the authors that the Moon is the Moon, and for every wise man there is enough simplicity ...

1. The article begins with an analysis of the most controversial moment in the American lunar film, video and photo gallery - the anomalous behavior of shadows cast by various bodies on the lunar surface.

For example, this is a photo that I copied from an article by V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov. If in the article of respected authors all the photos were given in some uniform numbering, then it would be much easier for me to refer to these numbers; but since they are not there, you will have to insert photographic materials in this way. True, there is another reason to take a photo from an article by V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov. The fact is that those numerous addresses on the NASA website, which are given in their article, when trying to load the corresponding pages, return the stereotypical response "Site not found" or "Unable to connect to the server."

People who do not believe that Americans are on the Moon (in particular, Mr. Percy) have two complaints about this photo: why are the shadows with almost the same height of astronauts so different in length? And why do they also have a different direction?

Gentlemen V. Yatskin and Y. Krasilnikov are convinced that "... the sun's rays fall on the surface very gently, and the direction and length of the shadow can noticeably change even due to small irregularities." In favor of this, they cite the model drawings presented below: a side view of two cylinders and their shadows (left figure) and from above (right figure), taken, according to them, from the site http://www.clavius.org/.

Yes, indeed, the model drawings convincingly prove that the different lengths of the astronauts' shadows in the photo may well be explained by the irregularities of the lunar surface.

But can these irregularities be explained by the different direction of the shadows in the above photo? This does not follow from the model drawings, and therefore it is necessary to look at the problem from the point of view of the general foundations of geometric optics.

According to the latter, if the dimensions of the light source are much larger than the dimensions of the illuminated bodies and the distances between them (for example, when the light source is the Sun), and the illuminated bodies themselves are parallel (for example, two vertically placed cylinders in the model drawings), then their shadows will also be are parallel. In addition, the body and its shadow will be in the same plane. This is exactly what we see in the model drawing on the right: the shadows are practically parallel, and each pair of "cylinder - its shadow" forms a plane.

But in the photo, the astronauts' shadows are by no means parallel. What could be the reason for this?

Obviously, such a picture could arise if:

a) the light source is point, that is, its dimensions are small in comparison with the distances to the illuminated objects. If such a light source and illuminated objects form an acute-angled triangle, then the shadows of the objects will diverge in a fan-like manner;

b) the sun is the source of light, but the objects themselves are not located in the same plane. For example, the cylinders in the model drawings, apparently, are not located strictly parallel to each other (unless these are distortions arising from the projection of three-dimensional objects on a plane), so I noted above: “they practically are parallel. "

If we assume that the astronauts were illuminated by the Sun, then version a) is excluded, and only version b) can explain the strange behavior of shadows. But is it applicable?

In theory, yes. To do this, it is only necessary that the distance between the heads of the astronauts be greater than the distance between the points at which the astronauts' feet touch the lunar surface (as if, say, they stood with their backs to each other and each of them leaned forward slightly). The result would be a picture similar to the model drawing on the right, in which there is a small angle between the shadows (about 2 °). The situation in the model drawing could well be explained if we assume that one of the cylinders slightly deviated to the right, and the other, on the contrary, to the left. True, the model drawing rejects this hypothesis (the cylinders look like dots from above), but in fact it is fully confirmed by the experiment that formed the basis for the model drawings (see http://www.clavius.org/shadlen.html, Fig. 3- 5; if you look closely, the top of the cylinders in Fig. 5 tilted slightly to the right, and, accordingly, the shadows are not strictly parallel).

Let's go back to the photos of the astronauts. Each of them takes a step, bending the knees more or less strongly, and also slightly bending at the lower back. Judging by the photo, they are also slightly inclined forward, while the angles of inclination are approximately equal. In addition, the astronauts stand with different angles of rotation in relation to the viewer (whoever is looking at the photo is that). The astronaut on the left slightly turned to face the viewer (at an angle of approximately 45 °), the astronaut on the right, on the contrary, turned away from the viewer and stands almost sideways to him (and even slightly showing his back). With such a "disposition", the distance between the astronauts' heads will most likely be even less than between the points at which their legs are in contact with the moon (in the extreme case, these two distances will be practically equal). In other words, there are no conditions for the fan-like divergence of their shadows. These shadows, if extended to straight lines, must intersect (or, in extreme cases, be parallel).

Since, in spite of everything (in this case, of course, primarily in spite of the Sun), the shadows are inexorably diverging, and the angle of divergence is simply absurdly large, then, therefore, version b) disappears. And then, to explain the discrepancy of the shadows, you need to use version a). But this means that the different directions of the shadows in the photo could not have arisen in any way if the sun was the source of light.

So what did we get? The appeal of Messrs V. Yatskin and Y. Krasilnikov to the irregularities of the lunar surface convincingly explains only half of the anomalous behavior of shadows in the photo - the fact that they have different lengths. But the fact that the shadows have a different direction, the hypothesis put forward by the authors, does not explain in any way [my proposed version b) is more suitable for this role]. Hence, an incident that happened to the authors became inevitable.

Let me remind you that initially they announced a very loud promise: "... the sun's rays fall on the surface very gently, and the direction and length of the shadow can noticeably change even due to small irregularities," that is, the authors threatened to explain by means of irregularities not only the change in length shadows, but also changing their direction. However, in the next three paragraphs they wrote, they did not say a single word, how can an uneven surface lead to different directions of shadows! Not a single one! This is understandable: an uneven surface has nothing to do with this phenomenon, because it would contradict the foundations of geometric optics. Moreover, the authors of the article are well aware of this. It was the latter circumstance that prevented them from referring to the site http://www.clavius.org, where, by the way, an attempt was made to explain why the shadows still diverge. But! The tension of this explanation is so blatant that a banal conscience did not allow the authors of the article to refer to it. And in order not to be unfounded, I will give the comments of the site http://www.clavius.org/shadlen.html, Fig. 8

Two cylinders illuminated by a lamp from a distance of 0.5 m (the lamp is slightly away from the axis connecting the cylinders) http://www.clavius.org/shadlen.html, Fig. 9

The same cylinders and lamp (cylinders and lamp form an acute-angled isosceles triangle).

Here's what the website says: “Figs. 8 and 9 demonstrate this empirically. Fig. 8 shows that the length of the shadow of the closer object is shorter. It also shows that the shadows diverge in distance. However this effect will be mitigated in a more realistic lighting design. In Fig. 9 the objects are a similar distance from the light, but are separated laterally as theorized by Bennett and Percy to explain Fig. 6. However we can see that the shadows will appear to diverge, whereas in Fig. 6 the shadows appear to converge slightly. " The translation goes something like this: “The experiments in Figures 8 and 9 show that the shadows diverge. However, in natural light, the divergence effect will be softened. Although on figure 6 the shadows seem to converge. "

It was necessary to think of such a thing! Set up a school experience by illuminating objects 5-10 cm in size (!!!) with a laboratory lamp (!) From a distance of 50 cm (!!), that is, an experiment that completely reproduces version a), and, as if nothing had happened, declare, that the same will be observed in the case of natural light, that is, by the sun. Just the effect will be softened, and so - no difference. Well, the stormy ones turning into applause Applause! (When I was writing the last phrase, I remembered General Charnota from Bulgakov's Beg: “Yes, Paramosha, I am a sinful person, but you!”)

