原创翻译:龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 翻译:翻译熊 转载请注明出处
Are believers in danger of extinction?
Coming upis the 50th anniversaryof the Apollo 11 moon landing. In 2016, a surveyshowedthat 52 percent of the British public thought that Apollo missions were faked.Skepticism is highest among those who were too young to see it live on TV: 73percent of aged 25-34 believe we didn’t land on the moon, compared to 38percent of those aged 55 or more. These numbers seem to be rising every year.British unbelievers were only 25 percent ten years ago.It is not known how may they are today, but a 2018 poll by the RussianPublic Opinion Research Center revealed that 57 percentRussians believe that there has never been a manned lunar landing. Thepercentage rises to 69 percent among people with higher education: in otherwords, the more educated people are, and the more capable of rationalreasoning, the less they believe in the moon landings. In the US, the percentageseems much lower: A 1999 Gallup poll indicated just 6 percent Americansdoubting the moon landings, and a 2013 Pew Research showed the number to haverisen to a mere 7 percent. Not surprisingly, then, a 2010 Pew Research poll showedthat 63 percent of Americans were confident that NASA would land an Astronauton Mars by 2050.

Themoon hoax theory was almost unheard of before the spread of Internet, andgained momentum with the development of YouTube, which allowed close inspectionof the Apollo footage by anyone interested. Before that, individuals who hadserious doubts had little means to share them and make their case convincing.One pioneer was Bill Kaysing,who broke the subject in 1976 with his self-published book We Never Went to the Moon:America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle. He may be called awhistleblower, since he had been working for Rocketdyne, the company thatdesigned and built the Apollo rockets. Then came Ralph René with his NASAMooned America!, also self published.

其中一位先行者是比尔凯辛,他在1976年以自己出版的《我们从未登上过月球:美国的300亿美元骗局》(We Never Wentto the Moon: America 's 300 Billion Dollar Swindle)一书打破了这个话题。他可能被称为告密者,因为他一直在为设计和制造阿波罗火箭的Rocketdyne公司工作。然后与拉尔夫雷内合著的《NASA Mooned America!》也是自己出版的。

Thenthere was the much shorter A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Moon (2001),directed by Bart Sibrel, which brings in valuable insight into the historicalcontext. Sibrel also went around challenging NASA astronauts to swear on theBible, in front of the camera, that they did walk on the moon, and he compiledthese sequences in Astronauts Gone Wild, together with moreuseful footages of embarrassingly awkward statements made by NASA astronautswho are supposed to have walked on the moon but sound hardly competent andconsistent; Alan Bean from Apollo 12 learning from Sibrel that he went throughthe Van Allen radiation belt is a must-see.

接下来是巴特西贝尔执导的《月球之路》(2001),它讲述了发生在月球上的一件有趣的事情,篇幅要短得多。西贝尔还四处挑战NASA的宇航员,让他们在圣经面前对他们在月球上的行走发誓——在镜头面前 , 他在《疯狂的宇航员》中编辑了这些序列,再加上美国国家航空航天局(NASA)宇航员发表的令人尴尬的声明的更多有用片段,这些宇航员本应在月球上行走,但听起来却很难胜任; 阿波罗12号的艾伦比恩从西贝尔那里得知他经历了范艾伦辐射带,这是一个必看的视频节点。

Then,using materials from those films and other sources, came the groundbreaking TVdocumentary Didwe land on the moon? (2001), directed by John Moffetfor Fox TV. To my knowledge and judgment, this is still the best introductionto the arguments of the “moon hoax theorists”: You can watch it here from its2013 rebroadcast on Channel 5:


Thereare very few books available on the subject. I am not aware of a moreresearched one than One SmallStep? The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth From Space byGerman researcher Gerhard Wisnewski, originally published in 2005, from which Iwill quote repeatedly.


