Apollo Investigation

Moonshadows: Did We Really Go To The Moon? The Real Space Program

A personal view by James Beals Part Two

The Real Space Program

Previously, I mentioned that one day in the early 1970s Rob showed me some color drawings and reports. What they detailed was the 'actual' space program (no mention of Mercury, Gemini or Apollo). There were detailed drawings of a reusable winged space shuttle. I can't recall if the name 'space shuttle' was there, but they were drawings of the craft. And it depicted a fleet of 10-20 such shuttles building 'space stations'. The shuttles were to fly up every few days into low Earth orbit. There they would construct the first space station.

Rob explained that we had never gone to the Moon.

Not only that, but we had never exceeded about 25,000 miles [out from Earth]. Now Rob was a physicist in training himself (for his Master's degree in physics – in 1971 – he designed a nuclear bomb). I think it was one of Einstein's theories regarding space travel that once a craft reached a speed of a little over 24,000 miles an hour and aimed in the proper trajectory, it would be able to escape the Earth's gravitational pull and then 'freely glide' through space at that speed with no need of any further power.

After the craft reached over 2/3rds the way, the gravity of the Moon would get stronger and the craft would speed up, being pulled toward the Moon. That is the 'theory' re how they were to travel to the Moon. Well, Rob told me the whole 'public' space program is based on that theory, but the theory did not prove to be entirely true.

The final stage that supposedly sent the Apollo craft out of Earth orbit had only enough fuel for about a six-second burn. But even when the craft reached that speed and flew further out into space (according to Rob) they would slow down, due to the Earth's pull, much quicker than theorized. As long as the craft remained in orbit, it could, for the most part, maintain its speed, but when craft tried to go further out, they would run into a belt of resistance which slowed them down or forced them into orbit (at a higher altitude).

The Van Allen Radiation Belts

What would slow down a craft in space, if there was no gaseous atmosphere?

Well, even 25-50,000 miles out there was yet another type of ‘atmosphere’ around the Earth. It isn't made of gasses, but of electrons, and protons. Electro-magnetic plasma. It is known as the Van Allen radiation belts. In 1958 the US sent the first Explorer craft to see how high and far we could go. Explorer was supposed to escape Earth's gravity and fly past the Moon and keep on going. At around 25,000 miles it ran into an intense band of radiation. A dense zone of electro-magnetic energy. The band was extremely dense and intense. So much so, that after sending back some data, the craft not only slowed down, but it went hay-wire as all the electrical circuits on board, including the transmitter and receiver, literally 'fried' out, burned up in the strong electro-magnetic currents of the radiation belt.

Back in the late '50s and early '60s the US sent one Explorer after the next to try and keep the electronics from frying, and to go beyond the belts. One after another the various crafts met with problems.

According to my friend Rob, we never got a craft through the radiation belts. But let’s go back to the first claim the Soviets made when they announced to the world they had a craft that passed through the radiation belts. They had the largest rockets; they were now claiming to be the first to get a craft out of Earth orbit, through the Van Allen belts and the first country to send a space craft (unmanned) to crash land on the Moon. Russia claimed to have actually reached the Moon with an unmanned craft.

This claim was big-time and influential when governments were forming their political alliances. The Soviets were way ahead of the US at the time, whether or not they faked all this, wasn’t relevant. The American intelligence concluded that it didn't matter if the USSR really did what they said they did, or if they had faked it. What mattered is that the rest of the world believed them and for this Russia was winning more and more of the cold war. Communism was spreading.

This was the basis (according to my theory) that prompted the US military and intelligence to decide to start faking some of our space missions. This was the beginning of the lies, at least in terms of the space program.

The Space Age Tower of Babel

Let me go back a little and fill in some things about the 'real' space program, the space shuttle. If you recall originally I started talking about the X-rockets and the space shuttle. According to the documentation Robby showed me, this was America's 'real' space program. Werner Von Braun is credited with developing this plan in the 1950s and according to my research, this was, always has been, and still is the backbone of our space program.

The mission of the shuttle was to travel up to at least several 1,000 miles or further and carry with it cargo to build an orbiting space station at as high an altitude as possible. The main purpose of the space station was to serve as a research lab for further investigation of the [Van Allen] radiation belts and how to get around them or through them. Part of the purpose of the space station was to act as an orbiting launch pad and re-fueling station.

