Why the Americans weren't on the moon proof. Why the Americans were definitely on the moon. All lunar soil is missing or is carefully hidden by NASA

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 robe, sewn together in a hurry. NASA claims that the spacesuits were sewn at the factory for the production of bras and underwear, that is, their spacesuits were sewn from the fabric of panties and they supposedly protect from the aggressive space environment, from radiation killing humans. However, maybe NASA really has 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 hasn't started yet and they didn't 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 developed 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 must be at least 80 cm thick, made of lead, which, of course, was not the case. 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

The vast majority of space images of NASA's lunar program do not show stars, 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 transferred 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 evidence 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 the first visit to Moscow american president brings Brezhnev a generous gift - the Cadillac Eldorado, 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 successfully work 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.

Questions, questions ...

Friends from Kiev sent me an American film from the Island World studio "For all mankind"("For all mankind"- with a polyphonic translation into Russian), directed by Al Reinert (Al Reinert), released in 1989 for the 20th anniversary of the landing on the moon of the first people - American astronauts N. Armstrong and E. Aldrin. The film raises a lot of questions, even without watching it.

"For All Mankind", full NASA movie (1989)

(without translation into Russian - in English)

For example, why is the Soviet audience not familiar with him? Why has this and the next anniversary films never been shown on our television? Let's say it was not shown in the USSR for ideological reasons, but after all, already under Gorbachev, we opened the doors for the propaganda of our older pale-faced brother. Why did the US agitprop never insist that its main achievement - landing on the moon - be promoted in the occupied country?

Long road

A few general figures. This supposedly documentary the first people on the moon take 75 minutes. After about half an hour, you will surely begin to swear: when will the moon finally be? The fact is that the landing on the Moon and everything else about the astronauts' stay on the Moon (everyone, not only Armstrong and Aldrin) takes only about 25 minutes in the film, and the shooting on the Moon takes about 20.5 minutes, and the astronauts themselves take less than 19 minutes. minutes. Agree that this is not much, considering that, according to legend, the astronauts of all expeditions spent about 400 hours on the moon.

You ask: and what is shown in the film for the first 50 minutes? Anything!

How astronauts dress before launch, how they are examined, how they walk, how they are lifted onto a ship, how they start, how they admire the view of the Canary Islands from space, how they change clothes, how they eat, how they shave with an electric razor, how they are thrown by objects suspended in zero gravity, as they sleep, again as they eat, again as they shave, however, now with a safety razor. How they listen to the music of an audio player, what kind of music it is, what the musicians said when they recorded it, etc. etc. Since there is nowhere to rush, they show how astronauts jokingly shoot a video about themselves, how they draw screensavers for it, these screensavers (4 or 5), of course, are necessarily shown to the audience. As astronauts broadcast a comic television report on sports news from space, basketball league scores are broadcast. Etc. etc. And all this with sparkling American humor. For example, they joke merrily, showing how the astronauts are recovering (it is explained in detail that the bags with excrement must be tightly closed with lids, otherwise the excrement will stick around the entire cabin). When one goes to recover, the rest, making faces, put on oxygen masks, letting the audience know that they stink a lot. Funny. In general, there is an abyss of humor in the abyss of space. American.

So that the audience does not get bored too much, an accident is arranged: "a leak of liquid oxygen in the maintenance compartment, where oxygen is stored for the breathing of the crew." This liquid oxygen is shown as a fountain. For some reason, the MCC is looking at something that looks like a storage battery and gives a cheerful command: "Try plans No. 4 and No. 3". At this command, the astronaut grabs a roll of duct tape and quickly glues something with it, brilliantly saving the life of the crew.

The viewers are not deprived of the original views, but first, a few words about the device spaceship"Apollo". It is launched into the Earth's orbit by two stages of the Saturn rocket, the third stage accelerates it to the Moon. Apollo itself consists of a main unit, which houses the cockpit and engine. In this cockpit, astronauts fly to the moon and return to Earth. The engine of the main unit slows down the Apollo near the Moon and accelerates it to return to Earth. A lunar cabin is docked to the engines of the main unit, in which two astronauts descend to the moon and return to the main unit. A landing platform is docked to the lunar cabin from the side of its engine, the engine of which puts the platform and the lunar cabin on the lunar surface. (The lunar cabin is then launched from this platform).

Booster rocket "Saturn-5"

1. Emergency Rescue System (SAS).
2. Compartment of the crew of the spacecraft "Apollo"
3. The engine compartment of the Apollo spacecraft.
4. Lunar cabin of the Apollo spacecraft.
5. Lunar platform.
6. Equipment compartment.
7. Third stage (S-4B missile).
8. Engine J-2.
9. Second stage (rocket S-).
10. Five J-2 engines.
11. First stage (rocket S-1C.
12. Five F-1 engines.

The crew compartment is small: it is a cone with a diameter at the base of 3.9 m and a height of 3.2 m.The lower, widest part of the cone is filled with supplies and equipment, at the top there are seats for three crew members, at the top of the cone there is a hatch for access to the lunar cockpit ... There are no gateways.

Nevertheless, 2 hours after the launch from the cosmodrome, when Apollo with the third stage of Saturn was supposed to be still in Earth orbit, someone from Armstrong's crew decided to urgently walk through space: he opened the hatch and went outside. There were enough TV cameras inside the crew compartment, but at that time they did not shoot, and this is not surprising: after all, oxygen should be deflated from the Apollo into the open hatch, and the two remaining crew members would also have to put on spacesuits. The astronaut who went out in open space, did it solely to hang in an airless space and say: "Hallelujah, Houston." Soon Houston demanded that he return to the compartment, since a few minutes later the Apollo's acceleration to the Moon began. By the way, the absence of the third stage of "Saturn" was clearly visible.

In the film, the Mission Control Center (MCC) looms annoyingly. Since there is nothing to show in it - the consoles and people behind them, the poor director crawled out of his skin to diversify the picture: he showed how they are worried in the MCC, and how they rejoice, and how they laugh at the endless jokes of astronauts, and how they yawn and how they drink coffee, how they eat, how they smoke. The flight director's trousers and boots are shown three times in the film, and the fact that the trousers are short and the boots are brightly polished should be remembered by everyone. With such a technique, at the very least, the director stretched the frames of the MCC for 9 minutes of the total time of the film.

Be that as it may, but in the end, with jokes, jokes, music and songs, the astronauts finally flew to the moon.

My tech-savvy acquaintances argued that the Americans could not land on the moon due to the fact that they had no experience with spacecraft docking. Really. According to legend, on the way to the Moon, the astronauts had to undock the main Apollo unit from the third stage of Saturn, turn it 180 degrees and again dock to the lunar cabin so that the upper hatch of the main unit would align with the upper hatch of the lunar cabin, otherwise Armstrong and it was impossible for Aldrin to go into it.

So, not a word is said about this most complicated operation in the film! There are no shots of the farewell of the astronaut remaining in the main unit with those passing into the lunar cabin, no shots of their return. But this is not a scene of the departure of small and large needs by astronauts and not a scene of their shaving, these were supposed to be the most powerful shots in terms of drama. But they are not for any lunar expedition! Moreover, after approaching the moon, the crew compartment cameras were no longer turned on, and there is not a single frame with its interior. The main unit was shown outside all the time. If I am right and the Americans dropped lunar cabins on the moon without astronauts, then it should be so, because all three astronauts were in the crew compartment and it was impossible to show it, just as it was impossible at that time to shoot scenes of no goodbyes and meetings without real weightlessness ...