Or great ignorance, or petty fraud - only this was shown by the Americans in their comments to this experience. But not an explanation for the strange behavior of shadows on the moon.

However, be that as it may, Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov realized in time what was what and were ashamed to include this "explanation" in their article. Presumably, the poor burned out of shame for the Americans when they read this absurdity on the site http://www.clavius.org/.

Therefore, if Messrs V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov nevertheless sincerely believe that the irregularities of the lunar surface explain the different direction of the shadows cast by astronauts in the rays of the Sun, then they should first protect the corresponding discovery of a priority nature in scientific circles. And already on its basis to prove that the anomalous direction of shadows in the photo has a strictly scientific explanation, along the way releasing barbs at Mr. Percy, who was the first to draw attention to these anomalies.

2. The article continues with the analysis of two more photos, which also show anomalous behavior of shadows on the Moon. The essence of the claims to these photos from people who are not inclined to accept the fact that the Americans are on the moon is that if the shadows are represented as segments lying on straight lines, then these straight lines will intersect.

In their analysis, Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov consider two photographs (color and black-and-white), one of which is presented immediately after the paragraph, and the second is below.

This time, the explanation of the shadows, which seem unnatural to many, Messrs V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov already find in such a concept of projective geometry and fine art as perspective (by the way, it is very likely that the idea was also inspired by him by the site http: // www .clavius.org, which mentions perspective). Apparently, the explanations given by the authors for the anomalous behavior of shadows in the first example, when they referred to the irregularities of the lunar surface, even to them seemed so ... uneven and crooked (like a Turkish saber) that they thought it best to refresh the "paradigm". And accordingly, they give as an illustration a classic example of perspective on Earth - this is a photo of railway tracks.

Well, the analogy of railroad tracks that appear to converge on the horizon can be, albeit a stretch, applied to a moon photo. I say “with a big stretch”, because the apparent convergence at one point of the straight lines formed by the extensions of the shadows of the astronaut and the module is simply unthinkable by earthly standards. The fact is that the astronaut and the module are, to be honest, close enough to each other, and therefore we must admit along the way that the unnaturally fast convergence of the shadow extensions at one point (as a consequence of the perspective effect) is also explained by other factors: for example, a close horizon on the moon, maybe something else.

But what about this black and white photo of the Apollo 14 lunar module and astronaut A. Shepard, which was taken from a high point - higher than the lunar module and the height of a person, as can be judged by the figure of the astronaut located to the left of the module? Gentlemen V. Yatskin and Y. Krasilnikov are convinced that "The same tendency of convergence of the directions of shadows to the point of the horizon, located somewhere near the left border of the frame, is evident."

Let us examine this statement in detail.

2.1. First of all, there is no tendency of convergence of the directions of shadows, about which Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov are talking. The directions of the shadows cast by the lunar module and the stones in the foreground, if these shadows continue further to the right edge of the photo, will diverge like a fan (this can be seen with the naked eye). In the photo, the straight lines drawn from the stones and the lunar module to the side will converge, opposite to shadows, that is, straight lines connecting the stones and the module with the intended light source.

Thus, Messrs V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov made a mistake. In any other situation, one could not pay attention to it. But not now. The tone in which their article is written makes any mistake, including this one, unforgivable, because it is possible to criticize with such ambition as they allowed themselves only being holier than the pope. Otherwise, any little thing will be counted, even this.

2.2. Further, the cases of perspective that we encounter in terrestrial conditions have as their peculiarity that parallel lines seem to the observer diverging in the foreground and converging in depth and (or) in the background (in confirmation of this, I strongly recommend that you take another look at the photos of railway paths). Because of this, it would never occur to anyone to ask the question: what is the distance from the observer to the point of perspective? It will not come, because perspective is a visual image devoid of spatial coordinates in the physical sense, that is, such a question is devoid of meaning.

And what about the photo of the Apollo 14 lunar module and astronaut A. Shepard?

Continuations of shadows of objects (module and stones) fan out towards the right edge of the photo, and straight lines connecting objects with the intended light source tend to the left edge of the photo. According to the authors of the article, they all converge at one point, which is somewhere near the left border of the frame and which, in fact, personifies the point of perspective. Now let's pay attention to the following points:

• the shadow of the lunar module is practically parallel to the foreground (the tilt angle is less than 2 °), that is, the continuation of the shadow of the module towards the light source will be almost perpendicular to the left border of the frame;
• a little to the left of the astronaut's figure, a large cross is clearly visible, which, all other things being equal, should correspond to the center of the frame. But with the current photo size 80x66 mm, the coordinates of the cross are 19 mm from its upper border and 36 mm from the left border. This should be understood in the sense that the original frame was significantly larger than this photo: at least, it was cropped by 28 mm at the top and 8 mm at the left.

If we take these two factors into account, then the perspective point will be, firstly, within the original frame, and secondly, it will be possible to measure the distance from the lunar module to the perspective point.

One way is to estimate the total height of the lunar module with platform. Although there is no exact figure in the articles of Yu. Mukhin, V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov, comparisons of this height with the flag, astronauts, and the Apollo crew space on the model of the Saturn-5 launch vehicle suggest that it is about 7 meters. Approximately six heights of the lunar module will fit up to a point located somewhere near the left border of the frame and at which, according to Messrs V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov, there is a convergence of the directions of the shadows; in other words, from it to the point of perspective 42 meters.

Another method (control) is based on the figure of the astronaut, which is located approximately at the same distance from the shooting point as the lunar module. From the module to the left border of the photo, approximately 23 astronaut height will fit, which is equivalent to 44 meters. Given that the original frame is cropped to the left (about 10% of the current photo size), the perspective point will not be on the horizon, not in the depth of the frame, and not in the background, as is usually the case with the effect of perspective in terrestrial conditions. It will appear on the surface of the Moon within the reach of the photographic lens as a real geometric point.

Compare this to what was said above about the perspective point: it is a visual image that has no spatial coordinates in the physical sense.

2.3. And finally, the quoted phrase "There is the same tendency for the direction of shadows to converge to a point on the horizon, located somewhere near the left border of the frame" does not stand up to any criticism at all, if you try, as plausibly as possible, to finish drawing the continuation of the shadows towards the light source (see supplemented with colored lines photo of the Apollo 14 lunar module and astronaut A. Shepard). The photo shows in blue a line that continues the shadow of the module towards the light source, with lines of other shades - the continuation of the shadows cast by the stones towards the light source (I drew segments, as far as possible, setting them aside from the ends of the shadows of objects to make it easier to determine which color which shadow matches). So what is showing up?

There is no tendency of convergence that Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov saw. And it is not surprising: the quality of the image was already initially such that any conclusions could be drawn and refuted on its basis. In other words, if gentlemen V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov were guided by common sense and they would not be motivated by the thirst to pry on Yu. Mukhin and M. Zubkov in every word of - either way, this photo is out of harm's way, as they say. Would be limited to the color photo, which was given first, and that's enough. But since they thought that they could do everything, then what to do now? Let them blame themselves.

If parallel lines seem to converge in the background, then, according to Messrs V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov, this is a perspective (see the photo depicting the astronaut's shadow and the lunar module). If they seem to converge already on the left border of the photo, and at different points, then, according to Messrs V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov, this is also a perspective (see the photo with the image of the lunar module and astronaut Alan Shepard). Well, what if, what good, parallel lines seem to converge at a point that is closer to the foreground than to the background? How, for example, in this photo, which the authors could not really explain (I painted shadows on it to straight lines), then, is this again a perspective?

