Marcus Allen, publisher of Nexus magazine, challenges the Apollo moon landings in a 2002 Coast to Coast AM episode, citing unresolved radiation risks (Van Allen belts exposing astronauts to lethal doses), fogged film inconsistencies, and missing visual evidence like vented water rainbows. He questions NASA’s shielding claims, the lack of detailed post-mission footage, and the plausibility of faking transmissions, including Cold War-era "moon bounce" technology used during crises. Even if telescopes detect lunar landers, Allen argues verification remains impossible due to size limitations and potential staging, suggesting the entire program may have been a coordinated deception to win the Cold War. [Automatically generated summary]
First, let me tell you tonight's going to be an extremely, extremely impressive program.
We've done this before.
We've talked to people before about whether or not we went to the moon.
But we've never talked to Marcus Allen.
Not the football Marcus Allen, that we'd be likely to know.
but the uh...
the publisher of nexus in great britain now he doesn't think that He doesn't say we didn't go to the moon.
What he says, I think, is man didn't go to the moon.
He doesn't necessarily deny that machines may have made it.
He believes they did, but whether or not man made it to the moon, that's a different question.
So we'll talk about that in the next hour, and it's going to be very interesting, I think.
Happy Thanksgiving, everybody.
I hope you're having a great Thanksgiving.
It looks like it's going well around the nation with travel and junk like that.
You know, people are, on average, waiting about 10 minutes in airports.
That's pretty good, I'd say.
News-wise, briefly, the president has appointed former Secretary of State Kissinger to lead an investigation into why the government failed to foil the September 11 attacks, telling the veteran diplomat to, quote, follow all the facts wherever they lead, end quote.
Bush once posed the bill, but he signed it and told Kissinger, go get him.
Now, as a concept, what do we think of the government investigating itself?
Well, maybe not too much.
There are those who would say, oh, but Kissinger is a great diplomat.
He is indeed, and not directly affiliated with government.
But that wouldn't be true, would it?
So, you know, basically it's a government investigating itself.
And I wonder what you think of that as a concept, something to think about.
Would you expect snappy results really getting to the bottom of an investigation about the government itself?
The arms inspectors in Iran, I mean Iraq, had a good day.
Now, I don't know what a good day means.
I mean, they dug into Iraqi computers, surveying scenes with detectives' eyes, went looking through all kinds of Iraqi stuff, and they sounded satisfied.
It says here with Iraqi attitudes.
So, I don't know what a good day for the weapons inspectors means.
Does that mean they have a good day if they find something, or they're having a good day if they don't find something?
Maybe they just had a good day.
A prominent Pakistani doctor who admitted treating Osama bin Laden, Osama bin Laden, mind you, and other al-Qaeda leaders before and after September 11th said Wednesday the terrorist mastermind was in excellent health and showed no signs of kidney failure.
So Osama is, or was, at least at that point, okay.
They asked the doctor, I guess, a lot of other questions, you know, like, are you making something that will blow up the world?
Are you helping Osama with something like that?
He said no.
Will 2003 be the year of the first human clone?
Maybe.
An Italian fertility expert says a patient will indeed give birth to a clone baby early next year, but experts, including one who helped create Dolly the Sheep, are very skeptical.
Dr. Servino Anatori told a news conference in Rome Tuesday, the clone baby is due in January.
The Maverick Doctor gained fame nearly a decade ago when he helped a 62-year-old woman give birth following fertility treatment with a donated egg.
But he's received few details about his, revealed few details about the latest project.
It's going well, it says no problems.
Well, of course, there could be problems.
As with Dolly, Dolly, she is thought to be older than her years, as it were.
In other words, when you clone something, you apparently are likely to clone its age as well.
So that even though you've got a little bitty baby Dolly, little baby Dolly is actually in terms of years maybe middle-aged.
So little baby Dolly is going to go racing through life and meet with a quick end.
Now, that could be the same trouble there is in humans.
In other words, you clone a 40-year-old woman and you have these little telomeres.
They're like ticking time bombs for your life.
And when the telomeres tick out, so do you.
And so the telomeres apparently go with the DNA.
And then the cloned whatever American little baby boy, let's say, would be 40 years of age at birth.
Or in this case, Italian, I don't know.
But anyway, he says he's done it, and others are in doubt.
In a moment, we will talk a little bit about the moon, which is going to be the big topic this night.
unidentified
The End.
Thank you.
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from November 27, 2002.
Coast to Coast AM All right, this is going to lead a little bit into what we're going to do tonight, but there's a story out.
I'm sure many of you who stay on top of this kind of thing have seen it.
It's entitled A Telescope to Challenge Moon Doubters.
And it just issued from London November 25th.
Listen to this.
Conspiracy theorists, you have a problem.
In an effort to silence claims that the Apollo moon landings were faked, European scientists are to use the world's newest and largest telescope to see whether the spacecraft are still on the lunar surface.
Finally!
For years, doubters have claimed that NASA, the U.S. space agency, spent billions of dollars faking those landings to convince the world that it had beaten the Soviet Union to the moon.
Evidence cited has ranged from the absence of stars on the photographs taken by the astronauts to the way the stars and stripes they did plant seem to flutter in a vacuum.
And of course, there is a radiation.
There's a million different things.
This month, NASA tried to put an end to the controversy by commissioning a definitive account of that evidence for the landings.
In other words, they were going to write a book.
Days later, after I complained bitterly and along no doubt with some others, they dropped the idea because people said it's a waste of money taking on, in their words, a lunatic fringe.
Naturally, this only boosted claims the agency was trying to hide something, right?
So they said, yeah, it probably looked like we're trying to hide something.
So they said, forget the book idea.
Now, astronomers hope to kill off the conspiracy theory forever by using a very large telescope, or VLT, actually the most powerful telescope in the world to spot the actual Apollo lunar landers.
Operated by European astronomers in the Chilean Andes, VLT has got four mirrors eight meters across linked by optical fibers.
It can see, get this folks, a single human hair from 16 kilometers away.
A single human hair would fill the lens at 16 kilometers.
Trained on the moon, such astonishing resolution should enable it to see the base of at least one or more of the six lunar modules that NASA insists landed on the moon between 1969 and 72.
Supporters of the conspiracy theory welcome the news that astronomers were to photograph the landing sites, but Marcus Allen, here we go, that's tonight's guest, Marcus Allen, the British publisher of Nexus magazine and a longtime advocate of the theory, said photographs of the lander would not prove that the U.S. put men on the moon.
Quote, getting to the moon really isn't much of a problem.
The Russians did that in 1959.
He said, the big problem is getting people there, end quote.
According to Mr. Allen, NASA was forced to send robots to the moon, and they faked the manned missions because radiation levels in space were in fact lethal to humans.
That's from the London Telegraph, November 25th, 2002.
So Mr. Allen, Mr. Marcus Allen from Great Britain, another one all the way across pond we go for, will be the guest here in the next hour and we'll see about this.
We'll see what he thinks.
High student absence rates associated with some sort of flu-like illness spreading in East Texas have prompted several small school districts to completely shut down.