Once the first space station was complete, space shuttles between Earth and that first station would continue to carry more loads, but now a new type of shuttle would be built. One that did not have to travel into the Earth's atmosphere and therefore had no wings. This shuttle would launch from the first space station at several thousand miles up and would travel out to a much higher orbit.

In that higher orbit the next level of shuttles would construct a second space station. Thus, the first ground level shuttles would be ferrying loads from Earth to the first station, then another shuttle ferrying loads to the next station. The second space station would then be at the edge of the radiation belts with the mission to find holes in it, or find a way through it. Once that was done, then another space station could be built even further out. This time 50,000 miles, or on the other side of the radiation belts. The plan that I saw for the space program was to reach the Moon by building about seven such space stations as a modern 'stairway' to the Moon. The Space Age Tower of Babel.

The Real Purpose for Space Stations and the Space Shuttle

The reason for these space station stairsteps was because first of all, the radiation belts had to be surmounted. And secondly, at least according to Rob, the Earth's gravity caused the crafts in space to slow down when trying to escape orbit, to such [an extent] that when the fuel runs out, the crafts settle into an orbit. It was calculated that in order to reach the Moon refueling stations would be needed along the way, one craft could not carry enough fuel to make the trip in one flight.

About 5 years previously, I went to a public library in California and started researching the space program. I was surprised when I found a number of directors of NASA claiming that the 'real' space program was the space shuttle, from X-15 through to the shuttle [itself]. I was not surprised by this, but was surprised that they admitted it publicly. They claimed that because Russia started putting men in capsules and blasting them off on ballistic missiles the US was forced to do the same thing as well. And they admitted that this was actually only for political 'publicity'.

As I stated at the beginning, I cannot quote who said these things or in which books I saw them, but these statements were made by several of the past directors of NASA, by senior leaders of the space program. Some of the books were even published by NASA. They stated that the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo projects were cold war publicity stunts performed only to keep up with the Russians.

These men stopped short of saying that the projects were actually faked. Rather, their (public or official) stand is that these projects, including the trips to and landing on the Moon, were real, but they were not the real US space program. They claim that the real space program is and has been since the 1950s, the space shuttle.

Now, this is really interesting information. Between 1970-72, while Apollo was still under way, long before the first shuttle was ever launched, Rob had told me the same thing, that the shuttle was the real space program. So, while all of these other missions, Explorer, Mercury, Gemini, were taking place, what was happening with our 'real' space program?

By sheer coincidence I have another source of information on that question. During the early 1980s I was producing some multimedia slide shows and I would attend AMI (Association for Multi Images) conventions and seminars. These were well attended by many of the world's leading multimedia producers of the time, most of whom worked for large international corporations. At each convention they would have an awards show in which leading producers would submit their presentation to be judged in various different categories to ascertain who had produced the best shows for the year. The Oscars of the multimedia world.

One show was submitted by someone who had made a production for the US Military. The producer claimed he has high security clearance. The show he played for us (using about 16 slide projectors and 1 or 2 large screen video projectors) was made for a world military convention in Europe. This producer said that in the same way we had conventions where the latest multimedia hardware would be on show, the military branches of world governments also held conventions to display their latest military hardware.

These were high-stakes conventions, he told us, where billions of dollars of contracts for military hardware were bought and sold. Often political alliances were traded at these shows. That year (sometime between 1981-84) was the first year anyone had used large-scale multimedia at their booths, and the first country to do so was the US. He said that previously only hardware was shown, and sometimes a movie or a two-projector show. The military had commissioned him to make the first multimedia show. The US booth didn't feature hardware in the flesh that year, but sported a large tent with three screens, 16 slide projectors and large-screen video projectors.

He claimed that these shows are only attended by the very top military brass and their highest-ranking aids, and that much of what is shown at these shows is highly sensitive data. He said that the show he made was much longer and contained much highly classified sensitive data that could not be shown to un-cleared personnel. But, because it was such a great show, the producer had re-edited the show and cleared it with top military brass for showing at the AMI convention. He claimed that the audience present (about 400-500 leading multimedia producers from around the world, including myself) were the only ones that would be able to see the re-edited version. He said that he was granted permission to show this version just once, and only for the awards ceremony.