I am not going to discuss allthe evidence presented in these sources. I can only recommend them and a fewothers on the way. I will simply sort what I see as the most convincingarguments, add a few recent developments, give my best conclusion, place theissue in the broader historical perspective, and draw some lessons from it allabout the Matrix we have been living in.


First of all, we need to beclear about the aim of such an inquiry. We should not expect any conclusiveproof that Neil Armstrong, or any other Apollo moon-walker, didn’t walk on themoon. That cannot be proven, absent some indisputable evidence that he wassomewhere else (orbiting around the earth, for example) at the precise time heclaimed to have spent on the moon.


Inmost cases, you cannot prove that something didn’t happen, just like you cannotprove that something doesn’t exist. You cannot prove, for example, thatunicorns don’t exist. That is why the burden of proof rests on anyone whoclaims they do exist. If I say to you I walked on the moon, you will ask me toprove it, and you will not take as an answer: “No, you prove that I’m didn’t go.”


Doesit make a difference if I am the NASA? It does, because calling the NASA a liarwill inevitably lead you to question everything you have been led to believe byyour government and mainstream media. It is a giant leap indeed! Just likechildren of abusive parents, decent citizens of abusive governments will tendto repress evidence of their government’s malevolence.


But before that, the scientificthing to do is to start with the question: can the NASA prove they sent men tothe moon? If the answer is no, the next step is to decide if we take their wordfor it or not. That requires pondering what could have been the reasons forsuch a massive lie. We will get to that.
But, first of all, can the NASAprovide hard evidence of the moon landings?


Rock-solid evidence from Antarctica


Yes, they can. They broughtback pieces of the moon: roughly 380 kilograms of moon rocks and soil samples,all Apollo missions combined. Moon rocks prove the moon landings, don’t they?Yes they do, but only if it can be firmly established that they were not dugout from the earth. And that is the problem.


As explained here,“meteorites have been found in Antarctica which have proved to have the samecharacteristics as the moon rocks.” It may be helpful to know that in 1967, twoyears before Apollo 11, the NASA set up an expedition to Antarctica, joined byWernher Von Braun, the leading NASA propagandist for the lunar missions;Antarctica is the region of the earth with the biggest concentration ofmeteorites, but it is not known whether the expedition included geologists, norif meteorites were brought back.


Infact, it was not until 1972 that lunar meteorites were officially discovered inAntarctica; their lunar origin, of course, was determined by comparison withthe moon samples brought back by Apollo crews (Wisnewksi 202).

事实上,直到1972年南极洲才正式发现月球陨石;当然,它们的月球起源是通过与阿波罗宇航员带回的月球样本(Wisnewksi 202页)进行比较确定的。

Anothermoon rock made the headlines when, 40 years after having been handed personallyby Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to the Dutch prime minister, it wasscrutinized and proven to be petrified wood. Granted, a few fakemoon rocks don’t prove that all moon rocks are fake. But it should be reasonenough for starting a systematic scientific examination of the dozens of othersamples that the USA ceremoniously gave away in 1969 and the 1970s.


The photographic evidence


What other proofs does the NASAhave of the moon landings? The films and photographs, of course! The films arenotoriously blurry, which makes their examination difficult.


How, for example, can you be sure thatastronaut David Scott from Apollo 15 is dropping a real hammer and a realfeather to demonstrate Newtonian gravity in an atmosphere-free environment,when you can hardly see the objects? We do have a clear photo of the hammer andthe feather on the ground, but how do we know they are the same as the blurryobjects dropped in the film?


What would be helpful for aproper investigation is the original NASA footage. Researchers have been askingfor access to these films for decades, under the Freedom of Information Act. In2006, they were given an answer. Here is what you can read on Reuters:

对正确的调查有帮助的是NASA的原始录像。几十年来,根据《信息自由法》(Freedomof Information Act),研究人员一直要求接触这些电影。2006年,他们得到了一个答案。以下是你可以在路透社上看到的:

“NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could findthe original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing. Since then,Richard Nafzger, an engineer at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland,who oversaw television processing at the ground-tracking sites during theApollo 11 mission, has been looking for them. The good news is he found wherethey went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that weredegaussed — magnetically erased — and re-used to save money.”


