Good luck, Mr. Gorsky
The first decade of the new century gave birth to what was figuratively called the "Asian space race," in memory of the glorious days of the 60s of the last century. At that time, progress in space exploration was so rapid that it seemed a little more, and there would be permanent bases on the Moon, and people would walk along Mars, marking out areas for apple orchards. The reality was completely different. Both space powers retreated and confined to the exploration of near-Earth space. The retreat of the USSR from the Moon was more like a stampede. In the rearguard battles was abandoned heavy space technology. A fully equipped and ready for flight space tank of the 3rd modification - Lunokhod-3 was never sent to the Moon.
Almost 40 years have passed since then. During this time, the USSR and later Russia did not send anything to the Moon! Today, scientists say: "The moon has become interesting to us again." I do not remember the period when the moon would not be interesting to the scientists of the Earth. As it turned out, there are so many new and unexpected things on the Moon that, it seems, 40 years ago it was a completely different planet. For example, who would have thought that there was a lot of water on the moon, just a sea of ​​ice water !? Do amazing discoveries and unexpected revelations await us on the moon, even greater than we might expect?
Following the general trend of "reviving interest in the lunar theme," I suggest reading the translation of the article by Clyde Lewis, which was written and published on the 30th anniversary of the first landing on the moon. The author, Clyde Lewis (Clyde Lewis) - actor, creator and host of the radio show "Ground Zero" on paranormal and political themes.
')
Thirty years ago, people gathered around their television sets to witness one of the most remarkable feats of the millennium. While Walter Kronkite 1 was holding back tears, the nation learned that a man had landed on the moon. They knew it because they saw it. They knew this because the government stated that it happened. They knew it because ... just because. That's all the evidence they needed. It's 1999 now, and where is the evidence?
History lovers will recall that Neil Armstrong, the first astronaut to set foot on the moon, made the mistake when he made his famous speech about “one small step”. He had to say: "One small step for a man, but a giant leap for all of humanity." These words entered history, but the words spoken by him after that were cut out. You will probably never hear or see them in kinolyap and sweepstakes, but the story says that he made a few comments after both his feet touched the moonlight. NASA's legend says that Armstrong said: “Good luck, Mr. Gorsky.”
Many at NASA have decided that this is a random comment about Russia. Perhaps some cosmonauts by the name of Gorsky were Armstrong's rivals, and that this was a low blow, an unsuccessful attempt by Russia to land on the moon. However, after verification, it turned out that Gorsky was not in either the Russian or the American space programs. Who is this Gorsky? Whenever people asked Armstrong about Gorsky, Neal blushed and smiled, but never spoke about it.
Recently at a press conference in Florida, a reporter spoke with Armstrong about the mysterious Gorski. He asked a question that many journalists tried to ask and never received an answer: “Who the hell is this guy Gorsky, whom you talked about on the moon?” For 26 years he avoided this question because he did not want to embarrass Mr. Gorsky . But this time it was a happy journalist day, and Armstrong finally answered. Mr. Gorsky died, and Neal felt that answering the question would not hurt anyone.
Armstrong told the story that when he was a child, he played baseball with a friend. Armstrong filed, and his friend hit the ball on the ball, which landed in front of the bedroom window of a neighboring house. Mr. and Mrs. Gorsky lived next door. Neil ran for the ball, and when he bent to pick it up, he inadvertently heard Mrs. Gorski shout at Mr. Gorski. She screamed with all her urine: “Oral sex! Do you want oral sex? You will get it when the neighbor child walks on the moon! ”
Isn't it a great story? It was not - one of the urban legends that everyone loves to tell.
Professor Jan Harold Brunvand once said: "Truth must never interfere with a good story." No matter how many times this story is told, it always rings true, because this is such a wonderful story. She got into the newspapers and, who knows, one day can take on the status of an authentic event, even if it is a white lie.
There is also an old saying: “The bigger the lie, the easier it is to convince others that this is true.”
July 20, 1969 man landed on the moon. A remarkable achievement, given that it was a direct hit on the first attempt. And the entire space program went practically without a hitch, and not a single person died on the Moon. We had problems and failures before the moon launches, but, miraculously, not a single death during the Big Show. It was a miracle that we flew through the radiation belts. Oh yeah, when the rocket launched, we forgot about James Van Allen. You may have heard about him, he was the guy who discovered the dangerous radiation belts that surround the Earth to heights of 40-60 thousand km.
