BILL KAYSING WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON PDF

adminComment(0)
    Contents:

We Never Went To The Moon By Bill Kaysing Randy Reid Online. Book Details: Language: English Published Original Language Unknown, Isbn: An important book putting on record the challenge to the official narrative of the moon missions. The contention is that the manned moon landings of the Apollo. We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle Paperback – July 20, : The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth. The NASA Conspiracies: The Truth Behind the Moon Landings, Censored.


Bill Kaysing We Never Went To The Moon Pdf

Author:CHANA BUEGLER
Language:English, Japanese, French
Country:Bahamas
Genre:Personal Growth
Pages:699
Published (Last):02.07.2016
ISBN:901-8-40118-701-1
ePub File Size:25.65 MB
PDF File Size:17.47 MB
Distribution:Free* [*Registration needed]
Downloads:46367
Uploaded by: MAIRE

WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON. By. Bill Kaysing $ Randy Reid. Health Research. P.O. Box Pomeroy, WA ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON. By. Bill Kaysing & Randy Reid. Health Research. P.O. Box Pomeroy, WA ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. William Charles Kaysing (July 31, – April 21, ) was a German American writer best Kaysing wrote a book titled We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar .. Create a book · Download as PDF · Printable version.

The mockumentary was released in as Houston, We Have a Problem! Following is just a sample of the kind of "evidence" and misinterpretations that are used to prop up the various conspiracy theories. However, none of it stands up to scrutiny. Suppression[ edit ] It is reported that Bill Kaysing, whose book started the madness, was originally requested by his publishers to write his book as a satire , but he somehow "lost the plot" and became convinced of the truth.

Kaysing then self-published both the book and the letter, creating a false Streisand effect. Stars[ edit ] Proponents of the hoax theory insist that there are no stars visible in any of the footage or photographs taken on the moon.

This is very true. Take any image at night and you'll very rarely see stars in the sky. This is because stars are faint things, which is the very reason you can't see them during the day. It takes the human eye a good few minutes to an hour to adjust to seeing all the stars in the sky, even on a clear night with little light pollution, because the rhodopsin in our retinal photoreceptors needs time to unbleach the widening of our irises is a secondary contributor, but occurs quickly compared to unbleaching.

Cameras have the same issue; they expose their shots for a certain length of time and with a certain iris size aperture. During the day, when it's nice and bright, exposure can be short and the aperture small.

But at night the exposure must be long, or the aperture large. To see stars effectively, exposure times for the average camera need to be on the order of seconds indeed, so long that even the shortest exposures can reveal motion in the stars [note 5] , which is hardly conducive to video footage. Alternatively, the aperture can be increased to let more light into the exposure.

This could work for the video, but it would overexpose the rest of the footage — turning astronauts and the lunar surface into one big bright white blob of nothing, along with reducing the depth of field and requiring a larger camera. Lacking any nice HDR technology, the cameras used could see the astronauts nice and clearly, but not the stars. Consider that, on a clear night with a full moon, it reflects enough sunlight for a person on Earth to see their shadow [note 6] and to be able to read.

Imagine how bright it is on the surface! This isn't just a handwave to explain the moon landing photos; the exposure problem for observing stars exists on Earth and is easily demonstrable. The C rock[ edit ] One image purports to show the letter "C" on a rock, [15] but it's rather obviously a fiber on somebody's scanner glass. Conspiracy theorists say that this is a label for a prop piece and that the letter indicates which position it goes in for the shot.

There are numerous problems with this, not least of which is the fact that the "letter" is clearly a case of pareidolia.

Secondly, this is not seen anywhere else in any of the moon footage or photos. If NASA was careless enough to put a prop the wrong way up, you'd expect it to be visible on most rocks, or the moon buggy, or the lander itself.

Third, and most importantly, no one in film or television labels their set pieces like this precisely because such labels might be seen if the director picks a new angle to shoot from. Lunar paparazzi[ edit ] Alan Bean, Apollo Note the camera attached to his chest. The guy reflected in his visor is "Pete" Conrad. If you look carefully in the reflection of Buzz Aldrin's visor , it is possible to see Neil Armstrong taking the photo He isn't holding up a camera, so how could he be taking the picture?

It must be fake! One would expect that, if it were fake, the visor would be reflecting a full film crew complete with their cameras. Of course, the simpler explanation is to look at the cameras used on the Apollo missions. Unlike technology we use down on Earth, NASA's equipment has to be specialized for use in space and for operation while wearing a space suit.

So holding up a compact camera, peering through the viewfinder and snapping away like you're on a holiday just isn't a sensible option. The cameras used were attached to the chest of the suit, [16] as can be seen in that very photo of Aldrin. Despite the restricted ability to aim the cameras shooting from the hip, as it were , it's still possible to take very good images, particularly once they had been selected, processed and cleaned up.

This explains why we keep repeatedly seeing the same few "great shots" despite there being several thousand photos taken on the moon. Another argument used by hoax supporters is that the pictures are simply too good, indicating that they were taken by professional photographers, and not just some test pilots galloping around the Moon.