On the moon

Anyway. And so they finally sit down. A television camera located somewhere outside (neither she nor the portholes on the lunar cockpit were found by me in its drawings) is filming the landing on the moon. Approximately a few meters from the surface, as can be seen from the shadow on the surface of the moon, something like jets of gas from the engine flashes in front of the lens and then the camera jerks from the impact of the landing. Neither a pebble, nor sand, nor a speck of dust flew out from under the engine of the lunar platform with a thrust in an airless space of 4530 kgf. But when at the end of the film the launch from the moon of the lunar cabin of some next "Apollo" is shown, starting from its metal platform, then stones from the jet of the engine with a thrust of 1590 kgf flew upward at a tremendous speed, by eye not less than 20-50 kg. Nothing to say - cinema! Hollywood. By the last series, they guessed that the jet of the engine must somehow act on the ground.

A couple of words about the fact that people who are sure that the Americans were on the moon consider the illuminating spotlights of the shooting pavilion, caught in numerous photographs, as flares on the lens. The spotlights were also included in the frames of this film and they are well distinguishable from glare. (When you rotate the camera, the glare changes shape and follows the camera, while the spotlights remain stationary).

For the first time, the Americans installed corner reflectors of a laser signal on the lunar surface. Since then, the photon signal reflected from them has been repeatedly recorded in sessions of laser ranging of the Moon at observatories in different countries, including the USSR. This is considered reliable evidence of the Americans being on the moon. True, opponents immediately admit that “later similar devices were delivered to the Moon in Soviet experiments with Lunokhod and are used for the same purposes along with American ones”, i.e. to install them, it is not necessary to land a person; this can also be done by an automatic station. The USSR also delivered a corner reflector to the moon and took soil samples, but it does not boast that its cosmonauts were on the moon. So this is absolutely circumstantial evidence. And direct evidence of the stay of American astronauts on the moon is genuine film and photography. You can't make them anywhere.

The most touching, of course, are the shots of the installation of the American flag. "On the Moon" one astronaut drove a peg into the ground, another planted a flagpole on it. According to legend, the flag was made of a rigid fabric with a wire frame, i.e. the flagpole looked like the letter "G". So the flag had only one free corner, and this corner showed that it was really free. It fluttered so merrily in the wind of the "airless" space of the "Moon" that the astronaut had to pull it back. Angle sagged. But as soon as the astronaut departed, the flag fluttered merrily again. (Probably some damn black man kept opening and closing the gates in the set, creating a draft).

Since the too obvious absurdity of these shots began to catch the eye of any more or less reasonable person, fans of America tried to get out of the situation, offering some explanations for this fact. It is worth dwelling on them in more detail. On currently all pro-American scientists adhere to one of two mutually exclusive hypotheses. The first asserts that “these are just natural vibrations of the elastic flagpole-flag system”. But it is necessary not only to know these Clever words, but also figuratively represent what it is. Take something elastic, for example, a ruler, pinch one end of it, pull and release the free one. These are elastic vibrations in their purest form. Their peculiarity, like any oscillations, is that the oscillating part of the system always deviates from the zero position - the one in which the oscillations will subside.

So, in the film there is not even a hint of these very "elastic vibrations". The flag is blown away by the wind in one direction from the zero position, and the ribbon stretching behind the "going out into space" astronaut is blown away in one direction. She covers him all the time only from one side and trembles in the draft. Those. and "spacewalk" is also a Hollywood fake. By the way, with this "exit", cumulus clouds are visible as close as they are seen from an airplane, and not from space station... (Incidentally, the American journalists themselves caught NASA by giving the press photos of the "spacewalk" that were clearly falsified). By giving this fake, the Americans show that they are sorely lacking material for the movie about the flight to the moon. For the sake of fairness, it should be noted that in the scene of the spacewalk there are a number of frames of clearly cosmic origin: in particular, the inclusion of the propulsion engine in Earth's orbit - the jet from the engine is exactly what it should be when it expires into vacuum (strongly underexpanded), visible its structure in the form of shock waves. So they still flew into space. And installation is a matter of technology.

The second hypothesis is the assumption that the flag had a motor, which created the oscillations. But, in addition to the fact that it is rather difficult to imagine such a thing, it should also be noted that the oscillations created by the motor must, firstly, be strictly periodic, and secondly, have a wave profile that is constant in time. We see nothing of the kind in the pictures. Of course, enthusiasts can assume that there, inside the flag, there was also a Pentium II or even III (why not? Near the motor!), Which tugs the flag at random intervals in a random direction with a random effort, but still we do not consider the field of science fiction.

In addition, an essential reservation should be made: Truth is always specific, and therefore it is impossible to realize both mutually exclusive hypotheses. If it's about free vibrations, then why use the motor hypothesis? After all, this is simply stupid! If there was a motor, then who does one need to be to believe in the hypothesis of free oscillations? As you wish, but even if one of these hypotheses were true, then the supporters of the other are simply extremely stupid. Sometimes there are instances that try to combine these two hypotheses and talk about free vibrations with a motor, but this stems from an elementary ignorance of physics, and, apart from advice to read school textbooks, such people simply have nothing to say.

Another psychologically very interesting episode. Astronauts, like O. Bender, have shown the world proof that they are indeed in the airless space of the moon. One astronaut took a hammer in one hand, a bird's feather in the other (!), Lifted them to shoulder height and at the same time released them. The hammer and feather fell to the ground at the same time. But, first of all, it is not this cheap trick that is important to us, but the fact that the American children of Lieutenant Schmidt planned this on Earth in order to prove their stay on the Moon, for which the astronauts carried the "feather" with them. If they really were on the moon, then why is it necessary? Secondly, Hollywood did not have enough intelligence to understand that they had carried out a physical experiment, according to which one can calculate the acceleration of gravity, and from its value to understand whether this is happening on the Moon or not. I think that if they understood this, they would have stuck a feather in the ass of the one who came up with this trick. But more on that below.

All "lunar" shots are frankly game: astronauts play their stay on the Moon, and this is striking. For example, an episode: between the TV camera and two astronauts, there is about 20 m of sandy surface. A stone 10 centimeters in diameter and 20 centimeters in height vertically sticks out 2 meters from the camera. There are no other more or less large stones anywhere else. In theory, the astronauts themselves should have installed the TV camera and, moving away from it, were obliged to stumble over this stone. The episode began. The astronaut from afar moves back to the camera and joyfully exclaims: "Look, what a stone!" And in the center of the frame begins to pick it up. Those. this is the "lunar" version of the joke about the piano in the bushes.

In these filming "on the moon" there is not a single documentary, natural episode. Here is an astronaut demonstrating a useful activity - hammering a small pin into the ground. There are no wires coming from the pin, there are no devices - a bare metal pin. He hammered, put the hammer in his pocket, turned and ran, singing a song. And why did he take him to the moon and why did he score?

Lunar episodes with astronauts are clearly replayed in slow motion in order to create the appearance of the astronauts' movement, "like on the moon." As they run and jump, astronauts slowly lift off the surface and slowly descend. For several minutes of the film, they fall on purpose to show that the fall is slow. Considering the risks involved in a real and very careful stay on the Moon, the behavior of the astronauts with their pampering and falling clearly suggests that if they and MCC are not completely kamikaze, then this is not the Moon.