Trend apparently reached Tyler, Texas, closing one private school early for the Thanksgiving holiday, St. Gregory Catholic Elementary School on Monday reported 28%.
That's 28% or 101 students absent out of 359, according to the principal there, Kathy Harry.
Gilmore Independent School District, located about 30 miles northeast of Tyler, closed Monday after 601 of its students have been sent home by the end of the school day with flu-like symptoms.
In my 20 years of school, this quote now, from that principle, I've never seen a district close, but then again, I've never seen this kind of sickness before.
Because I was Gilmore Superintendent Rick Albrington or something like that.
So he's never seen anything like this sickness, never seen anything like a closure, but certainly not this sickness.
And while we're on that subject.
The government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo has issued an alert regarding the outbreak of hemorrhagic fever that has thus far killed eight people in the Oriental province, a region plagued by fighting among various rebel groups and ethnic factions.
This is hemorrhagic fever where you begin, I think you know, bleeding from all orifices and then I guess you just bleed on out and you're gone.
Not good stuff.
The year-round ice in the Arctic Sea may well be gone by the end of the century.
That's according to NASA.
That's right, NASA.
A NASA study finds the perennial sea ice in the Arctic is now melting faster than previously thought.
Famous old phrase, right?
Well, we previously thought this, but now we know this.
It seems to be, in fact, melting at a rate of 9% per decade.
And at this rate, the Arctic's perennial sea ice will be gone in just a very few more decades.
Perennial sea ice floats in the polar oceans, remains at the end of summer when the ice cover is at its minimal and seasonal ice has melted on average this year-round ice is just under 10 feet Thick, but can be up to 23 feet in depth.
And so, what they're thinking is, we're going to have a whole new shipping lane.
Really, we're going to have a whole new ocean up there because it's all melting.
But, gee, we're not having any effect on the environment, or the environment's not in the middle of a big change, is it?
You know, either way, either one is, I think, extremely profound.
Whether you think it is a hand of man aiding all of this or pushing it along, that is to say a normal cycle with a hand of man back there pushing away with our smog or whatever all, or you just think it's nature, either way, the change is well underway, and we truly do have to begin planning for the way it's going to be.
Because I think the argument is over about whether it's going to be that way.
It will be that way.
We just have to begin to adapt to the way it's going to be.
You're going to love this.
Scientists in Rockville are to announce this morning, so I guess they already have, that they plan to create a new form of life in a laboratory dish.
The article obviously goes on from here, but I mean, that's so profound that you have to think about what that means all by itself and just sort of stop.
Let's see now.
Scientists are going to create a new form of life in a laboratory dish.
Ai ai yai.
This is no small matter.
They're going to create some new kind of life.
Whether or not life ever comes from another planet may be immaterial because maybe we're going to create something right here.
Our own aliens.
Had you ever thought about that?
I mean, that's not a very non-trivial line.
They're going to create life in a lab dish.
Petri dish, right?
A project that raises ethical and safety issues, but also promises to eliminate the fundamental mechanics of living organisms.
A J. Craig Venter, the gene scientist with a history of pulling off unlikely successes, and Hamilton O. Smith, a Nobel laureate, are behind the plan.
Now, their intent is to create a single-celled, partially man-made organism with a minimum number of genes necessary to sustain life.
Okay, that says it all the way across the board right there.
They're going to create single-celled, partially man-made organisms with a minimum number of genes necessary to sustain.
They're going to bring a new kind of life onto the face of the earth.
And it will be of their design to some degree.
If the experiment works, microscopic man-made cell will begin feeding and dividing to create a population of cells unlike any previous known to exist.
The minute our little baby cell is spanked, it's going to start to eat and it's going to start to multiply like a rabbit.
To ensure safety, Smith and Venture said the cell will be deliberately hobbled to render it incapable of infecting people.
Oh, good.
Hobbled.
It will also be strictly confined and, in fact, designed to die if it does manage to escape somehow into the environment.
So let's see.
We're creating a new thing, a new life, a new cell.
We're telling it to eat, multiply, and be happy, but we're saying if you leave our little Petri dish, you die.
We design it so that when you get out into oxygen, you die.
At least, they hope they're designing it for that.
So we're actually in the life creation business now.
Now, what does that mean?
Well, this, of course, is just a...
You could regard it that way.
Kind of the way some people do when an egg is fertilized by sperm and you have that instant of creation, right?
You could think of it that way, that instant of creation, only this creation is occurring in a petri dish.
So you could consider it a little baby step with all their said-to-be protections.
You could consider this to be a life just the way you would when the egg and the sperm get to rocking and rolling.
Pretty interesting stuff.
We actually get in the life creation business, I thought, something formally reserved for God.
You know, and that's the other side of this really controversial thing.
Reserved for God, you know, creating life, it seems like, to most of us was a job reserved for God, the Creator, hence his name, the Creator, right?
But we're actually getting to where we can do this ourselves.
Gosh, think about that.
We can actually bring life.
Now, you know, as much as we talk about aliens coming to Earth, and they may have, for all we know, it may well be that the first really real alien encounter that we have will be by our own hand.
Think about that, by our own hand.
We actually create life.
So it may be nothing, this story, or it may be really something.
I tend to think it's really something.
I mean, they're downplaying it in a way, but when you say we are going to create a new form of life, a new cell that will itself eat and multiply and be fruitful.
I mean, that's what we're telling it, right?
Consume and multiply and be fruitful?
Who do we sound like?
That's interesting.
More worries to Mikhail-San than the risk of escape, they acknowledge, is that the project could lay the scientific groundwork for a new generation of biological weapons.
If you have the power, an incredible power, to create life of your own design, pretty godlike if you ask me, then you also have this, and that is, once you create life, you create the biggest, baddest weapon the world has ever seen.
You've created possibly something that will go and kill all the white people in the world.
Or maybe all the black people, or maybe all the brown people, or maybe all the Asians will suddenly die.
Or maybe you won't discriminate that way.
unidentified
And this bug that you let loose will go and kill everybody.
Coast to Coast AM Oh, it's early yet, and this has got to be the classic fast blast of the entire night.
Charlie up in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada says, Eric, with respect to life, creation, and a petri dish, if you think of the earth as a gigantic petri dish, didn't God hobble us so that if we tried to escape our petri dish, we'd die?
Anyway, I was just getting back to what you're saying about the creation of life.
The full story on that, I don't know if you read into it further, but if you were to imagine, basically, there was no stars in the universe, no light.
It was just pitch black.
And then somebody invents the flashlight.
Well, there you go.
You could find things.
The whole secret behind this, inventing life, is they want to create a new life form so it would detect biological warfare agents that have been released onto it.
but i mean what about jurassic park for god sakes well uh...
most of the When you create a new life, when you begin tampering about with genetic this and that, and you actually, actually create life from scratch, you've done a really significant thing.
And it might want to go hunt for bad weapons and bother bad things, or it might not want to do that.
unidentified
Sure, you always have the Frankenstein thing there, you know, where it could run wild and it could mutate all of us, make us look like a bunch of graves on the.
I mean, there you were, and you just moved gene 34, 1832nds of a zillionth of a quarter of an inch, to the right, and my God, you've got Godzilla.
unidentified
That's true, yeah.
