All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 27, 2002 - Art Bell
02:50:57
Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Marcus Allen - Apollo Moon Hoax
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM, from November 27th, 2002.
From the high desert and the great American Southwest, I bid you all good evening, good morning, good afternoon.
Doesn't make case, maybe, wherever you are right now, anywhere out there.
I'm Art Bell, this is Coast to Coast AM.
Art Bell filling in for George Norrie.
Well, let's take a look in a moment at the news.
First, let me tell you, tonight's gonna be an extremely, extremely interesting 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 publisher of Nexus in Great Britain.
Now, he doesn't think that... That's not quite true.
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 travelins, junk like that.
You know, people are, on average, waiting about ten 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 wants to oppose 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, ah, but Kissinger's 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 the 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.
I don't know.
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.
uh... when looking through all kinds of iraqi stuff and uh... they'd seek sounded satisfied it says here with iraqi attitudes attitudes so i don't know what a good day for the weapons inspectors means does that mean that they have a good day if they find something we'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 a few details about the latest project.
It's going well, he says, no problems.
Well, of course, there could be problems.
As with 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.
Just a 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 that are 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.
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from November 27, 2002.
Alright, 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, uh, 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 plan 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.
A days later, after I complained bitterly and along no doubt with some others, they dropped the idea because people said it was 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, probably look 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!
Ha ha ha!
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 man 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 the pond, we go for.
We'll 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.
The 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 had been sent home by the end of the school day with flu-like symptoms.
In my 20 years of school, there's a quote now, I've never seen a district close, but then again, I've never seen this kind of sickness before.
Because that 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 Nothing 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 ocean's 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 the 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 With our smog or whatever, 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.
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.
Aye yai 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.
So, the minute our little baby cell is spanked, it's gonna start to eat, and it's gonna start to multiply like a rabbit.
To ensure safety, Smith and Vetter 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 designed 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... I guess you could regard this as a first baby step, or you could regard this like a clap of thunder and, you know, the flash of lightning and a crack of thunder.
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 rockin' and rollin'.
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, what 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 worrisome it goes on than the risk of escape, they acknowledge, is that the project could lay the scientific groundwork for a new generation of biological weapons.
Aha!
It figures, right?
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.
And this bug that you let loose will go and kill everybody.
Without regard to race, sex, creed, anything.
It'll just go out and take care of everybody.
We're headed to open lines in the next half hour.
I'm Art Bell.
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
tonight featuring coast to coast AM from November 27, 2002.
Everybody's looking for something. Some of them want to use you. Some of them want to get used by you. Some of them
want to abuse you. Some of them want to be abused.
Sweet dreams are made of me.
Once upon a time, once when you were mine, I remember your sighs. You kept it in your eyes. I wonder where you are. I
wonder if you think about me.
Once upon a time, beyond the line of hellish dreams.
Once the world was you, our bodies packed up more than Jews.
That beats the brand new day We couldn't tear ourselves away
I wonder if you care I wonder if you still remember
The folks that bought our time And your love
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM, from November 27, 2002.
Jim in Richmond, California, fast blast me the following, a life form designed to die if it escapes.
Hey Art, wasn't that the problem in Jurassic Park?
Jurassic Park?
Designed to die a face off.
You know, I think the fellow might be right.
Oh.
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from November 27th, 2002.
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, uh, Eric, with respect to life creation in 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?
And aren't we escaping anyway?
Ha!
Good stuff, Charlie.
On the wild card line, you're on the air.
Hello.
Hello, Art.
How you doing?
I'm doing okay, sir.
Where are you?
California.
California?
Let me divine this.
So, cell phone.
I'm sorry.
I don't have the connection.
Go ahead.
Proceed.
You know, I spent four hours at the cell phone shop today.
You did?
Yeah.
Uh-huh.
I mean, saying stuff like, hey, can you hear this cinder block drop?
Exactly.
I can't hear you.
Anyway, what's up, sir?
Anyway, I was just getting back to what you were 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 is no stars in the universe, no light.
It's just pitch black.
And then somebody invents the flashlight.
Well, there you go.
You can find things.
The whole secret behind this, inventing life, is they want to create a new life form so it will detect biological warfare agents that have been released onto it.
Yeah, I know.
I hear that.
That's the plan.
Yeah, exactly.
But, I mean, what about Jurassic Park, for God's sakes?
Well, most of the... I mean, I understand what the plan is, sir, but let's face it.
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.