But one must remember that these were no holiday snaps; NASA equipped their astronauts from the beginning with the finest cameras available, generally 70mm Hasselblads much larger film frame than a standard 35mm SLR, hence much greater detail , modified for semi-automatic operation with shot film magazines and further optimized for the lunar environment--and again, enough photos were taken that NASA could pick and choose the best ones to publicize.

With the EVAs on the Moon lasting minutes and photos taken, some people seem incredulous that the astronauts managed to do anything but take photos during their time on the lunar surface. Next, ask any professional photographer and they'll tell you that if you get under images from nearly minutes of their time you need to fire your photographer and get a new one.

Really, this is beyond silly. On the moon. The video of the Apollo 17 lunar module taking off technically, only the ascent stage takes off often puzzles people, because the camera tilts up to follow it in flight, implying that someone was there operating the camera, much to the delight of conspiracy nuts.

In reality, the lunar rover had a television camera, the Ground-Commanded Television Assembly GCTA , and it could receive remote control commands from an operator on Earth, which were used to shoot the launch.

There are other examples of the GCTA panning and zooming "on its own" when both astronauts are in the frame, away from its controls. It was also used to look around the landing site after the ascent stage has departed MPEG video.

Another common twist of the claim is that the camera movement in the video appears to have "perfect timing," following the module closely despite the signal delay between the Earth and the Moon. This is easily explained: the take-off time was known in advance and the operators were able to plan ahead, taking into account the signal delay, the camera tilt speed and the angular velocity of the ascent stage. In addition to that, the Apollo 17 clip was the third and final try: the first mission to carry the Lunar Rover and the GCTA was Apollo 15, but the camera broke and couldn't tilt up, so it captured only the moment of the launch video ; on Apollo 16 the camera worked correctly, but the lunar module flew out of the frame due to a miscalculation the astronauts had parked the lunar rover on the wrong spot.

The camera system operator, Ed Fendell, became briefly famous among space buffs because of his spectacular last-chance success. Shadows[ edit ] Holy crap, this picture must be faked! In some shots, astronaut shadows appear to be cast in different directions. Conspiracy buffs with little-to-zero understanding of how light works claim that this is proof of two light sources; if they were really on the moon there would only be one light source, the sun.

However, anyone with even a vague knowledge of reality knows that multiple light sources create multiple shadows for each object and yet do not create one shadow that points in a different direction. The different orientations of the shadows are due to uneven ground and perspective illusions. This was the first in a series of refutations by MythBusters.

In some images, the crosshairs appear behind parts of the image. However, careful examination of this shows that only very bright white areas seem to cover the crosshairs. In fact, higher-quality scans of the same photos, which involved better processing techniques, showed the crosshairs intact.

The flag[ edit ] The US flags planted during the Moon landings visibly shake while being handled.

This is claimed to be evidence of wind, and therefore proof that it was filmed on Earth on a soundstage, rather than in the vacuum of space. In fact, and very counter-intuitively, the vacuum of space is exactly why you can see it wave the way it does. When surrounded by air, the flag would be subject to air resistance, and so, while it would flap in a strong wind, it would also settle down very quickly as the air buffers against its motion.

In space, where there is no air to prevent this, any slight movement of the flag will continue until the friction of the material alone slows it down. The motion comes not from any wind, but from their movements while positioning it. This gives the material a large kick of kinetic energy and, very importantly, there is no air resistance to slow it down. When on its own and not touched for a significant portion of time it doesn't move, as expected. This is seen with most flapping material on the Moon footage, which is often cited as proof of a forgery, but in each case the material is reacting exactly how one would expect it to react in a near vacuum and with a fraction of the Earth's gravity.

Oh, and if it was filmed on a soundstage, why would there be wind? This shows the exact behaviour of the material seen on the moon footage. There is also a slight bit of common sense at play here because we're used to living in a 1 atm environment, where flags move because some wind is blowing them about.

No one, in their everyday lives at least, sees material waving in a vacuum without the air resistance, so we don't have any experience to compare the moon footage to.

Moon landing hoax

So when the flag is seen moving in any way, it's attributed to the presence of air, not the lack of it, as is the case when the motion is examined more closely. Besides, the flags in the Moon footage clearly show the top of the flag is held up by a boom coming off the flagpole; the top of the flag is pulled nearly taut, while the rest shakes back and forth as it moves due to the astronauts' handling.

The flag material below the boom does have a "waving" look to it because it's a fairly stiff material that never smoothed out completely when the astronauts unpackaged it. If you look closely when the flag is moving around, the "rippling" of the flag doesn't really move, as it would if it were flapping in a wind.

Van Allen belts[ edit ] A common argument against the landings is the areas of radiation surrounding the Earth, originating from solar wind trapped by Earth's magnetic field. Many people claim that it is impossible to pass through these areas alive, and hence there is no way anyone could have reached the moon. One flaw with this reasoning is the sort of radiation found in the Van Allen belts.