The information, sort of like when you're talking about creating life, information that I've got a long time ago stated that some of the UFOs that people have seen, the ones that have crashed, those actually creatures in there weren't actually like, they were basically biological robots that piloted those aircraft because they felt the bodies would be fiddled with tumor cells because of the leaking power system.
So you've got to figure out, intelligent life on wouldn't Be stupid enough to risk their lives watching us.
They'd send down a biological robot to pilot, or they'd just have remote craft.
That's right.
And those guys, they call them workers, basically, in the military.
Kissinger is not a person, in my opinion, to be trusted because he's the one who brought us detente, which the Soviets' own press says was a strategic retreat for the West.
They brought us the opening to China.
Now China has nuclear missiles aimed at us, and it's still the same thing.
Well, the Soviet defector, General Jan Sajna, says it, then there are whistleblowers from the CIA, Defense Intelligence, and National Security Agency who also say that.
So I would, I'm the type of person I'm not afraid of any conspiracy.
I think if there's any conspiracy theory out there that sounds crazy, but some people believe it, I think we should investigate it anyway, either to prove or disprove once and for all.
That as these scientists claim they're going to hobble this cell, hobble it so that if it escapes, it dies, so Charlie thinks God hobbled us here on Earth.
In other words, we're here, but we can't go out there because there's no air out there, and we don't function well without air.
unidentified
Well, I'm not sure about air, but we only use 10% of our brain power, so we may be hobbling ourselves.
So anyway, you have a question for my upcoming guest?
unidentified
Yes, I do, and that is, you know, there could be ways with inner cutting and all kinds of ways where there could be a combination of people on Earth and machines on the moon.
They may actually find machines on the moon.
However, I think that if they find an American flag on the moon or remnants of it, and I don't know if they can do it with that telescope or maybe from the International Space Station.
But dealing with tonight's guest and the information you're putting out tonight, I guess my old civics teacher would probably call me what he referred to as a mug rump.
But my theory is possibly that there was a contingency plan put in place, and they took these guys out to the desert, and they filmed what they were going to, you know.
all it has to do is come straight across unencumbered space collide with the atmosphere and make it down through the atmosphere and it's coming from on high so that's not real hard and no no sir it's a better technically real hard today but back there no Transmission of television or radio pictures from the moon, not at all hard.
High-gain antenna, a dish, and you're home-free.
unidentified
Yeah, but if we did run into that problem, it would explain a lot of the conspiracy theories.
Well, I appreciate the information, and I even agree with the I think I agree for the most part with the fact that it's probably, you know, it's goodbye, Fourth Amendment, and it's very serious, but I don't think that's the way to go and try and stop that or reverse that law.
Usually laws like this passed in haste for an emergency, what's perceived as an emergency situation, like a law and a war and a lot of those things.
Those laws are generally repealed later, now, or found unconstitutional, particularly.
So, you know, that would be the real path to do this, of course, to simply find it unconstitutional, which it may be eventually.
But we'll have served in the interim, I suppose, as we have this perceived emergency with terrorism at the moment.
He's talking about the plane that was brought down by the passengers in Pennsylvania, the patriotic people who took that plane down in Pennsylvania, who in my mind will always be as heroic as you can be in this country.
They said, well, maybe we're going to die, but we're not going to die your way, buddy.
And that plane went down, and they did it.
All right, we're going to pause.
At the top of the hour, we're going to be talking about the moon and whether we really went there or not.
And we're going to get the perspective from over there away on the other side of the ocean in Great Britain.
I'm Art Bell from the High Desert.
unidentified
This is Coast to Coast A.M. The trip back in time continues with Art Bell hosting Coast to Coast AM.
More Somewhere in Time coming up.
Be inside the sand, the smell of the touch, the something inside that we need so much.
The sight of the touch or the scent of the sand, or the strength of an oak leaves deep in the ground.
The wonder of flowers to be covered and then to burst up through tarmac to the sun again.
Or to fly to the sun without burning a wing.
To lie in a meadow and hear the grass sing.
I hold these things in our memories home from the useless house.
God, I'll let you so hard with this place.
of this strength, let go of it.
Take a fear, take the place of my sea, which is for me.
I'm sharing for years.
But so hard to do it by fear.
I do it my life.
But by now, by now, I can't ride.
Premier Networks presents Art Bell Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from November 27, 2002.
Marcus Allen, actually, is the British distributor and publisher of the UK edition of Nexus Magazine.
Nexus, you probably all know about it, originates from Australia, deals with news and information overlooked, unreported, or even ignored by the mainstream media.
Gee, would they do that?
Things like hidden history, future science, alternative health issues, conspiracies, and of course UFOs.
Marcus has been involved with Nexus in the UK for the past eight years, and Nexus is widely available throughout the USA and Canada.
Like so many others, Marcus watched the Apollo moon landings live on TV and at the time applauded the apparent success of those missions.
It was seven years later, after he had attended a lecture in which he questioned, in which, rather, I guess during the lecture, the whole question was questioned.
The question was questioned.
Validity of the moon landings.
Did we or did we not?
He decided to carry out his own research and find out.
Having worked as a photographer in London in the 1960s, Marcus was able to examine the well-known photographs issued from NASA from a professional viewpoint.
He's also researched many other aspects of Apollo, as well as giving public presentations on the subject, of which he always asks for someone to prove him wrong.
To date, he says no one has.
He's reluctantly come to the conclusion that it is beyond reasonable doubt some manipulation of the Apollo record indeed has taken place.
unidentified
*Evil Screams*
Now, we take you back to the past on Art Bell Somewhere in Time.
Art Bell Somewhere in Time All right, I read it to you earlier, but once again, from the London Telegraph, that's what got Marcus Allen here tonight, from the London Telegraph.
We've got this story, which I think is very, very good.
It indicates that a very large telescope in Chile is going to point itself toward the moon, and they're going to actually look for the artifacts that man is said to have left when he quested on the moon, courtesy of NASA.
If that really happened, if it really happened as they say, as we saw, I too saw on television man step on the moon.
i was indeed and i thought there would be an interesting guess somebody who obviously believes that You think we may have gone to the moon, but you don't think that man went to the moon, do you?
The idea that somehow nobody got to the moon, it's an idea that's been bubbling around under the surface for a long time, and it's really just sort of recently resurfaced.
And there are various reasons why that has happened.
Well, one of the reasons is that NASA recently announced that it was going to commission a book by the well-known science writer James Herberg to finally put to rest these strange rumors that NASA had not been 100% truthful about its Apollo moon landing program.
In fact, that probably was generated by the considerable interest that was raised when I believe it was Fox TV in the United States broadcast a program about 18 months ago called Conspiracy Theory.
Did We Land on the Moon?
And of course that raised a lot of interest and it brought to the attention of, shall we say, a new generation.
Of course, what happened afterwards, because of the considerable reaction to it, Fox Television not being slow in recognizing a good ratings winner when they can see one, repeated the program about a month later, which is what you'd expect from a commercial television operation.