Let's get back to running. Aside from the slow motion, it is clear that astronauts in spacesuits have a very hard time. But they are on the moon, where the weight is six times less than on earth, while the strength of the muscles remains the same. For example, astronaut Aldrin in a spacesuit (about 11 kgs) and with a life support knapsack (45 kgs) weighs 161 kgs on Earth, and 27 kgs on the Moon. Let's remember school and do some math.

Running on the moon

When walking and running, the leg lifts us off the ground and throws us up to a certain height h... The energy of this throw is equal to our weight times this height. On the Moon, our weight will be 6 times less, therefore, with the same usual muscular effort, the leg will throw us to a height h 6 times higher than on Earth.

From high h we are returned to the earth by the force of its attraction for the time t calculated by the formula

(It seems to me doubtful that such a decrease in speed was noticeable by eye, I am afraid that I will not be able to determine by eye whether a person is walking at a speed of 5 km / h or 4.1 km / h, whether a car is traveling at a speed of 10 km / h or 8 km / h).

Suppose that on Earth, Aldrin, in his underpants, does above the surface in 0.14 seconds we calculated. step 0.9 m long.On the Moon in a spacesuit, his speed will decrease by 1.22 times, but the time before lowering to the surface will increase by 0.71 / 0.14 = 5.1 times, therefore, Aldrin's step width will increase by 5 , 1 / 1.22 = 4.2 times, or up to 0.9 x 4.2 = 3.8 m. The spacesuit makes it difficult to move and, let's say, for this reason, its step will decrease by 0.5 m on Earth. On the Moon, it will also decrease by this distance and will be 3.8 - 0.5 = 3.3 m.

Consequently, on the Moon in a spacesuit, the pace of the astronauts' movement above the surface should be slightly slower than on Earth, but the height of rise at each step should be 4 times higher than on Earth, and the step width should be 4 times wider.

In the film, astronauts run and jump, but the height of their jumps and the width of their steps are much less than on Earth. This is not surprising, because when they were filmed in Hollywood, they still had at least an imitation of a spacesuit and a life support backpack, they were heavily loaded and it was hard for them. And playback of filming in slow motion cannot hide this severity. Astronauts kick their feet very hard while running, kilograms of sand fly out from under their feet, they barely raise their legs, their toes are all the time rowing on the surface. But slowly ...

Such an episode. Aldrin jokes and jokes, jumps from the last step of the lunar module to the "Moon". Height about 0.8 m, he holds the stairs with his hands. Since his weight in a spacesuit is 27 kg, i.e. is four times lighter than in some shorts on Earth, then for his trained muscles this jump is equivalent to jumping on Earth from a height of 0.2 m, i.e. from one step. Let each of you jump from such a height, without even holding on to anything with your hands, and look at your condition. Aldrin, when jumping from a step, slowly sank to the surface, then his knees began to bend and he bent at the lower back, i.e. he hit so hard during the "lunar landing" that his trained muscles did not keep his body upright in the suit.

Ground pressure

A little preface to the next calculation. My opponent brought me a thick book "Lunar soil from the Sea of ​​Abundance" Nauka, Moscow, 1974 so that I could read it myself and make sure that the lunar soil delivered by the Soviet automatic station "Luna-16" corresponds to the soil taken by the astronauts ... Yes, the book says so. But how is this established? Our scientists told the Americans the results of their studies of the lunar soil, and the Americans told us that they have the same. Out of 400 kg of American "lunar soil" not a single gram was sent to the USSR for research, and, as it seems to me, until now. Yes, a certain amount of lunar soil can be obtained using automatic stations. But since these samples were taken in the absence of people - meaninglessly, just as they were taken by Soviet automatic stations - the scientific result from the study of these samples should not have been very different from zero.

The American Lunar-Planetary Institute holds 2 conferences a year dedicated to the Moon, and a lot of lectures have been read there. And yet - we know little about the composition of the moon. And where does this knowledge come from? Two or three spot samples from the most uninteresting and uninformative points of the Moon - from flat areas? It is possible to analyze these samples for at least a hundred years by any new methods of analysis, but all the same, these analyzes will not say anything about the Moon, since on the surface of the Moon, as well as on Earth, there may be god knows what, which is not related to either the crust or the structure of the planet. ... But there is not the slightest hint that the Americans on the Moon made even the smallest attempts at geological exploration! The USSR could not carry out any geological prospecting with the help of imperfect automatic stations at that time, but why did they not try to do it with people and cars? Why did they not take samples of soil, bedrock and ore deposits meaningfully?

The fact is that with the help of their lunar soil, the Americans were ahead of the USSR only in one issue - in proving the existence of paranormal phenomena.

A. Kartashkin, a specialist in this matter, in the book "Poltergeist" (M., "Santax-Press", 1997) reports this:

"Alexander Kuzovkin wrote an article" Some aspects of the manifestation of the UFO phenomenon and poltergeist ".

It tells (with reference to the newspaper "Moskovskaya Pravda" of October 6, 1979) about an absolutely incredible case. Recall that by that time, American astronauts had already visited the moon and brought samples of lunar soil to Earth. Of course, this soil was immediately placed in a special, sophisticatedly encrypted storage. Suffice it to say that it cost $ 2.2 million to design and build this storage facility. It goes without saying that the room with the lunar soil was guarded with particular partiality. It is all the more striking that a significant number of lunar soil samples soon ... disappeared without a trace" . (Highlighted by me - author's article)

And the Americans lament that we know very little about the Moon. But how can you find out more if Barabashka stole the most valuable samples from the unfortunate Americans. How do you like this American Barabashka? No patriotism!

Concerning the footprints of the soles of astronauts "on the Moon", such data from the above-mentioned book on the lunar soil are interesting. The researchers write (p. 38) that the lunar soil "easily forms and crumples into separate loose lumps. Traces of external influences are clearly imprinted on its surface - the touches of the instrument. The soil easily holds the vertical wall ..." From this formally it follows that the protectors of the shoes astronauts, squeezing the soil from above and from the sides, could leave a clear mark. (Although it is difficult for me to understand how the researchers could estimate the formability of the soil with a sample less than a stack at their disposal). But the researchers write that the soil "... with free filling has an angle of repose of 45 degrees (and they give a photo). That is, the soil without pressing does not" hold the wall. "If we pour wet sand into a glass on the beach, and then we turn the glass over and remove it, then the sand will retain the inner shape of the glass, it will hold the wall without pressing, with free pouring. that is, it does not hold the wall.

From this it follows that the tread mark of the soles of American astronauts should be clear only in the center, and along the edges of the shoe, where the soil is not pressed, it should crumble at an angle of 45 degrees. This trail - with crumbling edges - and our "Lunokhod" left on the Moon. In American photos, the soil holds the wall on the prints of the tracks both in the center of them and at the edges. Those. this is not lunar soil, it is wet sand.

Further from this book you can find out the compressibility of the lunar soil. But first, let's count. There is the famous full-length profile shot of Aldrin. It is unlikely that he is less than 190 cm tall, taking into account the soles and his helmet. In relation to his height, the length of his shoes is about 40 cm. From the photographs of individual footprints of the astronauts, it can be seen that the width of the footprint is almost equal to half of its length, i.e. the area of ​​the sole is about 800 sq. cm, to take into account the rounding of the sole, we will reduce this value by a quarter - to 600 sq. cm. The track has 10 transverse treads, and given the approximately equal-sized depressions, these treads are 2 cm wide and 2 cm high. The area of ​​the tread surface is estimated at half the total area of ​​the sole, i.e. 300 sq. cm. Aldrin's weight on the Moon is well known - 27 kg. Hence, the pressure on the ground only by the protectors is less than 0.1 kgf / cm2.

