What Really Happened with Apollo?
The
main thrust of this investigation is to question the entire validity
of the official record of mankind’s exploration of the Moon. Sending
men to the Moon and bringing them back safely is widely held to
be the greatest technical achievement of mankind so far. In fact it was the greatest achievement of the second millennium. Indeed the landing
of the Apollo astronauts on the Moon is now considered by many to
be the benchmark by which human endeavour is measured.
A benchmark which
might well be invalid.
The
present state of space technology is totally inadequate for the
safe passage of humans through the potentially lethal radiation
that awaits all those who venture through the Earth’s radiation
belts into deep space, whether they be en route to the Moon, to
Mars or beyond.
Have
we lost the technology to travel safely into deep space since Apollo? Or did we not have it in the first place?
|
The Aulis investigation into Project Apollo presents an alternative viewpoint.
Our findings have uncovered numerous inconsistencies in the official NASA record
of manned missions to the Moon. These anomalies bring
into question whether, over the period of three years from 1969,
twelve named Apollo astronauts really did travel through deep space,
and walk upon the surface of the Moon.
New
evidence throws into serious doubt the authenticity of the Apollo
record and suggests that NASA hoaxed the photographs taken on the
‘surface of the Moon’. This aspect of the lunar photography is dealt
with in Part One of our investigation What Happened on the Moon? In Part Two we look at the dangers
of space radiation that have to be overcome by those journeying
beyond our atmosphere. And Part Three examines the evolution
of the rocket industry and the problems inherent in getting astronauts – together
with their equipment – out to the Moon and then back again, alive
and well.
This production
is the result of painstaking and extensive research. You will hear
the testimony of many people from various disciplines and hear from
individuals who, together with those who have left a legacy of visible
clues, can truthfully be called ‘Whistle-Blowers’.
So did
the now famous Apollo astronauts sacrifice their personal integrity
on the altar of NASA’s reputation? Did other unnamed surrogate astronauts sacrifice their lives? And if so, for what reason? Was
it to cover for the fact that in the late 1960s it was not possible
to guarantee the safe return to Earth of the Apollo astronauts?
Such a scenario would answer that inevitable question ‘Why?’ And
justify the serious anomalies in the official record which this
investigation reveals.
Could
it be the case that NASA publicly stated that it was doing things
one way, when in fact plans were in place to proceed in a very different
manner? Was it realised very early on that apart from the unpredictable
radiation hazards – and the massive technological challenges – the lunar
environment itself created yet another set of insurmountable problems?
Independent Verification?
In the
case of major news stories here on Earth, many journalists witness
and comment on news events. But once the Apollo astronauts had been
launched, it was no longer possible to independently verify the
authenticity of any communication, as the Apollo comms links were
controlled by none other than NASA itself. In these circumstances,
how could we know for sure that the images of those ‘live’
events were actually occurring at that moment?
The Apollo
lunar surface pictures have been presented to the entire world as
authentic, actual photographs of this most significant event: Mankind’s
first steps onto a planet other than his home. To ignore or dismiss
the questions raised by the discovery of even one technically defective
photograph purporting to be a part of this official record is to
maintain the status quo and side-step the serious issues raised
in this investigation.
One single
contradictory example would be enough to demonstrate that there
is a problem with the integrity of the material published by NASA.
There are many such examples presented in this production. The lack of
continuity between the still photographs and the ‘live’ TV coverage
of the same events, the whistle-blowing inherent in the lighting
of these images, the faked set-ups, the clues hidden in the astronauts’
exchanges with Mission Control, the serious problems associated
with radiation, as well as space technologies that didn't always
perform to specification.
Speaking out
So why
aren’t professionals in the aerospace industry speaking out? What
could be the reason for such reticence? Well in fact, some have
spoken out. A growing number of intelligent, thinking people are
beginning to realise that all was not well with Apollo.
Dr Brian O'Leary
Astronaut |
In September
1999 it was reported by journalist Graham Birdsall that at the First
Pacific UFO conference in Hawaii, the astronaut Dr Brian O’Leary
(who worked alongside the likes of Armstrong and Aldrin for many
years) commented:
“If
some of the film was spoiled, it’s remotely possible they [NASA]
may have shot some scenes in a studio environment to avoid embarrassment.”
For an
'insider' to consider this faking a possibility is quite remarkable.
When that individual worked for NASA in the 1960s and specifically
on the Apollo 11 mission during 1967 and ’68, this really is some
statement.
All these
matters underline one simple fact: A representative of humanity
may well have gone to the Moon in 1969, but the images published
by NASA of a manned lunar landing do not appear to be the true and
accurate record of such an event. From the sheer weight of evidence
the firm conclusion of this investigation has to be that, in the
case of Apollo, NASA stated that the agency was doing things one
way when in fact a hidden, surrogate program proceeded in a very
different manner.
Richard Feynman
During
the 1986 Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger
disaster, the eminent physicist Richard Feynman found that NASA’s
analysis, claims and methodology were consistently incorrect. In
a lengthy paper (that was so embarrassing for NASA it was relegated
to a mere appendix within the Commission’s final report) Feynman
made several observations that seem remarkably applicable to the
NASA of eighteen years previously. He wrote:
“It
would appear that, for whatever purpose, be it for internal or
external consumption, the management of NASA exaggerates the reliability
of its product, to the point of fantasy.”
And:
“When
playing Russian roulette the fact that the first shot got off
safely is little comfort for the next.”
Feynman finished his report with these words:
“NASA
owes it to the citizens from whom it asks support, to be frank,
honest and informative. And so that these citizens can make the
wisest decisions for the use of their limited resources for a
successful technology, reality must take precedence over public
relations – for nature cannot be fooled.”
Aulis Online
|