Now, at that point, quite a lot of school teachers started to contact NASA and say, look, you know, the children in my class, the kids in class, are they saying, well, what's the truth of all this?
What's going on?
And the teachers were saying to NASA, look, tell me, what do I say to them?
You know, how can I explain the situation?
So NASA was starting to get a lot of questions because though you and I and many others watched this event live on television, this was 30 years ago.
And a new generation now has grown up that is not necessarily familiar with it and look upon it more as history than anything else.
And there are one or two rather interesting little incidents in that film, which I think point to the question that we're addressing tonight.
Like what?
There are two points in it.
Well, two that I was aware of.
After the event on Apollo 13, you recall that Houston, we have our problems.
The oxygen tank had exploded and the craft was in danger.
Now at that point it was decided that the three astronauts would move from the command and service module down into a lunar lander as a sort of lifeboat.
They do spacewalks with these nice natty white suits.
But underneath that white overall is the real works, is the real spacesuit.
And it's basically a hard shell because a spacesuit has to withstand a pressure because humans, as we know, can't survive without a pressurized environment.
We've got 14 pounds of air, 14 pounds per square inch of air above us everywhere we go.
That's atmospheric pressure.
Humans can survive with a pressure of about 5 pounds per square inch.
Maybe a wee bit less.
So in order to survive in space, which is a vacuum, which has no pressure, we have to carry our own pressurized environment with us.
And we do it in a spacesuit.
Now, if you're going to have a spacesuit which has going to withstand an internal pressure of £5 per square inch, £5 per square inch is 750 pounds per square foot.
That is a lot of weight.
So a spacesuit has to be very strong.
And we all think of spacesuits as being sort of rather like...
When we come on to the detail, I was just explaining about the film Apollo 13 and these two little incidents which I had noticed.
Maybe I'm reading more into it than there should be, but I felt it was an indication, even if it wasn't a deliberate intention by the film producers to insert, shall we say, a little red flag.
The other incident was, if you recall, as they go round the moon, there's a dream sequence where Jim Lovell now knows he's never going to land on the moon.
That's the character played by Tom Hanks.
And this sequence shows the lunar lander on the moon's surface.
And I saw this in the Hollywood film Apollo 13, and the shot of the lunar lander on the lunar surface was absolutely brilliant.
You imagined you were looking at the lunar lander on the lunar surface.
This was in the film Apollo 13.
The point I'm making is that nobody other than the 12 astronauts who supposedly walked on the lunar surface know what it actually looks like, because nobody else has been there that we know of.
But this shot replicated exactly what we came to know the lunar surface would look like from the Apollo photographs, the ones that were supposedly taken on the lunar surface.
And it's these things which, in my mind, add up to many questions that haven't been answered.
Okay, but other than providing a gentle, perhaps humorous little trail of a nidbit of information, I don't know that Apollo 13 tips me one way or the other in terms of becoming convinced that we did or did not send man to the moon.
And that's the question, did we send man to the moon?
And what are the hard, contentious reasons that you could give that we were unable to actually get a human being to the moon?
Of course, if we go and lie out in the sun for too long, we're going to get ourselves burnt a bit and that is radiation in action.
But if we're stupid enough to do it we deserve all that we get.
We also know that there are far more dangerous types of radiation, those which we can experience from a nuclear explosion for instance.
That will kill us.
Above the Earth's surface are what's called the Van Allen radiation belts.
These are named after Professor James Van Allen who was the first scientist to identify them.
This was done in the late 1950s where he took the very simple expedient of strapping a Geiger counter onto Explorer 1, one of the very first satellites the USA launched, and sending it up and he found that it didn't work.
But what you're arguing here is that minus this hardening, these satellites would not function, would die very quickly from radiation, though that's a material electronic thing, would die of radiation very quickly without this hardening, yes?
Okay, yes, okay, but a satellite, of course, in geosynchronous orbit in the Clark Belt has got to stay in the Van Ellen belt virtually, as you just mentioned, all the time.
It has to reside there, whereas astronauts headed for the moon would have exposure on the way out and on the way back.
But they would be passing through it as opposed to staying there, correct?
They would be passing through it, and the calculation is that they would be exposed to the increased levels of radiation for about two hours in each direction.
All right, when we get back, we will find out what two hours of Van Allen Belt sun dipping will do for you.
That is very interesting.
I've wanted to know all my life, really, how much radiation one could expect up there.
So if you were essentially in a light craft without a great deal of shielding, you're up there skinny dipping, what would be the result after you pass through the Van Allen Belt?
Then if you live through that, what would be the result on the way back?
That alone may tell us whether man actually went to the moon or not.
Remember the shuttle, folks.
The shuttle's in low Earth orbit.
It's way, way, way down below the Van Allen Belts.
From my desert, I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM.
unidentified
In the nighttime, you're listening to Art Bell Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from November 27, 2002.
The Coast AM from November 27, 2002.
Took a look around me with a wind blow with a little girl in a Hollywood bungalow.
Are you a looking little lady in the city of night?
Or did you not alone think your city and night?
She packed my bags last night replied zero out, 9 a.m.
I'm gonna be high as a kite by then.
I miss the earth so much, I miss my wife She's lonely out of space on such a high time,
that's why And I think it's gonna be a long, long time Something brings me round again to find a man that think I am You're
listening to Art Bell Somewhere in Time, tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from November 27, 2002.
And we're talking about the moon landing, whether we really, really sent a rocket man to the moon, or rocket man actually, and whether they came back alive, whether that even would be possible talking about the Van Allen radiation belt at the moment.
We'll be right back.
unidentified
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from November 27, 2002.
Music Well, okay, let's talk about the Van Ellen Belt a little bit.
So in other words, a man going to the moon would have been exposed for two hours to whatever amount of radiation is in the Van Ellen Belt, minus whatever protection they had aboard, right?
It adds up to a potentially disabling level of radiation.
Now, one should broaden this out slightly.
Looking at what we know about Apollo, that three men in the command service module were going through the Van Ann radiation belts, much of the levels of radiation that we know about would be relatively harmless.
It would be deflected even by the aluminium skin of the craft.
The levels of radiation which cause harm to humans are the higher frequency, the higher energy levels.
These are the X-rays and gamma rays.
Now all radiation is generated by the Sun because that generates all the energy that we use on this planet.
That generates the light that we use to see by.
The electromagnetic spectrum covers a vast range of levels and intensities of radiation.
Only a few of them, only a very few, are harmful to humans.
On the Earth's surface, we are totally protected by the atmosphere.
We know that water and lead in the levels required were not carried on the spacecraft going through the Van Allen belts.
But more importantly, assuming that the astronauts were aware of the dangers, and one has to make the assumption that they were aware that there were potential dangers to them, because nobody had ever been out into space before, well I make two assumptions.
One is that experiments had been carried out prior to humans going through the Valanin radiation belts.
These experiments would, regrettably, have almost certainly have included animals.
We know that the Russians launched a dog called Laika, and we know that certain small rodents have been searched.
So without the ability to bring them back, launching them way out of low Earth orbit, you would simply launch them, observe whether or not the vital signs stayed going, not really expecting to necessarily even get them back.