They are comprised solely of charged particles originating from the Sun's corona, primarily protons, electrons and alpha particles helium nuclei.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These are trivially easy to shield against; alpha particles can be stopped by a sheet of paper, and electrons beta particles by a few millimetres of aluminium. Gamma radiation is not so easy to stop, but it is notably absent from the Van Allen belts. Additionally, despite the energy of the particles, there are very few of them.

But the main issue is that the belts are not completely enclosed shells. During the Apollo missions, the astronauts completely missed the inner belts and went through thinner parts of the outer belts at high speed to minimise exposure.

There were also many people around the world working peripherally on the project, e.

Anyone who came forward to demonstrate it was a hoax would have become famous. And yet none have. The Moon landings took place at the height of the Cold War, and transmissions came from the surface of the Moon. These were picked up all over the world, including by the Soviet Union, the party that had the greatest interest in exposing a hoax.

It's easy to tell which direction a radio transmission is coming from; had NASA faked it, the Soviets would have pissed themselves laughing and told felt it their grave historical mission to inform the whole world.

In an effort to counter this rather gaping hole in the conspiracy theory, hoax believers claim that the Soviets were bribed in secret with large grain shipments.

It is especially difficult to believe that the information would have remained secret after the collapse of the Soviet Union—particularly since post-Soviet Russia publicized the secrets of its own lunar program. Grain shipments were stopped in and yet the Soviets still kept silent about the Moon landings, even though it would have been a massive propaganda coup. It would seem patently absurd to secretly prop the Soviet Union up with vast amounts of free grain while at the same time spending even more money on a faked moonshot to publicly humiliate the same entity.

The Soviets were not the only other nation which picked up the signals.

Bill Kaysing

Direct evidence[ edit ] "Protons, neutrons, I ate a rock from the moon These samples resemble those brought back by Soviet unmanned missions and do not resemble anything on Earth. Many international scientists have spent their entire careers studying the stuff. The absence of stars in lunar surface photographs. He claimed that the rocket engines of the Lunar Modules should have generated an enormous dust cloud near their landing sites the final seconds of descent.

The Dutch papers had questions regarding the "authenticity" of the Moon landings. He suggested that NASA might have learned that these astronauts were about to expose the conspiracy and needed to guarantee their silence. A vocal advocate of conspiracy theories , Kaysing believed there is a high-level conspiracy involving the Central Intelligence Agency , Federal Reserve , Internal Revenue Service and other government agencies to brainwash the American public, poison their food supply and control the media.

His position makes me feel angry. We spent a lot of time getting ready to go to the Moon. We spent a lot of money, we took great risks, and it's something everybody in this country should be proud of. The case was dismissed in Since the Rocketdyne F-1 engines in the first stage of the Saturn V rocket were "totally unreliable," a cluster of "five booster engines of the more dependable B-1 type as used in the C-1 cluster for the Atlas missile" [16] were secretly installed, one inside each of the Saturn V's five F-1s.

The five smaller rocket engines together would produce only one-half the thrust of a single F The public see the astronauts enter the Apollo spacecraft, but then they disembark before liftoff via a high-speed elevator to a duplicate of the spacecraft. During this transition period, television coverage is "lost accidentally.

You might also like: TOUCHING THE VOID EPUB

The second and third stages of the Saturn V are equipped with "mock" Rocketdyne J-2 engines. The third stage puts Apollo into a parking orbit. The astronauts are flown to a Moon set in Nevada , 80 miles from Las Vegas. Fake signals from Apollo are sent to tracking stations. The Apollo spacecraft is jettisoned into the south Polar Sea. The astronauts are comfortable in Nevada, free to wander about Las Vegas with showgirls , except for some check-ins with Mission Control.

They partake of the excellent buffet served on the 24th floor of the Sands Hotel and watch color television broadcasts from a private Telstar satellite. The astronauts fake the landing and moonwalk on the Moon set.

The simulated reentry of the Apollo Command Module is really a drop from a Lockheed C-5 Galaxy transport aircraft; the astronauts are flown to Hawaii , where they enter the Apollo Command Module, which is dropped out of sight of the recovery ship.The downward traveling exhaust stream would impact the ground and rebound mostly upward and away from the surface.

There's not much I can say here other than the accusation is a complete fabrication with no corroborating evidence whatsoever. The hoax advocates often become trapped into a single way of thinking.

Given the primitive nature of digital computers at the time, this scenario requires a vastly complicated "mission" to provide the real mission controllers with an overall set of data capable of precisely mimicking a lunar landing, such that experienced mission controllers would not notice any contradictions or gaps in the fake mission data. I've heard many hoax advocates claim that some of the Apollo photos show a fluttering flag. All have confirmed the content of this page to be factual, accurate, and truthful.

CHIQUITA from St. Paul
I do enjoy gleefully . Browse my other articles. One of my hobbies is nordic skating.
>