Sure, you always have the Frankenstein thing there, you know, where it could run wild and it could mutate all of us and make us look like a bunch of grease.
I mean, there you were, and you just moved Gene 34 1830 seconds of a zillionth of a quarter of an inch to the right, and my God, you've got Godzilla.
That's true, yeah.
The information, so 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 actual creatures in there weren't actually, they were basically biological
robots that piloted those aircraft because they found the bodies to be riddled with tumor
cells because of the leaking power system.
Oh yeah.
So you've got to figure out, an intelligent life form wouldn't be stupid enough to risk their life 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 called them workers basically in the military, so their things were workers.
And they're like in the hive mode.
Right.
And, you know, there's rumor about, you know, like Area 51, like we have a few of those, and their child like the very small...
And they're basically biological robots with high intelligence.
Do you doubt that for one second?
I mean, if we're reading stories like this now, this is out in the private sector where they're creating life, right?
Right.
Then what are they doing behind closed and buried doors in, you know, here in the desert?
Sure.
Back in the mid to late 50s, we were dabbling in basically cloning back then.
We were trying to create basically another Albert Einstein.
Well, we've got the doctor cloning in Italy, we've got these scientists making new life, and what's going on way down deep, years and years ahead of everything else.
That's right.
We may have, you know, interesting things going on, but as long as we're ahead of the other guy, that's all right.
That's right, thank you.
We've got to stay ahead of the Iraqis, right?
The Russians, I guess, and the Chinese, and whoever might do something like this.
I really liked Charlie's.
Question here.
Life created in a Petri dish.
He thinks of the entire Earth as a Petri dish and all of us as little creations, right?
And that we were hobbled so that we wouldn't go traipsing about escaping.
How would you hobble us?
Well, You take away all the air.
That's pretty good, right?
After you go up so far, there's no more air.
And maybe the good Lord wasn't thinking about rocket ships when he hobbled us.
I don't know.
Interesting stuff, Charlie.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
Hello.
Hi, I'd like to say you asked about Kissinger.
I myself don't think he is a person... I can tell right now this is a Kissinger fan.
No, no, no.
No, not a Kissinger fan.
No, not at all.
Kissinger's not a person, in my opinion, to be trusted because he's the one who brought us Descente.
Which the Soviet-owned press says was a strategic retreat for the West.
They brought us the opening to China, and now China has nuclear missiles aimed at us.
He also brought us some stuff in Vietnam, if you go back.
Yes, he left a lot of American prisoners, knowingly left them alive in Vietnam.
So, some people say yes.
Well, the Soviet defector, General Jan Sazhna, says it.
Then there are whistleblowers from the CIA, Defense Intelligence, and National Security Agency, who also say that.
So I would, on the top of the purse, 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.
So when the Kissinger Report, if that's what we get, comes out on 9-11, you won't necessarily buy every paragraph.
Well, there's always a chance.
Like they say, a broken clock is right twice a day.
But I don't trust Kissinger as a person.
I don't trust his judgments.
I can't say whether he's a dope or a traitor.
I can't judge his motives, but...
He's been wrong so bad in the past, how could anybody consider his opinion worthwhile today, is what I'm saying.
Alright, well, you are entitled, sir, to your opinion.
And I know that opinion is shared by many, that Henry Kissinger is one of them.
One of them.
And who's he investigating?
He's investigating them.
Right?
He's one of them, and he's investigating them.
That's what I was, the concept, the whole concept of government investigating itself.
I was, uh... I was contemplating that.
Henry Kissinger.
I mean, you gotta consider Kissinger part of government.
Definitely, definitely, definitely one of them.
Investigating the government.
Well, how cool is that?
I don't know.
I could think of other people you might get to do the job.
You know, like out in the private sector somewhere?
Previously in the private sector.
Wouldn't you be a lot more trustful of that than somebody within government?
Just a thought.
West of the Rockies, you are on the air.
Hello.
Hi, Richard here from KDWN in Las Vegas.
The big 50,000-watt Las Vegas signal.
Yes, sir.
Absolutely.
This is interesting, talking about clones, Petri dishes and Henry Kissinger.
I love it.
I think the Petri dish thing and the organisms might be growing to kill the bad clones that get out.
The bad what?
The bad clones.
The bad clones?
That get out.
Yeah.
That don't make it past grade A if they're graded.
What do you think of Charlie's theory?
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.
Well, I'm not sure about air, but we only use 10% of our brain power, so we may be hobbling ourselves.
