http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/1/prweb54467.php
It may be that both Americans and Russians never flew to the Moon. Because of a very simple thing: take-off after landing on the Moon (to return to the Earth). To take off, the spacecraft, both modern and of those times (60-70s), needs a carrier rocket weighing many hundreds of tons, hundreds of tons of fuel for it, and powerful space-vehicle launching site.
It may be that both Americans and Russians never flied to the Moon. Because of a very simple thing:
Take-off after landing on the Moon (to return to the Earth)
To take off, the spacecraft, both modern and of that time (60-70s), needs a carrier rocket weighing many hundreds of tons, hundreds of tons of fuel for it, and powerful space-vehicle launching site.
How to take all this with a spacecraft to be able to take off from the Moon after landing on it? The mid-rank carrier rocket Ariane-5, for example, weighs 750 tons (the rocket itself and the fuel), and the "lite" carrier rocket Dnepr-1 (created basing on the strategic intercontinental ballistic missile SS-18 Satan) weighs 211 tons. They develop the power of about 10-20mn KWt. We certainly can take in account that a rocket able to launch a spacecraft from the Moon should have the power of about 6 times less than here on the Earth (as the Moon gravitation is 6 times smaller), but even in this case the rocket would weigh about 750/6, i.e. about 125 tons minimum (the rocket and the fuel), plus the weight of details for deploying a temporary launching site. Even if the weight of these details equals to the minimum possible weight of about 50 tons, then the spacecraft should be able to take with itself a minimum weight of ~175 tons. No such spacecraft were developed before the flight to the Moon, none even close to that; today's most powerful spacecraft's weight carrying capabilities couldn't approach even the numbers thrice smaller than this (for example, one of the most modern Russian carrier rockets, Titan-4, which is approximately equal to Space Shuttle carrier rocket by its parameters, is able to carry only about 17.5 tons of weight). The official story of American flights to the Moon -- about Russian flights see below -- says that larger command module rocket "Columbia" remained in lunar orbit while the lunar module "Eagle" separated and descended with firing retro rockets to the lunar surface. The astronauts exited "Eagle" to take pictures and recover lunar material from the surface. They then returned to the lunar lander module to return back to the "Columbia" command module. The "Columbia" broke out of lunar orbit to go back to Earth and splash down with parachutes.
"Eagle" weighed about 16 tons, or about 5,500 pounds if we mean lunar gravity. To launch satellite of such a mass, at least Ariane-5 class rocket is needed. But if even it is Dnepr-1 class rocket then the mass of rocket for launching 5,500 pound "Eagle" from the Moon would be about 35 tons (211/6). Before launching "Eagle" from the Moon such a 35-ton rocket itself needs to be delivered to the Moon. See above about delivering capacities even of modern spacecraft. Plus launching satellites even of this mass, requires deploying a launching site. How was it deployed on the Moon?
If even we suppose that several carrier rockets like "Columbia" could deliver all this to the Moon in several lunar modules "Eagles" (seems this should have been a very hard task for such modules to land on the Moon since the Moon has no atmosphere, which diminishes the speed of similar modules when these land on the Earth), then how was for example the Lunar launching site deployed? On-site by astronauts in spacesuits? And why was all this praiseworthy process, or at least its part, not shown on the photos or on the videos? Where are photographs of such a praiseworthy achievement like Lunar launching site? And if somehow no launching site construction was still required to take off from the Moon, why are there no photographs or videos of the spacecraft taking off from it? Wasn't it impossible to take photograph/videos of the spacecraft taking off from the Moon, from "Columbia" rocket? If this was a hard technical task in those times, then why weren't at least preparations for this takeoff photoed or videoed, by astronauts on-site? Did the NASA astronauts return to "Columbia", "which remained in lunar orbit", using the rope that was hanging out of it? And where are Russian photographs and videos dedicated to their "Lunar takeoff" preparations?
Unless we assume that already at that time NASA could build an antigravitation craft -- also referred to as antigrav, starcraft, starship, and flying saucer -- for which all the described obstacles just don't exist. (Such a device is not necessarily able to fly to stars, this depends on its capacities, i.e. it is its construction that determines whether it will be able to fly to stars or only to Sun system's planets or planet satellites. Antigrav means only that the device uses antigravitation for flying -- not wings, rotors etc. Its velocity can vary from 10 meters per second to overlight speeds, this depends on what its capacities are.) This seems more reasonable, taking in account that the American flag and a plaque with inscriptions on it next to the flag are reported, by many persons who visit observatories, to be clearly seen on the Moon surface. But this means NASA had antigravs already in those remote times, and that it has them now... Or did they borrow it from an extraterrestrial civilization (Zetas Reticuli, hominoids from Orion, or maybe those who mutilate cattle)? One detail maybe directly advise us that this might have taken place: one of astronauts, during the first flight that was translated by television, was talking directly on the air that he was seeing giant artificial objects. Perhaps the aliens put such a condition for the lease of their craft: to tell directly on the air something that would evidently show the listeners that the astronauts met craft of another civilization? This may be confirmed by the following fact: just several years later the American Congress gathered to acknowledge the existence of extraterrestrials in a special report.
The NASA photo below, with its absolutely impossible (for the lunar landscape) shadows -- like if they were made with the use of different projectors shining at different angles -- can be an additional proof of all told above. Maybe NASA, let's say, "feels ashamed" for the mystification, and therefore provided such photos as hidden hints? Or, more probably, did they provide contradictory materials to entangle all this more and more?
[Photo insert]
Or maybe NASA astronauts still visited the Moon (in the antigrav) and videoed/photoed all what is claimed to be lunar videos and photos, but these got of such a poor quality due to some details of lunar atmosphere and climate that NASA decided to order new "better looking" videos/photos to Hollywood? Then we understand why there are such errors in them...
We think Russians, shocked by such a "challenge" from NASA, in turn invented their own "success story" about "flying to the Moon" and "taking samples of lunar rocks" by their "unmanned" "Lunohods". Or did Russians also create antigravs or receive them from another civilization?
*Note: this press-release (article) is in plain text format, which doesn't allow insertion of photographs. To receive an MS Word version of this article, please contact the author at the address above.
Linear Mode