However, and without unnecessary irony, it is clear that with the flexibility of argumentation, which Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov demonstrate, wielding the concept of perspective, it is possible with the greatest ease to prove whatever one wants. And as it was in the first example, we again see a new word in science, said by Messrs. V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov - this time in projective geometry. They just need to hurry to stake out priority, until some nimble Yankee does it for them - after all, they are, oh, how greedy for priorities ...

Conclusion. Various kinds of controversial judgments, not too convincing arguments, unsteady constructions, direct exaggerations and simply comic moments in the article by V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov will suffice for a dozen of such analyzes. But I limited myself to analyzing only the first two points of their article. There are at least two reasons for this.

Firstly, there is no reason to be like respected authors in the critical craft - because in this case the criticism will grow unimaginably and the volume will be many times greater than their article, which, thank God, is no longer small.

Secondly, does it even make sense to analyze the article further, if already on the two very first examples (by the way, the most odious, by the way, in the lunar odyssey of the Americans) the authors of the article succeeded in only one thing - the skill of baseless conclusions?

Therefore, it is better to pay attention to something more important.

The fact is that the main question is whether the Americans were on the moon? - remains unanswered to date.

It may well be that the Americans were on the moon. Well, in that case, years later, the moon will be called New America.

It is very possible that they did not land on it. In this case, someday the next president of the United States will say this aloud, speaking with a message to the people. And later in his speech, he will say that all the efforts made in 1969-72. in order to convince the world community of the successful implementation of the American lunar program, are justified, because these efforts were aimed at protecting the democratic freedoms and values ​​of the Western world from the encroachments of communist totalitarianism. Are you saying that this is absurd and that it cannot be? Why not.

Shortly before the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, one of the highest-ranking representatives of the US presidential administration (we will not name names so as not to offend anyone), speaking at the UN, convinced the delegates that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and that, in this regard, is against he needs to start a preventive war without delay. For greater persuasiveness, he popularly shook a vial with Iraqi bacteriological weapons over his head. The audience in front of televisions at this moment all over the world, their hair stood on end with horror. For some, the thought that this bubble could create in a room full of delegates, if, what good, the representative of the US presidential administration trembles and accidentally drops the bottle on the floor. For others - from that lesson of immeasurable pharisaism and endless lies, which, without hesitation, was taught to the whole world by a representative of the US presidential administration.

One of the most senior political figures in Great Britain and a great friend of the President of the United States put a natural end to this story the other day, speaking on television (again, we will not name names, so as not to offend anyone). This leader honestly said that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction before the Anglo-American invasion. And he added no less honestly that the war started against Iraq under the pretext of destroying its weapons of mass destruction was justified.

In a word, the biblical commandments are hopelessly outdated. If you were hit on the left cheek (I mean the representative of the US presidential administration with his bubble at the UN), then it is not at all necessary to substitute the right one, because they will hit it without waiting for your invitation (I mean a high-ranking British politician). So nothing prevents President R. Nixon's sincere speech on the Apollo 11 landing on the Moon ever to receive its logical conclusion in an equally frank speech by another US President, who will say that although this did not happen , but it was necessary.

MOSCOW, July 20 - RIA Novosti. The renowned cosmonaut Alexei Leonov, personally preparing to participate in the Soviet lunar exploration program, denied long-standing rumors that American astronauts were not on the Moon, and that the footage broadcast on television around the world was allegedly edited in Hollywood.

He told about this in an interview with RIA Novosti on the eve of the 40th anniversary of the first in the history of mankind landing of US astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin on the surface of a satellite of the Earth, celebrated on July 20.

So were the Americans on the moon or were they not?

“Only absolutely ignorant people can seriously believe that the Americans have not been on the moon. And, unfortunately, this whole ridiculous epic about frames allegedly fabricated in Hollywood began with the Americans themselves. By the way, the first person who began to distribute these rumors, he was imprisoned for libel, "- said in this regard Alexei Leonov.

Where did the rumors come from?

"It all began when, at the celebration of the 80th birthday of the famous American film director Stanley Kubrick, who created his brilliant film" The Odyssey of 2001 "based on the book of science fiction writer Arthur Clarke, the journalists who met with Kubrick's wife asked to talk about her husband's work on the film in Hollywood studios. additional surveys of the American landing on the moon were carried out, "the Soviet cosmonaut specified.

Why was studio filming used?

Alexey Leonov explained that in order for the viewer to see the development of what is happening from beginning to end on the movie screen, elements of additional filming are used in any cinema.

"It was impossible, for example, to film the real opening of the hatch of the descent ship on the Moon by Neil Armstrong - there was simply no one to remove it from the surface! For the same reason, it was impossible to film the descent of Armstrong to the Moon along the ladder from the ship. These are the moments that were really filmed. Kubrick in Hollywood studios to develop the logic of what is happening, and laid the foundation for numerous gossip that the entire landing was allegedly simulated on the set, "explained Alexei Leonov.

Where Truth Begins and Editing Ends

"The real shooting began when Armstrong, who first set foot on the moon, got used to it a little, installed a highly directional antenna through which the broadcast to Earth was carried out. His partner Buzz Aldrin then also came out of the ship to the surface and began to shoot Armstrong, who in turn filmed its movement on the surface of the Moon ", - said the astronaut.

Why did the American flag fly in the airless space of the moon?

"The argument is that the American flag was waving on the moon, but it shouldn't. The flag really shouldn't be waving - the fabric was used with a rather rigid reinforced mesh, the cloth was rolled into a tube and tucked into a cover. The astronauts took a nest with them, which they first inserted into the lunar soil, and then stuck the flag pole into it, and only then took off the cover. And when the cover was removed, the flag cloth began to unfold in conditions of low gravity, and the residual deformation of the springy reinforced mesh created the impression that the flag was flapping like in the wind. " , - explained the "phenomenon" Alexei Leonov.

"To argue that the entire film was filmed on Earth is simply ridiculous and ridiculous. In the United States, there were all the necessary systems that tracked the launch of the launch vehicle itself, acceleration, correction of the flight orbit, orbiting the landing capsule and its landing," concluded the famous Soviet cosmonaut.

Where did the "moon race" lead two space superpowers

"In my opinion, this is the best competition in space that mankind has ever carried out. The" moon race "between the USSR and the USA is the achievement of the highest peaks of science and technology," Alexei Leonov believes.

According to him, after the flight of Yuri Gagarin, US President Kennedy, speaking in Congress, said that the Americans were simply too late to think about what triumph could be achieved by launching a man into space, and therefore the Russians triumphantly became the first. Kennedy's message was clearly stated: within ten years, land a man on the moon and safely return him back to Earth.

“It was a very correct step of the great politician - he united and rallied the American nation to achieve this goal. Huge funds at that time were also involved - $ 25 billion, today, this is, perhaps, all fifty billion. The program provided for a circumnavigation of the Moon, then Tom Stafford's flight to the hovering point and selection of a landing site for Apollo 10. The Apollo 11 dispatch provided for the direct landing of Neil Armstrong and Bazz Aldrin on the moon. Michael Collins remained in orbit and waited for his comrades to return, " - said Alexey Leonov.

18 Apollo-class ships were made to prepare for the landing on the moon - the whole program was implemented perfectly, except for Apollo-13 - from the engineering point of view, nothing special happened there, it just went out of order, or rather, one of the fuel cells exploded , the energy weakened, and therefore it was decided not to land on the surface, but to fly around the moon and return to Earth.

Alexei Leonov noted that only Frank Borman's first flyby of the Moon, then the landing of Armstrong and Aldrin on the Moon, and the story of Apollo 13 remained in the memory of the Americans. These accomplishments have rallied the American nation and made everyone empathize, walk with fingers crossed, and pray for their heroes. The last flight of the Apollo series was also extremely interesting: American astronauts no longer just walked on the Moon, but rode on its surface in a special lunomobile and made interesting footage.

In fact, it was the peak of the Cold War, and in this situation, after the success of Yuri Gagarin, the Americans simply had to win the "moon race". The USSR then had its own lunar program, and we also implemented it. By 1968, it had already existed for two years, and even the crews of our astronauts were formed for the flight to the Moon.

On censorship of human achievements

"The launches of the Americans in the framework of the lunar program were broadcast on television, and only two countries in the world - the USSR and communist China - did not broadcast these historical footage to their peoples. I thought then, and now I think - in vain, we just robbed our people , the flight to the moon is the property and achievement of all mankind. The Americans watched the launch of Gagarin, Leonov's spacewalk - why the Soviet people could not see it ?! ", Alexei Leonov laments.

According to him, a limited group of Soviet space specialists watched these launches on a closed channel.

“We had military unit 32103 on Komsomolsky Prospekt, which provided space broadcasting, since there was no MCC in Korolev at that time. The Americans put up a television antenna on the surface of the Moon, and everything that they did there was transmitted through a television camera to Earth, several replays of these TV broadcasts were also made. , Soviet cosmonauts, also crossed their fingers for good luck, and sincerely wished the guys success, "recalls the Soviet cosmonaut.

How was the implementation of the Soviet lunar program

"In 1962, a decree was issued, signed personally by Nikita Khrushchev, on the creation of a spacecraft for flying around the Moon and the use of a Proton carrier rocket with an upper stage for this launch. In 1964, Khrushchev signed a program for the USSR to fly around the Moon in 1967 , and in 1968 - landing on the moon and returning to Earth. And in 1966 there was already a decree on the formation of lunar crews - a group was immediately recruited to land on the moon, "Alexei Leonov recalled.

The first stage of the flyby of the Earth satellite was to be carried out by launching the L-1 lunar module by the Proton carrier rocket, and the second stage - landing and returning back - on the giant and most powerful H-1 rocket equipped with thirty engines with a total thrust of 4.5 thousands of tons with the weight of the rocket itself about 2 thousand tons. However, even after four test launches, this super-heavy rocket did not fly normally, so it eventually had to be abandoned.

Korolev and Glushko: antipathy of two geniuses

“There were other options, for example, using a 600-ton engine developed by the brilliant designer Valentin Glushko, but Sergei Korolyov rejected it, as he worked on highly toxic heptyl. Although, in my opinion, this was not the reason - just two leaders , Korolev and Glushko - could not and did not want to work together.Their relations had their own problems of a purely personal nature: Sergei Korolev, for example, knew that Valentin Glushko once wrote a denunciation on him, as a result of which he was sentenced to ten years When he was released, Korolev found out about this, but Glushko did not know that he knew about it, "Alexei Leonov said.

Small step for man, but giant leap for all mankind

NASA's Apollo 11 spacecraft on July 20, 1969 with a crew of three astronauts: Commander Neil Armstrong, Lunar Module Pilot Edwin Aldrin and Command Module Pilot Michael Collins - became the first to reach the Moon in the USSR and USA space race. The Americans did not pursue research tasks on this expedition, its purpose was simple: to land on an Earth satellite and return successfully.

The ship consisted of a lunar module and a command module, which remained in orbit during the mission. Thus, of the three astronauts, only two visited the moon: Armstrong and Aldrin. They had to land on the moon, collect samples of lunar soil, take pictures on a satellite of the Earth and install several instruments. However, the main ideological component of the trip was still hoisting the American flag on the moon and conducting a video communication session with the Earth.

The launch of the spacecraft was watched by US President Richard Nixon and German rocket scientist Hermann Obert. A total of about a million people watched the launch at the cosmodrome and mounted observation platforms, and the TV broadcast, according to the Americans, was watched by more than a billion people all over the world.

Apollo 11 took off to the moon on July 16, 1969 at 13.32 GMT and entered lunar orbit 76 hours later. The command and lunar modules were undocked approximately 100 hours after launch. Despite the fact that NASA intended to land on the lunar surface in an automatic mode, Armstrong, as the leader of the expedition, decided to land the lunar module in a semi-automatic mode.

The lunar module landed in the Sea of ​​Tranquility on July 20 at 20 hours 17 minutes 42 seconds GMT. Armstrong descended to the lunar surface on July 21, 1969 at 02 hours 56 minutes 20 seconds GMT. Everyone knows the phrase he uttered when he set foot on the moon: "This is one small step for man, but a giant leap for all mankind."

Fifteen minutes later, Aldrin also went to the moon. The astronauts collected the required amount of materials, placed instruments and installed a television camera. After that, they planted the American flag in the field of view of the camera and held a communication session with President Nixon. Astronauts left a commemorative plaque on the Moon with the words: "Here people from planet Earth first set foot on the Moon. July 1969 AD. We came in peace on behalf of all Humanity."

Aldrin stayed on the moon for about an hour and a half, Armstrong for two hours and ten minutes. At the 125th hour of the mission and the 22nd hour of stay on the Moon, the lunar module was launched from the surface of the Earth satellite. The crew splashed down on the blue planet about 195 hours after the start of the mission, soon the astronauts were picked up by the arriving aircraft carrier.

Talk that Apollo was a scam, in which, at best, the launches of Saturn-5 launch vehicles were real, started already in December 1968, during the Apollo 8 flight around the Moon. The countdown of the campaign to "expose" Apollo begins in 1974 with the release of the first book on the subject, We Never Fought the Moon: A Thirty Billion Fraud, written by Bill Kising and Randy Reid. Moreover, Kaising worked for the Rocketdyne company, which produced engines for the Saturn-5. This fact gave special weight to his opinion.

Americans have not been to the moon They flew to the moon, but lost the films ... Lies to save the nation Triumph, but mother-in-law does not believe! Stubborn why Booster rocket Photoshop made its way to the moon To the moon - without preparation? Fantastic landing accuracy Stones were collected on the moon. Where did you go? Tracked, tracked, but not tracked Kennedy's plans are not destined to come true The role of the USSR Opponents express doubts on all counts Official position of Russia What Putin says about the moon landing Roscosmos has no information Chinese Scientists Deny US Lunar Mission The Big Space Lies About the Moon Landing

The theory of falsification of the US lunar program was most vividly expressed in the feature film "Capricorn-1", filmed in the same USA in 1978. He talked about how NASA faked the flight using special effects. True, not the Moon, but Mars, but the hint was obvious.

The famous American film director Stanley Kubrick, the author of "A Space Odyssey - 2001", admitted that, at the request of NASA, he imitated some alleged episodes of astronauts' activities on the Moon in the film studio. But there is no malicious intent here: NASA was simply not sure that the television broadcast from the surface of Selena would be of high enough quality to give viewers an idea of ​​what the astronauts were doing there. So the agency has recreated on Earth what should have happened on the Moon.

The most famous Russian author Yuri Mukhin wrote the book Anti-Apollo: The US Lunar Scam. A relatively new argument in anti-Apollo conspiracy theories concerns the engine. If the United States was really able in the mid-1960s to create such a powerful oxygen-kerosene engine as the F-1 (there were five of them on Saturn-5), then why did they then turn to Russia in the late 1990s with a request to sell them almost half the powerful RD-180, which also run on oxygen and kerosene?

Is this not a confirmation that the "Saturn-5" was actually a flying "rattle", the purpose of which was to create the impression of a super-powerful carrier, supposedly capable of delivering people to the moon?

They flew to the moon, but lost the films ...

That circumstance also raises serious suspicions. that along with the original video recording of the first steps of people on the Moon, tapes with telemetry recording of the operation of the lunar module systems and telemetry data on the health of Armstrong and Aldrin while they were on the Moon also disappeared: a total of about 700 boxes of various kinds of tapes ... However, according to Florida Today, film and television evidence not only of the Apollo 11 mission was missing, but of all eleven Apollo flights, including near-Earth, circumlunar and landing. In total - 13,000 films.

Lies to save the nation

The Americans are the kind of people who fool, fool and wake up to fool all of humanity. Of course, there are many honest people among them who do not want to hide the truth. But the "discoverer" of the North Pole, American Robert Peary, cannot be attributed to them. Only in 1970, in Greenland, they found a parking lot, where Piri sat for two months, not intending to go to the pole. And then he came and told everyone that he was there. Piri's diaries found in the parking lot told about everything.

But who already cared about it then? The road is a spoon for dinner ... The train has already left, and now the Americans will be forever proud of their Piri - the "discoverer" of the North Pole. Until now, in some textbooks of geography, you can read that the first person to visit the North Pole was the American Robert Peary. So now, all cosmic passions remained in the XX century, so that the Americans will forever remain the people who first set foot on the moon.

Ambitious America, which considered itself the greatest country in the world, could not endure the space successes of the USSR.

President Kennedy had no choice but to arrogantly declare:

“By the end of the decade, we will land on the moon. Not because it is easy, but because it is difficult. "

America, busy with bombing Vietnam, threw just insane money on the great task - to wipe the Russians' nose.

And in 1969, in the presence of almost a million people gathered at the cosmodrome, a super-powerful whopper, the Saturn-5 launch vehicle, was launched live.

She carried the Apollo ship and three astronauts. "Apollo" flew up to the Moon, a landing module separated from it, which landed safely on the moon, and Neil Armstrong climbed out of the capsule, saying the prepared: "This is a small step for man, but a huge step for all mankind." .

For some reason, the eyes of the American do not shine with happiness, like our Yuri. Astronauts "who have been on the moon" are extremely taciturn and do not seek meetings, unlike our sociable astronauts. Armstrong generally lived in a castle with a descending bridge. So 82-year-old Neil Armstrong took his secret to his grave on August 24, 2012.

The world applauded. The Americans set up their flag, collected stones, took pictures, shot a movie ...

Then the capsule took off from the lander, docked with the Apollo, then - a safe landing in the Pacific Ocean and the triumph of America at all times.

Triumph, but mother-in-law does not believe!

It was America's name-day, she went crazy with happiness, neither before nor after did the Americans rejoice so much. Then there were five more successful expeditions ...

From the Soviet cosmic minds, no one doubted except the General Designer Mishin, who replaced the deceased Korolev. During the live broadcast, he smoked all the time and repeated:

"This is impossible," Apollo "will not be able to break away from the earth's orbit and head to the moon ..."

Presumably, he knew what he was saying ... But then the cheerful voice of the American commentator said: "Apollo has left the earth's orbit and is heading towards the moon" ... Mishin could not understand anything, got up, went out, slamming the door ... He realized that the Americans are smarter than us. We all believed it, but my wise mother-in-law never wanted to believe it.

Then more and more often the voices of skeptics began to be heard, claiming that there were no flights to the Moon, but there was a hoax. The American space agency NASA twisted a finger at this and stated that she would not discuss this issue with anyone. Why discuss with nerds? And such cretins turned out to be journalists and their fellow bloggers ...

A book by Y. Mukhin first came out of his fundamental works. "Anti-Apollo" .

The recently published work of the physicist A. Popov "Great Breakthrough or Space Scam" represents a huge amount of analyzed facts, which can only be dismissed as the Main Argument in All Disputes - you do not understand Tydurakinich!

The blogosphere has split into three unequal parts: the skeptics; fans of Americans; and the most numerous wise comrades - those who do not care.

Stubborn why

- Why are the shadows cast by the stones clearly converging at an angle, while the shadows from the Sun are always parallel? Spotlight in the studio?

- Why is the surface of the moon illuminated unevenly, while the sun should flood everything in the same way? Not enough lighting fixtures?

- Why is there a crushed cockroach in the photograph of Armstrong's trail?

- Why do astronauts jump 50 cm in the footage, when they should be 2 meters?

- Why, when every gram of roads had to be transferred to an electric car (rover) and ride it?

- Why is the dust from under the wheels of the rover swirling like in air?

- Why do shadows give the estimated height of the Sun 30 degrees, while it was at an angle of 10 degrees at the time?

- Why is the astronaut clearly visible even when the Sun shines directly on his back? Backlight?

- Why are the stars not visible in the lunar sky?

- Why did the lander's engines have to sweep away tons of dust (Armstrong wrote: “We raised the dust hundreds of meters”), and under the engine nozzles the dust is pristine, as if the module was installed by a truck crane? Etc.

Skeptics of lunar flights argue that spacesuits of astronauts on the Moon 80 centimeters thick can serve as salvation from radiation.

- One American specialist generally claims that the radiation belt around the Earth is insurmountable for a living being.

- During the "flight" to the Moon, Armstrong wanted to go out into space for a walk for some guy. The footage of Armstrong's spacewalk coincides with footage of Astronaut Shepard's spacewalk from the Gemeni spacecraft three years earlier. Only in specular reflection and slightly changed color.

- Shots of how the Earth gradually decreases in size as the distance from it "Apollo" is a cartoon made from one photograph.

- "The moon is coming" - a similar cartoon.

- Spectacular movie of the flight over the Moon, when the shadow runs over the craters - filming of a huge lunar globe, which is owned by NASA.

- The lunomobile, in size, cannot fit into the capsule, even when folded.

- During the preparation of the "flights to the moon" 11 astronauts died in car accidents and otherwise. Sad record. Gagged with dissent?

Booster rocket

Launch vehicle "Saturn-5"

Some conspiracy theorists believe that the Saturn 5 rocket was never ready to launch and argue as follows:

After a partially unsuccessful test launch of the Saturn-5 rocket on April 4, 1968, a manned flight followed, which, in the opinion of N. P. Kamanin, was a “pure gamble” from the point of view of safety.
In 1968, 700 employees of the Marshall Space Research Center in Huntsville, Alabama, where the Saturn 5 was being developed, were fired.
In 1970, in the midst of the lunar program, the chief designer of the Saturn-5 rocket, Wernher von Braun, was relieved of his post as director of the Center and removed from the leadership of rocket development.
After the end of the lunar program and the launch of the Skylab into orbit, the remaining two rockets were not used for their intended purpose, but were sent to the museum.
The absence of foreign cosmonauts who would fly on Saturn-5 or work on the super-heavy object launched by this rocket into orbit - the Skylab station.
The lack of further use of the F-1 engines or its descendants on subsequent missiles, in particular, the use instead of them on the powerful Atlas-5 rocket.

