I remember the drama: the U.S vs. the Soviets, the near nuclear war, the Space Race and NASA seeming to bring Star Trek into the realm of reality. The end of the decade was topped off by the Apollo lunar landing...
America won!
Well, or so it seemed. However, things are not always as they appear. This is especially true when it comes to the struggles between the Superpowers of that day.
At that time, I never question the ‘fact’ that NASA put the first man on the moon.
What I was questioning then was the fact that the space agency was staying mum regarding the reports of astronauts claiming they observed some strange things (UFOs) during missions. Resolving the UFO issue was very much on the public's mind then.
Many decades later, I finally decided to weigh in on the ongoing debate about whether or not NASA really did land men on the moon. In this piece, I am going to report on one small, but crucial component of that debate, which does indeed raise some serious suspicions about the Apollo lunar mission.
The official history has it that the lunar module landed on the moon on July 20, 1969. Then Neil Armstrong emerged and climbed down the ladder to become the first human to set foot on the moon.
A billion people sat on the edge of their seats watching. The events were broadcast live on television and it was the stuff of true, high drama.
The Apollo crew had high quality video and Hasselblad still cameras on board. These were used to take very sharp, superior quality still images of the Lander, themselves and the lunar surface.
A NASA buff, Kipp Teague put together a collection of extremely high res scans that became The Project Apollo Archive from the original film provided by NASA. The images are in the public domain and you can review them online by going to NASA?
Over the years I examined the NASA and Project archives described above.
One thing caught my attention and held it through a series of investigations. This was the fact that the Lander, then the astronauts, looked immaculately shiny, bright, white and clean.
Why is this such a big deal? Because LUNAR DUST should have been all over everything. The reasons I make this claim shall become apparent as the rest of this narrative unfolds below.
Analyzing the photos from this single-minded perspective is both revealing and, in the end, disturbing. However, before proceeding with that process we need to consider the following quotes:
“All astronauts who walked on the Moon reported difficulties with lunar dust…” [Timothy.J.Stubbs.1@gsfc.nasa.gov. ABSTRACT].
A barrage of studies have been conducted into the nature of this alleged lunar dust, under the space agencies auspices, since the first landing.
The same theme emerges, time and again, in a variety of papers and articles published in the mass media, over the ensuing decades…
"The major issue the Apollo astronauts pointed out was dust, dust, dust," [Professor Larry Taylor, Director of the Planetary Geosciences Institute at the University of Tennessee.]
It was described as, fine as flour and rough as sandpaper. This Moon dust was found to be the cause of 'lunar hay fever,' problems with space suits, and dust storms blew it into the cabin causing trouble for the crew, upon returning to space for the trip back to earth..
“You realize they were only there a couple days and many of their systems were near failure. A big reason was the dust environment.” [Boeing engineer Greg Gentry, who works on life support for the International Space Station.]
What’s worse is that it has also been found, that “the dust induces inflammation in the lungs.” Bruce Demple, a biochemist at Stony Brook University School of Medicine and senior author of one study, “If there are trips back to the Moon that involve stays of weeks, months or even longer, it probably won’t be possible to eliminate that risk completely,” he told reporters.
Okay, in retrospect, we now have a dust narrative that includes a seemingly viable reason not to rush back to the moon. Which NASA has invoked over the past 5 decades. This then becomes the informed lens we must look through when examining the alleged first, lunar landing.
With the foregoing established we cut to the chase without further adieu.
Per the above descriptions of the “dust”, the video footage starts becoming problematic as the space vehicle approaches the lunar surface.
We are given to understand that the lunar dust is comprised of fine, clingy particles. Using that (NASA) depiction we look for evidence of it being blown into the air as the lander nears closer and closer. The audio of the video footage has the astronaut noting dust being blown up.
In fact, by the time it lands the vehicle should be enveloped in a cloud of fine dust particles. We cannot see if that is the case because the video goes black when the engine is cut off.
However, when the first still shot of the lander - on the surface - is revealed, the problem quickly escalates. (NASA image below)
The craft appears pristine! Where is this ubiquitous dust?
There are no signs of this all pervasive, ‘clingy’ dust apparent anywhere, at all. Since the moon lacks gravity the dust should also still be hanging in the air, covering the craft, and surely on the wheels.
But none is visible.
You can see for yourself that I am not fudging the description in any way. Not only is there not a lot of dust, there appears to be zero. Moving to a close up image we still see dust-free, shiny, metallic surfaces. (NASA #2 Insert)
These are public domain NASA images taken by the astronauts. How are we to rectify the descriptions given by the crew, and then later confirmed by various scientific studies?
The photos are not lying. The images are of such a high resolution and quality that we can see the icon of the earth and read the print.
In the following shot we see a landing pad on the surface. Again, no dust appears to have settled on it. Moreover, the pad seems very much implanted on a solid surface that does not appear to have a thick layer of dust on top of it.
Next, turning to the action shots we find (below) an astronaut bounding across the lunar surface. Here too, per the description, we would expect to see the fine (static) dust rising up as he moves.
Note the trail of boot impressions behind the astronaut. This makes it clear that he has been trekking across the lunar surface for some distance. Where is the dust?
However, we see no such thing. He appears to be walking on a hard surface that has very little or no soil or dust on top of it. The camera too appears to have a clear, dust free, view of the astronaut.
A close-up of the above image shows that there is clearly zero dust on the astronaut, nor any in the air around him. Yet we see boot prints stamped 3” inches (or so) into some kind of ‘soil’. But, in fact, his suit is amazingly white and clean. However,
we established the fact that he has already trekked some distance in the first, wide shot.
Apparently, his trek across the "dust laden" surface did not raise any of this “dust” off the ground, even though there are deep boot impressions in the lunar regolith, soil, or whatever it is.
Even the lower par of the image, around and above his ankles and heels, no signs of the reported sticky, powdery dust. That boot impression suggests there should have been at least a small cloud of it around him and at least some on the lower, backside of his suit and his boot heels.
But there is not a single, sign of any such dust!
Finally, the above photo also reveals a lack of any lunar dust on the flag. There are many more similar images to analyze in the archives. You can access them and continue the analysis and draw your own conclusions.
Why is it important to finish this debate and establish the truth?
It is crucial to either 1) completely clear NASA’s name, document the agencies credibility, and remove the clouds of doubt that have accumulated or 2) indict NASA on fraud charges, in Federal Court for betraying the public trust. Of course the 'dust' is but one issue, and piece of evidence, in a much larger body, all of which would be presented.
Kommentarer