From diagram 7 on page 579 in the aforementioned book, it follows that at such a pressure, the lunar soil will be compressed (settled) by less than 5 mm. Those. even the protectors of the sole of an astronaut could not be completely immersed in real lunar soil on the Moon. But on all the photos, the prints of the soles are imprinted so that the side surfaces of the shoes form vertical walls even above the sole! If these footprints were really on the moon, then we would not see the entire footprints of astronauts, but only shallow strips of protectors. No, this is not the Moon, it is all 161 kgf of Aldrin's earth weight pressing on the wet sand!

Acceleration of gravity

Now let's go back to the experiment with the fall of the hammer and the "feather". In this trick, it was important for the Americans that the hammer and the "feather" fell at the same time, but they didn’t realize that it was also important the time it took for them to fall. The astronaut dropped them from a height of not less than 1.4 m. The average fall time over several measurements gave the result 0.83 sec. Hence, according to the formula a = 2h / t squared, the acceleration of gravity is easily calculated. It was 2 x 1.4 / 0.832 = 4.1 m / s. squared. And on the Moon, this value should be 1.6 m / s. squared, so this is not the moon! Have you experimented, smart guys ?!

There is another episode in the film. An astronaut is running with a bag full of samples on his shoulder. One rock falls on the run and falls to the ground in 0.63 seconds. Even if the astronaut very strongly bent his knees while running, the height from which the stone fell could not be less than 1.3 m. According to the above formula, this gives the acceleration due to gravity of 6.6 m / s. squared. The result is even worse!

The question before me was - is this difference my mistake in timing? I made seven measurements of the time of the fall of the stone and received (sec.): 0.65; 0.62; 0.61; 0.65; 0.71; 0.55; 0.61. On average - 0.63, we will not count the standard deviation, since even the maximum error in both directions turned out to be 0.08 sec. If it were on the moon, then the time of the fall of the stone would be

The difference between 1.27 and 0.63 is much larger than my 0.08 second error. So this is not a mistake, and therefore not the Moon!

The launch of the lunar cabin from its platform from the Moon was also shown. Firstly, at the starting cockpit, the flame of the operating engine was not visible. Nevertheless, several dozen stones flew out from under the platform very quickly. One stone had an upper zero point, after which it began to decline until it went off the screen. Based on the size of the cabin, I roughly estimated that while the stone was visible, it dropped by 10 meters. But the time of the fall could not be determined. I could not press the button with the required speed on the stopwatch: the minimum that I could squeeze out of the stopwatch and myself was 0.25 seconds. But the speed of the fall of the stone was even greater, it was hidden before the stopwatch could squeak under my finger. Therefore, let us assume that the stone fell by 10 m in just these 0.25 seconds. Then the acceleration due to gravity is 2 x 10 / 0.252 = 320 m / s2. This, you see, is slightly more than 1.6 m / s squared on the Moon and 9.8 m / s. squared on earth. Was it the sun?

I think this is the point. The lunar cabin "at the start" was lifted up by a winch, and the winch cable cannot be fixed so that it would pass exactly through the center of gravity, and the winch itself is difficult to set strictly in the center of gravity, and if you raise the cabin quickly, pull it, then it will begin to swing ( hang out). I had to pull slowly and then scroll the tape very quickly. As a result, the stones, which were simultaneously lifting upward with an expelling charge, acquired incredible speed.

Battle for the moon

But why did the Americans need it - to take a huge risk in order to deceive the entire population of the Earth? Why risk your career so much? And then, after losing to the Soviet Union in the moon race, they lost everything - 30 billion from the federal budget, prestige, conceit, careers, jobs. No one in America would need this Moon for nothing, and no one could convince the American taxpayer to allocate money to an organization that is unable to defend America's prestige. So the motive is there. NASA knew how to send three people to the Moon and FLY AROUND the Moon, but had no technical experience with landing on the Moon. How to undock from the "mother" ship (in lunar orbit) and lower it in a smaller, autonomous "shuttle" (lunar module), launch a landing rocket pushing the module with a force of 10,000 pounds, bring the module to the place of the planned lunar landing, land, put on spacesuits, go to the surface, tinker, act out a scene on the surface, ride on the moon, return to the module, take off, meet and dock with the mother ship, and finally return to Earth.

So they faked everything. Considering that Stanley Kubrick's 2001 Space Odyssey was filmed at the same time, the necessary special effects technology already existed. And for a tidy sum of $ 20 billion, you can make a very long movie.

In a video released on VHS cassette titled "It's just a paper moon" American research journalist Jim Collier points out several minor inconsistencies, listed below:

1. Two fully dressed Apollo astronauts simply physically could not fit in the module and, in addition, open the door, because the door opened INSIDE, not outward. They would not have been able to leave the module wearing their spacesuits. He (DK) measured distances with a film.

2. The Apollo astronaut was physically unable to squeeze through the tunnel connecting the mother ship and the module. It's too narrow. Collier went to the NASA museum and measured it. The ends of the tunnel contained a ring of docking devices. The NASA "in-flight" footage we talked about was allegedly taken during a flight to the moon and shows astronauts flying freely through the tunnel, which in itself says a lot, apart from the fact that no docking devices. Plus, the tunnel hatch opened in the wrong direction. So these shots were taken ON EARTH.

3. In the frames taken during the flight to the Moon, BLUE light is visible pouring into the windows of the spacecraft. But since there is no atmosphere in open space capable of decomposing light into a spectrum, space is CHEREN. These shots were taken ON EARTH, most likely in the cargo hold of a supersonic aircraft entering a deep dive to create the effect of weightlessness.

4. Photos taken by the astronauts who landed on the moon show the module standing on a flat, smooth, undisturbed surface. This would not have been possible if they had actually landed with jet engines that were pressurized at 10,000 psi. The entire surface of the landing site would be seriously damaged. These pictures were taken ON EARTH.

5. There are no stars in any of the Apollo astronauts. None of them. It can't be. Astronauts, if they were on the moon, would be surrounded by shining white light stars, which would not be hindered by the presence of an atmosphere to their fullest potential. These pictures were taken here ON EARTH. (Usually they object to this that due to the different brightness it is impossible to capture the surface of the Moon and the starry sky at the same time and with high quality. Opponents probably do not know that the Moon is a very dark object, its albedo is only about 10%. Now I am holding it in my hands the book “Course of General Astronomy” by Bakulin, Kononovich and Moroz, where on page 322 there is a photograph of the lunar landscape transmitted by the Luna-9 station. A piece of the sky is visible on it - and there are stars!)

6. Each astronaut and objects standing on the lunar surface cast many shadows, shadows of different lengths. It can't be. There is no other source of light on the moon than the SUN, and it is quite obvious that the light must fall in one direction. So these pictures were taken ON EARTH.

7. Considering that the lunar gravity is 1/6 of the Earth's gravity, a "rooster's tail" of dust lifted by the wheels of a "dune carriage" (lunar rover) would have to rise SIX TIMES higher than it would on Earth when riding with the same speed. But this is not the case. In addition, the dust is deposited in layers - IN PLASTS! Which is impossible where there is no atmosphere. The dust should have settled in the same smooth arch as it rose.