And you've got to go and find this is one of the reasons why quite a lot of the original research really hasn't been discussed in much detail about the motorcycle.
Now, photographic film, I'm sure you remember being warned a little while back when you go through airport security, and if you're carrying your camera, it's always best not to put the camera equipment through the X-ray machines because it may damage the film.
What I'm saying is that the photographs that we're all very familiar with, man on the moon, all the thousands of photographs, we may not have seen the thousands of photographs, but we have seen enough to know that there are quite a lot of them taken on all the Apollo missions.
I would be the first to say these are some of the best photographs ever taken because the acid test of any great photograph is you don't need a caption.
You look at the picture and you know what you're looking at.
The picture tells the story.
If you have to have reams of explanation, this picture is taken there.
It's basically failed.
What we're looking at on the Apollo photographs, especially probably the defining image of the 20th century, is man on the moon.
That picture supposedly of Buzz Aldrin taken by Neil Armstrong on Apollo 11 standing on the lunar surface.
I'm saying that the levels of radiation known to exist beyond through the Valana radiation belts and beyond in space are such that photographic film would be adversely affected.
You know, can we go back to the radiation for a moment?
You said two hours in the Van Ellen radiation about how much actual radiation in Rentkins, or however you want to measure it, would film or man or whatever be exposed to?
Now, if you have radiation treatment for, should we say, cancer, one of the known effects of radiation treatment, which is the same thing, I mean, we're talking about radiation here, is your hair falls out.
Well, one of the major factors, obviously, if you're going to go to the moon, if you're going to launch anything, is the weight of what you're trying to launch.
And we know that on Apollo, weight was of such great significance that it had to be reduced by all possible means to the extent where some of the insulation was removed from the craft to try to reduce the level of weight.
Because for every one pound of physical weight that is launched into lunar orbit, it requires 1,000 tons of fuel to launch it from Earth.
Because you have to get out of Earth orbit, you have to get all the way to the Moon.
So any one pound of weight put into a lunar orbit requires an enormous amount of fuel.
Yes, but going by your own numbers here, if you're going to collect, say, 40 rems round trip, or even just slightly above 40 rems, I would have to say you're taking a risk, and you never know, you might not feel real well, but as long as you're not removing fuel rods when you get home, you're going to be okay.
I mean, Right, you might live through it.
It's not an automatic death sentence to go through the Van Allen belt at that speed.
However, we can go back because we've been documenting solar flares, perhaps not as well as now with spacecraft out there a million miles parked and testing the solar winds or putting their electronic finger up for the solar winds.
Not that well, but we've been watching solar flares.
And during the Apollo launches, we would know, if we look back in the records, like a weather forecast, what the solar conditions were during those missions, right?
So this is one of the points that if you look at the records of solar flare activity, which surprisingly have been extremely difficult to get hold of, I know quite a few people have tried because this is an obvious avenue of research.
The height of the 11-year cycle at the time of Apollo was 1970.
quite correct yes said the whole of the Apollo missions which were 1969 to 1972 would Exactly.
So if you say, okay, maybe they dodged the raindrops.
Maybe they were aware of this.
Maybe, I mean, I'm sure that all the Apollo astronauts would have been fully aware, fully briefed on levels of radiation likely to have been experienced.
But we have to remember also that all Apollo astronauts were military men.
They were the best of the best.
They were test pilots, they were Marines, they were Air Force.
Marcus Allen from Great Britain, Bridge Hiles, is my guest.
Tonight we'll talk about whether or not man wanted moon, and we've just got a lesson in REMs and how many you can take, how many you can't, where you can take them, where you can't, how film will do and how it won't do.
At 900 REMs, film would be jet black, actually.
So, I don't know.
There's some pretty good arguments.
Maybe we didn't go.
unidentified
*Screams*
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from November 27, 2002.
Because the interesting thing about that film is that we've all seen the pictures, and we've usually seen them in books or magazines, or maybe as postcards or posters, but as prints.
Very few people are actually aware of what the original film was that was used to take those pictures.
And it was Kodak Ectachrome Transparency Slide Material, which is a very, very high-quality film.
It's what you would expect on a mission of this importance, that you would use the very best equipment.
And the Kodak Ectochrome film was certainly the very best film at the time.
The point is that photographic slide material, though it is very good for producing final prints from, in order to get the quality, you have to expose that film accurately.
If you overexpose it or underexpose it, basically it's wrecked.
You can't use it because the colours go and you don't have an option of being able to come back and use an enlarger and dodge around on it.
You've got to get the exposure absolutely spot on.
Anybody who's used photographic slide material will tell you that.
It's nothing strange or startling about it at all.
A more logical choice, given that nobody actually knew what exposure levels should be, because nobody's ever been there on the moon, this is, would have been print material, a colour-negative material.
Of course, this is affected by radiation as well.
But the photographs that we look at are absolutely brilliant.
I've really said this, and I will continue to say it because they are very, very good photographs.
And then you have to start looking at the equipment that took these photographs, the cameras.
Not least of all, the people who operate the cameras would have been trained to use them, naturally.
But you have to bear in mind, of course, that the astronauts had many other things to do than take photographs.
They had to do a few experiments.
They had to get there, first of all.
They had to land the craft, first of all, which, of course, at the time of Apollo 11, Nobody, including Neil Armstrong, had ever successfully flown, let alone landed, the lunar lander.
When Neil Armstrong had practiced doing this, he'd actually crashed it because it went out of control.
He's a very, very good pilot.
And he had to bail out, he used an ejector seat, bailed out, used a film of this thing crashing.
I mean, one-sixth gravity would not have nearly as much of an impact as Earth's gravity does.
But in order to practice that, because this is something else one has to take into account, that all the known activities, everything that was going to happen on any part of the mission would have been practiced well in advance.
Like today, if you're going to fly in your jumbo jet, you're going to hope that the pilot of your jumbo jet has practiced in his simulator what he does when all four engines cut out at 30,000 feet.
So the Apollo astronauts would have done a great deal of simulation and training exercises in order to practice all the various procedures that they would have expected to carry out.
One of which would have been landing in a lander.
Another would have been practicing taking photographs.
Because most people are very familiar with photographs.
We've all used cameras.
We all know what they do.
You hold them up to your eye and you look through them and you take the picture.
And you hear the motor clicking and the little film winding forward.
And basically it's an almost instinctive thing now.
We have to also take into account the fact that NASA had announced that the Apollo landings would take place live on television.
So, if you're going to do something live on television, any producer will tell you that you want to make sure that all the known things that can go wrong are ironed out beforehand and ideally it goes without a hitch.
If you're going into space where these unknowns cannot be worked out in advance because you don't know because nobody's ever done it before.
Because one of the points that has been made quite clearly is that the Russians were, if not as advanced, certainly very close in understanding the dangers of space travel.
And they had made a perfectly straightforward announcement because when the Russians were tracking their spacecraft, they were using one of the big radio telescopes in Britain, Jodrell Bank, which is near Manchester in the middle of the country.
And Bernard Lovell was the director of the Jodrell Bank telescope, and he liaised and worked with the Russians quite extensively in the mid to late 1960s.
