The prime reason for the Aulis investigation into Apollo is to question the official record of the exploration of the Moon in the late 1960s and early '70s – especially the Apollo lunar landings themselves.
The findings regarding the discovery of anomalies and inconsistencies in the Apollo record strongly indicate that the manner in which the 1969-72 program actually played out is most certainly not a conspiracy theory – but rather the program was a very successful operation fully authorised by the United States.
As a government agency NASA acts in the interest of the national security of the United States, and when viewed though the lens of ‘National Security’ any action always contains a military component. The US manned space program, up to and including Apollo, was a weapon of choice in the ‘technological cold war’ the United States government was pursuing with the USSR. Consequently the historical record of these programs, as supplied by NASA itself, was a component of this ‘war’ and US government policy.
Human space flight is still besieged with problems supposedly resolved by 1969 and in the decades since Apollo, NASA’s published photographic and written documentation has failed to stand up to the scrutiny of today’s investigative technology. These are strong indications that US policy of the 1960s was simply the means to an end. It therefore follows that the Apollo record cannot be classified as a conspiracy engineered by a cabal.
Over the years this Apollo investigation has involved analysis of the Apollo lunar surface imagery – concluding that they were staged. Then the serious underperformance problems with the Saturn V became apparent. The presence of hazardous space radiation that was potentially endangering astronauts was not resolved by 1969/70. Nor has it been to this day. And the same applies to the essential skip re-entry technique for lunar returns. Now it appears that at least in the case of Apollo 13, the mission could have aborted shortly after take off with the command module downing in the Atlantic.
Research evidence revealed during this investigation suggests that the famous named astronauts conceivably never left low-Earth orbit, remaining in the safe zones below the Van Allen radiation belts. By so doing they would have avoided exposure to the hazardous radiation which (in the present state of development) awaits all those who venture into deep space.
Recent research into the condition of Russian cosmonauts shows that in general, by the time of landing the cosmonaut's state of health sharply deteriorates as a result of the process of re-entry and descent. After just five days in the Soyuz 7 craft in 1969, cosmonaut V. Gorbatko could not walk on his own. After a normal landing in 1975 of Soyuz 19 the cosmonauts were placed on stretchers – unable to walk unaided.
By way of contrast, in 1975, NASA’s ASTP Apollo astronauts’ appearance was totally different – the US crew were surprisingly energetic. Having arrived on the rescue ship, the crew were not taken directly to the sick bay, but to a meeting held in their honour, where each of the astronauts delivered a speech while his colleagues sat together in casual postures. Two very different re-entry experiences. The Russian ASTP crew, after spending six days in orbit, land and unable to walk, were placed on stretchers. The US crew, having spent nine days in orbit in unsanitary conditions on a cramped craft went directly to a meeting as if nothing had happened.
Notwithstanding that the psychological behaviours of the astronauts in the intervening years since Apollo would be evidence enough for our claims; the numerous inconsistencies and anomalies visible in the Apollo photographic and TV record are irrefutable. The intentional 'mistakes' and lack of continuity between still images and the TV coverage is so very apparent that even former NASA supporter Richard Hoagland has found problems,
“Noticing the difference between the astronaut’s reports and the photographic record, we began to question everything … especially the validity of the TV recordings and immediately released NASA prints.
It was soon clear that the orbital photography and the ground-based images simply didn't match.”
Richard C Hoagland and Mike Bara, Dark Mission
Many of the errors evidenced in the photographic record were no doubt planted deliberately by those who have been dubbed ‘whistle-blowers’. It should also be emphasised at this point that we are not alone in making such claims. Other researchers have also produced hard evidence concerning massive fraud in the US space program.
Since the publication of Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, Jack White BA, a specialist in photo analysis and a professional photographer for over half a century, has produced numerous studies revealing further photographic fakery extant in the Apollo lunar EVA record. Phil Kouts PhD has found damming evidence within NASA's own published documents, and many other specialist scientists have found evidence suggesting that the Apollo missions were faked and that the Saturn V could not have flown to the Moon.
Suppression of Knowledge
There is absolutely nothing new in the organised withholding of newly-found discoveries and NASA is by no means the first institution to foster the suppression of information and the denial of knowledge. More than two thousand years before space travel was a reality, in the 6th Century BC, Pythagoras and his group of mathematical philosophers who lived in Greece found themselves in just such a situation.
Dr. Carl Sagan (1934-1996) reminded us in his work Cosmos that the Pythagoreans identified their discovery of four regular basic solids with the essence of the four elements: fire, earth, air and water. The fifth solid, the dodecahedron was attributed to the essence of the heavens. And they decided that the awareness of this mystical quintessence was too sacred to be divulged to the public.
Another crisis of doctrine occurred when the Pythagoreans discovered that the square root of two could not be represented accurately as the ratio of two whole numbers, for the square root of two was irrational. It was not a whole number and these people regarded whole numbers as rational and fundamental, as all other things could be calculated from them.
For the Pythagoreans, this difference was difficult to assimilate into their previous ‘database’, as we would describe it today. It presented a serious threat to the ordering of their world view. So instead of sharing in their recently-acquired and perhaps not completely understood discovery, the Pythagoreans also suppressed knowledge of the square root of two on the grounds that it was too dangerous for ‘ordinary people’. The world outside their own circle was not to know!
History would seem to have repeated itself (as it has done so many times before) when it came to Apollo. Those in charge of our emergence as a civilisation learning to struggle into space, have determined to deny access to the findings concerning space and physics acquired as a result of the manned space programs.
Again as with the Pythagoreans, so with the attempt to prevail over critics of the Apollo program. This has been done by incorporating Apollo into the group of world-defining events most likely to raise questions of the historical record and then labelling questioners of the relevant record as ‘conspiracy theorists’.
It has then been determined that the word ‘conspiracy’ attached to the word ’theory’ is the irrational attached to the rational. From which it has become policy to link the ‘irrational belief’ in a conspiracy to that of a paranoid personality. And bringing this method full circle, it is then asserted that a paranoid personality will ‘see’ links between world-defining events which, to the rational mind, are clearly not applicable. Job done. All queries relative to the fundamental order contained and marginalised. Not quite.
Apollo – resulting from US government policy – does not fit into this futile exercise and key questions still remain. The poor decisions and ill-considered actions by the space agencies and their masters have accumulated over the last fifty years or so and the consequences of this behaviour still block the threshold of the doorway marked “Progress of the Human Civilisation”.
Even today there are scientists who are opposed to sharing with ‘ordinary people’ certain scientific knowledge.
As Carl Sagan wrote,
“The sacred knowledge is to be kept within the cult, unsullied by public understanding.”
Aulis Online, updated December 2016
This article is licensed under
a Creative Commons License