Van Allen's belt spews enough deadly radiation to kill a person who has risked penetrating it unprotected. Scientific experiments conducted by Van Allen and the military, proved that the belt is so deadly that no one could survive in it. The capsule should be lined with 4 feet of lead to protect the astronauts. She was protected by aluminum.
We forgot about it. Because it was shown on TV. We were children. We dreamed and believed in dreams.
The television broadcast blurred images from the moon, and we were amazed. We were so surprised that we forgot to look at the stars in the sky above the lunar landscape. But do not worry, they were not there. It seemed strange to a place where there is no atmosphere, and there is nothing blocking the light of stars. And one would see a myriad of bright lights. None was noticed.
And it also means that in the daytime the sunlight will be blinding. Not soft. How can there be diffused light on the moon? Scattered lighting is used in television studios and film studios. Maybe this explains the photos that adorn our history books. Why they were so exciting. Wait a minute! The television images were blurred, the photos were soft and well-arranged so that they looked fascinating in the Viewmaster stereo glasses. The landings to the moon were then so awesome as to even think about the light manifesting itself in the same way without atmosphere, as it does in the atmosphere. And that these breathtaking photos can be made at a temperature of 120 degrees Celsius, when most films melt at a temperature of 65 degrees. John Carter from Mars had a ray gun, Buck Rogers had anti-gravity boots, and our astronauts had a heat resistant film.
We saw footprints in the moon sand. Traces left in the dry moon gruen. It reminded me of when I was on the beaches of the Great Salt Lake, and how the sand could not even keep my footprints intact. Later, I realized that to preserve the mark in the soil should be moisture. That is why, when the water receded, I saw footprints in the sand. At school I learned that there is no water on the moon. In addition, I can bet that in that heat it would be hard to keep things wet, even if there was some moisture on the moon.
This prompted you to be proud of the fact that you are American, when a person’s small steps left even a deeper imprint than the 1400-kilogram lunar landing module. It was great to see that rocket thrust didn’t dig a crater in what Armstrong described as a surface that looked like a loose powder. It was so nice to see a clean landing module, no dust on it, and you were proud of the tidy astronauts. I mean that in zero gravity, perhaps, a part of this fine dust will be raised in the vicinity of the lunar module support, not to mention the possibility of static or magnetization. When we were children, we believed everything.
I'm not a kid anymore.
The idea to doubt the landing on the moon is heresy. I can understand if you think I'm crazy. I'm not alone. The number of those who begin to doubt is growing every day. You see, people do not understand that there are no independent witnesses of the events themselves taking place on the Moon.
We take for granted that the evidence is in fact genuine, honestly shown and responsibly reported. In fact, mankind has no evidence that we have ever stepped on the moon, except for the photographs that NASA has chosen to publish.
As you can tell, there are a lot of things that sound so weird and stupid that it’s hard to believe how we could tell it all. The power of television has retained a fiery dream, and the threat of war and the challenge posed by a young and energetic leader killed in the prime of their lives kept us from being cynical for a while. It brought us together for a moment, before we realized that yes, there was a disgusting war, and perhaps our former leader fell victim to a government coup.
We needed heroes. To create them it took 30 billion dollars. The heroes fighting in Vietnam were not enough. We needed glamorous boys jumping up and down in a film studio. Anything to show our superiority.
People have forgotten who was ahead of us in the space race. Malicious Russians. Yes, then they were malicious. However, without a doubt, they knew how to organize a space program. At the initial stage of the space race, the USSR had an advantage over the USA because of the Vostok and Voskhod spacecraft, which were technologically superior to the American spacecraft of the time. The Russians were the first to send an animal and a man into space. And then, one day, they wake up and hear that we landed on the moon. And they throw away the towel. Why did they give up? They could surpass us by landing a ship on the moon capable of building a space station. It's been 30 years since we landed on the moon. 30 years ago we penetrated 400 thousand km into deep space. In that space program, the launches to the moon were almost flawless. Even during a tragedy such as Apollo 13, the astronauts returned and it all ended happily. After flying to the moon 30 years have passed.
We launch the shuttles. Shuttles that climb into space only 400 km. We are building orbiting space stations, and we lost seven astronauts in the Challenger crash. Is this progress? Why we do not fly the shuttle to the moon? Why we do not build space stations and holiday homes on the moon? Why do we send robots to the moon to study ice formations? And finally, why, because of nostalgia, we did not send a couple of astronauts to the moon to refresh the experience?