One of the points that he has made, this is Bernard Lovell has made, is that the Russians told him that they were not going to be sending any of their cosmonauts beyond the Valana radiation belts until they could ensure the safe return of their cosmonauts.
Well, that is the story that we have been told, that maybe the Russians didn't care.
It was certainly true that Yuri Gagarin was not the first person, the first man into space.
There were, I believe, three fatalities before he succeeded in his orbit.
Who they were is really only just coming out now.
Yes, the Russians were desperate to do it, and the Russians appear not to have as much concern for human life as, shall we say, their opponents in the West, America, Britain, Europe generally.
That is not necessarily going to deny the fact that they may well have made this announcement because if they couldn't see a way of protecting their astronauts, it would become much more public if they're going to try to get to the moon.
Going into Earth orbit is a relatively easy thing to do.
Going to the moon is much more public if you fail in going to the moon, especially if you have men.
One thing that everybody wanted to avoid was having any deaths occur on the moon, because we can all look at it every night and we can say, there's a body up there.
So, given the political context that we've got, given that Russia had continually achieved space firsts, they'd been first to the moon, they'd been first to Mars, been first to Venus, first with a man in space, first with a woman, first with a dog, first with virtually everything.
And President Kennedy in 1961 wasn't going to stand for this anymore.
And that was why his famous announcement, his famous line, we're going to send a man to the moon, land a man on the moon before the decade is out, return him safely to the earth.
All right, well, yes, but while you've done pretty well with the REMs, you're going to have to get beyond that to convince me that we didn't go to the moon.
And we've heard that scientists around the world have examined this moonrock and have concluded that because it does not exhibit the properties of rock which we know originated on Earth, that this rock has come from somewhere else.
Well, it's a very good point you make, actually, because I decided to try and find out what research had been done, who had examined them, what conclusions did they reach.
You have to look at what was happening in Russia at that time.
This is mid-1969, time of Apollo 11.
The chief designer, i.e.
the head of the Russian space program, was a guy called Sergei Korolev.
He was the driving force behind all the major Russian activities at the time.
He had died in early 1967.
It was an operation that went wrong.
He died.
As a result of that, there was a considerable amount of confusion, and we all know that the Russian space program became stalled at that point.
It did, yes.
There were various factions who were competing for ascendancy within the Russian space program.
Nobody had actually got there.
It was in a degree of confusion.
The Russian system of government, as we all know, was very different from the democracies of the West.
The question I would always say at that point is, yes, the Russians could have blown the whistle, and they would have gained great political capital if they had been correct.
But the point is, who would have had, A, the technical knowledge that what they were watching from the Apollo landing?
I'm saying they were fooled too, because there was nobody who had A, the knowledge, and B, the political client to be able to approach the Russian Politburo, i.e., the head of the Communist Party, and convince them that they should go public with us, that there was nobody who could do it.
We all watched it.
I watched it live, I'm sure you watched it live, millions of people, 600 million people we're told, watched it live.
It didn't show that there was a great deal of difference.
It showed that the word differences, yes.
Now, one of the experiments that was done was because at that time of Apollo, most people, most scientists thought that the moon was of volcanic origin.
It had a hot core like the Earth does now.
But the core on the moon, because it's a much smaller planetary object, has cooled.
But it used to be volcanic.
So what was done was they would take a sample of these moon rocks, and they would take a sample of rock from the Columbia River Basin, that's up near Vancouver in Canada, which is a volcanic area.
And they would take a sample of rock from Hawaii, which we know is volcanic, and they would put them in three boxes, marked Hawaii, Columbia River Basin, and Moonrock.
And these would be presented to various institutions, universities, and NASA would say, please compare and contrast these samples and report the differences.
Well, they'd already marked the sample moonrock, so the scientists knew what they were looking at.
And NASA said, well, here's the money to conduct the research.
So he who pays the piper calls the tune, in my book.
This is not science.
This is not what it should have been, which is three boxes, map A, B, and C. Yeah, blind test, right?
I understand that science can be manipulated in that manner.
I mean, they're going to take, obviously, the moon sample, and they're going to really look hard for any little thing they can't attribute to any of the other samples.
Now, if that was the case, if that is what had happened, you would get what you expect.
You would get a difference.
But we all know because recently there was the famous case of the rock from Antarctica called ALH 84001, which supposedly showed fossilized microbes that supposedly came from Mars.
And for it to then land up on Antarctica to go on Earth.
I mean, we're talking stretch of the imagination here.
But if these rocks have been examined, and if the results are relatively inconclusive, and the only report I have seen on any of the rocks which indicate that it might possibly have originated from another planetary body is the research which was done to indicate that the rock examined had never ever been in contact with water.
Now we know water is the most common thing around on Earth and everything gets in contact with water sooner or later.
It's the only one I've ever been able to identify or read about, which indicates that maybe they came from another planet.
But there are so many other areas around which indicate that we can find things on this planet billions of years old.
I mean, rocks in Greenland are billions of years old.
And they're on the surface.
And you can go and hack them off with your little archaeological trowels and chisels and picks and stuff.
So if you also assume that the origin of the moon and the origin of the earth came from the same gas cloud, which is one of the suggestions put forward to the origin of these planets, well they would be formed from the same material and there wouldn't be any difference.
So it's not really answering the point that are the rocks from the moon vastly different and are the rocks that have been examined actually from another planetary body, i.e.
the moon.
It's in dispute.
It's not 100%.
Which is one of the reasons I say I don't think the rocks prove it.
Because one has to take into account one other factor.
The Russians, we all know, were trying to get to the moon, and they did, with unmanned craft around the time of Apollo.
Those unmanned craft had little gadgets on them to drill into the lunar surface and bring back, in fact, a total of 300 grams.
Yep, regolith, which is the sort of surface material on the moon.
They returned 300 grams of material from the moon.
So one can say with a degree of certainty that material from the moon has been returned to the Earth.
So what has examined, I say most of these scientific establishments received only a few grams of material.
Do you know if the samples the Russians submitted for study exhibited roughly the same characteristics as that which we claimed we brought back from the moon?
Well, if you look at a rock exhibited in some August Institute and it's marked moon rock, who are you to question whether it is from the moon or from, as I've heard somebody suggest, Twin Falls, Idaho?
If man could not go to the moon without dying or couldn't get back with pictures or whatever all the evidence is that you claim, then certainly the pictures that we did see were faked somewhere.
Matter of fact, actually, we did that because I remember Walter Cronkite at the time with his simulations and even showing some of the NASA simulations.
Yeah, there were simulation sets built for the moon.
In fact, if you live near Flagstaff in Arizona, you will find there a full-scale model of the Sea of Tranquility.
It's about two miles long.
It was built by the U.S. Geological Survey, and it was in order that astronauts could fly across the surface in a helicopter to experience what it would be like to approach the lunar surface.
What I'm suggesting occurred is that when they were doing the simulations, they were being done in real time.
If it was an eight-day mission, the simulation lasted eight days in order to get the control center technicians, the guys behind the TV screens, would experience what it was like.
So they could have the change of shift.
They could simulate the mission over eight days, ten days, or 12 days as it was for Apollo 70.