So, what was so 'sensitive' about this show? Well, the presentation was designed to demonstrate the superiority of US military technology. And what topic did they center on to do this? Space technology. The show began with a history of the US space program, starting from the first jets to break the sound barrier in the late 1940s. That led into the work on the X-rocket planes, the most widely known, the X-15. It hailed the X-15 as being the first manned spacecraft, achieving 50+ mile altitude, and that the flight was made under full pilot control of the winged craft. It went on for some time about all of the achievements of the X-15 project. Then, it went on to discuss the X-16, X-20 and X-22 rocket planes. These were crafts that I had never heard about before. They all looked like fat, winged jets, and they were all single pilot crafts.

The narration stated that each advancement achieved further and further break-throughs. Going into and out of orbit, developing heat shield materials for re-entry, testing how far and how fast one can go in near space, etc. It also explained how control throttle rocket engines were developed for some of these test craft. They discussed the X-24, the last of the X-rockets. This was still a manned winged rocket plane and was the last of the 'smaller' eXperimental rocket planes. Yet, these tests were all said to have been going on all through the 1960s and 70s.

The next step was the space shuttle. This was the intended culmination of the US space effort and all of the X-rocket planes. After all tests checked out with the X-rockets, a version large enough to house a large (8+ man) crew and allow for a large cargo bay was built. This (according to the show made in the early to mid 1980s) was the APEX of the US space program and the apex of mankind's technological advancements. The show went on glorifying the shuttle as the greatest achievement of mankind so far, taking man into space etc., etc.

What I saw totally confirmed to me that the Moon landing was faked. This show presented the history of the space program and conspicuous by its absence was any reference whatsoever to putting men in capsules and blasting them off on top of ballistic missiles. Totally missing was any reference at all to Mercury, Gemini and the big one, Apollo. There was no mention of any craft ever going to the Moon, let alone men going to the Moon. No mention of any Voyager or deep space craft ever whizzing past a distant planet. All the show presented was the X-rocket planes that finally, after 25+ years of research culminated in the shuttle as being the absolute pinnacle of man's reach into space.

Out of a room of 400-500 producers I wonder if I was the only one who really caught the significance of the above.

Everything seemed to confirm what Rob had told me. And was again confirmed by my library research from the quotes of the leading men at NASA. Another realization was that if the capsule programs and deep space probes and lunar landings were faked, it wasn't just the US faking it alone, or even just the US and Russia, but it appeared that all major industrialized nations, at least at the top military level, were all in on it. This show was made for them, so they would know what was really going on. This seems inconceivable, but I am not presenting absolutes here.

It may be hard to believe or understand, but not impossible. It may be that an accord was made among the leading nations and the real facts shared. In one way that would seem probable because many of those countries do have some sort of space program, and at some point their research would find inconsistencies in the data from faked space missions. But, still, what about all the universities and all those NASA workers? I admit, it is hard to comprehend. My mission in writing all this is to present that which I know or have a good idea of as a way of sparking further research.

If We Had Gone to the Moon, then What was so Great About the Shuttle?

If it is true (I have no absolute way of knowing) that all other manned space flights have been faked, then that would mean that the shuttle flights were truly man's first real space flights. The first spacewalks were from the shuttle. Everything before was faked. And really, I recall in the early 80s, and even to today, the excitement that NASA and the press showed over the shuttle (the press simply following the 'leads' and excitement NASA was making over it) seemed a little out of place. Look, if we believe we had been to the Moon, then what was so great about the shuttle? Think about it!

The shuttle has a capacity to carry 6-8 people (even 10 in an emergency). It has a large cargo bay. So, how high can the shuttle go? Between 100 to 250 miles high. That is it folks. Most shuttle flights go up less than 200 miles. Granted, we are speaking straight up height, and that is well above the atmosphere and well into near space (which starts at about 50 miles up). But it is only 1/1000th of the distance to the Moon (according to modern calculations). 1/2000th of a round trip to the Moon. In 1968 we were sending unmanned missions (supposedly) to the Moon and back, in 1969, to the Moon and back with three men on board, 250,000 miles up and back. Okay, so the shuttle can carry 6 to 8 astronauts. But it only goes up about 200 miles high, then back down. Did we really go to the Moon all those years ago?