Everything is very simple. We have never been there.
You can argue that the secret should be known to about 35 thousand employees of NASA and about 200 thousand contracting organizations who worked on the Apollo project. Then are you ready to say that in your office, no matter where you work, each department knows what they are doing in other departments?
And here the art of fragmentation is used to its fullest. The same happened with the “Manhattan Project” and with a number of other projects. Secrets can be saved. Money and the threat of death are the main levers of secrecy. Patriotism is also a factor. The very fact of the assumption that we did not fly to the moon in some circles depicts me as an extremely strange eccentric. Imagine now what will happen if someone opens his mouth.
People also claim that there was no technology available to falsify such a mission. Imitation of one-sixth of earth's gravity would be simple with the help of cinema magic. Hydraulics, wire and shooting of some scenes under water in an aquarium. No one knows for sure. It is alleged that technologies are being developed 20 years before they entered the market, which would give more confidence to the possibility that in 1969 both battlefield imitation programs and planetary landscapes could be used with something simple, such as blue -screen.
The raw version we saw in Stanley Kubrick's 2001 Space Odyssey. It was even suggested that Kubrick was chosen as a director (a la “Tail wags the dog”) of landing on the moon. And he will never get a well-deserved recognition for his director. C. Powers (C.Powers) wrote:
It is said that at the beginning of 1968, NASA staff members secretly spoke with Kubrick, who made him an advantageous offer to “direct” the first three moon landings.
At first, Kubrick refused, because at that time Space Odyssey 2001 lay on the assembly table, but NASA threatened to make publicly more involved his younger brother Stanley, Raoul, in the activities of the American Communist Party. This would be an unbearable shame for Mr. Kubrick, especially after the release of "Doctor Strangelove." Kubrick finally relented, and for sixteen months he and the special effects group led by Douglas Trumbull worked in a purpose-built movie theater in Huntsville, Alabama, “creating” the first and second lunar landings. These efforts led to hundreds of hours of 35 mm film and video "material" flights to the Moon Apollo 11 and -12.
The fictitious mission of Apollo 11 was skillfully delivered in July 1969. The Saturn-5 rocket with astronauts Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins was launched into low Earth orbit, staying there, while NASA carefully released Kubrick studio shots to the press. After an impressive "landing on the moon" and "returning to Earth", the astronauts returned to Earth's atmosphere and made an ideal landing in the Pacific, right on schedule. A few months later, the mission of Apollo 12 was successfully falsified in a similar manner.
However, Mr. Kubrick refused to direct the Apollo 13 mission, because NASA rejected his scenario in which the Apollo 13 flight fails. Kubrick insisted that the dramatic unsuccessful mission, from which the astronauts returned safely to Earth, would ultimately prove to be NASA's finest hour.
NASA was of the opinion that an unsuccessful mission would unnecessarily jeopardize the agency’s image, so Kubrick left the project. Ironically, later NASA decided to use the script of the mission of the failed, for which the little-known but highly respected British director Randall Cunningham was recruited to direct.
Kubrick’s relentless perfectionism is evident throughout the Apollo filming, starting with the chilling “exception 1201” during the last seconds of the Eagle’s descent onto the lunar surface, and up to the moon dust covering astronauts' spacesuits.
It all seems a bit hypothetical ... or not? Powers also states:
Some claim that rare NASA photos flash from time to time, where you see astronauts posing in front of a blue screen, and did not James Bond jump in front of astronauts in a film studio in the movie "Diamonds forever"? Before shouting out the obvious - the movie "Capricorn-1" with O. Jay Simpson, did anyone notice the character of Dan Aykroyd in the movie "Sneakers"? He plays a mechanic crank who cites fact after fact, including the so-called fact about some device they use: "This LTX71 low-noise microphone was used in the same system that NASA used when they falsified Apollo moon landings." Are not the hints of the conspiracy of the moon scattered everywhere in Hollywood?
You see, people invent stories hinting that maybe not everything is all right in the Sea of ​​Tranquility.
If you feel confused - you are not alone. The bottom line is that there are two obvious scenarios. First: we never flew to the moon, and we are deceived for 30 years. Or photos and film were for propaganda purposes, and film shots were taken in the studio. Three astronauts participated in the landing on the moon, and I find it strange that we were able to take off the landing without a big crew and technical director, so that everything looked great on the TV screen.
How difficult is it to understand the feasibility of a three-day orbital flight and landing with fake astronauts playing in an improvised sandbox in a film studio? Simple, isn't it? It's uncomfortable, but easy to imagine.
Is it difficult to imagine monetary rewards and veiled threats so that those who know what actually happened during the landing on the moon kept their mouths shut? Is it any wonder that Neil Armstrong keeps quiet about the first landing on the moon? And that he rarely talks to the press? It is equally embarrassing that while we extol John Glenn for his nostalgic flight on the shuttle in memory of his orbital flight on the "Frendship-7", we remembered landing on the Moon in passing.
The whole event took place 30 years ago, and to this day, the landing on the moon seems deliberate and carefully guarded. The very landing on the moon seems so indifferent and devoid of emotions. The dialogue was like a carefully written script, read without emotion. What emotions would you have experienced if you knew that you are stepping on extraterrestrial soil? There seemed to be no tears, no fear. Just an ordinary giant leap for all mankind.
Landings to the moon were my kindergarten memories. Was it just a paper moon hanging on a cardboard scene? If there was an opportune moment to fake such an enterprise, then 1969 was the time. We lived in the misery of the cold war. In order to drown fears about the superiority of Russians in space, we could easily develop a plan to use lunar propaganda to engage the Soviets in wasting valuable resources in the “space race” while we spent relatively little money on fabricating our achievements in this competition. Remember? They were far ahead of us and surrendered as soon as the Eagle landed.
We sold our soul to the Moon conspiracy — those involved can hardly retreat. , ! . . . : « ?» (Bill Kaysing), «Ground Zero», .
, , . , (Tom Baron) «» . 4 . , , 1967 , , «». , , .
, . , , . .
, . , .
! , , . , 400 ., . , 400 . , .
Windows 98 , . 2- , 1969 400 . 1969 . , .
- , , , -? , , - , . : «, .»
. , . , 400 .
, 30 . , . , . . , . .
1969 , 5- , .
, , .
, ?
, . , , .
, -. , .
, , ?
1 - (1916 — 2009) — CBS. .
: http://www.groundzeromedia.org/archives/dis/gorsky/gorsky.html
Almost 40 years have passed since then. During this time, the USSR and later Russia did not send anything to the Moon! Today, scientists say: "The moon has become interesting to us again." I do not remember the period when the moon would not be interesting to the scientists of the Earth. As it turned out, there are so many new and unexpected things on the Moon that, it seems, 40 years ago it was a completely different planet. For example, who would have thought that there was a lot of water on the moon, just a sea of ​​ice water !? Do amazing discoveries and unexpected revelations await us on the moon, even greater than we might expect?
Following the general trend of "reviving interest in the lunar theme," I suggest reading the translation of the article by Clyde Lewis, which was written and published on the 30th anniversary of the first landing on the moon. The author, Clyde Lewis (Clyde Lewis) - actor, creator and host of the radio show "Ground Zero" on paranormal and political themes.
')
Good luck, Mr. Gorsky
and other lies about the moon
Clyde lewis
Thirty years ago, people gathered around their television sets to witness one of the most remarkable feats of the millennium. While Walter Kronkite 1 was holding back tears, the nation learned that a man had landed on the moon. They knew it because they saw it. They knew this because the government stated that it happened. They knew it because ... just because. That's all the evidence they needed. It's 1999 now, and where is the evidence?
History lovers will recall that Neil Armstrong, the first astronaut to set foot on the moon, made the mistake when he made his famous speech about “one small step”. He had to say: "One small step for a man, but a giant leap for all of humanity." These words entered history, but the words spoken by him after that were cut out. You will probably never hear or see them in kinolyap and sweepstakes, but the story says that he made a few comments after both his feet touched the moonlight. NASA's legend says that Armstrong said: “Good luck, Mr. Gorsky.”
Many at NASA have decided that this is a random comment about Russia. Perhaps some cosmonauts by the name of Gorsky were Armstrong's rivals, and that this was a low blow, an unsuccessful attempt by Russia to land on the moon. However, after verification, it turned out that Gorsky was not in either the Russian or the American space programs. Who is this Gorsky? Whenever people asked Armstrong about Gorsky, Neal blushed and smiled, but never spoke about it.