8. Even in a collapsible form, the lunar rover could not physically fit on the lunar module. Collier went and measured everything. Several feet are missing. The images taken "on the moon" show the astronauts WALKING towards the module to remove the rover. After which the shooting ends. When the moon panorama reappears, the rover has already been disassembled. How uooooooooooooooo!

9. The lunar module crashed - CRASHED - during its only test on Earth. So why was his next test trying to land ON THE MOON? If you were the wife of an astronaut, would you allow him to participate in such a suicidal attempt?

10. None of the Apollo astronauts have ever written a book on "How I Been On the Moon" or any other memoir on the same topic.

11. But that's not all - far, far, far from everything. You can also talk about the placement of pilot motors, smoke from burning rocket fuel, and so on and so forth ...

Two great discoveries

In 1982, 10 years after the complete end of the lunar program, a beautifully illustrated book "Space Technology" ( Space technology) a collective of American, Soviet and other authors. The chapter "Man on the Moon" was written by the American R. Lewis.

I will give the section in this chapter, "Some Conclusions" in full, so that no one thinks that I have hidden any of the outstanding American achievements. But I draw your attention to the fact that in this chapter there should be only that knowledge about the Moon that is obtained due to the presence of a person on this satellite of the Earth, and not a general la-la. So appreciate what exactly R. Lewis wrote in this section to make it longer than three lines.

So: "The Apollo 17 expedition was the last mission to the moon. During the six visits to the moon, 384.2 kg of rock and soil samples were collected. In the course of the research program, a number of discoveries were made, but the following two are the most important. First, it was found that the Moon was sterile, no life forms were found on it. After the flight of the Apollo 14 spacecraft, the previously introduced three-week quarantine for the crew was canceled. "

Amazing discovery! The "Small Soviet Encyclopedia" for 1931 (found nothing earlier) states: "The moon is devoid of atmosphere and water, and therefore life" ... For this "important" discovery it was necessary to send people to the moon ?! And most importantly, what exactly did the astronauts do to discover this discovery? Quarantine passed, did you work as experimental mice?

“Secondly, it was found that the Moon, like the Earth, went through a series of periods of internal heating. It has a surface layer - a crust that is thick enough compared to the radius of the Moon, a mantle and a core, which, according to some researchers, consists of iron sulfide ".

And what exactly did the astronauts do for this conclusion? Indeed, in their soil samples (as in Soviet ones), sulfur is completely absent! How did the Americans determine that the core is composed of iron sulfide?

"Although the chemical composition of the Moon and the Earth is quite similar, they differ significantly in other respects, which confirms the point of view of scientists who reject the assumption that the Moon separated from the Earth during the formation of planets.

The conclusion that no life forms have ever existed on the Moon is confirmed by the complete absence of water here, at least on the lunar surface or near it "...

According to limited seismic data, the crust of the nearest part of the Moon has a thickness of 60-65 km. On the part of the Moon distant from us, the crust may be somewhat thicker - about 150 km. The mantle is located under the crust to a depth of about 1000 km, and even deeper is the core.

Thirty years later, the Americans began to send automatic stations to the moon in order to find out what their astronauts had allegedly already "discovered".

The results are reported, for example, in the article (Feldman W., Maurice S., Binder B., Barraclough B., Elphic R., Lawrence D. Fluxes of fast and epithermal neutrons from Lunar Prospector: evidence for water ice at the lunar poles // Science. 1998. V. 281. P. 1496 - 1500.) Read.

The American spacecraft Lunar Prospector worked in lunar orbit for eighteen months.

Throughout its mission, this device weighing 295 kg and the size of a little more than a home washing machine has constantly puzzled scientists with amazing discoveries. For the first time in early 1998, Lunar Prospector stunned the scientific community with the discovery of a huge amount of ice in the shaded regions of the lunar poles!

While spinning around our natural satellite the apparatus experienced slight changes in its speed. Calculations based on these indicators revealed the presence of a core on the moon. Assuming that it, like on Earth, mainly consists of iron, experts have calculated its size. In their opinion, the radius of the lunar core should be from 220 to 450 km (the radius of the moon is 1738 km).

Magnitometers "Lunar Prospector" recorded a weak magnetic field near our natural satellite. The size of the nucleus was specified using this field. Its radius was equal to 300-425 km. With this size, the mass of the core should be about 2% of the mass of the moon. We emphasize that the core of the Earth with a radius of about 3400 km accounts for a whole third of the planet's mass.

so ... The valiant American astronauts "found out" that the lunar core has a radius of 1738-1000 = 738 km. And the automatic station found out that it is equal to 300-425 km, two times less! The valiant astronauts "found out" that the core of the Moon is composed of iron sulfide. And Lunar Prospector found out that there is little iron in the core. The valiant astronauts "found out" that there is no ice on the Moon. And Lunar Prospector found out that there are many!

So how do the results of the American landing on the moon differ from idle chatter?

I think I have already answered the question indicated at the beginning of the article - why the Americans do not demand from Russian TV to show these films about their "most outstanding victory in the twentieth century." We, the generation that received a normal education, have not yet died out, we have not yet been completely replaced by those who chose "Pepsi" and safe sex. How can we show such nonsense? And, looking at this American propaganda fake about landing on the moon, we have to state: no guys, you weren't there!

The American moon landing has both supporters and opponents.

Both of them give a lot of arguments in their favor.

The arguments of those who believe there was a disembarkation are usually as follows:

1. It is impossible to keep such a large-scale falsification a secret, because it was supposed to involve thousands of NASA employees.
2. In case of exposure of falsification, the reputational losses of the USA would be too great, the Americans could not take such a risk.
3. There were several Apollo missions, they could not fake everything.
4. There are traces of the landing on the Moon.
5. The Soviet Union recognized the landing, so everything happened.

But the skeptics' arguments are also weighty:

1. The American flag in the footage is waving like the wind is there, which is impossible.
2. In some photographs, during processing, shadows are visible, as if the shooting was carried out in a pavilion.
3. In 1968, just before the launch of the lunar mission, 700 developers of the Saturn-5 launch vehicle were fired, which is very strange.
4. The F-1 engines were not used and did not develop in the future, instead of them the Russian RD-180s began to be used, which is very illogical if the F-1 was allowed to deliver the mission to the Moon.
5. The lunar soil delivered by the lunar mission has disappeared somewhere.

Lists of arguments can be continued on either side.

But I want to draw attention to the fact that is rarely in the spotlight.

Look at the photos of the American landing:

And now in the photographs of the lunar surface taken by the Chinese Chang'e-3 probe in 2013:

Nothing strange to you?

Pay attention to the color of the surface. It is noticeably different. In American photographs, the surface of the Moon is gray, almost without a shade, although the colors on the American flag and the details of the equipment are quite distinct, down to shades - then everything is in order with the color rendition. And in the photographs from the Chinese probe, the surface of the moon is yellow-brown, not at all gray.

Why did it happen?

Maybe the Americans landed in some special place on the moon with gray soil?
In the gray area? In the gray stripe?

Or maybe they did not land ...

After all, you must admit that it is rather strange that in 1969 such a technically complex mission was carried out, a powerful launch vehicle with powerful engines was developed, and 45 years later, the Americans not only cannot repeat their success, but also switch to Russian engines instead of using their F- 1 or its modifications.

If everything went so well in 1969, then why today the Americans do not have their own engine or launch vehicle?

Another commercial Falcon 9 rocket exploded the other day.