Let’s look at load capacities. The shuttle has a lift off thrust of 6.6 million pounds. I admit we are talking big time lift off power here. It can take into low Earth orbit payloads of up to 40,000 pounds. Now, lets compare that with the Saturn 5 rocket that lifted off the Apollo missions. The Saturn 5 boosters have a lift off thrust of 7.5 million pounds. But overall the Saturn 5 was lighter, giving it a higher load carrying capacity to lift off thrust ratio. The total weight of the lunar craft was 100,000 pounds. The Saturn 5 could take that 100,000 lb load and lift it into high altitude orbit.

The shuttle can't even reach high altitude orbit at all. But, even more impressive, the Saturn 5 could carry a 280,000 pound cargo into low Earth orbit! We are talking mammoth. The Saturn 5 was the largest, most powerful rocket the US had ever built. It had the largest capacity of any rocket we've ever designed. It was by far the greatest rocket the US ever had – or was it?

Saturn 5 Booster (and the F-1 Engines): Fact or Fiction?

Here is something to chew on, if Apollo was faked, then did the Saturn Booster 5 rocket ever actually exist or was it too faked? My theory says it was also faked. NASA claimed that the shuttle was better, so we didn't need the Saturn 5 any more. The Saturn 5, by NASA’s own data, was a far more powerful launch vehicle. With 280,000 lb low altitude orbit payload capacity it had seven times the cargo carrying capacity of the shuttle. Seven times greater!

How can NASA say the Saturn 5 was no longer needed because they now had the Shuttle? The Saturn 5 could have put seven Hubble Space Telescopes into orbit in a single launch!

Yet, if the Saturn booster was for real, then it doesn't make sense if we failed to keep a few in inventory for other purposes. Strange, we don't have a single one. When the shuttle program was going strong it became the space vehicle of choice in America to get large cargo and communication satellites, etc, into orbit. But, when the shuttle program was grounded, the US and commerce found itself with no vehicle capable of lifting off the cargo, as many satellites had been designed to be carried up by the shuttle and were too large or heavy for most other rockets. The paper published a list of all rockets in the US arsenal that were available at the time for carrying loads into Earth orbit. NASA noted that the most powerful rocket America had, excluding the Shuttle, was the Atlas Centaur.

The Atlas rocket was designed and developed in the 1950s as an ICBM, with improvements made in the 60s when it was (supposedly) used as the booster rocket for the Gemini project. To launch Apollo, NASA required a rocket with many times the lift capacity, that was the Saturn 5. Second to the Saturn 5 was the Atlas. So, the US had about 7 Atlas rockets in its arsenal at the time of the Challenger accident and lead-time was, if I recall, six months to a year for additional rockets. But, there were no Saturn boosters.

One sharp reporter asked why? NASA's reply was that once they built the shuttle they no longer needed Saturn. The agency stopped ordering them and since then the manufactures eventually destroyed their tools and dies. They claimed it would now be too costly and take many years to build another. They claimed they would have the shuttle up long before they could build another Saturn.

I am not convinced. It makes no sense to me. The military has always needed bigger and more powerful rockets. Commerce now needs such high capacity rockets. There was always a need for it. The shuttle didn't have anywhere near the capacity of the Saturn 5. I just don't believe that we would not have kept a few around. After all, we did keep making the Atlas rockets. Why wouldn't NASA or the military keep at least one of the Big Ones, the really big capacity Saturn 5 rockets in inventory? And why would they stand around while the manufactures destroyed their tools and dies?

If we could build the Saturn 5 from scratch in a few years in the 60s, and we already have all the plans, why not rebuild it now? Did the Saturn 5 rockets really have the load capacity NASA claimed they had (or would have needed to get three men and their spacecraft to the Moon and back)?

"NASA, I Think We Have a Problem (with the Moon landings) – Do You Read Me?"

I have made an observation about the astronaut’s movements while on the Moon (and in the old space walks of the 1960s). I have often wondered why they moved so slowly on the Moon. The answer is generally due to reduced gravity.