Recently at a press conference in Florida, a reporter spoke with Armstrong about the mysterious Gorski. He asked a question that many journalists tried to ask and never received an answer: “Who the hell is this guy Gorsky, whom you talked about on the moon?” For 26 years he avoided this question because he did not want to embarrass Mr. Gorsky . But this time it was a happy journalist day, and Armstrong finally answered. Mr. Gorsky died, and Neal felt that answering the question would not hurt anyone.
Armstrong told the story that when he was a child, he played baseball with a friend. Armstrong filed, and his friend hit the ball on the ball, which landed in front of the bedroom window of a neighboring house. Mr. and Mrs. Gorsky lived next door. Neil ran for the ball, and when he bent to pick it up, he inadvertently heard Mrs. Gorski shout at Mr. Gorski. She screamed with all her urine: “Oral sex! Do you want oral sex? You will get it when the neighbor child walks on the moon! ”
Isn't it a great story? It was not - one of the urban legends that everyone loves to tell.
Professor Jan Harold Brunvand once said: "Truth must never interfere with a good story." No matter how many times this story is told, it always rings true, because this is such a wonderful story. She got into the newspapers and, who knows, one day can take on the status of an authentic event, even if it is a white lie.
There is also an old saying: “The bigger the lie, the easier it is to convince others that this is true.”
July 20, 1969 man landed on the moon. A remarkable achievement, given that it was a direct hit on the first attempt. And the entire space program went practically without a hitch, and not a single person died on the Moon. We had problems and failures before the moon launches, but, miraculously, not a single death during the Big Show. It was a miracle that we flew through the radiation belts. Oh yeah, when the rocket launched, we forgot about James Van Allen. You may have heard about him, he was the guy who discovered the dangerous radiation belts that surround the Earth to heights of 40-60 thousand km.
Van Allen's belt spews enough deadly radiation to kill a person who has risked penetrating it unprotected. Scientific experiments conducted by Van Allen and the military, proved that the belt is so deadly that no one could survive in it. The capsule should be lined with 4 feet of lead to protect the astronauts. She was protected by aluminum.
We forgot about it. Because it was shown on TV. We were children. We dreamed and believed in dreams.
The television broadcast blurred images from the moon, and we were amazed. We were so surprised that we forgot to look at the stars in the sky above the lunar landscape. But do not worry, they were not there. It seemed strange to a place where there is no atmosphere, and there is nothing blocking the light of stars. And one would see a myriad of bright lights. None was noticed.
And it also means that in the daytime the sunlight will be blinding. Not soft. How can there be diffused light on the moon? Scattered lighting is used in television studios and film studios. Maybe this explains the photos that adorn our history books. Why they were so exciting. Wait a minute! The television images were blurred, the photos were soft and well-arranged so that they looked fascinating in the Viewmaster stereo glasses. The landings to the moon were then so awesome as to even think about the light manifesting itself in the same way without atmosphere, as it does in the atmosphere. And that these breathtaking photos can be made at a temperature of 120 degrees Celsius, when most films melt at a temperature of 65 degrees. John Carter from Mars had a ray gun, Buck Rogers had anti-gravity boots, and our astronauts had a heat resistant film.
We saw footprints in the moon sand. Traces left in the dry moon gruen. It reminded me of when I was on the beaches of the Great Salt Lake, and how the sand could not even keep my footprints intact. Later, I realized that to preserve the mark in the soil should be moisture. That is why, when the water receded, I saw footprints in the sand. At school I learned that there is no water on the moon. In addition, I can bet that in that heat it would be hard to keep things wet, even if there was some moisture on the moon.
This prompted you to be proud of the fact that you are American, when a person’s small steps left even a deeper imprint than the 1400-kilogram lunar landing module. It was great to see that rocket thrust didn’t dig a crater in what Armstrong described as a surface that looked like a loose powder. It was so nice to see a clean landing module, no dust on it, and you were proud of the tidy astronauts. I mean that in zero gravity, perhaps, a part of this fine dust will be raised in the vicinity of the lunar module support, not to mention the possibility of static or magnetization. When we were children, we believed everything.
I'm not a kid anymore.
The idea to doubt the landing on the moon is heresy. I can understand if you think I'm crazy. I'm not alone. The number of those who begin to doubt is growing every day. You see, people do not understand that there are no independent witnesses of the events themselves taking place on the Moon.