And the astronauts would be in their spacesuits.
They would be in and out of their lunar module on the simulation set.
All of this would have been filmed and photographed extensively for training and debriefing.
Now, if at some point it was decided that because it had already been committed to being a live show, if the dangers of the radiation in space, if the dangers of temperature, which we haven't touched on even yet, if these dangers were so great that it was not known what effect they would have on astronauts in the real conditions, but we have to do it by the end of the decade.
What are we going to do, guys?
Somebody might have said, well, let's, you know, we're going to have to go ahead with it.
We've got a lot of film of what the moon looks like.
We've got the simulation sets, we've got the photographs, we've got the whole lot.
Let's launch the Saturn V rocket.
Because a million people are going to watch it.
We've got to launch it.
The astronauts have to be in the capsule.
Because if this thing blows up on the launch pad, we can't have them suddenly appearing.
They're going to have to be in it.
As soon as that Saturn V rocket was launched and it disappeared from sight, the only people we could rely upon to tell us what happened next was NASA.
So are you suggesting that NASA may have left out the part about the man in the capsule escaping and parachuting no doubt into the ocean somewhere and being retrieved?
It is, because there would be a certain delay when you're on the moon.
Hold on.
Marcus Allen is my guest.
And that's a good place to pick up on the other side of the news here at the top of the hour.
I'm Art Bell.
We're discussing whether or not man actually went to the moon.
Marcus Allen thinks not.
Even if we find machines on the moon, he still says we did not go.
unidentified
You're listening to Art Bell Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from November 27, 2002.
You know it don't count me, right?
But it's made use if you wanna take the blues And you know it don't come easily You don't have to shout or leave the vows You can even play the blues There's any chance Yeah, the song on the moon Flaring in my head That the weak line comes, look at the sand Can I be cold?
My whole life spins into a quiet bed As I'm stepping into the twilight zone Placing in my house, here's my feet gone I'll be the
same, move down the moon and dark Where I'm going to go now that I'm almost too far You can even call and go When the bullet hits the bone You can even call and go When the bullet hits the bone You can even call and go When the bullet hits the bone I'm falling down the spiral I'm falling down the spiral Just a mission unknown Love-a-clock messenger All
alone Can't get no connection Can't get through Where are you?
Where are you?
No damn well he hasn't cheated.
And then I'm about to turn through the twilight zone.
The left in the madhouse to be my people.
I've been coming through the moon and the moon and the dark.
I'm not sure I'll never go on to the box.
You're gone and gone.
You're the one that's the one.
You're gone and gone.
listening to Art Bell Somewhere in Time tonight featuring coast to coast a.m. from November 27 2002.
Music At least one more topic I definitely want to cover with Marcus before we go to your phone calls.
We're about to go to your phone calls.
It should be very interesting.
And that's the question of temperature, one of the main things we haven't covered yet.
What do we know about the temperatures the astronauts would have been exposed to and whether or not the equipment they had was adequate to keep them alive?
But most of the time, if you're traveling to the moon, you're going to be traveling in what's called the shirt-sleeved environment of the CSM, the Commander Service Module.
But that is affected by the Sun.
And we have heard the phrase barbecue mode, whereby the spacecraft is rolled continuously, so it's heated evenly on all sides, just like a barbecue stick would do.
Now, because the sun is generating heat, and the heat is hitting the spacecraft, some of it will be reflected, obviously, because it's an aluminium, fairly highly polished surface, but some will generate heat inside the spacecraft, so it has to be removed.
And it's removed by air conditioning, which is basically refrigeration.
Now, when you have an air conditioning plant in your car, or in your house, or in your office, all that is doing is removing heat from inside the building and putting the heat outside the building.
It's dumping it.
But in space, you can't do that because space is a vacuum.
Space is the best insulator of them all.
That's why you have thermos flasks, which have vacuum sections between what you want to keep hot or cold and the outside environment.
But in space it would be much bigger, quite dramatic, and if you get the right angle, you get a nice little rainbow.
But I know of no photographs showing that occurring on either the spacecraft or, more importantly, on the space suits, because the problem exists on the spacesuits as well.
So we do have this problem of how they were keeping cool.
And I don't have an answer to it, except I don't see any of the evidence for the solutions as offered by NASA, which is that they were kept cool by water.
Because if you do the calculation, and I'm not going to do it now because it's a bit complex, but if you do the calculation, you can work out how much water is needed to remove a given amount of heat.
I'm saying that it was highly unlikely that man could have got to the moon, done what we were shown he was doing, and got back in the really very good health that all the astronauts have experienced since their missions were completed, in many cases, 30 years ago.
When you heard recently that one of our astronauts was confronted by a man asking him to swear in a Bible or whatever that he really went to the moon, and the astronaut Hawnoff just knocked the guy for a loop.
My immediate reaction was the headline, but the fist has landed.
And I'm thinking, okay, guys.
Yes, if you go poking somebody with a Bible, which is a holy book, either you're going to respect it and you're going to, you know, if somebody says, will you swear on the Bible?
That's what we have to do when we go to court.
We swear we will tell the whole truth, et cetera, et cetera.
And we swear on the Bible because it is believed that we will tell the truth if we do so.
Maybe the astronaut in question, Buzz Aldrin, objected to this.
And decided that Maybe a lot of other things, too.
you know a lot of the astronauts who've come back have had real serious problems uh...
problems with their marriages problems with drinking problems with Everybody has problems, but they've had a disproportionate number of these problems.
And a lot of people think that it's because they've had to live the lie.
Marcus, if you were to set out to try and prove the opposite of what you've been discussing tonight, and you were going to try and prove we've been to the moon, other than television and the photographs that were taken, what evidence would you cite that we have been to the moon?
If you were trying to set out to prove the opposite argument, what would you use?
It's a point which I do get asked, or I have been asked in the past, and it's very valid because I will always answer it exactly the same way.
In brief, I would say an independently corroborated photograph of any of the six landers still on the lunar surface, or any of the three rovers still on the lunar surface.
When I was asked by the journalist who wrote the article, Robert Matthews, he asked me actually the same question.
He said, What would prove it?
And because he knew about this telescope, that was why he wrote the article.
When I said that it wouldn't actually prove that anybody went to the moon, what he didn't write, but what I said in addition to that was more of a joke.
It was, I've heard of Adobe Photoshop too, meaning obviously with computers you can do anything these days.
Now, that was a fairly flippant reply, but it was trying to demonstrate that it's possible to produce photographs nowadays using computers where you can show virtually anything you like.
You can show a shark swimming around Central Park if you want to.
So to take a photograph of a lander on the moon, at some point I'm going to have to say, okay, what I'm looking at is what is real, or what I'm looking at is not real.
If we can show a photograph taken on the moon, whether it's by an Earth-based telescope, as this article was talking about, basically.
Cheaper, faster, brilliant bullets, all those things.
And it was sent to the moon, and it was supposedly re-photographing the lunar surface in visible light, infrared, ultraviolet light.
And we've seen some of the images from it.