In the mid 60s the astronauts were supposedly performing space walks, and they too moved in slow motion. Well, something is a little screwy here. You see, when you are underwater your body weight becomes relatively less due to the density and weight of the water. Relative to the atmosphere you are in, being water, the body weight is less than the atmosphere. Water is heavy, so the body floats in water, similar as one would float in space. However, due to water being dense this causes more resistance to movement then normal air does, so that when one is under water he/she will move slowly. The slowness is due to the fact that the body strength hasn't changed, but the atmosphere around it, in this case from normal air to dense water, has become much heavier and thus puts up a higher resistance against movement.

What is different in space is that rather than there being a more dense and heavy atmosphere, there is no atmosphere. There is no resistance caused by either water or air, therefore there is much greater freedom of movement. The body has the same strength and there is no resistance from the atmosphere to slow down or resist that movement, as there would be under water. Movement in space or on the Moon presents less resistance then on Earth, so the movements should not be SLOW, but if anything as fast or faster.

Therefore, I have always been puzzled why the astronauts moved around in slow motion on the Moon. And it is interesting to note that when I have watched video of space walks from the shuttle, they do not seem to have this same problem. The clumsy suits make movements a bit more restricted, if you move your arm quickly you may find your whole body spinning around, but there is no atmosphere to slow movement down. I have concluded is that NASA blew it by photographing movement on the Moon in slow motion. This may have been totally miscalculated, springing from the earlier space walks that were probably photographed underwater in large water tanks. The underwater movements were slow, so someone may have concluded movement on the Moon would be slow also.

It is also extremely interesting to note that when I have taken NASA video coverage of Moon walking and the rover riding on the Moon and speeded it up 1.8 to 2 times faster then normal something very remarkable happens. All of a sudden everything looks 'normal'. These guys simply look as though they are hopping around in some big, over-sized suits. And the rover looks completely normal as well, like any little dune buggy on soft sand. They simply filmed everything about 2 times speed, then played it slower so that it appears everyone is moving around slowly. But that was a very big mistake, as the movements should not be slow in the first place.

And what about the dust that gets kicked up by the wheels of the rover? According to my friend the dust should fall back down extremely quickly, as there is no air or atmosphere in which it can suspend itself, and there is no air pressure to counter its fall. But the dust appears to magically fall in half speed slow motion.

What Should We do About it?

The evidence points to the fact it was faked. I don't know for 100% sure, but there are definitely holes in NASA's presentations and explanations. There was sufficient reason for faking it. I have not yet found anything that would without a doubt prove to me that the missions were not faked.

As any aspiring (or master) artist (or photographer/ cinematographer/ videographer) will tell you, it doesn't have to be, it only has to look like it is. In the cold war race for space, somehow that became the modus operandi. It no longer really had to be, it just had to look like it was.

Put yourself in the shoes of those who have kept the secret all this time. How do they go about revealing the real truth without causing a major social upheaval? What would really happen? How will the masses react? There would be a legitimate fear on their part. They definitely have a dilemma on their hands. However, now that the need for deceiving the masses is no longer present, there is no justification for perpetuating it, the truth must be disclosed.

If my theories are correct, I would strongly suggest the time is finally ripe to come clean and tell the real truth. It should be done in a widely advertised message delivered by the leaders of the US and Russia, along with leading scientists. It should be done in a live video presentation that should be aired on all TV and radio channels and the Internet simultaneously. It should be fully explained why it was done, and exactly what was done, and exactly what was faked. It should be explained how the fakery was done. Then it should appeal to human society's common sense and urge that there should be no disruptive reactions, that that will not be to any one's benefit.

If I am right, and there was justification for the lies, than give the masses some credit, they will understand if it is presented properly. Explain what the reasons were for starting the lies, and then explain how the reasons remained valid until now. If the parties involved wait any longer to come clean, then they will miss the opportunity. Then it will go past the time of having legitimate reason for continuing with the lie. Right now the time is perfect.

However, if they follow my plan I only request that they give me, a devotee of Krishna, the credit for prompting them to do so.

©1997 James Beals (Ameyatma das)

NEXT Article next page

AULIS Online – Different Thinking