We take for granted that the evidence is in fact genuine, honestly shown and responsibly reported. In fact, mankind has no evidence that we have ever stepped on the moon, except for the photographs that NASA has chosen to publish.
As you can tell, there are a lot of things that sound so weird and stupid that it’s hard to believe how we could tell it all. The power of television has retained a fiery dream, and the threat of war and the challenge posed by a young and energetic leader killed in the prime of their lives kept us from being cynical for a while. It brought us together for a moment, before we realized that yes, there was a disgusting war, and perhaps our former leader fell victim to a government coup.
We needed heroes. To create them it took 30 billion dollars. The heroes fighting in Vietnam were not enough. We needed glamorous boys jumping up and down in a film studio. Anything to show our superiority.
People have forgotten who was ahead of us in the space race. Malicious Russians. Yes, then they were malicious. However, without a doubt, they knew how to organize a space program. At the initial stage of the space race, the USSR had an advantage over the USA because of the Vostok and Voskhod spacecraft, which were technologically superior to the American spacecraft of the time. The Russians were the first to send an animal and a man into space. And then, one day, they wake up and hear that we landed on the moon. And they throw away the towel. Why did they give up? They could surpass us by landing a ship on the moon capable of building a space station. It's been 30 years since we landed on the moon. 30 years ago we penetrated 400 thousand km into deep space. In that space program, the launches to the moon were almost flawless. Even during a tragedy such as Apollo 13, the astronauts returned and it all ended happily. After flying to the moon 30 years have passed.
We launch the shuttles. Shuttles that climb into space only 400 km. We are building orbiting space stations, and we lost seven astronauts in the Challenger crash. Is this progress? Why we do not fly the shuttle to the moon? Why we do not build space stations and holiday homes on the moon? Why do we send robots to the moon to study ice formations? And finally, why, because of nostalgia, we did not send a couple of astronauts to the moon to refresh the experience?
Everything is very simple. We have never been there.
You can argue that the secret should be known to about 35 thousand employees of NASA and about 200 thousand contracting organizations who worked on the Apollo project. Then are you ready to say that in your office, no matter where you work, each department knows what they are doing in other departments?
And here the art of fragmentation is used to its fullest. The same happened with the “Manhattan Project” and with a number of other projects. Secrets can be saved. Money and the threat of death are the main levers of secrecy. Patriotism is also a factor. The very fact of the assumption that we did not fly to the moon in some circles depicts me as an extremely strange eccentric. Imagine now what will happen if someone opens his mouth.
People also claim that there was no technology available to falsify such a mission. Imitation of one-sixth of earth's gravity would be simple with the help of cinema magic. Hydraulics, wire and shooting of some scenes under water in an aquarium. No one knows for sure. It is alleged that technologies are being developed 20 years before they entered the market, which would give more confidence to the possibility that in 1969 both battlefield imitation programs and planetary landscapes could be used with something simple, such as blue -screen.
The raw version we saw in Stanley Kubrick's 2001 Space Odyssey. It was even suggested that Kubrick was chosen as a director (a la “Tail wags the dog”) of landing on the moon. And he will never get a well-deserved recognition for his director. C. Powers (C.Powers) wrote:
It is said that at the beginning of 1968, NASA staff members secretly spoke with Kubrick, who made him an advantageous offer to “direct” the first three moon landings.
At first, Kubrick refused, because at that time Space Odyssey 2001 lay on the assembly table, but NASA threatened to make publicly more involved his younger brother Stanley, Raoul, in the activities of the American Communist Party. This would be an unbearable shame for Mr. Kubrick, especially after the release of "Doctor Strangelove." Kubrick finally relented, and for sixteen months he and the special effects group led by Douglas Trumbull worked in a purpose-built movie theater in Huntsville, Alabama, “creating” the first and second lunar landings. These efforts led to hundreds of hours of 35 mm film and video "material" flights to the Moon Apollo 11 and -12.
The fictitious mission of Apollo 11 was skillfully delivered in July 1969. The Saturn-5 rocket with astronauts Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins was launched into low Earth orbit, staying there, while NASA carefully released Kubrick studio shots to the press. After an impressive "landing on the moon" and "returning to Earth", the astronauts returned to Earth's atmosphere and made an ideal landing in the Pacific, right on schedule. A few months later, the mission of Apollo 12 was successfully falsified in a similar manner.
However, Mr. Kubrick refused to direct the Apollo 13 mission, because NASA rejected his scenario in which the Apollo 13 flight fails. Kubrick insisted that the dramatic unsuccessful mission, from which the astronauts returned safely to Earth, would ultimately prove to be NASA's finest hour.
NASA was of the opinion that an unsuccessful mission would unnecessarily jeopardize the agency’s image, so Kubrick left the project. Ironically, later NASA decided to use the script of the mission of the failed, for which the little-known but highly respected British director Randall Cunningham was recruited to direct.
Kubrick’s relentless perfectionism is evident throughout the Apollo filming, starting with the chilling “exception 1201” during the last seconds of the Eagle’s descent onto the lunar surface, and up to the moon dust covering astronauts' spacesuits.
It all seems a bit hypothetical ... or not? Powers also states:
- The lunar film set was built on the basis of "Mercury", which was given the code name "Copernicus".
- The film set was located in an underground cave.
- There were stocks for lighting, rails for the camera and equipment for special effects.
- All scenes of exits to the lunar surface were filmed on the set.
- The missions were managed by an IBM 370 computer complex.
- There were radio channels with main tracking stations in Australia, Spain, California and satellite transmission of a copy of the voice channel.
Some claim that rare NASA photos flash from time to time, where you see astronauts posing in front of a blue screen, and did not James Bond jump in front of astronauts in a film studio in the movie "Diamonds forever"? Before shouting out the obvious - the movie "Capricorn-1" with O. Jay Simpson, did anyone notice the character of Dan Aykroyd in the movie "Sneakers"? He plays a mechanic crank who cites fact after fact, including the so-called fact about some device they use: "This LTX71 low-noise microphone was used in the same system that NASA used when they falsified Apollo moon landings." Are not the hints of the conspiracy of the moon scattered everywhere in Hollywood?
You see, people invent stories hinting that maybe not everything is all right in the Sea of ​​Tranquility.
If you feel confused - you are not alone. The bottom line is that there are two obvious scenarios. First: we never flew to the moon, and we are deceived for 30 years. Or photos and film were for propaganda purposes, and film shots were taken in the studio. Three astronauts participated in the landing on the moon, and I find it strange that we were able to take off the landing without a big crew and technical director, so that everything looked great on the TV screen.
How difficult is it to understand the feasibility of a three-day orbital flight and landing with fake astronauts playing in an improvised sandbox in a film studio? Simple, isn't it? It's uncomfortable, but easy to imagine.
Is it difficult to imagine monetary rewards and veiled threats so that those who know what actually happened during the landing on the moon kept their mouths shut? Is it any wonder that Neil Armstrong keeps quiet about the first landing on the moon? And that he rarely talks to the press? It is equally embarrassing that while we extol John Glenn for his nostalgic flight on the shuttle in memory of his orbital flight on the "Frendship-7", we remembered landing on the Moon in passing.
The whole event took place 30 years ago, and to this day, the landing on the moon seems deliberate and carefully guarded. The very landing on the moon seems so indifferent and devoid of emotions. The dialogue was like a carefully written script, read without emotion. What emotions would you have experienced if you knew that you are stepping on extraterrestrial soil? There seemed to be no tears, no fear. Just an ordinary giant leap for all mankind.
Landings to the moon were my kindergarten memories. Was it just a paper moon hanging on a cardboard scene? If there was an opportune moment to fake such an enterprise, then 1969 was the time. We lived in the misery of the cold war. In order to drown fears about the superiority of Russians in space, we could easily develop a plan to use lunar propaganda to engage the Soviets in wasting valuable resources in the “space race” while we spent relatively little money on fabricating our achievements in this competition. Remember? They were far ahead of us and surrendered as soon as the Eagle landed.
We sold our soul to the Moon conspiracy — those involved can hardly retreat. , ! . . . : « ?» (Bill Kaysing), «Ground Zero», .
, , . , (Tom Baron) «» . 4 . , , 1967 , , «». , , .
, . , , . .
, . , .
! , , . , 400 ., . , 400 . , .
Windows 98 , . 2- , 1969 400 . 1969 . , .
- , , , -? , , - , . : «, .»
. , . , 400 .
, 30 . , . , . . , . .
1969 , 5- , .
, , .
, ?
, . , , .
, -. , .
, , ?
1 - (1916 — 2009) — CBS. .
: http://www.groundzeromedia.org/archives/dis/gorsky/gorsky.html
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/141123/
All Articles