A version of NASA's failures in the creation of hydrogen-oxygen engines is also being considered. Supporters of this version claim that the second and third stages of "Saturn-5" had kerosene-oxygen engines, like the first stage. The characteristics of such a rocket would not be enough to launch Apollo with a full-fledged lunar module into a circumlunar orbit, but it would be enough for a manned spacecraft to fly around the Moon and drop a greatly reduced model of the lunar module on the Moon.

Photoshop made its way to the moon

Retouched NASA image in original and gamma corrected form. After gamma correction, digital retouching of the scanned image appears on the photo.

Retouched NASA image in original and gamma corrected form. After gamma correction, digital retouching of the scanned image appears on the photo.

The main exposer of this whole lunar production was ... Photoshop. After all, no one knew that 30 years after the "landing on the moon" this damned computer program would appear for processing images. When, with its help, the photographs were added to the maximum brightness and contrast, instead of an absolute black sky, painted backdrops appeared in the photographs, on which streaks of light from searchlights and shadows from astronauts were clearly visible. And there were traces of retouching literally everywhere. The photo was especially touching: an astronaut at the American flag, right above the flag - distant Earth. With an increase in brightness-contrast, the astronaut's shadow became clearly visible in the lunar sky, and the Earth turned out to be a cardboard circle,

And then even cunning mathematicians, combining two photographs taken with a pause of several seconds (therefore, the camera moved 20 centimeters to the side), calculated the distance to the lunar mountains, which are visible behind the astronauts. Globe to them - 5 kilometers, according to measurements - 100 meters. The backdrop, with the mountains painted, is unambiguous. And the line between the sandbox and the backdrop is very clearly visible ...

Then the fans of the Americans admitted through clenched teeth: “Well, yes, something was filmed in Hollywood for clarity. These are the Americans. But on the moon they were, were, were!

What color is the moon? According to NASA - the moon is gray, according to Soviet scientists - brown. On December 15, 2013, the Chinese space mission Chang'e-3 transmitted images from the Moon: Moon is brown! Here the supporters of NASA (Vitaly Egorov, aka Zelenyikot) caught themselves and came up with an explanation: "the white balance was not trivially adjusted on the cameras." This video proves that NASA's supporters are wrong.

›

Convincing evidence of the falsity of the photographs allegedly taken on the moon, where the astronaut, the American flag and the Earth are simultaneously captured. The proof is based on an analysis of the Earth's appearance using the Celestia astronomical program.

›

The video uses photographs, the author of which is NASA, the materials of which are the property of all mankind. Photos posted on flickr by link.
This video is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International free license.

To the moon - without preparation?

The one-hundred-meter whopper "Saturn-5" was supposed to deliver to the moon a module with a capsule, the height of a three-story building. The first test of the rocket with a stretch was called successful. But during the second unmanned takeoff, the rocket wobbled and exploded.

Fragment of the program "Postscript" with Alexei Pushkov from 09/30/2017

Yale University professor David Gelernter, science adviser to the American president, denies even the possibility that Americans were on the moon. And he makes the case ...

“How can we organize a mission to Mars for the American team by the mid-2030s, if we have not even been on the Moon? The idea itself is laughable, as is the entire Obama administration. "- said the scientist. - "The Apollo Landing is a hoax in human history better than global warming."

What is logical to assume in such cases? That's right, you need to test the rocket in unmanned mode until it flies like a clock. Then again, without pilots, you need to send it to the moon with its help and do all the necessary operations. It is clear that there should be a lot of tests and, according to statistics, half of them will fail.

But the Americans are already sending three astronauts to the moon in three weeks. Apollo 8 flew remarkably around the moon and returned beautifully to Earth. Also, "Saturn-5" failed, throwing "Apollo-9, 10" to the Moon. And then it was Apollo 11's turn with Armstrong and others. And everything is as if on notes. The most sophisticated space technology suddenly refused to refuse. What god helped the Americans?

The lander has never landed on the moon without people. The landing capsule, accordingly, did not take off.

Nevertheless, all six American expeditions to the moon went off without a hitch. According to the theory of probability, this simply could not be

Our lunar rocket took off four times and exploded four times, after which the Soviet program was closed, since the Americans "got ahead of us anyway."

And it was supposed to first send two lunar rovers to our companion. They had to carefully examine the landing site and choose the most even one. For at an inclination of more than 12 degrees, the lander will either not land or the capsule will not take off from it.

Then a spare rocket was to land on the radio beacons from the lunar rovers. If she landed safely, the lunar rovers would examine her to see if she could safely take off from the moon. Only then would you launch the module with ONE astronaut. A second cosmonaut, and also a lunomobile, is an impermissible luxury when every gram counts.

The Americans, on the other hand, were not touched by these little things. After all, they were kept by the cosmic God.

Fantastic landing accuracy

And in one more question, the Americans rubbed their nose to us - exactly the landing (splashdown). During landing, Gagarin was carried away to the side for hundreds of kilometers, he was searched for almost a day from helicopters. And then the hits were not much closer.

But the accuracy of the splashdown of the American returned capsules was: from 2 to 15 kilometers. Amazing result. Ours gnashed their teeth with envy ... And only by the end of the 80s it became clear that, according to the laws of physics, a landing with an accuracy of more than 40 kilometers was unattainable. But in the 60s, no one knew this yet.

Stones were collected on the moon. Where did you go?

And further. The Americans together "collected on the moon" as much as 400 kilograms of soil. The Soviet automatic station "Luna-16" brought only 100 grams. When the Americans were offered to exchange samples for research, they dragged out for almost three years, and only in 1972 they gave us a whole ... 3 grams.

Skeptics assure that it was then, at last, that the automatic station "Sekveyor" flew secretly to the Moon and brought the same one hundred grams of lunar powder. And those 400 kilos of moon stones have never been seen, they are kept behind seven locks and are not given out to anyone.

All in all, the Americans gave us 28 grams of regolith - lunar sand, which three of our automatic stations delivered about three hundred grams. Moonstone - not a single one!

There was a case. when they gave a pebble to some prince, but after the death of the prince, this pebble turned out to be a piece of petrified wood.

Fragment of the program "Postscript" with Alexei Pushkov from 23.12.2017

Tracked, tracked, but not tracked

The American, like the gypsies who inflate a nag with the aim of selling it, fictitiously increased the size of the launch rocket. A. Popov analyzed the take-off of the Saturn-5 rocket. And that's what I found. A quarter of a second before the separation of the first stage, a bright explosion occurs on the surface of the rocket. And one hundredth of it becomes clear how the outer hull of this whopper collapsed, under which a body much smaller than the much less powerful American Saturn-1 rocket was discovered.

All the same evil tongues suggested that the Americans simply increased the size of "Saturn-1" with the help of the casing. When it took off and disappeared from sight, its remains fell into the ocean.

Unfortunately, our eminent specialist and honored cosmonaut, respected Alexei Leonov, like everyone else, fell for the American spoon of deception. He fiercely defends the Americans and repeats all the time: “We tracked all the stages of the Apollo flight. Alas, they did not track ...