Why, 45 years later, the Americans have such problems with launches, if back in 1969 they solved such a technically difficult task as launching a rocket into space capable of reaching the Moon, lowering to its surface a module with two (!) Astronauts and the fuel necessary for launch from the lunar surface?

For reference: the mass of the command module is 28 tons, the mass of the lunar module is 15 tons.

Delivering such a mass to the Moon, lowering 15 tons to the Moon and returning three astronauts back to Earth, and 45 years later using the services of Russia to deliver astronauts to the ISS and regularly losing their own trucks - this is either the strongest technical regression, or the previous success was greatly exaggerated.

Regarding the launch from the lunar surface:

The force of gravity on the moon is 6 times less than that of the earth, but it is not zero. And to raise two astronauts to the lunar orbit, and not to any orbit, but to a strictly defined one, so that they return to the ship and then to Earth is not an easy task.

There is a suspicion that to solve this problem on the Moon, it is necessary to build a small launch complex, and not just drop the lunar module, which itself then starts "from the ground".

Proponents of the landing, in response to the "low jumps" of astronauts on the Moon, say that you cannot jump high in spacesuits with life support systems, even on the Moon. Right. But it follows from this that starting from the moon is also not as easy as it might seem to some.

It turns out that jumping on the moon was difficult for them, and it was easy to start.
Once - and straight from the ground, into orbit, and on the first try.

Logically, before landing as many as two astronauts on the moon, it was necessary to lower an automatic module - exactly the same one in which the astronauts would later fly, only without the astronauts. And so that it starts and goes into orbit.

It is rather strange to carry out the first attempt to descend to the moon and return with two astronauts at once.

See how astronautics developed:

First, they launched a satellite. And not just one. Then the dogs were launched. Then Gagarin flew. Then there were several more launches. And only then the spacewalk was accomplished and group flights began.

And in the American lunar program, the last test mission was Apollo 10, which included only a flyby of the moon, but there was no landing of the lunar module and, accordingly, there was no start from the moon. And after that, immediately landing of astronauts on the moon, and two (that is, a group landing) and a successful start from the moon, on the first attempt.

The stages of landing the lunar module and launching from the Moon without astronauts or with one astronaut were not passed - two were immediately landed.

Let's summarize the above:

1. The color of the lunar surface in the American images is different from the images from the Chinese probe.
2. The F-1 engine, on which the lunar program was carried out, the Americans did not develop and use in the future.
3. The Americans did not have a powerful and reliable launch vehicle for 40 years after the lunar mission.
4. The lunar landing was carried out, bypassing the intermediate stage with the descent and launch of the vehicle without a crew.
5. Two astronauts landed on the moon at once, and not one, which would have been easier, if only for reasons of saving mass, and hence fuel for braking during landing and launch from the moon.
6. There was no launch pad on the Moon. Whether it is needed or not is a difficult question, but for some reason it seems to me that for the launch of a multi-ton module with two astronauts some kind of launch pad, albeit a simple one, is still needed.

From this, the following conclusion can be drawn:

There really was a start to the moon. And the Americans flew to the moon, and more than once. But an unmanned vehicle descended to the surface, without astronauts. And from the surface of the moon, he most likely did not start at all.

Thus, the Americans did not miss the stage of landing the automatic module on the moon - they carried out this stage and stopped there, presenting the descent of the automatic vehicle for the landing of astronauts.

And the astronauts remained in the orbit of the moon, from where they were reporting.

That is, there was a mission to the Moon, but there was also an element of falsification. Both happened.

In this case, it turns out that the supporters of the version that the Americans were on the Moon and the skeptics who dispute the American lunar program are partially right.

The version that the Americans flew to the moon, but did not land on it, explains all the known facts at once and answers all the arguments presented from both sides:

1. Since there were flights to the Moon, it was not difficult to keep the falsification of the landing a secret, because thousands of NASA employees witnessed the launch, but none of them were on the Moon. The fact that the astronauts remained in orbit knew only themselves and a few other people from the leadership.

2. It is extremely difficult to expose this falsification, so the United States practically did not risk anything. The risk of astronauts being unable to launch from the moon was orders of magnitude greater than the risk of exposure. And to admit that they flew to the moon, but the descent did not take place - the United States also could not, this would anger taxpayers, whose billions went to a banal flight of the moon.

3. Several Apollo missions were needed in order to leave more equipment at different landing sites. Roughly speaking, to inherit. And at the same time to master the entire budget of the program. It was impossible to leave the budget undeveloped and return the money to the treasury.

4. The Soviet Union recognized the landing, because it turned out to be easier to recognize than to challenge. To challenge the landing, you had to fly yourself, and this is very expensive and risky. To challenge the landing, one had to successfully land and take off. Probably the Soviet leadership realized that the mission of landing a man on the moon and a successful re-start was beyond technical capabilities and decided to give up. The media effect of the American message about the landing on the moon was so strong that it became useless to argue without landing ourselves, and there was no way to land in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the USSR decided to recognize the landing and bypass the United States in another area, building a manned orbital station, which it did.

5. The Americans stopped using the F-1 engine due to the fact that its characteristics were not as high as stated. Apparently because of this, they abandoned the descent of astronauts to the Moon - they simply could not deliver enough mass to the Moon to provide the descent vehicle with fuel for a soft landing and reverse launch. And the descent vehicle itself was probably also delivered to the Moon in a lightweight and simplified version, so that only the equipment could be lowered to the surface.

Most likely, during the test missions, the leadership of the lunar program realized that the mass restrictions imposed by the engines and the launch vehicle did not allow delivering to the Moon an apparatus capable of reliably lowering astronauts to the surface and launching back.

But to admit that the mission rested on a limitation and trampling on the moon would not take place, the American space bosses could not - they risked paying for their posts, and the United States would be sitting in a puddle, because they spent a lot of money and did not achieve the final goal. And it also meant a complete loss to the Soviet Union in the space race.

It was impossible to admit that we flew in, but we couldn't land.

The reputation of the United States and the positions of big bosses, up to the president, were at stake, because the senators would have placed all the blame for the fiasco on him. After all, the senators who voted for the lunar program had to somehow explain to the taxpayers who was to blame - not to take the blame on themselves.

The risk of losing astronauts who would land on the moon and fail to take off was even worse. The loss of astronauts on the moon would be not only a failure of the program, but also a national tragedy.

Therefore, the leadership of the lunar program came up with its own "cunning plan" - we fly to the moon, drop equipment to the surface, talk on air about "a huge step for all mankind" and no one will prove anything.

Since the leadership of the lunar program understood the complexity of the task of landing on the moon, it most likely understood that the Soviet Union would not land in the coming years either. And in twenty years, either the donkey dies or the emir dies. Either war or one of two things.

And the most interesting thing is that this happened - 45 years have passed since the lunar program, and no one has ever visited the moon.

The calculation turned out to be correct.

For 45 years, no one has been able to convincingly challenge the landing of astronauts on the moon. Because no one else has been there. And NASA understood this. Because they knew better than everyone else the complexity of the task of landing on the surface and reverse start.

It's just that NASA has soberly assessed the risks and realized that the most reliable thing is to throw "iron" on the Moon and broadcast "a big step for all mankind." And the whole world will be so imbued that no one will believe in a little trick at the final stage of the mission.