And I thought, oh, goody, you know, 1990s technology, yeah, we can probably see something pretty small on the lunar surface because spy satellites can pick out human beings on Earth from space.
mean the technology is quite remarkable and the famous way in which it is described well Well, on the Clementine satellite images, I've asked on the internet, I've tried to get images, and the best I can find is a pixel size, that is one individual pixel-only image, because it's digital pictures, of half a kilometer.
I shut up, yes, because I've got plenty of other things I want to get on with.
This is a very interesting subject, because there is an important side to it.
There's a very important side to it.
If the moon landings did not happen, let's just say that for the moment.
If what we have been fed is basically a fabrication the last 30 years, what that means is that human travel in space is really very difficult indeed.
What we've been fed, what we've been told is that human travel in space is very easy.
We just need a whacking great rocket.
We just need enough fuel and we can get to the moon.
We need a bigger rocket, we can get to Mars, and we can explore the solar system.
This is the logic behind it.
But if human space travel is really such a very difficult undertaking, which I believe it is, I don't think humans are supposed to travel in space because it is such a hostile environment for humans, not for unmanned spacecraft, for humans.
We will need to start examining something a little bit more sophisticated than chemical-powered rockets, which are basically the Model T forwards of space travel.
They work, they do the job, but they're not Lexus.
They're not Mercedes.
So what you've got is basically a dichotomy.
We're told on the one hand by NASA, yeah, look, we got to the moon, simple.
We are discussing whether or not man actually went to the moon with Mark Salad, who's the British distributor and publisher of the UK edition of Nexus Magazine.
He rather thinks not, and we'll get back to him and your calls in a moment.
unidentified
He's a man.
*Loud noise* Thank you.
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time, tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from November 27, 2002.
Marcus, a very interesting story that I read to the audience in the first hour about some scientists here that actually, fairly soon now, are going to create life for the first time.
They actually, it's in the Washington Post, just in the Washington Post, on November 21st, they're actually going to create a living cell.
And then when they create the cell, this new thing, of course, they don't know, you know, it might not be a good thing.
And so they're going to hobble it.
They're actually going to hobble it so that should it somehow escape from the Petri dish, which will be its little universe, and it should get out into the oxygen and the world, it will die.
It will be designed to be hobbled so that should it, you know, escape somehow, it will immediately die.
Now, you were saying just before the break that you thought that perhaps we're not intended to go to space.
And I had somebody who sent me a little message on the computer earlier saying that, yes, you know, and God hobbled man in the same way that we intend to hobble, hopefully, this little one-celled wonder, so that we cannot leave the planet and live.
That we can do what we're going to do here on the planet, but we're hobbled and can't leave the planet.
Now, if we are designed, and one can get into a very interesting discussion on the origins of the human race, I tend to go along, I think, with your views on the subject.
I've read your book, The Source.
I find it very interesting.
You're putting some very interesting points out there.
Maybe we are designed.
Maybe we are created.
We are property, as Charles Fort so aptly put it.
We are the creation of somebody we don't know.
We call him God on occasions.
We refer to him as the creator.
But if it is a little bit more down to earth than that, that we are being manipulated, it's only very recently that we can do genetic manipulation on a small level, but on a higher level, yeah.
All of these satellites, I think I just, I think you've got my blast.
I think you can send two of them.
The big thing, I don't know if he's aware of it or not, but the capsules or the modules all had a thin lead foil lining.
And even the suits, the space suits had lead foil lining.
And all of the computers, everything that would be electrically, have any electrical problem from a sun flare, including the cameras, all lead foil linings.
Yes.
And it just takes a little bit.
It can't stop gamma rays, but it can stop everything else.
We've not actually talked about the cameras used on the Apollo missions, but maybe this is an opportune moment to do so, because I've actually handled one of the Apollo lunar cameras, they're called.
It's made by Hasselblad of Sweden.
It's the best camera.
Well, Hasselblads are the best cameras you can buy today.
They were the best cameras you could buy back in the 1960s.
They are medium format cameras, and they were constructed basically to the specification NASA requested of Hasselblad.
The prime point is they didn't have a viewfinder, because you couldn't use a viewfinder with a spacesuit.
I'm going to kind of come at the, I have doubts, serious doubts now of the Senate, the fact that we landed on the U.S., landed on the moon.
And I'm coming at it from a different angle.
I would think that if it actually happened, that there would be, given now, you know, it's the most historical technological event that has happened in our history.
I would think that there would be a documentary with all the astronauts, you know, talking about, you know, what was going through their head and about the details of the mission where they, you know, you got a module going around the dark side of the moon and then it comes around and then they take off from the moon and they hook up and just all the complications and what was going on.
I've never seen anything like that.
Well, actually, now that you mention it, Because I missed it.
I think that if we assume the worst, if we assume that what I'm proposing is that man has not landed on the lunar surface, if that is correct, then the astronauts have to live a lie.
They have to be able to persuade not only themselves, but anybody who asks about it, and obviously they're going to be asked about it a great deal.
They have to persuade those people that what they are referring to actually happened.
If they have to live a lie, and I do hope they don't have to live a lie, but if they do, it will cause, over a long period of time, a great deal of trouble for them psychologically.
It would certainly cause me a lot of trouble for them.
And I have two experiences having been involved with NASA.
I worked at Bell Labs 1963 to about 1965 for a division associated with NASA called Bellcom.
And we did the early tracking analysis.
And one of the points I would like to make is that, as I remember, back in 1963 and so on, in near-Earth, there are eight Earth stations that track a satellite when you have a near-Earth orbit.
And it was implied a little bit earlier that perhaps instead of going to the moon, they simply went around right in near-Earth orbit.
Needless to say, with eight Earth stations, some are in Spain, Azores, Arizona, Australia, it would mean that all eight stations, and there were civilians that work at these stations.
Yeah, very interesting points, because this evidence from the actual tracking stations is actually very relevant.
Yes.
Just one point.
It was not August 68, it was July 69 that Apollo 11 landed.
The idea that if my scenario that they just remained in Earth orbit is correct, then any halfway decent tracking station would be able to identify the Russians.
Now, what one has to know about this is the frequencies on which the transmissions occurred and the number of stations that could receive that information.
At the time of Apollo, the only stations that could receive the transmissions from space were Parks in Australia, Goldstone in California, Madrid, and three ships, one in the Pacific and one in the Atlantic.
One of the points that is not generally known about, and has only actually recently come available, is that in the very early 1960s, the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, quite accidentally this was discovered, that a radio signal could be bounced off the moon and picked up with a sufficiently powerful receiver on Earth.
Now this was discovered quite by accident, but what it led to was secure radio transmission.
If you transmit a radio signal out towards the moon, it will bounce back and a powerful receiver will pick it up.
That was then utilized by the NSA, National Security Agency, for secure communications with military ships, vehicles and personnel.
It wasn't generally known about because obviously the Russians would have done the same thing.
In order to receive this signal, and you're a ham radio operator, you know about receiving radio signals.
If you don't know the frequency, you can dream up anything you like, or you can hear anything you like.
Now, your caller would have worked at the receiving stations.
They knew the frequencies.
But did he also know that he may well have been listening to a frequency transmitted from Earth, bounced off the moon, and picked up at his receiving station?