Our space specialists followed the flight as well as the whole world, i.e. according to the "picture" provided by NASA. Only two Soviet scientific ships, which were in the Atlantic Ocean, could monitor the take-off of "Saturn-5". So, an hour before "take off" our ships surrounded the American Navy, helicopters, which turned on their jammers at full power.

Kennedy's plans are not destined to come true

Yes, in the beginning, the Americans honestly and enthusiastically set about realizing Kennedy's dream. But after a few years, having spent 25 billion rubles, they were convinced that this was not yet possible. We need more weeks, months, years, billions, billions ... And the Russian turtles have already circled the moon. How could this be explained to taxpayers, to Congress?

And then NASA and the CIA created the Great Hoax during the Cold War.

Of course, many of us want the Russian tricolor to be the first flag set on the moon.

But, most likely, it will already be the Chinese flag.

The role of the USSR

Yu.A. Gagarin and S.P. Korolev

One of the aspects of the "lunar conspiracy" theory is also attempts to explain the recognition by the Soviet Union of the American landing on the moon. Proponents of the lunar conspiracy theory believe that the USSR did not have convincing evidence of NASA falsifications, other than incomplete intelligence information (or that the evidence did not appear immediately). The possibility of collusion between the USSR and the United States to cover up the alleged scam is assumed. The following versions of the reasons are named that could have prompted the USSR to enter into a "lunar conspiracy" with the United States and stop its lunar flyby and lunar landing manned lunar programs at the last stages of implementation:

1. The USSR did not immediately recognize the scam.
2. The leadership of the USSR refused to publicly disclose for the sake of political pressure on the United States (threats of exposure).
3. The USSR, in exchange for silence, could receive economic concessions and privileges, such as the supply of wheat at low prices and access to the West European oil and gas market. Among possible assumptions are also personal gifts to the Soviet leadership.
4. The United States had political compromising material on the leadership of the USSR.

Fragment of the program "Postscript" with Alexei Pushkov from 18.11.2017

Fragment of the program "Postscript" with Alexei Pushkov from 09.12.2017

Opponents express doubts on all points:

1.The USSR was closely monitoring the US lunar program both according to open sources and through a wide network of agents. Since the falsification (if there was one) would require the participation of thousands of people, there would be a very high probability among them an agent of the Soviet special services. In addition, the lunar mission was carried out continuous radio and optical observation from various points of the USSR, from ships in the World Ocean and, possibly, from aircraft, and the information received was immediately subjected to verification by specialists. In such conditions, it is almost impossible not to notice anomalies in the propagation of radio signals. In addition, there were six missions. Therefore, even if the deception had not been detected immediately, it would have been easily revealed later.

2. This, probably, would have been possible in the 1980s but not in the context of the "Moon Race" and the Cold War. In the USSR and in the world in those years there was euphoria from the successes of Soviet cosmonautics, which supported the thesis of the "superiority of the socialist system over the capitalist", which was fundamental for the USSR and all Marxist movements. For the USSR, the defeat in the "Moon Race" had significant negative ideological consequences both within the country and in the world, but the proof of the failure of the United States and falsification (if it really took place) was a very strong trump card in promoting the ideas of Marxism in the world, which would give a new breath to the communist movements in the West, which by that time had begun to lose popularity. Against this background, the possible bonuses from "collusion" with the United States would not look very tempting for the USSR. It should not be forgotten that the late 1960s - early 1970s in the United States were marked by a fierce internal political struggle and, if there was a falsification, it could have been exposed by American politicians themselves in the course of the struggle. In this case, the USSR would have gained nothing from its silence.

3. The principle of "Occam's razor" works here. The reasons for the USSR's entry into the West European oil and gas market have been well researched, and to explain them, there is no need to involve a possible collusion between the United States and the USSR. The price for the supply of wheat to the USSR was, although somewhat lower than the exchange price, but this is due to the huge volumes of supplies, the self-delivery of products by the Soviet merchant fleet and a payment system that is beneficial for the West. The version about personal gifts is completely doubtful, since in such a vital issue for the superpowers, these gifts, obviously, should have been very valuable. It is even difficult to imagine their content here. In addition, after the collapse of the USSR, information about them would certainly have become publicly available.

4. Both before the start of the "Moon Race" and after it The United States carried out a continuous and tough information campaign to discredit the leadership of the USSR, using both real compromising materials and fakes created by the special services. Among the leaders of states, a kind of "information immunity" to this kind of propaganda has developed, and it is unlikely that in such an environment any new materials would be taken seriously with political consequences for the USSR.

Fragment of the program “Secrets of Chapman. And what was really there? " from 02.06.2017

Official position of Russia

Making it clear to the public that one should not doubt the truth of the statement about the flights of American astronauts to the moon, neither the country's top leadership, nor the domestic official science, in response to a direct question, does not provide a single proof that would sweep away all doubts and become an unconditional confirmation of their correctness. positions on this issue.

And if Russia, as one of the leading space powers in the world, and in the 20th century the USSR is the leader in the space race, cannot bring through the lips of its leader or official science a single convincing fact proving or refuting the flights of American astronauts to the Moon, then all information about these flights, published in textbooks, scientific and popular science literature, shown in newsreels, posted in the media, the Internet, displayed on postage stamps, badges, coins, etc., is a simple repetition of the version proposed by the Americans and is based either on the naive faith of people in this version, or, most likely, on the fulfillment of the will of the highest officials of the state by the authors of these products.

What Putin says about the moon landing

What is the position of official Russia today on the issue of flights of American astronauts to the moon? It is best to ask this question to the head of state, who, according to his status, should be better than anyone else aware of the credibility of this global event.

A. Anisimov: Good afternoon, Vladimir Vladimirovich, my name is Alexey Anisimov, the city of Novosibirsk. I have a question. Do you think the Americans landed on the moon, well, landed on the moon?

V. V. Putin: I think yes.

A. Anisimov: There is a version that ...

V. V. Putin: I know this version, but it seems to me that it is impossible to falsify such an event. This is the same thing that some argue that on September 11, the Americans themselves blew up these twin towers, they themselves directed the actions of the terrorists. Complete nonsense! Brad, this is impossible! … Complete nonsense! The same applies to the landing on the moon: it is impossible to falsify an event of this magnitude.

A. Anisimov: Thanks.

V. V. Putin: We can say that Yuri Gagarin did not fly either - you can think of anything you like. Meanwhile, let us not forget about it, after all, our compatriot took the first step into space.

What conclusions can be drawn from this dialogue?

First. V.V. Putin knows the version according to which the Americans faked flights to the moon.

Second. It turned out that V.V. Putin, being the head of state - a pioneer in space exploration, forty years after the flights of American astronauts to the moon, does not possess reliable data that allow to unequivocally answer the question posed: yes, the flights of the Americans to the moon are reality, their reliability confirm such and such facts.

Third. V.V. Putin, although he had the opportunity to request information confirming or refuting the official version about the flights of American astronauts to the moon, in the archives of the secret services, the foreign policy department and scientific organizations engaged in the study of space, for unknown reasons did not do this, but expressed his point of view as an ordinary citizen who does not always have the opportunity to obtain reliable information from competent sources.

The point of view of V.V. Putin is that American astronauts landed on the moon, although no new evidence is given to confirm this, it just seems to him that it is impossible to falsify an event of this magnitude.

But if enough money is allocated, then anything can be falsified. The only problem is the quality of the fake. And the higher the quality, the more likely the falsification will be perceived as reality.

But, as you know, doubts about the reliability of the American flights to the moon arose in the United States immediately after the completion of these flights and were not dispelled for forty years. It is believed that the basis for these doubts was the results of a close study of materials related to the flights of American astronauts to the moon, but it can be assumed that the primary source of these doubts was a leak of information, deliberately or accidentally made by some of the organizers or performers of lunar flights.

But be that as it may in reality, in the end V.V. Putin turned out to be right that it is impossible to falsify such an event, or to be more precise, it is impossible to pass off the falsification of such an event as reality.

The answer of the highest-ranking official does not contain any new information confirming the stay of American astronauts on the moon, but only indicates that the head of state has a personal opinion on this issue based on indirect data and analogies.

It is surprising that an official, who, by his status, has access to any information held by the state, did not provide a single fact, including from competent sources, confirming the reliability of these flights, although he is familiar with the version of flight falsification.

Thus, the answer of the head of state to the question whether the Americans landed on the moon did not put an end to the dispute about the possible falsification of manned flights to the moon by NASA.

Roscosmos has no information

Having expressed his opinion on this issue, V.V. Putin outlined the position of the state, namely, the flights to the moon declared by the Americans are true. This position is supported not by facts, but by the authority of the head of state, and, by default, this position should be guided by Russian state structures and official science.

However, having received the instruction that flights to the moon are a reality, Russian government agencies and official science did not receive any convincing facts from NASA or the country's leadership, confirming the reality of these flights, to present them to the public.

The question of the stay of the Americans on the Moon was posed to V.V. Putin in 2012.

So, V. Grinev in his article "That be or not to be?" ( Newspaper "His names", N14, April 2, 2013) writes:

“In December of the past year, a conference of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin was held, at which everyone could ask the head of state a question that interests him ... and I asked the question in writing: "Were the Americans on the Moon or Not?" ... The question was not voiced on the air, but the president's reception office soon received an answer that my question had been accepted and sent to Roscosmos. Some time later, a response was received from Roscosmos signed by the Chief Scientific Secretary of the Scientific and Technical Council A.G. Milovanov. …Turns out, "Roscosmos has no information to support your point of view regarding the American landing on the moon."... ... You can understand A.G. Milovanov's answer from two angles: either A.G. Milovanov really does not know about the landing (or non-landing) of the Americans on the moon - which is impossible to believe, or A.G. Milovanov for one reason or another - which is more likely - he did not consider it necessary to be frank with me. "

At first glance, it would seem that the right decision was made - to transfer this issue to a specialized department dealing with space issues. But neither Roscosmos nor its predecessors participated in NASA's program to send a man to the moon and, accordingly, do not bear any responsibility for the reliability of reports on these flights. Therefore, formally, Roskosmos cannot have information either confirming or refuting the landing of American astronauts on the moon.

Of course, such a department as Roskosmos can be presented as an expert whose activities are most closely related to the issue under discussion and who, dealing with space issues, can resolve a long-standing dispute. However, as can be seen from an excerpt from the letter of the Chief Scientific Secretary of the Scientific and Technical Council of Roscosmos, Roscosmos does not act as an expert in this matter. And how can he take on such a role when such famous astronauts as G.M. Grechko and A.A. Leonov, who have no doubts about the flights of American astronauts to the moon, admit that the Americans will carry out additional filming of the "lunar episodes" in the studio.

The question arises, where should the question of the reliability of the lunar expedition be directed? Without a doubt, to the bodies of the foreign intelligence service (formerly the KGB of the USSR) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. During the Cold War, the employees of these departments successfully obtained information important for the security of our country (atomic weapons, military-technical developments, the military potential of the enemy, etc.). It is impossible to imagine that such strategically important information as the first manned flight to the moon would be left without attention from these departments.

Nevertheless, as follows from the above article, the task of confirming or refuting the stay of American astronauts on the moon is set before Roscosmos, as if it was the responsibility of this agency or its predecessors to determine the reliability of information provided by other states in the field of space exploration.

Roskosmos is formally right in answering that it does not have information confirming the falsification of the landing of American astronauts on the moon. At first, Roskosmos could not officially receive such information from any sources (from the higher management, other ministries and departments, foreign states and citizens), Secondly, the task of analyzing and assessing the reliability of information about the flights of American astronauts to the moon was not set before Roscosmos.

Roscosmos' answer does not refute, but does not prove the version accepted by the state that the flights of American astronauts to the moon did take place.

Probably, it would be more correct to ask Roskosmos to present evidence confirming the flights of American astronauts to the moon. But since V.V. Putin cited only one indirect argument as confirmation of these flights, then, apparently, for Roscosmos to prove the presence of American astronauts on the moon would be a problematic task.

Voluntary moratorium on the dissemination of information about these flights will allow not to "lose face" and to preserve the scientific authority of the authors of works on flights of American astronauts to a natural satellite of the Earth in case of obtaining direct evidence of the falsification of lunar expeditions by the Americans.

Chinese Scientists Deny US Lunar Mission

Chinese scientists have started exploring the moon not so long ago. And the first practical results were obtained about 10 years ago, when the launch of the research apparatus " Chang'e-1»To the Earth satellite. Throughout the year, "Chang'e-1" collected and transmitted data. These were photographs of the surface, from which a three-dimensional map was subsequently formed.

The second launched device studied a certain area of ​​the Moon, where the landing of the next lunar module was planned, called " Chang'e-3" in 2013. China became the third country in the world to successfully land a research vehicle on the surface of an earth satellite. However, for technical reasons, the module failed to complete all the tasks.

In addition, Chinese scientists are constantly monitoring the space object using modern telescopes and equipment. The purpose of these studies is a detailed study of the lunar surface, as well as the search for the landing site of astronauts from the United States. They photographed areas of the proposed lunar landing site of the Americans, as well as an area within a radius of 50 kilometers around.

In the course of these observations, it was possible to examine in detail the lunar craters. Even traces of large meteorite impacts were visible. The giant Red Star telescope was aimed exactly at what NASA documents indicate as the area where the American lunar module was abandoned after the Apollo expedition. However, the landing stages of the American spacecraft, as well as the Stars and Stripes flag, never came to the attention of scientists.

Based on the research carried out, representatives of the PRC made a statement on the official website of the Chinese space agency that the Americans had not been to the moon. This caused a violent reaction from the public, due to the fact that many do not believe in the flights of astronauts from America to the moon.

Fragment of the program "Postscript" with Alexei Pushkov from 01.12.2018

The big US space lie about the moon landing

Russia was and remains the leading space power. But at the same time, she literally has to survive in a serious struggle for an orbit. Those who are usually called "our Western partners" directly declare their superiority in space. And they are trying to achieve this superiority by all available means. Dozens of them are launching military satellites into the sky, announcing missile threats and preparing to fly to Mars. At the same time, the fight is not always fair. For example, Russian cosmonauts in foreign blockbusters are shown as unshaven men in earflaps. Or they generally forget about their existence. At the same time, the Americans fly into space on Russian engines and undergo training at Russian cosmonautics centers. So who is the master in orbit?

Video of the TV channel "Zvezda" from 10/08/2018 │ "Hidden Threats" with Nikolai Chindyaykin