Russians are so evil-minded: as a result ofthis NASA admission, Russian officialshave started demanding an international investigation.


Fortunately,we have the photos. Besides planting a US flag and collecting rock samples, theastronauts spent much time taking photos on the moon. And let’s be fair: in2015, the NASA released to the public thousands of them in high resolution.They are accessible here,and can be examined in detail. Most of them are remarkable for their quality.


The Apollo 11 crew used astandard Hasselblad 500C with a few alterations, including the removal of thereflex mirror. The film used was a standard Kodak Ektachrome diapositive film,160 ASA. That is a surprisingly sensitive film for a place where the sunlightis unfiltered by any atmosphere, especially considering that some photos, whichcame out perfectly exposed, were taken directly against the sun.

阿波罗11号的宇航员使用的是标准的哈瑟布莱德500C,做了一些改动,包括去掉了反射镜。所用胶片为标准柯达Ektachrome透光胶片160 ASA。对于一个阳光不受任何大气过滤的地方来说,这是一种非常敏感的胶片,尤其是考虑到有些照片是直接对着太阳拍摄的,而这些照片的曝光效果非常好。

Thereare also technical issues with the reliability of this material on the surfaceof the moon, where temperatures go from under 100°C minus to over 100°C plus:the only protection against heat for both camera and magazine was a reflexivecoating. (How the astronauts survive such temperatures is an even more seriousissue.)

这种材料在月球表面的可靠性也存在技术问题,月球表面的温度从零下100°C到超过100°C +:对相机和胶卷盒来说,唯一防热的是一种反射涂层。(宇航员如何在这样的温度下生存是一个更加严重的问题。)

Another problematic aspect isthe professional quality of most of those pictures. Every single shot taken byNeil Armstrong, for example, is perfectly framed and exposed. Wisnewski(144-149) quite correctly points out how incredible that is, given the factthat Armstrong (or any other astronaut) could not take aim, since the camera wasfixed on his chest where he could not even see it. Not to mention thedifficulty of setting aperture, exposure time, focus and field of view manuallywith his pressurized gloves and no vision of the camera, and with no experienceof photography on the moon environment. We need to remember that photographywas a very skilled occupation in those days, even on earth, and it is quiteastonishing to see that all of Armstrong’s shots were just perfect.


More to the point, is there anyevidence that these pictures were shot on the moon? None whatsoever. They areeasy to make in studios. As a matter of fact, the NASA went to great length totrain the astronauts in indoor settings reproducing the condition of the moonsurface as they imagined it, fabricating tons of “moon dust” for that purpose(even before anyone had seen real moon dust), and even simulating the blacksky. Some of the photographs taken in these movie-like studio settings, such asthe following one from NASA archives, would be hard to distinguish from the“real” thing, if framed differently.


Incidentally, Lundberg’sembarrassed admission is the perfect illustration of how compartmentalizationmay have made the moon hoax possible. Like the hundreds of thousands of peopleinvolved in the project, he worked on a “need to know” basis, and had no reasonto suspect he was working for something else than what he was told, at leastuntil someone challenged him to explain impossible pictures. Just a handful ofpeople had to know the full picture, and it is not even certain that PresidentNixon was among them. As Wisnewski (121-126) illustrates with the Corona aliasDiscoverer program (a US research satellite launched around 1959 with thesecret purpose of spying over the Soviet Union), it is wrong to assume that theUS military, spatial and intelligence communities cannot keep a secret. To takeanother example, hundreds of thousands of people worked on the ManhattanProject, which remained completely hidden from the public until the bomb wasdropped on Hiroshima.