Or maybe NASA hoped that they would not have to cheat for a long time, that they would receive a new budget, finalize the engines and land for real. But in reality it simply became unnecessary, because it was no longer considered necessary to spend gigantic amounts of money to take the "second step" either in the USA or in the USSR.

However, if you do not like this version, you can try in your own way to explain all the oddities listed above - the color of the moon's surface, the unused F-1 engine, and the lack of powerful and reliable launch vehicles 45 years after the triumphant delivery of a multi-ton complex to The moon and back.

But no matter what arguments for or against the landing, it is not yet possible to finally prove or refute this or that version.

To find out the truth and put an end to the debate about the 1969 landing of American astronauts on the lunar surface, someone else needs to visit there too.

And when someone else visits the moon and comes back, we will be able to check whether the steps on the moon look like this, as the Americans showed us, whether the descent and landing look like this, whether it looks like this. lunar surface and was it even possible to land on the moon and start back with the technique that existed in 1969?

Hello everyone. Few people know the fact: the Americans are the only earthlings who have visited the moon. It happened almost 50 years ago, on July 16, 1969, when the sensational news about a man's exit to the lunar surface spread around the Earth. There was no limit to the general joy and exultation of the people! Over time, the world was flooded with photographs, video footage, objects of lunar origin, delivered by the Americans to Earth.

And even years later, the event began to be hushed up and it turned out that this fact was not as clear-cut as it seemed in those distant times of cosmic romanticism, some facts became known that slightly did not fit into the picture of ideas and cause deep doubts about the lunar achievements of the Americans. What are the doubts? Was there any lunar expansion at all? This is what will be discussed.

Americans on the moon

So, the Apollo 11 space complex, which consisted of the lunar module and the Saturn 5 launch vehicle, delivered three astronauts to the moon's surface: Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin (Edwin Eugene) (they were the first and first descended to the lunar surface) and Michael Collins (he stayed in orbit).

How many times have Americans been to the moon? According to the irrefutable data of the US State Department, in the period from 1968 to 1972, the Americans under the Apollo program carried out 9 flights to the Moon, some of which passed without the landing of astronauts. A total of 12 Americans walked on the lunar surface, some of them having repeated exits.

Photo clickable

The scientific research program cost the country more than $ 25 billion - colossal funds even for the richest country.

• During the program, the US state flag was installed, soil samples were taken, video and photographs were taken, a capsule from the citizens of the Earth was laid on the surface of the earth's satellite. Subsequently, the module made a launch, docked to the Apollo-11 spacecraft and returned safely to Earth.

• From the Soviet cosmic minds, no one doubted the fact of the flight to the moon, except for the general designer Mishin, who replaced Korolev. This is how the constructor behaved:

"During the live coverage, he smoked all the time and repeated:" This is impossible, "Apollo" will not be able to break away from earth orbit and head to the Moon ... "Read more here: https://sneg5.com/nauka/kosmos/na-lunu-amerikancy.html

• The authoritative opinion in defense of the American lunar adventures of our esteemed cosmonauts Grechko and Leonov, designer and cosmonaut Konstantin Feoktistov, who claim that Soviet tracking stations received signals from American astronauts from the Moon, which, in their opinion, cannot be fabricated. So did they accept it or not?
• Lunar soil - regolith weighing 22 kg from the first flight was delivered to Earth and distributed to many world scientific centers. The USSR also received its share of 25 grams and scientists performed its analysis, the results absolutely confirmed the unearthly origin of the breed.
• The mass of photographs of the Moon provided by NASA, as well as the flight itself at that time, at the time of human euphoria, were beyond doubt. Everything was perceived beyond suspicion. An accurate description by hours, minutes of the entire lunar expedition looks very reliable. Could ALL of this be faked? Was the great advanced country able to accept a forgery of this magnitude? Well ... I don’t know, it doesn’t fit in my mind ...

Americans have not been to the moon

Today, with the improvement of technology for the lunar images and video materials of that expedition, questions began to arise, due to the appearance of some inconsistencies.

• Quite recently, the Japanese proved the "terrestrial" origin of the regolith provided by the United States, which the Americans cunning for intrigues just irradiated in special installations of their laboratories, passing off the terrestrial soil as regolith!
• Presumably, there is also evidence that part of the "moon shooting" was carried out in the pavilions of Hollywood. Is it only a part? Or maybe the majority? The very first fact that comes to mind is the colored waving flag of the United States, which in itself is incredible, because there is no atmosphere on the moon.

• Analysis of close-up and perspective shots showed a different nature of the origin. This suggests that some of the images were taken from the module above the surface of the Moon, and some in the terrestrial conditions of the pavilions where the atmosphere of the Moon was recreated.
• The representatives of NASA themselves have confessed to the fact of throwing up images taken in terrestrial conditions, explaining this poor quality lunar negatives. Well, with whom it has not happened: a little finished filming and a little retouching 🙂 But the main thing, after all, no one knew that in just some 30 years the almighty "Photoshop" would appear. When adding the maximum brightness, contrast and magnification to the pictures, stripes of random light, previously unnoticed shadows from spotlights, traces of retouching appeared on them in all their glory ... The program at once highlighted all the sins of photomontage!
• And not so long ago, a new revelation appeared in the press: Scottish researcher Marcus Allen, analyzing what seemed to be real lunar images of two astronauts on the Moon, called them fake. He looked at the photo in the reflected glasses of the spacesuit instead of one, two images. So there were three of them at the time of the shooting? But everyone knows from the reports, more than 2 people have never descended to the surface of the Moon. Photo's terrestrial origin again ?! So where are the genuine ones?

What do the Americans answer to all this? Yes, nothing ... as always, they twisted themselves ... they referred to some of the photographs taken on the ground that had been added. Why and for whom were these cartoons made?

I think that if there is a tampering in even one fragment, there is every reason to question all flights.

• Here you can add the concealment of all the original videos and photographs of that expedition and the imprisonment of all the "lunar reports" under the heading of "complete secrecy". And in 2009, a NASA representative finally announced that all the originals of the tapes and the video recording of the first landing on the moon were lost (only copies of them were preserved). Well, really, the representatives of the most unique nation in the world are so careless? It is somehow hard to believe in an accident ...

• The state of health of astronauts after landing and spending eight days in zero gravity (for the first time) is highly suspicious. Brave, fresh and smiling, they appeared in front of journalists' cameras right after the flight. Then no one could simply know how a person can feel after a space flight of such an extent. But already in October 1969, our Gorbatko, upon returning from a flight lasting only about 5 days, could not make a step on his own, he was carried on a stretcher. The Russians couldn't walk with their own feet, and the Americans are super tough, please! Nobody could even suspect the whole state of the planetary deception!
• And the most important trump card that speaks not in favor of the States is the level of equipment of the spacecraft itself at that time. The Americans claimed that they had built a new generation F-1 engine, the so-called liquid (kerosene-oxygen) engine; Saturn had five of them. However, rather, there was no special type of engine, just as there is none now, even the design capabilities of modern engines do not allow landing, and even more so it was very problematic to do it half a century ago.
• If yes, there was such an engine, then where is it now? Why, after 50 years, the Americans still do not use this sample on their space rockets, but have been buying ours since the 90s - inventions of the Soviet era? Just because they are cheaper? And where are the cool Apollo, which so famously delivered the Americans to the moon? Why did they come to be replaced by even more "advanced" "Shuttles", which did not avoid explosions over and over again?

And why is the lunar exploration program suspended today? Is it only the financial side of the issue? Have the states dropped so dramatically in their financial situation in 50 years?

