Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake?

According to DARK SIDE OF THE MOON, the most important film of its kind since Oliver Stone's JFK - or since Rob Reiner's This is Spinal Tap, at any rate - images of Neil Armstrong's walk on the moon on July 20, 1969 were shown to the world through the lens of master film-maker Stanley Kubrick and were staged on the same Borehamwood, U.K., soundstage where Kubrick made his landmark film, 2001: A Space Odyssey.


Thursday, July 13, 2006: The original high-quality video tapes of Apollo 11, which were apparently sent by NASA to the National Archives and then were returned to the Goddard Space Flight Center, have gone missing (see the pdf by John M. Sarkissian).  The quality of the video broadcast to the world on television was of much, much lower quality than the video originally received – or manufactured! - by NASA.  Obviously, if you were going to fake the moon landing, you might have a motive to ‘lose’ the high-quality tapes, where artifacts of faking could be seen.  This was by far the biggest moment in the American space program.  You’d think they would care about hanging on to the evidence.

Motives

Several motives have been suggested for the U.S. government to fake the moon landings - some of the recurrent elements are:

1. Distraction - The U.S. government benefited from a popular distraction to take attention away from the Vietnam war. Lunar activities did abruptly stop, with planned missions cancelled, around the same time that the US ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.
2. Cold War Prestige - The U.S. government considered it vital that the U.S. win the space race with the USSR. Going to the Moon, if it was possible, would have been risky and expensive. It would have been much easier to fake the landing, thereby ensuring success.
3. Money - NASA raised approximately 30 billion dollars pretending to go to the moon. This could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity. In variations of this theory, the space industry is characterized as a political economy, much like the military industrial complex, creating fertile ground for its own survival.
4. Risk - The available technology at the time was such that there was a good chance that the landing might fail if genuinely attempted.

The Soviets, with their own competing moon program and an intense economic and political and military rivalry with the USA, could be expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to fake a Moon landing. Theorist Ralph Rene responds that shortly after the alleged Moon landings, the USA silently started shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR. He views this as evidence of a cover-up, the grain being the price of silence. (The Soviet Union in fact had its own Moon program).Proponents of the Apollo hoax suggest that the Soviet Union, and latterly Russia, and the United States were allied in the exploration of space, during the Cold war and after. The United States and the former Soviet Union today routinely engage in cooperative space ventures, as do many other nations that are popularly believed to be enemies. However, this suggestion is challenged by the impression of intense international competition that was under way during the Cold War and is not supported by the accounts of participants on either side of the Iron Curtain. Many argue that the fact that the Soviet Union and other Communist bloc countries, eager to discredit the United States, have not produced any contrary evidence to be the single most significant argument against such a hoax. Soviet involvement might also implausibly multiply the scale of the conspiracy, to include hundreds of thousands of conspirators of uncertain loyalty. http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations


For Complete Info visit: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm