Speaker 1: You're listening to the Paranormal UK Radio Network, the best
in paranormal talk radio in the UK and around the world.
Speaker 2: Right before we get into Apollo, we need to get
into Nexus Magazine. I published the UK edition of Nexus
Magazine comes from Australia and as I say, there are
two types of people in the world, those who read
Nexus and those who are about to This is the CoA.
Speaker 1: In this episode of The Paranormal Peep Show, we pay
tribute to Marcus Allen, who recently passed away in January
twenty twenty six. Marcus was the UK publisher of Nexus
Magazine as well as a speaker on the Apollo hoax theory,
and I first met him in twenty eighteen at one
of Ben Ending Jones's conferences. It was soon after that
that I invited Marcus to come onto The Paranormal Peep
Show to tell us more about the Apollo hoax theory,
and he gave a splendid demonstration of all the problems
associated with the NASA project of the nineteen sixties and seventies,
of how the shadows didn't align up correctly, other technical
aspects of the Apollo missions, and both Andy and I
were enthralled to listen to him explain all this in detail,
and we went on to record a second show with him,
and then went on to produce early episodes of The
Apollo Detectives, where he contributed greatly to those shows throughout.
And it's a sad loss now to the world of
the alternative views and paranormal and the Apollo Hoax theorists
that we've now lost sadly Marcus. So please listen to
this show that we recorded a few years back, about
seven years ago, where Marcus first came on to our
program to discuss our Apollo hoax theory with us. But
please enjoy this program as a tribute to the memory
of Marcus Allen, who passed away in January twenty twenty six.
Speaker 3: Hello and welcome to the Paranormal Peep Show. My name's
Andy Chaplin and I'm sitting here with co host Neil
Getty's Ward. Neil, how have you been.
Speaker 1: Hello, Andy, I have been fine. I've been very very busy,
always busy. I'm trying to work out how to make
DVDs for someone's birthday party that I've filmed back in June.
It's taken me this long to kind of do the
edit and that kind of thing, and also painting and
working and doing lots of research as usual into the
paranormal and things that are not quite so paranormal, like
conspiracy theories and things like that.
Speaker 3: What about you, Yeah, basically sweltering, So for anyone in America,
you guys normally have the hot weather, but in our
case we've actually got the hot weather as well. We've
had about two months of it so far. And I
went down to Gloucester and had a weekend in the
log cabin with a hot tub and some friends and yeah,
that was very enjoyable. Did canoeing for the first time
nine miles down the river y, which was quite quite
a stretch, I have to say, but very enjoyable and
slightly precarious. Didn't fall in, but did ground the boat
a couple of times. We had to get out and
the boat off the rocks, So that was quite fun.
Speaker 1: It sounds like The Deer Hunter and all those kind
of films where you sort of get chased by a
mad xmen in the woods and things like that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Deer Hunter without the Vietcong just kind of yeah.
Speaker 1: So you obviously had a good few of the night
sky presum.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, we had a sitting in the hot tub
in the in the forest, just looking up at the
stars and the moon and enjoying the sights.
Speaker 4: So yeah, that's pretty good.
Speaker 1: And any satellites and spaceships and UFO's fly over night.
Speaker 3: I don't think there were, although some of my friends
were acting rather strange. It could have been an alien induction,
or it could have been some of the drink.
Speaker 4: Hard to tell something.
Speaker 1: So no little Apollo capsules going around in orbit.
Speaker 3: Then no, not as yet, Not as yet. However, our
next guest might be able to help us with that,
because our next guest is somebody who I've been interested
in way way back since probably the early nineties, and
somebody who I've probably viewed almost all of his videos.
I hold him in quite high regard, and he's probably
one of the granddaddy's of conspiracy. Really, I mean, the
top conspiracies in the world would be I would say
the JFK assassination, the moon landings, maybe nine to eleven.
Speaker 4: Those are probably the top three.
Speaker 3: And we have got none other than Marcus Allen, probably
the UK's top moon hoax researcher, if you prefer that title.
Speaker 4: I don't know, Marcus. Welcome to the show.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Indeed, I rarely appreciate the invitation
to appear on your show because it is a credible
examination of as you said, one of the top three
alleged conspiracy theories of the twentieth century twenty first century.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and it's probably one of the most kind of
like talked about conspiracies. Whenever there's whenever I get into
a debate, Marcus, where something could be a little bit
woo woo, a little bit kind of strange, people talk
about grab your tin four hat. Well, I suppose you
don't even believe that we landed on the moon type
of thing. So this kind of like moon landings hoax
or conspiracy is pretty much up there.
Speaker 4: You know, is the one to talk about, really, isn't it.
Speaker 2: Oh, it's definitely one of the one to talk about.
In fact, it was probably the jfk assassination, and the
suppression of the information has eventually led to the most
likely identification of the perpetrators of that crime that has
generated the cover up behind the Apollo moon landings. Because
they practiced with Kennedy and perfected it with Apollo. Because
Apollo was only a few years after the JFK assassination,
which was November ninety sixty three. Anybody under the age
of about fifty will think this is all very history
and something which maybe doesn't apply to them. But listen up, guys,
it applies to you because the same techniques are being
used in the twenty first century as were proven so
successfully to have worked in the twentieth century. So it
may be history in the events, but what is not
history are the techniques used to perpetrate it.
Speaker 3: So essentially, I mean they if they did hoax it,
then it's an ongoing lie. It's an ongoing hoax because
you can't sort of go, oh, actually, yeah that was
a hoax. But now telling you the truth, it's going
to be an ongoing lie if indeed that is the case.
Speaker 2: Yeah it is. And there are many people who will
look rather askance at yourself. You know, if you said
you mentioned this, and people look a bit of scance
at you. How can you believe something we all saw
it on television' This is how can you not believe
something you've seen on television? Well, come on, you know,
I've seen eighty foot gorillas climb the Empire State Building?
Was that real at Mark Marcus?
Speaker 3: I remember I remember seeing you, I think, first of all,
way back in the in the probably the mid nineties,
on a show called for the Love of With I
think it was John Ronson, and I think actually Philip
Cansella might have been on that as well.
Speaker 4: Neil, do you remember the show was.
Speaker 1: On a Channel four show, and I think it was
John Ronson. Whether it was a title that I don't know.
Speaker 3: But whether it was The moon Landings, I'm not sure,
but I think Philip was certainly on a show.
Speaker 1: I think he was talking about UFOs on that particular
I was. I saw a clip of it somewhere on YouTube.
Speaker 2: Wasn't can seller on the show I was on? In fact,
I congratulate you on having seen that. That was actually
the first time I ever appeared on television. That was
back in nineteen ninety seven.
Speaker 4: Ninety seven.
Speaker 3: That's it that really piqued my interest because at the time,
I mean, I don't think anybody really, certainly not in
the mainstream, really questioned the moon Landings. I mean maybe
they might have. I certainly know that there were some
magazines and a Nomarcus that you're the is it the
editor of Nexus in the UK or the distributor of.
Speaker 2: I'm the publisher and distributor of Nexus Magazine UK, which
is the UK edition of Nexos magazine, which is actually
comes from Australia. The editor is Duncan Rhoades. He lives
and works in Australia. I just sell them distribute the
magazine throughout the UK and Europe.
Speaker 3: I see Marcus, just quickly tell us what next magazine
is and where people can get it.
Speaker 2: Nexus Magazine is the world's top selling alternative news magazine,
i e. Not fake news is It covers hidden history,
alternative health, where you get treatments that may well be successful.
It's probably best known for its alternative health articles. It
also covers politics, It covers conspiracies, It covers the unexplained.
It covers UFOs and everything associated with them. Because all
those subjects, hidden history, alternative health, future science, politics, conspiracies,
they're all tied together. If you understand how they interlink
with each other.
Speaker 4: They calls them joining the dots, doesn't they.
Speaker 2: It's basically joining the dots. Nexus Magazine's been published since
nineteen eighty seven. I've been involved with it and distributing
it in the UK since the mid nine nineties. Nineteen
ninety four, in fact, was when we first started, so
approaching twenty five years. People often ask, well, how do
we know what in Nexus is true? I say, you don't.
You have to find out. We're pretty sure that ninety
five percent of it is true. The trouble is we
don't know which ninety five percent. So read it. Determine
for yourself whether what we publish, and there are articles
you can always contact the authors of the articles. There
are people from around the world. We published articles from
the UK, from America, from Canada, from Brazil, from China,
from Russia, from Romania, from Bosnia. We've published articles from
people all over the world covering different subjects, and there
are subjects which are of great interest to people. Now,
the main advantage of Nexus Magazine, if I can just
continue this commercial we're having here on Nexus Magazine, is that, yes,
you can find all this information somewhere on the internet.
How long will it take you to find the good information,
the information which is relevant to what you're trying to find.
If you start with Nexus Magazine, you read the articles
and you say, hey, that's interesting. I'd like to follow
that one up at least you've got a point of start.
Speaker 4: And if people want it Nexus Magazine. Is there a
website that you could.
Speaker 2: If you want to buy the hard copy of Nexus Magazine,
which is always the best thing to read in the
bath computers don't like getting wet. You can go to
wh Smith major branches of wh Smith, the specialist bookshops
throughout the UK that sell it as well, Watkins Books
Mysteries Bookshop in London, Atlantis Bookshop in London, in Glastonbury
we sell it bath. It's sold. It's sold around the country.
If you go into any major newsagents so you want
to get Nexus magazine, they will get it in for
you if they don't already stock it. If you go
to Nexusmagazine dot com that is the website which is
actually run from Australia, but it will give you all
the information you need about subscribing, which is your best
way of obtaining Nexus, because you'll then get it sent
through to post to you every two months. We published
six issues per year. We far too much like hard
work to publish every month, though we have enough information
to publish every week, so it's a matter of selection
of the information excellent so as I say, there are
two types of people in the world, those who read
Nexus and those who are about to go and buy
you won't regret it.
Speaker 3: So, Marcus, let's rewind back to the late sixties and
the early seventies, and you're sitting there at home, you're
watching isn't it fantastic that the man has finally flown
and landed on the Moon. We've got the videos, we've
got the transmissions, we've got the live news broadcasts. At
what point, roughly what year did you begin to think
something was awry.
Speaker 2: It was actually a talk given in Glastonbury, which just
happened to be the center of the universe at the time.
This was the early nineteen nineties, right. It was a
talk about something completely different. It wasn't anything to do
with the moon landings. There were no people really out
there in the early nineteen nineties saying all these moon landings,
so I don't think they happened this talk, I would say,
I think it was to do with megalists or something
like that. But it was showing a lot of photographs,
and almost as an aside, the presenter said, of course,
you know those photographs of the moon landings, they're not real.
They weren't taken on the moon. I thought, what is
he talking about? Now? I was trained as a photographer
in London. I was technically trained to not so much
what to take, but how to take it, so I
understood the technical side of photography from the point of
view of a camera. Now again I have to say,
these are film cameras we're going to be talking about,
not digital cameras. Digital cameras record information very differently from
film cameras. A film, a photographic film is a piece
of emulsion, piece of plastic which has light sensitive chemicals
on them, which when light hits those chemicals they react
in certain ways. The film is then put through wet
chemicals to develop the film and to set the developed
film so that it doesn't fade or change the recording image.
And what you have then is a photograph. There are
two types of photographs. You can either have a reversal image,
which is what we would refer to as a transparency
it's a piece of clear film in effect with colored
immersion on it, which you can project onto a screen.
Or it's a negative film. Negative that's the thing most
people were familiar with, taking color negative films. Again, it's
processed through chemicals, wet chemicals, and you then put it
into an enlarger or a projector and you print the
photograph that you want, which will come out in the reverse.
Negative film produces a positive image. The transparency material is
already a positive image all the things. Now, that may
sound a bit technical, but it's necessary to understand that
what we're going to be looking at are photographs taken
with transparency material which have been projected to produce a
print image, which is what you see in newspapers, magazines,
and books. There's are print images. So what we're looking
at as a print image. Now, a photographic film has
certain limitations behind it. You may have heard that film
has a certain speed or sensitivity. ASA American Standards Association
or ISO International Standards Organization are the main way, and
you've probably seen the figures in a thirty two sixty
four hundred and twenty two hundred and four hundred VISA
standard film speeds and the higher the number, the more
sensitive the film. Digital images use similar type of terminology,
but they can go much higher. They can record much less,
much lower levels of light, so you can see in
a digital image something that you wouldn't necessarily be able
to see at all on a film image anyway. Having
trained as a photographer and I know the difference between
film and digital, I know what cameras can and can't do.
I know how whether that the type of lens that
a camera has will determine the quality of the image
it finally produces, because it can resolve much more detail
projecting onto a film. Obviously, the better the lens, the
more expensive it is. Now the cameras that we used
on Apollo I discovered were Hasselblad. Now Hasselblad seemed a
very strange choice of camera. Hasselblad is a very good camera,
there's no dispute about that at all. But is what's
called medium format Seventy milimeter film is used seventy milimeter
two and a quarter inch square, is the other way
of determining it. The cameras that most people would be
familiar with will be referred to as thirty five millimeter
cameras because the film wid is thirty five millimeters and
so you've got a much smaller area of film to
record the detail. So the medium format camera you can
get large cameras up to ten by eight inches which
I've used in studios situations. A Hassleblad camera is normally
used in a photographic studio. It is not a sort
of camera you would carry around to photograph, should we say, wartime,
you would use the thirty five meter camera because they're
much more portable, easy to use, easier to carry, they're
much less weight, they can be stored more easily. So
on Apollo they use the Hassleblad camera. And the hassele
Blad cameras are very very good cameras, no dispute about that.
The lenses are very good. Indeed, ironically the lenses for
the Hasseleblood camera which was supplied by Victor Hasselblad, which
is a company in Sweden based in Stockholm where they
still make cameras today. They're very very very good and
very expensive cameras. They're still made today. More or less
they look the same now as they did fifty years ago.
It's extraordinary they got the design right first time out the.
Speaker 4: Market essentially saying that they're odd cameras to use. Is
it the weight? Is there more to it than that?
Speaker 3: Why would they be more suitable to a studio as
opposed to you know, as you say, like war photography
or something like that.
Speaker 2: Right, if you're going to be prancing around on the
lunar surface, as we're told these guys were, they would
need to because they had very severe limitations of use.
They had to attach the cameras to their spacesuits so
they could keep their arms free to salute the flag
and talk to the president and pick up the rocks,
which is logical, but it would be more sensible to
have because of weight. Don't forget that all the stories
we heard about the weight of everything on Apollo was
very important and they had to be as light as possible.
They're carrying heavy cameras with heavy lenses, where they could
have carried much lighter cameras with much lighter lenses to
produce the same result if they'd carried Nikon thirty five
cannon thirty five millimeter cameras. However, they used Hasselblad, and
they used large magazines which carried films which could be
exposed to over two hundred images per role of magazine.
They were using lenses which had polarizing filters attached to them.
What a polarizing filter on the moon? Now, all right,
that may sound Okay, most people will say, well, it
makes sense why not have a polarizing filter because you'll
get better images as a result of it. You won't
get the glare that you would you use a polarizing
filter to eliminate. But you have to use a viewfinder
to use a polarizing filter. These cameras didn't have a viewfinder.
Speaker 3: Explain why you would need a viewfinder for using a
polarized filter. And just for people who might not know
what a polarizing filter actually does, what it is and does.
Speaker 2: A polarizing filter will allow certain frequency of light to
come through from a certain direction. When you look at,
say a road surface, with the sun straight ahead of you,
you'll get reflections off that road surface. Yes, if you
want to eliminate those reflections, because those reflections are reflected
or fit in a certain certain angles, you use a
polarizing filter to eliminate them. Because the polarizing filter will
eliminate certain frequencies of light in certain directions. Now that
that does produce very what's called saturated images. You use
it to enhance the blue of the sky. If you've
heard of using it here on Earth, they're quite well.
They wanted to use a polarizing filter on the Moon.
I'm not quite sure, because there was no blue sky
to photograph, obviously, because there's no atmosphere to create the
blue sky in the first place, because blue is at
the longer wavelength of light, and that's why we see
blue sky rather than red sky. You get red sky
where the frequency of light is higher. In anyway, let's
not get into the detail of that. But in order
to operate a polarizing filter, which you twists, it is
a circular lens and it moves in a circular direction,
and normally you would use you would look through the
viewfinder while you were while you were operating the polarizing
filter to ensure that you've got the angles right. You
can't see them with the naked eye. You use the
polarizing filter for it. So I use polarized sunglasses to
eliminate the glare certain glare. Anyway, they took the viewfinder away.
Speaker 4: So basically they're guessing and hoping for the best.
Speaker 2: They're hoping for the best. In fact, there is no
film I've ever found, and no reference to it that
I've ever found, that anybody on the alleged lunar surface
ever used a polarizing filter, because it'd be quite obvious
if they were using it, because they'd be talking about it,
and you could see the hand moving the lens on
the front of the camera, which is not shown on
the front of any camera that is taken up on
any of the astronauts that were on the Moon. But
the key point is there was no viewfinder in these cameras,
none of them, and the reason for that was very simple.
The viewfinder on a Hassleblad camera is on the top
of the camera. You look down into it. It's a
single enjur reflex, so you're looking through the lens on
the camera, whatever lens you happen to use. There are
various lenses you can use. On a Hassle Black camera,
you look through the lens. Most people are familiar with
a single ensuryflex camera. You look through the lens at
what the picture is you want to take. If you
use the likea is the other camera which has a
rangefinder viewfinder, it's you're looking through the lens. You're looking
through a separate image, a separate smaller lens to the
side of the lens through which the image will be
taken anyway on the hasslebag cameras. They were looking through
the lens. But because they couldn't get their head down
in their spacesuits to look through the lens, NASA and
their wisdom said, well, let's take the lens away. Now,
they take the viewfinder away. The viewfinder, in effect, is
a mirror which the light coming through the lens is
reflected up into the eyepiece, which is what you look
at when you're looking through a viewfinder. So they took
the mirror away because when you normally you take a
photograph and you hear a click, and that's normally the
mirror going up out of the way, so that the
light instead of going onto the mirror, goes onto the film,
which is directly behind the mirror, and its recorded on
the film. But if you didn't have a viewfinder, you
wouldn't have a click. So there's no means of knowing
if you'd actually taken a photograph. Oh, you say, well,
there's be a counter on the camera. Yes, there is.
They're very very small. It's about half an inch in diameter.
If that on the side of the camera, which can't
be seen from inside of a spacesuit either, Well, obviously
you just pressed the shutter button. Well, you can't see
the shutter button from inside the spacesuit either. So with
all these limitations of use, you're wearing a spacesuit which
has armored gauntlets because of the micrometeorite damage which you
could have. It's pressurized four point eight pounds per square
inch pressure because there's the vacuum of space, you know,
you have humans have to take their own pressure otherwise
we'll get the bends.
Speaker 3: And I also would have thought, Marcus, if a space
suit was pressurized, wouldn't it become too rigid to actually
move in?
Speaker 2: Of course it would, of course it would.
Speaker 3: Because you know, if it's if it's pressurized to kind
of like deal with something like the moon surface, you
wouldn't even be able to bend your arms, surely.
Speaker 2: I mean it's not, of course you can't. I mean,
you know, these are the questions which start getting asked.
I mean, that's a perfectly valid question which has never
ever been answered.
Speaker 4: How hot? How hot is the surface of the Moon
with sunlight hitting it?
Speaker 2: If you're in sunlight two hundred and fifty degrees fahrenheit
one hundred and twenty degrees centigrade.
Speaker 4: And it takes one hundred degrees to boil a kettle.
Speaker 2: Doesn't it one hundred degrees to boil a kettle?
Speaker 3: So they're going way over boiling temperature.
Speaker 2: Yes. No, there's one point which I think we need
to clarify right now, because certain supporters of the NASA
fantasy will say, oh, they landed early in the lunar morning,
so that it wasn't very hot. Life guys, do your science,
all right. What they're saying is that in the same
way on Earth at dawn it is much cooler than
it would be at say, lunchtime. I mean recent weather
in the UK and probably all over the world. Most
people will be familiar with the fact that it's cooler
in the morning than it is at lunchtime, and that
is because the sun rising shining through the Earth's atmosphere,
the power of the sun is reduced compared to the
equivalent sun overhead on Earth. On the Moon, there's no atmosphere.
As the sun rises above the horizon of the Moon,
wherever it happens to be, sunlight hitting any object will
heat that object immediately.
Speaker 3: So it's more of a binary thing, isn't it. Whereas
we've got kind of like us, as you could call
it analogue sunlight.
Speaker 4: The moon has got bind it's either on or it's off.
It's like it's cold, it's off.
Speaker 2: Now, there is some very interesting proof of that, this
idea that as a spacecraft allegedly sat on the lunar
surface early in the lunar morning, which was correct, and
the reason for that was so that the sun would
cast definitive shadows so that they would show up well
in the photographs, rather than having the sun overhead at
midday on the Moon, which is actually about six or
seven days after it, because the moon takes thirteen days
for one day of light on the Moon. So what
you've got is the sun coming over the surface immediately
heats any object it hits to its full temperature. I
mentioned the proof of that, I said, the proof of
this is when the first astronaut were operating on the
original space station and not Mere it was the one
that followed that before the International Space Station, and the
astronauts were creating it, and they were working out of
the Space Shuttle which was there, and they complained about
how cold their hands got when they were in the
shadow of the Earth. Because if you're in the space
station you spend half your time in the shadow of
the Earth. Well, it varies depending on the orbit angles,
but about say, let's say half your time is spent
in the shadow of the Earth. When they were trying
to work in the shadow of the Earth, they said
their hands got so cold they couldn't feel them. As
I said, let me say, stupid, it can't be that
cold up in the space stage. You're not very far away.
It's only two hundred miles up. So they took temp
thermometers up there to record the temperatures as the shuttle
moved from sunlight into darkness, and sure enough, as it
moved into darkness, temperatures fell almost immediately. And as the
same space shuttle, then about half an hour forty five
minutes later, moved into sunlight. The actual quote is within
a few minutes the temperatures had ridden. The temperature has
risen through over one hundred degrees. What's going on, Well,
of course that's what happens in space. Where you've got sunlight,
which is the radiant energy of the Sun, hitting any object,
it will immediately heat it. And when that object moves
into the shadow in this case of the Earth, it
will immediately cool.
Speaker 3: Down, so presumably, I mean the materials that NASA used
for the space suits and the boots, etc. I mean,
they would have to go way beyond boiling point. I mean,
I would have thought that would start to melt rub
and start to melt plastic, And especially if they're kind
of like going in the shade and then back in
the sunlight and back in the shade and back in
the sunlight. I mean, that's like kind of like you know,
going in a sawd and immediately going into an ice
bucket and back again.
Speaker 4: And that can't be healthy for the materials used.
Speaker 2: You've got it, You've got it, absolutely spot on. Exactly.
There's a five hundred degree fahrenheit range of temperatures that
these magic spacesuits have to cope with. I say magic
spacesuits because we've only talked about heat at this point.
We haven't talked about radiation. Certainly haven't mentioned micrometeorite impact.
We certainly haven't mentioned what happens if you fall over.
Speaker 3: Let's let's go into the radiation side of things. One
of the one of the big contentions that moon landing
hoax theorists come up with is that the Van Allen
belt is preventing space shuttles and asternal going through space.
So one of the rebuttals was a video from somebody
called Curious Android. I think, Neil, you've heard of the.
Speaker 4: Curious and Curious Droyd is called Curius Droyd.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's correct.
Speaker 4: Yeah, And I have to.
Speaker 3: Say I haven't got an academic head, so I can't
get my head around the science bit. But what he
seemed to be saying was, well, actually they only went
around the Van Allen Belt, and they only spent about
three hours in the Van Allen Belt, in the weakest
part of it apparently, and then when they came back again,
they went through the weakest part of it for only
three hours, so probably only the equivalent of say a
chest exlay or something like that.
Speaker 4: What would be your rebuttal on that claim.
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, if you want to believe the sort
of fantasy that that's been put Paul Schillertoe's his real name, right,
Curious Droyd nice a lovely little lady in a Raka
who does a similar sort of job called Amy, talks
about space and promotes NASA and bigs them up all over.
Speaker 1: The place space. I think she presents is it. That's right, Yeah,
Vintage Space if anyone wants to check out.
Speaker 2: The space has huge viewing numbers. Obviously they admire lovely
ladies as well over there, which quite right too, which
is probably why I haven't got very high viewing figures
because I was to watch these moon landings live back
in London in ninety sixty nine. Anyway, Yes, this idea
that the Van Allen radiation belts are the showstopper of
space travel or human space travel, was first put forward,
ironically by the man after whom these belts are named,
Professor James Van Allen of Iowa University. In nineteen fifty nine,
an article was published in Scientific American Mar thirteenth edition.
I believe it was in which he said that until
it is possible to protect humans, I'm paraphrasing. These are
not direct quotes. Until this is possible to protect humans,
space travel will be beyond Earth orbit will be very
difficult without several feet of lead to protect them. Now,
lead being a very very heavy, ie a very dense material,
does protect against radiation. If you're going to have a
tooth X ray, which is basically X rays, the technician
will be wearing a lead apron. Because radiation in the
human body is cumulative, you're only going to have one
X ray. The technician operating the equipment will be exposed
if they weren't wearing their lead apron, to dozens, if
not hundreds, of similar short bursts of radiation. So the
idea that you can track all right, the Valan and
radiation belts. There are two of them. They start at
about one thousand miles maybe a bit less five hundred
miles above the Earth surface. There is something called the
South Atlantic Anomaly, which if you rarely want to get
technical about it is where there is a lower level,
about two hundred miles above the earth surface, part of
the Valan radio the inner valen And radiation belt comes
down over basically over Brazil, hence the South Atlantic Anomaly,
and spacecraft traveling through it, which they do on reasonably
frequent occasions in normal orbit, have to switch a lot
of their equipment off to prevent it being damaged by radiating,
because radiation will damage electronic equipment.
Speaker 3: I'll say to remember Marcus, he's saying that there was
an American news channel or something like NBC who sent
up guigecounters to measure it, and they kept malfunctioning. They
thought there was a problem, but it was actually the
radiation was so high that they actually couldn't get a
proper reading.
Speaker 4: They just malfunctioned.
Speaker 2: Yeah, in fact, that was actually the experiment that was
conducted by James Van Allen because he had theorized that
these belts existed. They're sent up what's called sounding rockets,
which are basically very primitive rockets in the late nineteen fifties,
and Explorer one, which the first major launch by America
of an unmanned rocket, was sent up and James Van
Allen put a gager counter on it to basically measure
the levels of radiation in the Van Allen radio. Well,
they won't called that then the radiation belts and it failed.
No readings came back and once they got once they
looked at the evidence and they got their rocket back.
I think they got the gag counter back. They found
it was just it has stopped working because it was overloaded.
And the statement about James Van Allen said was space
is radioactive.
Speaker 3: One of my other one of my other sciencey friends, Marcus.
For those listening, I was actually trying to get a
friend of mine who's who's quite into science and quite
into rocketry, who does believe we landed on the moon
to come online and talk about it. Unfortunately he's he's
either busy or he's not replying whatever. But hopefully we'll
get him on another show. But there's another after the case,
so fine, Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 4: I don't think.
Speaker 3: I don't think, because he did accept the challenge and
he was quite ready to come on. But I think
it's just lack of time. But one of my other
science he friends, who doesn't believe he went to the moon,
basically says that space there are some parts of space
that are very hot in terms of like the radiation.
He reckons the Van Allen Belt is actually like super
hot because of the somebody to do with the ions
heating up. This goes way over my head. Have you
heard that one at all?
Speaker 2: I've heard that one. I too don't quite follow the science.
So there are people who say that space is hot. Now,
space can't be hot, Space can't be cold. Space has
nothing to have a temperature. Space is empty. So if
you put something in space like the Earth or the
Moon or Saturn or Jupiter or a spacecraft, it will
have a temperature. It can't help but have a temperature
because it will receive the radiant energy of the Sun.
In our case, that's why here on Earth we operate
at this particular at the temperature we do, because we
have the Earth receives radiant energy of the Sun. It's
called the solar constant. It's the amount of energy received
on the air surface is thirteen hundred and fifty watts
per square meter. That's quite a lot of energy. And
you think now it some of that energy is going
to be reflected back by clouds, some of it's going
to be absorbed, which is rather useful by the atmosphere
and eventually by us by the oceans, which is why
the oceans don't freeze because they've absorbed solar energy and
we have a very stable environment. It is a magnificent system.
Whoever designed the Earth as a stable system did a
very good job, because it's been around for we're told
billions of years. It's still here today in a matter
of the amount of abuse that humans have managed to
inflict on it, which has obviously not affected it very badly,
because it's still operating much the same as it was
one hundred years ago. Five hundred years ago, a thousand
years ago, probably ten thousand years ago, and then things
got a bit pear shaped because something hit the Earth
rather hard, melted the ice caps, and the water levels
rose fo hundred feet and everybody got drowned. But that's
another story.
Speaker 1: I was going to say, the Earth out of its
guarantee period. Now, what I was going to say, just
going back to the radiation slightly, is that I came
across in my own research from my various aliens on
the Moon talks and things like that. Was a nineteen
fifties film, I think in my about fifty six to
fifty seven something like that. Vern von Brown obviously who
worked for NASA. You brought over an operation paper clip
from the Second World War. He was originally an SS
scientist working for the Nazis on rocket tree and V
ones and V twos and things, but he was the
guy behind the NASA project Apollo with the Saturn five
space rocket. In this nineteen fifties film, he's talking about
proposed mission to the Moon, and this is before they've
even designed the Satin five, and he's shown a great
big model which looks something out of Star Wars or thunderbirds,
that kind of thing. Very impressive model, and he's talking
you through the various sections of the model. Here's the cockbit,
but just beyond the cop bit, and he shows this
large umbrella type device, maybe like a reverse of a
satellite dish, and this is to protect the astronauts from
the deadly radiation they will encounter in space. Now, that
is interesting he mentioned that, and yet there's no such
device on the Satin five later when it went out.
There's no umbrella type device at the front of the
ship or on the Apollo capsule. And yet he even
acknowledged there was deadly radiation in space.
Speaker 2: Oh, yes, yes he did. In fact, it's interesting you
mentioned Verno von Bryan because if he hadn't died when
he did in nineteen seventy seven, I think it was,
he would have been prosecuted by the International War Crimes
Tribunal for crimes against humanity while he was working in Germany.
Basically he used slave labor, and he was about to
be prosecuted. He was one of many dozen Nazi war
criminals brought over on as you mentioned, under Operation paper Clip,
to provide their expertise to the American who weren't trying
to launch these rockets, which the Nazis obviously did. Two
and a half thousand V twos landed on London, so
they worked. And the V ones were basically cruise missiles
which were easier to get rid of because if you
flew alongside them you could tip them over. They crash,
so they didn't damage people. But the V two rockets
were basically ballistic missiles and they would go up way
outside the atmosphere, come down, and well thousands of people
died in London as a result of it. Thanks guys,
you know. And then he goes over to America. And
if you look at pictures of the Saturn five rocket,
they have the same markings on them as the V
two rockets did. I mean, you know, these guys weren't
trying to hide what they were or what they did.
They were just pleased to get the work. But Vernovon
Brown worked closely with Walt Disney. Walt Disney and Vernavon
Brown were politically aligned. It's now now that at Disney
was basically a fascist. He was a very good filmmaker
and he employed a lot of very talented people, and
he created some fantastic films basically fantasists. They were children's
fairy stories brought to life. Cinderella, Fantasia, all the famous ones,
and then Mickey Mouse, probably his greatest creation. All these
were fantasies. Walt Disney, being a skilled filmmaker, is more
than like to have had a hand in creating some
of the artwork or even the films which were purported
to have been taken by astronauts in space, which NASA
now relentlessly promote as evidence for their landing on the Moon.
Speaker 3: So, going back a little bit to sort of basics
for those who might not know much about the Apollo missions,
So the the one that apparently made it to the
to the moon was that was Apollo eleven, wasn't it.
That's the first one that was allegedly landed on the Moon.
So that that comprised of basically a rocket booster to
get it into space, and on top of that, you've
got the lunar orbiter, and then connected to the lunar orbiter,
you've got the lunar lander, and connected to the lunar lander,
you've got the lunar rover.
Speaker 4: Is that correct? In that order?
Speaker 2: Very simple?
Speaker 4: Uh?
Speaker 2: Up to a point. Apollo eleven was not the first
mission that allegedly reached the moon.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 2: The first mission to do so was Apollow eight.
Speaker 4: Okay, that was an unmanned one. I think that.
Speaker 2: No, No, it was manned. There were three on board.
They didn't they did not land on the moon.
Speaker 3: Okay, right right, let's let's let's let's go. Let's focus
on the the actual one that's allegedly landed on the moon.
Speaker 4: Was that.
Speaker 2: The first one that allegedly landed was the third mission
to the moon. There was an Apollo ten, which was
also did not land, but had astronauts on board. Apollo
eleven was the first one that we're told landed. Yeah,
that was the most famous one. That was July twentieth,
nineteen sixty nine.
Speaker 3: Okay, And that just describe allegedly what what the whole
thing comprised of that took off.
Speaker 2: Okay, the Saturn five rocket, most people would be familiar
with pictures of it is a whacking great thing, three
hundred and sixty five foot high. Ye weighed three thousand tons.
Virtually all of that ninety nine percent of it, ninety
nine point nine percent of it was fuel because it
was a chemical rocket, liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen brought together,
pumped through. I mean, can you imagine the logistics of
pumping tons of liquid hydrogen and so anyway, the thing
takes off clouds of smoke, clouds of huge flames, big noise,
millions of people watching it. That existed, that was real.
Two minutes after it leaves the launch pad, it disappears
from sight. It's fifty miles away. The first stage, the
first stage of the rocket then is jettisoned.
Speaker 3: Because are these two boost rockets on the side.
Speaker 4: Are those the two that's the space shuttle? Right?
Speaker 2: That that came much later?
Speaker 4: Oh, that's later, right, Okay?
Speaker 2: And in fact, there is a question if if the
if the Saturn five did what we're told it did,
why do you need to invent another rocket space shuttle okay,
which couldn't even do half the job the Saturn five
could do.
Speaker 3: So that the Sun five with a single big rocket,
and it was three rockets in one, three rockets in one, Okay.
It takes off huge, great clouds of such like fifty
miles down range. It's left site, it's out of sight.
The first stage I basically the first half of the
rocket falls away. The second stage now ignites. The second
stage will drive the rocket what remains of the rocket
into Earth orbit, which is in that case it was
one hundred and fifty miles up. Earth orbit is where
a rocket is maintained at a position above the Earth's
surface by the centrifugal force trying to move it away
and the gravitational attraction trying to pull it in.
Speaker 2: It balances. Because it's balanced, it will orbit the Earth.
And that's what the space station does. Now. After it's
been in Earth orbit for a couple of orbits, by
about three hours, it jettison's its second stage and third
stage ignites, which is what's called translunar injection TLI. That
accelerates the rocket to escape velocity, which is the speed
you need to have any rocket achieve in order to
remove itself from the gravitational attraction of Earth, and that
speed is twenty five thousand miles an hour.
Speaker 4: Wow. So you.
Speaker 2: Ignite your third stage. Because the first two two stages
have just been jettison fallen into the Atlantic, the third
stage SUTs it on its course to the Moon. On
the top of that rocket is the capsule in which
the three astronauts are lying on their back on little beds,
not doing anything because the whole thing is basically automated.
Along below them is the lunar lander, and in the
case of the lunar rover that was carried on the
three latest missions Polis fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen, it was
a small electrically powered car folded up which fitted into
the lunar lander. So when they get into the when
they get close to the Moon, what happens is quite interesting.
As I mentioned, you had to use get to escape
velocity to leave Earth's gravity, and that Earth's gravity requires
a speed of twenty five thousand miles an hour nine
point eight meters per second to remove itself. As it
heads towards the Moon, it is slowing down and slowing
down because the earth gravity is still operatingth gravity operates
way out into space, certainly as far as the Moon.
By the time it reaches the equilibrium point, which is
the point where the Earth's gravity is balanced by the
Moon's gravity, and we know the Moon has gravity that
is about twenty thousand miles from the Moon's surface. When
it passes that point, it's it's traveling at about two
thousand miles an hour only it's attracted by the lunar
gravity and that accelerates it to about four thousand miles
an hour, where it goes into orbit by firing its
engines or retro firing its engines to go into lunar orbit.
This is the command module in which the three astronauts
are living, the lunar Lander, which is attached to the
command module. I won't get into how it was attached.
Speaker 4: To, Marcus. Marcus, I said, well, we'll get into after
the break.
Speaker 3: Sorry to cut you short, but we have a break now,
but we'll get straight back into it after the break
and we'll land the moon then.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're listening to the Paranormal UK READI network gobbling free.
Speaker 4: That's right.
Speaker 3: So for anyone who's I'm listening now, if you could
go back and listen to section one, this will kind
of clue you in as to where we're going now. So, Marcus,
you were talking about, I think we just jettisoned the
rockets and we've got our lunar orbiter and it's now
orbiting the moon. What's what's the next stages after that?
Speaker 2: All right, what's actually orbiting the moon is the stage
three of the Apollo rocket which is actually going to
stay attached to the command module, or as it's sometimes
referred to, the Command and Service module, and the rocket
is part of the service part of it. Because the
command module itself didn't have any propulsion propulsive ability, it
didn't have any rockets, so I had to carry it
with it. So it was a third stage of the
apollo of the Saturn five rocket. The third stage is
what propelled it to the Moon, stayed attached to the
command module, which was attached as you said, in its
as well to the lander, the lunar lander, which was
in two sections. It was the descent stage and the
ascent stage. This is when we were talking late nineteen
sixties here, and it would appear that a rocket propelled craft,
which the descent stage of the lunar Lander was, could
land quite comfortably on the lunar surface, which has gravity.
It's one sixth the level of gravity as that of Earth.
So it detached itself. The lunar Lander detached itself from
the command module, which remained in orbit around the Moon
for the length of time that whoever was involved would
be on the lunar surface and would be there to
collect them when they came back again and would then
head back home to Earth to a heroes welcome and
a lifetime of trying to maintain the story that's not.
Speaker 4: That's not a matter, and free cookies and.
Speaker 2: Free cookies, free cookies. So the lunar land, the lunar lander,
as I said, is in two sections, both of which
are attached together. As they land on the lunar surface,
the astronauts will be there are two astronauts who will
land in the top section. It's in two sections. The
bottom half is what lands and the top section is
what the astronauts live in and will then subsequently take
off using the landed section as the launch pad to
return to the command module. That's basically what happened.
Speaker 3: And the idea in how it returns to the command
module presumably it's kind of trying to sink the orbits,
Is that correct?
Speaker 2: I say it again?
Speaker 3: So in terms of how the ascending module returns to
the already orbiting module, how does that connect together?
Speaker 4: How does it link together?
Speaker 1: All?
Speaker 2: Right? Okay? From a standing start on the allegedly on
the lunar surface, the top half of the lunar module
is fired by a four and a half thousand pound
thrust rocket off the lunar surface, and we'll come back
to a little bit of the difficulties of that in
a minute. Let's assume it happened. Fired off the lunar surface.
It accelerates up to the orbit speed of the of
the command module, which is in the order of four
thousand miles an hour, faster than a bullet, so it's
moving quite rapidly. It has to find it up there
sixty miles above the lunar surface. That's the orbit distance
above the lunar surface ready orbiting craft. So this thing,
from a standing start accelerates up to four thousand miles
an hour. Sees the orbiting command module, says, hi, guys,
here we are. Let's get together again, and so they
dock together, which is an extremely complicated move when you're
moving at four and a half thousand miles an hour
sixty miles above the Earth's surface. And they obviously succeeded
because they're all still alive when they got back to Earth,
but that's another story. They then jettison the now finished
with lunar lander, which they had traveled in from the
lunar surface up to the command module. They jettison it
back into the Moon where its impact is, we're told,
recorded by the seismometers which had been laid out by
the astronauts on APOT eleven, twelve and fifteen. And the
moon rang like a bell, we're told, because if you
fire something into the Earth, it won't ring like anything
because it's a solid lump of rock, because solid lumps
of rock don't ring like bells. But the moon, we're told, vibrate, well,
rang like a bell. It vibrates. The vibrations of the
impact were recorded, we're told, which makes for an interesting story,
and we might examine that a little bit more detail
later on.
Speaker 3: This is actually one of the things that one of
my sciencey friends was talking about. He actually says that
in a way, Earth does ring like a bell.
Speaker 4: For listeners of the show, there's quite a bit of like.
Speaker 3: Either research or emailing or messaging that I've done with
with various people to try and get as much science
as possible, and it became overloaded in the end, so
finding each bit is kind of a bit of a challenge.
But one of my sciencey friends was saying that the
Earth does also ring a little bit like a bell
in terms of resonance, not so much kind of sound,
but in terms of vibration. So apparently in the mainstream
science community they would say that the Earth also does,
being a little bit like a bell.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's fair enough, because I think it's reasonable to
say that in space no one can hear you scream.
Therefore nobody can hear the moon ringing like a bell,
because there's no medium through which the vibration can travel.
If one is going to get scientific about it, and
this idea that there's an interesting corolla coming up here
that a lot of people who claim to have a
science background and understand what the science is all about,
will challenge much of what we're going to be discussing
or what we have already discussed tonight, and some of
it may well be challengeable. I don't claim to be infallible.
I don't claim to know everything there is to know.
I'm fairly well versed in much of the detail. But
if something appears to me or sounds to me a
logical explanation for an unexplained event, I will take that
on board. And I will not say say that is
the only explanation that's possible. I will say I'll take
it on board. I'll look at it if it evidence
or facts or information comes forward which disproves it, Yeah,
I'll take that on board as well, because one of
the things I found when people who claim to have
a scientific background they understand the science. If I challenge something,
they will say, well, where's the peer reviewed information which
disputes what we've been saying, And have you got any
information that you're putting forward that has been peer reviewed,
as if peer reviewed is the gold standard of science,
and if it's not been peer reviewed, it's just not
worth talking about. This is such absolute crap and nonsense
because it has now been demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever,
the peer review process has corrupted science, certain aspects of
science beyond almost beyond redemption. It refers to it as
pal review. I get your friends involved, I would agree
with you. This is not science. This is not the
peer review process we're told is the gold standard of science.
It's more like the medieval church exactly, very very good analogy,
because if you don't agree with it, you get burnt
at the stake.
Speaker 3: Yeah yeah, I mean the modern day version of burning
at the steak is.
Speaker 4: You lose your job.
Speaker 3: You could lose your funding, you could lose your pension,
you could lose your accreditations, all sorts.
Speaker 1: Talking of science and sound, and again I'm not a
scientist and I'm not going to get a peer review
on this. Certainly you were talking about the earth ringing
like a bell. We've both obviously been talking about our
talk coming up, and we talked about the fact that
there's videos out there, and it might be Apollo to
our I can't remember which mission where it actually shows
sounds on the Moon, and it was supposedly one of
the esnauts banging something into the surface of the Moon
and you can hear a boom boom, boom boom as
he's banging. And then there's presumably in the same mission,
it might be in an emission where the said astronaut
is throwing the discarded hammer over his shoulder, which I
think is pretty irresponsible because it hits the lunar module.
I mean, you know who's going to throw a hammer,
a technician, an FA teen jet on the border, you know,
an aircraft carry they'd get the sack, you know, I mean,
that's your only boat home, isn't it really the Apollo
lunar module? And if you smash the window on it.
You're done for. So he throws it at the lunar
module because and you can hear a bomb as it
hits it. Now, I don't quite understand what's going on there.
That shouldn't happen because there's a vacuum in space.
Speaker 2: Exactly, good point. That particular sequence is taken from a
very interesting film made by an American filmmaker called Jet
windsor the film is called, and you can check it out,
it's called Moon Hoax. Now, it's been up on YouTube
for about a year or so, just over a year.
It's had a lot of hits on it, and it
shows in disputable because he uses NASA's films in this.
It's indisputable that an astronaut allegedly on the Moon throws
something up and it hits the lunar module, which is
which he's standing beside, and you can hear a sound.
Well in space, as you say, nobody can hear you scream,
there shouldn't be any sound. You'll see film of him
using his hammer to try to break up some rocks,
and you hear him hammering it. Now, what's interesting about
this is the way that the NASA fanboys, as I
call them, the NASA apologists apology get it? Get it
okay that the NASA apologists try to explain this away. Oh,
they said, it's the vibration of the hammer traveling through
his spacesuit and being picked up on his throat mic. Well,
there is. The astronauts were using throat mics, there's no
doubt about that. But it's very selective in vibration that
is being picked up. Because the astronauts are standing as
they take off from the lunar surface in their ascent module,
which is about the size of a couple of big
phone boxes, a pretty small six foot high, six foot wide,
and about four foot deep. That's all you've got. So
they're standing in this cramped space with literally at their
feet a four and a half thousand pounds thrush rocket,
and as they take off, you don't hear a sound,
not a penny drop, no rocket, and you hear the
astronauts saying like, oh, what a ride, What a ride,
as if it's sort of some sort of fairground show,
which it probably was. What was happening was they're more
likely to have been on their simulator, which we know existed,
which we know the astronauts use for training. They've done
it a hundred times. They're getting bored out of their skulls,
and they were trying to have a bit of a laugh.
It's more likely to be the explanation. But these scientific people,
alleged scientific people who try to dispute what people like
ourselves are challenging NASA, they come forward with even more
ridiculous theories which are immediately taken apart by anybody who's
examined the subject, as I've just done to try to
demonstrate that the idea of sound on the Moon is ridiculous.
Of course, there's no sound on the real Moon, but
there is plenty of sound which was probably not damped
out or removed by these sound technicians recording it. They're
just having to go for a cup of tea at
the time and hammering away at the rock. Oh shit,
we forgot to cut the sound off.
Speaker 1: Of course, the interesting thing about the Apollo lunar module
being hit is that in theory they've decompressed the Apollo
module because they've climbed now and they're in their spacesuits,
and you've then got to argue, why would a they
leave a microphone switched on in the apollo cabin of
the craft that they're not using at that moment. And
even so, even if the microphone was left on and
they left their hatch open or something because they don't
want to shut it because they've got to get back
inside it, they left the hatch open, there's no air
in there because it's a decompressed chamber, and it's only
when they climb back inside side their spaces and reconnect
their systems up to the you know, the tanks or
whatever they have to do to repressurize the craft. Once
they've shut the door, does once return against the inside
of the capsule. So you know, you've got to think,
where is that microphone that's recording that bang? And then obviously,
if they're going to fake it, they shouldn't really be
having microphones on the stage anyway. Really, So it's a
bit of a nodoty.
Speaker 2: Isn't it. That's a very good point. You make very
good point, because it is quite evident that whatever is
being thrown onto the lunar lander, which the astronaut has
thrown something, whether it's a hammer, I don't know what,
It doesn't matter what it is he's thrown, but you
can hear it. There's no doubt whatsoever that you can
hear it hitting the lunar Lander, which, as you say,
had been decompressed. It contained no air, which is another
story in itself, so you shouldn't be able to hear it.
But if it's on a film set, or if it's
on a simulation studio set up, yes you will probably
have microphones around so that you could direct the people
involved in the set say stand there, or don't stand there,
or do this, do that, And they just got it wrong.
But for some reason this was included in an official
NASA film of alleged landing on the Moon. It makes
no sense whatsoever, and the explanations to try to dismiss
it that it's being recorded through the throat mic as
a result of vibration through the spacesuit couldn't possibly be
the case on this occasion because the sound is coming
from nowhere near the spacesuit, is coming from the lunar lander.
As you say, why would they have a microphone live
in the lunar lander when they weren't in it. There
weren't any microphones that could have been live at that point.
Speaker 3: There's another curest thing that I'm I can't quite work out.
And Marcus, you might know what the official explanation is
with the lunar rover. Where on Earth does it attach
to the lunar lander.
Speaker 2: Okay, you as you look at the lunar lander, it's
got four legs.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: One of those legs contains a ladder down which the
astronauts will walk to get themselves from the top part
of it, which is the ascent stage. It's about ten
foot down. If you look at the lunar Lander like that,
the lunar rover was attached on the right hand side.
There are four quadrants, yeah, because basically the lunar Lander
consisted of a large number of fuel tanks and storage
and equipment and it was it was basically a square
with a central circular area in which the rocket motor
was mounted, rocket engine was mounted, and these there are
four quadrants around it, and actually there are eight altogether.
There are four quadrants on the corners and four in
the center between the corner quadrants. The lunar rover was
folded up. It was an incredible design. It did fold
up so that you would be able to fit a
ten foot long rover into a five foot high section
of the lunar lander, and it did fit. I've seen
the photographs of it folded up. I've seen it being
folded up. And as it is d mounted or removed
from the lunar rover on the lunar surface, allegedly the
wheels will fold down. The chassis of the lander will
fold out, so instead of being five foot high, it's
ten foot long with the wheels at each end of it.
It's a remarkable piece of construction.
Speaker 3: My question is how and why would it not put
the whole thing off balance when landing.
Speaker 2: That is a very interesting point because on Earth that
thing weighed four hundred and sixty pounds. On the Moon
it would weigh about seventy pounds. So you need a
counterbalance on the other side because otherwise the rocket, which
is centrally mounted and the descent engine rocket is gimbaled
I it can be moved about six degrees out of
the vertical. Unless there is a completely balanced craft, it
will start to cartwheel.
Speaker 4: So have you posed this to Nasam, What have they said?
Speaker 2: They would say that the equipment that was mounted to
balance it is on the other side, and there is
certainly quite a lot of equipment which is seen being
removed from the lunar lander on the later missions. Don't
forget the lunar rover was only on three of the
later missions. Anybody not familiar with Apollo will think, well,
we're only talking about Apollo eleven. No, there are actually
six Apollo missions which landed on allegedly landed on the
lunar surface. The final three were the ones that carried
the lunar rovers that they were called the Jay missions.
Speaker 1: Actually, when you say six landed, I think it's five
because Apollo thirteen didn't make it. That's right, isn't it.
Speaker 2: No, there were six that landed, There was eleven and
twelve landed.
Speaker 1: Oh I see in thirteen.
Speaker 2: Was thirteen was an interesting story in itself, fourteen fifteen,
sixteen seventeen. There were supposed to be another three missions
after that eighteen nineteen and twenty. President Nixon, don't forget,
was president during the whole of the Apollo missions. He
canceled the last three many on the grounds were we
been there, we don't need to do it anymore. But
because the whole Apollo program was initiated and generated and
enthusdaver by President Kennedy, who had defeated Richard Nixon in
the nineteen sixty American elections. Kennedy being a Democrat, Nixon
being a Republican. They didn't really hold a gradul of
affection for each other. So Nixon wasn't about to promote
something which he hadn't originated market. What Nixon originated was
lying in deceit in the White House, and he paid
up a reasonable price for it got sacked.
Speaker 3: So one of the photos from the lunar over just
focusing on that for a moment, shows a close up
of a wheel and there's no tracks either side. NASA
come up with an explanation as to what that's all about.
Speaker 2: No, NASA have not addressed that was a question that
was asked of them. There were hundreds of other questions
which have been asked of NASA. NASA stands officially for
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, but according to the New
York Times, who were also trying to get answers to
some of these questions, NASA stands for never a straight answer,
or no astronauts sent anywhere, or numerous anomalies and scams
are bound, or National Academy of Space Actors, take your pick.
Speaker 1: Well, not another space accident.
Speaker 2: Never a single apology, etcetera.
Speaker 3: So I mean when I when I when I saw
that photo, I mean, it's a bit of a clanger.
It's a bit of a clanger. How can how can
a rover not make any imprint?
Speaker 2: Well, exactly, it's a reasonable question to ask, and it's
been asked of NASA several times. Actually, because there is
a very clear photograph showing I think it's from A seventeen.
There's a lot of photographs on a poly seventeen. Well,
you see that the lunar rover on the lunar surface,
you see a lot of footprints made by the astronauts,
and we know that astronauts leave footprints to show where
they've been. And the lunar rover, which has obviously been driven,
because there is actually somebody sitting in the lunar rover
when a photograph was taken, there are no wheel tracks,
either in front or behind the wheel, and you're always
looking at a close up of the wheel. Now the
NASA apologists will say, oh, that's easy to explain. You
can see all the footprints of the lunar of the astronauts.
We're obviously getting equipment on and putting equipment off, and
doing a lot of work around the lunar rover. Oh,
they've kicked a lot of the lunar surface material and
it's just covered the tracks. Absolute rubbish.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm looking at it now and I can see
the bootprints, but there's nothing that's been kicked that I
can say that. I mean, there would at least be
there would at least be some kind of groove that
would have been covered over, but there's no groove at all.
Speaker 1: Also, the operating temperature, as according to the NASA manual
for the lunar rover of the battery, was the specifications
of the battery temperate operating temperatures was outside the specs
for the actual moon temperatures. In other words, the battery,
according to the specifications of the manual couldn't possibly have worked.
The battery because it wouldn't operate in that environment, basically
right exactly.
Speaker 2: So again another anomaly to do with this whole Apollo fantasy. Well,
you've got batteries that won't operate, but were told that
they were able to drive a car on the lunar
surface for a distance of up to twenty kilometers, which
is about as far as an electric car will go
today without additional assistance. Tesla has managed to get cars
to go further than that now, but that's in the
twenty first century, not in the nineteen sixties. It was
designed and made by a cooperation between Bow, the Bowing
Aircraft Aircraft Corporation, and General Motors, and they were very
proud of it because it folded up rather neatly, as
we've described, and it was able to drive considerable distances
because don't forget, when it landed on the Moon attached
to the lunar lander, the astronauts then had to assemble
the car with all were the seats and the steering mechanism,
and the steering mechan the seats and all the equipment
that they were going to carry around with them on
the lunar surface. But you don't see any film or
photograph of that occurring. Strange except for one rather obscure film,
which we're told as Apollo fifteen assembling the lunar rover,
and all you see them doing is pulling it out
of its storage area on the lunar lander, and then
it's out of sight of camera because they're using a
fixed camera position and Conveniently, you're not showing them assembling
the vehicle, I should say communication equipment which can communicate
with Earth. Hang on a minute, what are we getting
to here? These are now communicate to Earth. Yes, this
is what happened, because if you've seen the film of
the lunar Lander top section taking off to return the
astronauts to the commanding to the command module orbiting above
the Earth, you see it being filmed from the lunar rover,
which has been specifically positioned about one hundred meters away.
We're told so that is camera could record the lunar
Lander takeoff, which it does, and you see on Apollo
seventeen you see the lunar Lander take off from the
lunar surface, or the top half of it with the astronauts,
and it take off from the lunar surface and ascend
upwards as you would expect a rocket fired craft would do.
But you see no exhaust or heat emissions from any rocket.
It's as if it's on a bungee rope. Now, the
camera on the lunar Lander was operated remotely from Houston
by a guy called Ed Fendle, wo had been practicing
it because he tried to do it Apollo fifteen and failed.
He got closer on Apollo sixteen, so he had a
bit of practice, we're told on Apollo seventeen. The point
is what energy, what transmitting power is required to transmit
a live television signal from the Moon two hundred and
forty thousand miles across to Earth through sixty miles of
Earth's atmosphere to be picked up on a receiver. What
energy is required a lot more than those batteries had
available at any time, and especially not after they'd been
allegedly driving this lunar rover around the lunar surface for
three days on Aputherly seventeen. But they didn't recharge the batteries.
There were no photo electric cells to recharge them. So
what energy was required? Now, any television or radio engineer
who is familiar with what is required on Earth to
transmit a television signal, and there are plenty of people
who can do live transmissions on Earth, and you need
a fairly large van in which to transmit your signal
up to a satellite twenty thousand miles up and then
back down again. But what power is needed on that? Well,
that's not very far.
Speaker 1: I've worked in telecommunications, broadcasts and things like that. And
I've had to advise people on telephones who are in
Africa and all way and all sorts of places around
the world about arranging their satellite dishes to try and
pick up signals. And I've always sort of, you know,
these are soldiers out in the bush and they're trying
to set up their satellite dish to try and pick
up a satellite picture so they can watch TV. And
I said, you really need to get a proper engineering
you know, to set you know, to sort it out,
because they've got all these special receivers and transcoders and
god knows what else sort of equipment who will line
it up with satellites and they're trained in that specific field,
and they're just a modulation and all sorts of clever
trickery to get the pictures. Now, these are astronauts on
the Moon. They're pilots essentially. And you know, I mean,
if you think of the lunar module Apollo eleven landing
on the Moon, and as soon as Neil Armstrong's coming
down the ladder, you're getting a picture back to Earth,
grainy or whatever of him coming back to you know,
coming back to America or you know, via Australia or
whatever that the link was. And it kind of makesure
want to thinking, how on Earth did they line up
their little dish that was on top of their lunar
module to I don't know whether they beamed it to
the command module the you know, the orbit in or
do they beam it straight back to Earth, you know,
on a tiny little dish, you know, how they line
up because they're still inside technically they're still inside there there,
you know, the lunar module. I don't know. I mean,
maybe it was possible to do that, but in light
of all the other discrepancies, I don't think they're worried
about that because they didn't have to because they were
going to fake it anyway.
Speaker 2: Exactly because it was all it was all pre filmed,
It was done during the training and simulation exercises. No
doubt that that happened. There's no secret about it either.
Speaker 3: And forget there, and there's no way would be automated.
There's no way there'd be like a locking signal for
it to automatically do it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly, any any television engineer. And it's very interesting
what you say about trying to pick up satellite signals,
and the satellite isn't coming from that far away relatively speaking.
We got twenty one thousand miles out.
Speaker 1: That's right. Yeah, yeah, geostationary over Europe or wherever it
may be.
Speaker 2: That's right, yep, yeah, And that's got quite quite a
big footprint. You know. The transmission from the satellite will
cover quite a big area on Earth, which is why
sky television can be picked up all over the UK
because it's transmitted right across the UK. It's twenty thousand
miles out. Quite a big footprint, but there's quite a
lot of power needed to do it. Anyway. On the Moon,
they obviously did it because we saw the pictures, didn't we.
Speaker 3: Marcus rolling onto kind of like more modern times, the
some of the Moon. Let's say, what you used the
word the opposite of Hoax's believers, I suppose the moon
landing's believers say, but aha, the Chinese.
Speaker 4: The Chinese landed.
Speaker 3: Are over and I think they orbited the Moon and
took lots of photos. Obviously would be able to see
all the equipment left behind from the moon landings. I
can't remember if that was in the news or if
that's even happened. What's what's the score there?
Speaker 2: The Chinese certainly do have the ability to launch a
rocket powerful enough to land an unmancraft on the lunar surface.
Speaker 4: I believe they have done so. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Yes, they have done so. It's called Jade Rabbit.
Speaker 4: Was it Was it anywhere near the Apollo landing sites.
Speaker 2: No, I didn't land anywhere near the Apollo landing.
Speaker 3: Site, and it didn't take any photographs as it was
orbiting the mill.
Speaker 2: That's the story, and the same story applies to the
Japanese who've also launched an unmanned craft to orbit the Moon.
And then we can come on to the Lunar Lunar
Reconnaissance Orbiter, which is an American craft operated by a NASA,
needless to say, which orbited the Moon and photographed the
landing sites. We're told in two thousand and nine. Let's
just examine what we're told to believe about this. We're
told that the Chinese did it. I haven't, to be fair,
seen any photograph issued by the Chinese Space Agency or
the Japanese Space Agency purporting to show any of the
Apollo landing site, any of the artifacts left on the
Apollo landing site from the Chinese or the Japanese. I
have seen the photographs issued by NASA in support of
their contention that they show the six Apollo landing sites. Okay,
anybody can go online and look at these photographs. Their
Lunar Reconsistence Orbitter website will show them in interminable detail.
What you're going to be looking at is a photograph
taken twenty miles twenty five kilometers above the lunar surface
linearic orbitter satellite using presumably twenty first century technology eye
pretty good cameras. Twenty miles is about one hundred thousand feet.
It's not that far away as far as the satellite
is concerned. And what the pictures they produced show basically
a few white pixels and a few black pixels with
a whacking gray arrow put on it saying Apollo eleven,
Apollo twelve or Apollo seventeen landing site. And on the
Apollos twelve and the Apollos seventeen landing sites, they get
over excited by all the footprints you can see on
the lunar surface. Oh wow, oh wonderful. It must be
real until you start examining it in detail, where you
see that the footprints are as wide as the lander,
which is twenty foot So were they giants these astronauts?
Did it kick up a huge amount of dust? And
how come this is the first time they've ever been photographed?
And anyway, why are they in black and white? And
why can you only see a couple of pixels which
identifies a twenty foot wide lander with a shadow considerably
longer because you could see that the shadow angles are
quite low. It was taken quite early so that the
craft would show up, or the shadow of it would
show up, where you can only see a few black pixels. Now,
if you then compare those appallingly bad photographs, which I
don't think represent anything beyond somebody's cgi attempt to show
what the lunar landers might look like if they were
happened to be on the lunar surface with a known
satellite photograph take and above Earth, of as I showed
recently when I was doing a presentation on the subject
of the London Eye taken from four hundred miles above
the Earth by the the GEO one satellite ten years ago,
when the Lunar Concerts's orbiter was photographing on the Moon.
This is taken in full color four hundred miles above
the London Eye, through all the pollution and the distortion
created by the sixty miles of the Earth's atmosphere, and
you can see individual cars, individual capsules. On the London Eye,
you can see a cars park nearby, some of which
have sun roofs which are about three foot across. Quite
clearly you can see which way the car is pointing,
because you can see the difference between the bonnet and
the boot. But on the Moon, all you see from
these ridiculously stupid pictures, which we're told represent the Apollo
Landers on the lunar surface are a few white pixels.
Speaker 3: Eyes don't take I'm looking at both images now, I'm
looking at the London Ey one and I'm looking at
the Apollo seventeen alleged Apollo seventeen one. Yeah, I mean
it's there's Okay, let's take the assumption that what we're
looking at is actual photographs of the Moon. If they
are actual photographs of the Moon, there is something there
that's that's like either man made or not natural. But
as you say, they are too they are too too
far rock.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it could be a rock.
Speaker 3: I would expect I would have expected much more zoomed
in high quality images.
Speaker 2: From twenty miles away.
Speaker 1: Of course, you would have a fasser kind of made
the areas and no FLI zone for other nations to preserve.
Speaker 2: I can see why, so that nobody else can find
there isn't anything there.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. Yeah. It's a bit of a laughable one, though,
isn't it.
Speaker 4: So here's here's the question, Marcus.
Speaker 3: Let's say let's say the Chinese are for or the
Japanese are for some reason in on it. What would
be their motivation for doing so, as opposed to saying, look,
the Americans are lying.
Speaker 2: I have no idea, absolutely no idea. They may well
be in on it. They may well have to use
NASA's tracking facilities, or they may have to use NASAs
for the facilities, or some of the technicians involved, and
they don't want to upset America.
Speaker 3: Which is what could there be things on in the background. So,
for instance, one of your quite a lot of your talks,
you talk about that during the Cold War that in
actual fact, the Russians and the Americans were kind of
working together, and the Americans were kind of buying and
selling and helping to fund Russia to stop the people
from starving and kind of like as a bribe to
stop nuclear war. Basically, could there be something similar going
on with the Japanese and the Chinese that kind of
like have to shut them up.
Speaker 4: In some way?
Speaker 2: I don't think the Japanese all the Chinese needs shutting up.
I think that they know which side their bread is
buttered on if they want to to involve themselves, which
they evidently do in space travel because it's a reasonable thing.
And don't forget the Indians are doing it as well.
The European Space Agency is doing it as well. Yeah,
there's cooperation and collusion, and not of the bad kind.
There's cooperation between all these agencies because space travel is
an extremely dangerous business and people like to pass information
that they find which could be helpful to other people aren't,
which is what was happening between American and Soviet Union.
And the point I make about in ours to the
inevitable question, Well, if what you say is anywhere near true, Marcus,
why didn't the Russians blow the whistle at the time.
They must have known what was going on. Of course
they knew what was going on. They chose to shut
up about it. And the reason they chose to shut
up about it was partly to do with the wheat deal,
which is well known that the Soviet Union were offered
very very favorable terms to buy American wheat in the
millions of tons of American wheat. There'd been a drought
in Kazakhstan. It's quite a natural thing and there was
a potential for starvation. America don't like to see people
suffering unnecessary if they can help it and gain something
from it, so they quite generously offered very good price
for the Soviet Union to buy American wheat over two years,
it was in the early nineteen seventies. Whether it came
with a hidden price attached, I don't know. I have
no evidence. But what they do have evidence for is
what's called the gas for I steal. The Soviet Union
have one major natural resource, natural gas, which in order
to survive as a nation, they need to sell it
in the world market. Reasonable thing to do. Saudi Arabia
sell their natural resource, it's called crude oil. Nothing wrong,
we tried to sell your natural resource. Now, the Soviet
Union at the time, this is the mid nineteen sixties,
the mid nineteen sixties started to started to try to
export supplies, in large quantity, supplies of their natural gas
into Western Europe, specifically West Germany as it was then. Well,
the Berlin War was up. That's why it's called West Germany,
and it was called East Germany, which is the other
half of Germany. It's now been reconciled. In nineteen eighty
nine en the Berlin Wall fell, but that's another story.
So in the mid nineteen sixties are negotiating with the
government of West Germany, the government of Italy and also
Hungary and Austria for the supply of their natural gas.
But the Soviet Union having been devastated by the Second
World War, they lost twenty five million people in the
Second War. It's a huge number of their population. They
didn't have the industry to manufacture the pipeline required to
take this natural gas from its fields in Siberia, which
is northern Russia into West Germany, which is in Western Europe.
It's about two thousand kilometers. So the deal was which
America struck with West Germany. You make the pipes. Because
West Germany's industry had been resurrected much faster as a
result of the Marshall Plan. At the end of the
Second World War, look it up if you don't know
what the Marshall Plan is. West Germany's industry had got
back on his feet and started making things, because all
you need to do to make a gas pipeline is
large sheets of steel. You roll the mouse as flat
sheets and then bend them into a circle. Hey, presto,
you've got a pipe. You link all the pipes together.
You put one end of it into your gas field,
and every ten kilometers or so you put what's called
a compressor, which is in effect a jet engine. Guess
who supplied the jet engines, rolls Royce to drive the
natural gas along this pipeline. It won't flow without some assistance.
This is the way it's done today. Take it was
driven into the pipeline was built into West Germany in
the mid nineteen sixties. Come on, America were upset about it, obviously,
because they wanted to supply They didn't want the Soviet
Union to be seen to be supplying Western Europe. She's
not East Germany. We're talking about West Germany. They didn't
want to be seen to be supplying West Germany because otherwise,
what would NATO bey do. This is the argument Trump
has just used on Merkel, Chancellor of Germany. Look, you
get all your natural gas from Russia. What are we
doing protecting you against Russia? The same argument applied fifty
years ago. That whole Cold War thing was a complete fabrication,
absolute bloody nonsense, as was this whole nuclear attack.
Speaker 4: There was never going to be a nuclear controlled divide
and rule, isn't it.
Speaker 1: It's also after the Apollo was canceled, they actually well
i'd say canceled. They didn't go to the Moon. They
kind of continued in a half wit way because they
had the Apollo Sawyer's link up, which I think was
over Southampton if I believe in nineteen seventy four or five, wasn't.
Speaker 2: It, Yeah, seventy five, Yeah, Apollo Sawyers. Oh look, America
and Russia are cooperating stafter or just in the middle
of the Cold War. What's going on?
Speaker 4: So okay?
Speaker 3: Corporating going back to the kind of lot the actual
science of the whole mission itself, because I think we've
gone off at a slight tangent.
Speaker 4: But going back to the science.
Speaker 3: One of my friends actually was asking, wasn't the Lander
supposed to have an air lock, and if so, where
is it, where is it positioned? Was the craft depressurized?
Did they all have to sit in their suits? And
then how much oxygen did they bring? And where is
it stored? How much did it weigh and how much
fuel did you need to kind of carry it?
Speaker 2: Good question. The Apollo Lander, the Lunar Lander, did not
have an air lock.
Speaker 3: So right, so how did they so imagine we're in
the we're in the top section, we're not in our
space suits, we're not kitted up. What would we need
to do to get kitted up and then get actually
onto the Moon surface?
Speaker 2: Right? This is mission impossible, absolutely, mission impassible. Okay, if
you're going to wander around on the lunar surface, the
real inner surface, you've got to put your spacesuit on
a spacesuit. If you see film of astronauts being kitted out,
because if you recall when they were walking towards their
rocket before they took off, you saw these heroes in
their white spacesuits. They were kitted up with their spacesuits
before they even got into the command module. Now in
order to get into their spacesuits. The film of them
getting in. It's quite interesting. It takes three people to
get one astronaut into their spacesuit.
Speaker 4: I've seen it, Yeah, I've seen that film.
Speaker 2: Okay, Now they walk into their spacesuit, they walk onto
their rocket, they go the three hundred foot up into
their capsule. On the top of their rocket, they take
their spacesuits off because they have to be able to
travel to the Moon in the shirt sleeve environment of
the command and you see them in their T shirts
and jeans presumably I don't know what they were wearing,
but they weren't in their spacesuit. They get to the Moon,
the command module is orbiting the Moon. Two astronauts now
go from the Command Module into the Lunar Module. This
without wearing a spacesuit because they couldn't get through the
little hatchway connecting the two craft. It's only twenty four
inches across, it's been measured. They couldn't get through that
hatch if they were wearing a spacesuit. Now in the
lunar Lander is another spacesuit for each astronautep So they
get into the lunar Lander and they land the lunar Lander.
We'll come back to that in a minute because there's
another very interesting anomaly. They land their lunar lander, and
in the case of Apoly eleven, they then have six
hours between landing it and getting out. Now, in order
to get at that point, they have to get into
their spacesuits.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Marc, we're coming up to the end of the show,
but just very quickly, how what's the official explanation of
how they got into the space suits and then onto
the Moon.
Speaker 4: You can if you can speed it up a little bit.
Speaker 2: Okay, there's no explanation that is offered that that makes
any sense at all that these two astronauts in something
measuring six foot by six foot by four foot could
get into these spacesuits, which are very cumbersome. They could
check each other out. But if you don't get these
and you can't wear half a spacesuit. So Neil Armstrong
was landing the craft without his spacesuit, but you can
hear him talking, or you can hear a buzz order
in talking. Therefore, the craft was pressurized because they couldn't
be in an unpressurized craft without a spacesuit. They'd be dead.
So they're landing it without a spacesuit. They then get
into their spacesuit. They then depressurize the lunar lander. They
let all the air out so they can open the door,
because at five pounds per square inch pressure, there'll be
two tons of air pressure on the door which they
have to open, which is so they have to depressurize it.
So they just open a little valve and all the
air goes who out. They don't get out into the
onto the lunar surface. One small step for man, one
giantly for mankind. All that crap. They prance around, talk
to the president, plant the flag, collect the rocks, get
back in again, take their spacesuits off and put them out,
or take the backpacks off and put them outside the spacecraft.
Get into the spacecraft and repressure. Hang on a minute,
what is going on here?
Speaker 4: Take their backpacks off.
Speaker 2: Yes, they take their backpacks off and leave them outside.
Now you could say that they connect the the the
air pipes to the craft, because there were there was
a supply of oxygen and the craft. But where did
all this oxygen come from? They just do pressurize the thing,
and on Apollo eleven they do. They depressurize it three
times over three days. It just does not add up
and anyway, having all right, let's go quickly on to
Apollo seventeen. They're on the lunar surface for eight hours
at a time. How many how many people have done
scuba diving?
Speaker 3: The just run out you've run out of oxygen. And
on that note, unfortunately, Marcus, they've run out of oxygen.
We've run out of time. This has been absolutely fascinating
and we we must we must get you back, Marcus
month or it feels like we've only touched the tip
of the iceberg the surface of the moon. I was
just about to say that, Marcus, thanks ever so much
for coming along. And for anyone who wants to get
hold of Nexus magazine, google it, find it on wh
Smith or your local news agents.
Speaker 4: Marcus, you have quickly a website people can go to
very quickly.
Speaker 2: Just go to nexusmagazine dot com to contact me. You
can do it through there, Or if anybody is interested
in information about this particular subject, I'd recommend a website
called our List. That's au ls dot com dot com.
Speaker 3: Fantastic And I will try if we do around two,
which I hope we will, I will try and get
my believer scientific friend on and I will try and
get him to answer the questions which you very kindly
posed but have not been answered. I think it's because
he's not got a lot of time. I don't think.
I don't think it's because he couldn't be bothered, because
he did say with glee, I accept the challenge, So
I would like him to do that. I would like
him to do that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, anything else you want.
Speaker 1: To add, well, thank you very much Marcus Allen for
joining us from Nexus Magazine, and we hopefully will do
around two and we'll be in touch and stay tuned
for more because, as I say, we've only scratched the
moon surface on it one.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and once you start scratching that itch, it never
goes away, it doesn't.
Speaker 1: We'll certainly leaving tracks anyway. Okay, So it's good at
the Paranormal peep Show. Stay tuned for more shows on
the Paranormal UK Radio Network. Good Night, see you later, guy.
Speaker 2: Not to
Speaker 4: Follow to bo