顺便说一句,伦德伯格尴尬的承认是一个完美的例子,说明了分隔可能是如何使月球骗局成为可能。就像参与这个项目的成千上万的人一样,他是在“需要知道”的基础上工作的,他没有理由怀疑自己是在做别人告诉他的事情,至少在有人要求他解释不可能的图片之前是这样。只有少数人知道全部情况,甚至不确定尼克松总统是否也在其中。正如Wisnewski(121-126页)用Corona alias Discoverer项目(美国于1959年左右发射的一颗研究卫星,其目的是对苏联进行间谍活动)说明的那样,认为美国军方、空间情报机构不能保守秘密是错误的。再举个例子,成千上万的人参与了曼哈顿计划,直到原子弹被投到广岛之前,这个计划一直对公众完全保密。

I will not list and examine theanomalies of the Apollo photographs, since they are analyzed in thedocumentaries mentioned above. But I do recommend browsing through and zoomingon the high definition photographs on the NASAarchive site, with the aim of assessing their credibility withbasic common sense. Ask yourself, for example, if you can believe that theApollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle (here, here, or here) could have landed two astronauts on the moonand sent them back into lunar orbit to reconnect with the orbiting CommandModule. Or pick Apollo 14’s LM Antares (here), or Apollo 16’s LM Orion (here, or here with the rover that miraculously cameout of it), or Apollo 17’s LM Challenger (here). Keep in mind that these shabby huts had tobe hermetically pressurized in a vacuum environment, and that, in the last twocases, two astronauts spent more than 3 days (respectively 71 hours and 76hours) on the moon and slept 3 nights in the module. If you want to be guidedalong this reflection, I can recommend this 15-minute video.


Where have all the stars gone?


If the Apollo crews hadphotographed the moon’s starry sky, that could have served the NASA to counterthe accusation of fraud. For back in the 1960s, it would have been very hard tomake the computer calculation to make the stars constellation consistent.Unfortunately, no one thought about it at the NASA. The astronauts were askedto look down and collect rocks, not to look up and study the stars. It is as ifthe NASA were a congregation of geologists who despised astronomy. And to thinkthat they spend billions of dollars sending telescopes into earth’s orbit! Tobe fair, I have read about a telescope installed by the Apollo 16 crew, but itseems that no one has ever seen what came out of it. In any case, not a singlepicture of the NASA archives show any star in the sky.

如果阿波罗号的宇航员拍摄了月球上繁星点点的天空,这可能有助于美国宇航局反击欺诈指控。回到20世纪60年代,要使计算机计算使星座一致是非常困难的。不幸的是,NASA没有人想到这一点。宇航员被要求向下看并收集岩石,而不是向上看并研究恒星。这就好像NASA是一群鄙视天文学的地质学家一般。想想他们(可是)花费了数十亿美元把望远镜送入地球轨道的! 说句公道话,我读到过阿波罗16号宇航员安装的望远镜,但似乎没有人看到它的结果。无论如何,美国宇航局档案中没有一张照片显示天空中有任何恒星。

The official explanation? Theresimply were no stars visible in the moon sky. Period. It is so incredible thateven some “moon hoax debunkers” prefer to explain the black sky in all Apollophotographs as resulting from low exposure. But they are wrong: the astronautssaw no stars with their own eyes. All of them, from Apollo 11 to Apollo 17,consistently declared that the sky was completely black, “an immense black velvet sky — totally black,” inthe words of Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man on the moon.


Was it because the luminosityof the moon surface was too strong, so that their eyes couldn’t adjust (a dayon the moon lasts 27 earth days, so the astronauts who landed on theilluminated side of the moon never experienced a night on the moon)? If thatwas the reason, then at least, the astronauts should have seen plenty of starswhen travelling between earth and moon. They didn’t report seeing any. Whenthey orbited around the moon and passed in its shadow, they found themselves inpitch darkness, and saw no stars. Michael Collins, who orbited around the moonseveral times in the Command Module while Aldrin and Armstrong were on themoon, declared in their 1969 press conference: “I can’t remember seeing any!”That is one of the weirdest remarks you can think of from an astronaut, but thewhole press conference is a bizarre experience to watch.