• And yet, if the flight to the moon took place, then for what reason were 700 employees of the American Space Research Center dismissed in 1968, and a year after the first flight to the moon, and the head of this center himself? After all, success should always be highly rewarded?
• And now it is doubtful that such a dashing, immediately rush to the moon, well, I can’t believe it .... that such progress would be successful in 8 years. And where is he now? After all, then no one could have imagined that humanity would advance so slowly in space exploration. Most likely, the Yankees were sure that flights to the moon would become commonplace, and then they would present the world with a whole heap of evidence ... It was important for them to stake out the first peg on the moon, to demonstrate their, albeit false, success!

You can still cite and cite evidence of exposure and doubts ... It is quite real that Apollo-11, which flew to the Moon, separated the lunar module, which took a number of pictures from space. That's all that the Americans have succeeded in mastering the moon. And everything else has become a matter of technique and skill. Well, I really wanted to keep up with my opponent in space exploration - the USSR. Although, of course, deceiving the whole world is also not a small art.

More and more new possibilities of advanced modern technologies more and more point to the Moon fantasy in the American way. For this kind of expeditions, the main evidence of their authenticity is Scientific research based on photo and film documents. There are no scientific reports, deep analysis of the materials of the US "Lunar Operation", which means there was no presence on the Moon!

Conclusion

The Americans have not been to the moon! The question is practically on the surface, however, the debate still does not subside, due to the fact that each side is now trying to defend only its own opinion. And what about the Americans themselves? They believe that they have no reason to stoop to such disputes. They were on the moon!

And here it is strange, the fact of the first flight into space of our Yuri Gagarin has never raised a dispute or doubt in anyone. Why, then, for flights to the moon, after years, with the development of technology and technology, more and more questions arise ... And why then the USSR did not dare to express its doubts, why this has not been done so far? Maybe in some miraculous way, with God's providence, the Americans were on the moon?

What do you think? Why am I writing about this? Well, if we are not able to establish the truth in the events of 50 years ago, showing amazing indifference, then how can you even believe in the events of centuries-old history ... It's time to put an end to this question ... I think it's time! 🙄

Very interesting video:

The video was kindly provided by the reader Sergey, especially interesting moments from the 20th minute.

Why didn't the USSR even try to question the achievements of its American colleagues? Indeed, it would be natural to expect meticulous attention and meticulous analysis of what was proposed to be taken on faith from the main competitor in the lunar race. After all, the event, in everyday language, happened at a great distance, without witnesses, and who knows what really happened there. But no, not a word of disbelief followed. Not a shadow of doubt fell on the rival's triumph. Why?

Alexey Leonov goes into outer space (RGANT archive)

Years passed, then decades, and now books have been written about the ambiguities of those flights, and they ask many questions to which the public has not yet received convincing answers. What independent researchers saw over time was most likely obvious to Soviet space specialists from the very beginning. But - silence. Moreover, cosmonaut Leonov and other well-known figures of the Soviet space assured and assure that the Americans here everything is clean and there is nothing to doubt.

Nevertheless great amount people doubted and doubted, and the advice "Take everything on trust" does not work for them, especially since our defenders of American achievements do not give intelligible answers to many questions.

But if you put the question in a slightly different plane - not "why", but "why" the USSR was silent - the picture gradually acquires its logical completeness.

Indeed, the end of the Cold War, "detente", a thaw in relations with the United States and with the entire Western world, and many other, as they say now, preferences received by the USSR during foreign policy... Why did these gifts of fate fall on him?

The reasons for our political leadership of that time could be as follows. First, the curtailment of the lunar program saved the country many billions of by no means superfluous rubles. After the flights of unmanned ships and the landing of automatic vehicles, it was clear that there was nothing special there, and although there was, you won’t take it, because it’s terribly far from the people, and he didn’t need it.

But that's not all, as the guy from the recent TV commercial liked to say. 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. An agreement was concluded on the supply of American grain to the USSR at prices below the world average, which negatively affected the well-being of the Americans themselves.

Here is what an American researcher writes about this. moon race R. René: “A logical question that many have asked and continue to ask is: if we actually did not fly anywhere, then why did the Soviet Union not notice the fraud? Or didn't you want to notice? On this score, I have some thoughts. While our valiant army was fighting communism in Vietnam and other countries of Southeast Asia, we sold grain to the Soviet Union at an ultra-low price by megatons. On July 8, 1972, our government shocked the world by announcing the sale of about a quarter of our crop to the Soviet Union at a fixed price of $ 1.63 per bushel (36.4 liters - Ed.). The next harvest would be 10-20% cheaper for the Russians. The market value of grain domestically was $ 1.50, but immediately jumped to $ 2.44. Guess who paid the difference? That's right, our taxpayers. Our prices for bread and meat jumped overnight, reflecting this sudden shortage. What pretty penny did this moon fly to us? There was a lot of money at stake, not to mention America's prestige. The goal in this case justified any means. "

1961 year. NS. Khrushchev and J. Kennedy (Ogonyok magazine)

It is also believed that Western companies built chemical plants in the USSR in exchange for the finished products of the same plants, that is, the USSR received modern enterprises without investing a penny from itself. The auto giant KamAZ was built with active American participation and much more. This was an economic benefit of many tens of billions of rubles a year. The 5 billion that the USSR spent over ten years on the lunar rocket "N-1" faded before it. From a purely economic point of view, the delivery of the lunar program together with "N-1" paid off a hundredfold, if we bear in mind the near (for several years) economic interest.

Military confrontation cold war and the constant threat of a full-fledged nuclear catastrophe is a thing of the past. The pinnacle of "detente" was the 1975 Helsinki Act, which affirmed the inviolability of the borders established in Europe after World War II. A seemingly eternal peace has come between East and West!

In addition, by keeping silent about the US lunar scam, the USSR leadership could exert pressure on its political opponent under the threat of exposure. And, judging by the impressive foreign policy successes of the USSR, it was successful.

Another version of the amazing "complaisance" Soviet authorities, who did not make a fuss, despite all the evidence of the fact that the "lunar program" of the United States was an ordinary scam, lies in the fact that the Americans could these very authorities blackmail the information available to the United States about how exactly Joseph Stalin died. He died not by his own death, but was killed.

The author of the book "The Lunar Scam, or Where Were the Americans?" Yuri Mukhin. We quote: “If the West, in response to the exposure of the lunar scam, began to publicly find out the reasons for the murder and spitting of Stalin, then no matter how the Central Committee of the CPSU interfered with Western propaganda, six years later, in the USSR, not only members of the CPSU, but also non-party people would look at the party the top as enemies who do not transfer power to everyone - the Soviets, who do not allow building communism in the name of their greed. It would be the death of the highest party and state nomenklatura of the USSR, at least a political one. "

Moreover, a convenient object for blackmail, according to Mukhin, was not Khrushchev (“Nikita Sergeevich firmly knew which country he was the leader and which, in fact, cowardly scum opposed him in the West. So the Americans tried to blackmail him with a war in connection with the Cuban missile crisis. And what? ”- writes Mukhin), namely Brezhnev, who replaced him. “Brezhnev was already Leopold the cat, trying to calm down the impudent spell:“ Guys, let's live peacefully! ”. Here the Americans in the lunar scam and "ran over" him, most likely, precisely with this blackmail (there are simply no other reasons for blackmail), and Brezhnev yielded to them, "Yuri Mukhin believes.