After that, Armstrong must have been ordered tokeep away from interviews. But when he was allowed to make a last appearance onthe the 40th anniversaryof his moonwalk, he took that opportunity to compare himself to aparrot, “the only bird that could talk” but “didn’t fly very well,” and toconclude with a cryptic remark about “breakthroughs available to those who canremove one of truth’s protective layers.” God knows what he would say if he wasnow invited to speak for the 50th anniversary! Fortunately for the credibility of theApollo missions, he has now left the earth for good, and his story can now be told by Hollywood. Afterthat, Armstrong must have been ordered to keep away from interviews. But whenhe was allowed to make a last appearance on the the 40th anniversaryof his moonwalk, he took that opportunity to compare himself to aparrot, “the only bird that could talk” but “didn’t fly very well,” and toconclude with a cryptic remark about “breakthroughs available to those who canremove one of truth’s protective layers.” God knows what he would say if he wasnow invited to speak for the 50th anniversary! Fortunately for the credibility of theApollo missions, he has now left the earth for good, and his story can now be told by Hollywood.


Fasten your Van Allen Belt


We set out to find out if thereis any proof that the moon landings were real. We have not found any. Instead,we have found evidence that they were not real. But in fact, it was hardlynecessary: NASA engineers themselves tell us they are impossible, for thesimple reason that the astronauts would have to travel through the Van Allen Radiation Belt, which would kill them,and damage the electronic equipment as well. Listen, in the 10-minute videobelow, to astrophysicists and astronauts inadvertently admitting that thetechnology to send men beyond lower earth orbit is not yet available.

我们开始寻找是否有任何证据证明登月是真实的。我们还没有找到。相反,我们发现了证据,证明它们不是真的。但事实上,这几乎没有必要: NASA的工程师们自己告诉我们,这是不可能的,原因很简单,宇航员必须穿越范艾伦辐射带,这将杀死他们,并损坏电子设备。请听下面这段10分钟的视频(略),天体物理学家和宇航员无意中承认,目前还没有将人类送到地球较低轨道之外的技术。

Thatmay be the reason why, since the presidency of Tricky Dick, no manned missionto the moon, or even beyond low earth orbit, has ever been attempted. Remember,the International Space Station is orbiting at a distance of 250 miles from theearth, whereas the moon is about 237,000 miles away. On January 14, 2004,President George W. Bush, speaking at NASA headquarters, announced a newendeavor to “gain a new foothold on the moon” and beyond, remarking: “In thepast 30 years, no human being has set foot on another world, or venturedfarther into space than 386 miles—roughly the distance from Washington D.C. toBoston, Massachusetts” (quoted in Wisnewski 329). No manned mission to the mooncame out of this announcement.

这也许就是为什么,自从狡猾的迪克担任总统以来,从未有人尝试过载人登月,甚至是在近地轨道之外。记住,国际空间站在距离地球250英里的轨道上运行,而月球在237,000英里之外。2004年1月14日,美国总统乔治·w·布什在NASA总部宣布了一项新的努力,“在月球上获得新的立足点”,并表示: “在过去的30年里,没有人踏足过另一个世界,也没有人冒险进入太空的距离超过386英里——大致相当于从华盛顿特区到马萨诸塞州波士顿的距离”(引自Wisnewski 329页)。没有任何载人登月计划是由这一宣布产生的。

Time is working to theadvantage of the moon hoax theorists, for every year that passes makes peoplewonder: “If it was so easy to send a man to the moon between 1969 and 1972, whyhas it not been done again ever since?” Less that half of the British andRussians still believe in the moon landings. Among the educated, thispercentage is falling fast. What will happen in twenty years, when Americansrealize hardly anybody but them believes it? Will the United States of Americasurvive the exposure of this giant hoax?