We're all hobbled.
90% hobbled, right?
and probable world i mean i would not ninety percent hobbled right that's
about it uh... howard helicopter
i have a question for you Some of us, 95, maybe 96.
Well, you know, the percentage.
Go to the crap tables and ask the pit boss.
He'll tell you.
So anyway, you have a question for my upcoming guest?
Yes, I do.
And that is, you know, there could be ways with intercutting 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 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.
Yeah, if they find a flag, then what?
Well, there's a better chance, at least, maybe 10%, or 90%, I'm not sure, that man may have been there, because... Yeah, but if the smart cells A combination of those who faked this, taking that side for just a second, thought real hard about it.
They'd have just spit out a flag, right?
They'd be lying there on the moon's surface in case anybody looked later.
Well, either that or they said Henry Kissinger.
You and your family have a great Thanksgiving.
And the very same to you, sir.
Have a great Thanksgiving.
And don't, don't... You know, the whole tryptophan thing, of course, is true.
When you eat turkey, bear this in mind, you will get sleepy.
I know a lot of people think that's an old wise tale, but it's not.
It will certainly make you sleepy.
So you'll have a big meal and you'll gorge yourself on all the turkey you can eat, if you're lucky.
And then you will sleep.
You will have an afternoon nap.
An entire nation gets sleepy.
Now there would be a moment for an attack, right?
A sneak attack on America.
Thanksgiving early evening when the whole damn country's asleep.
First time caller on the line, you're on the air.
Hello.
Hey, good morning, Mark.
Good morning, sir.
How about the turkey, first of all?
You know, we all know that turkey makes everybody sleepy, so... Yeah.
It's just impossible.
But I mean, what if the whole country got sleepy, which pretty much they do?
Well, hey, the Japanese picked the perfect time, uh, early December, early Sunday morning to attack us, so... It was just a random thought, you know?
I'm sure there's nothing... But, uh, dealing with, uh, tonight's, uh, guest and, uh, the information you're putting out tonight... Yes.
I guess my old civics teacher would probably call me what they, uh, he referred to as a mug-rump.
A mug-rump?
There's a mug on one side of the fence and a rump on the other side.
Uh-huh.
Uh, you mean on the whole, you mean on the whole moon question?
Yeah, I think both sides of this.
Number one, I do believe that we did go.
I'm sure that we went up there.
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 that they were going to go.
Oh, so that's a new one.
So you think that we might have essentially done both?
Right.
That we took him out to the desert, we filmed the practice, told him, okay, this is what you're going to do when you get up here.
Right.
And when we actually set him up, we ran into a problem that nobody thought would ever happen.
And that was?
The broadcast.
Back in 1969, what was our broadcast capability?
Could we actually send an audio and video signal all the way from the Moon back to Earth?
Yeah, we could.
Uninterrupted?
Yeah, we could.
Look at today's technology.
We could barely get a signal around the country sometimes.
Well, yeah.
But see, the Moon has this really good line of sight to the Earth.
Right.
I mean, really good, sir.
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... technically... Not real hard today, but back then... No, sir, even back... No, even back then, sir.
Transmission of television or radio pictures from the moon, not at all hard.
High-gain antenna, a dish, and you're home free.
Yeah, but if we did run into that problem, it would explain a lot of the conspiracy theories.
It would explain it if your technical concept was accurate.
It's not.
I was doing it then, and many others were doing it then.
That isn't that long ago.
So yes, we could easily transmit that way.
A high-gain dish there, and a very high-gain dish here.
And yes, I assure you, signals from the moon, no problem at all.
In fact, ham radio operators, like me, without extremely sophisticated equipment, are quite capable of bouncing signals off the moon.
In other words, hitting the moon so hard with a signal that it bounces back to Earth.
So if we can do that, then you can quite... And that's with equipment that would have been readily available then as well as now.
The same equipment, the same level of technical expertise was around then as it is now.
So it absolutely would have been possible.
Absolutely.
East of the Rockies, you're on the air.
Hello.
Hey, Art.
I just wanted to see how my cell phone worked.
Um, about like the rest of them, to be honest with you, sir.
Oh, okay.
This is Kurt in Milwaukee.
Uh-huh.
I thought I'd be the last one ever to, uh, submit to cell phones, but at least it takes messages.
But, uh, hey, I was just wondering, you think, uh, I always look forward to hearing JC call the show.
Yeah.
And I'm waiting for him to call George.
Oh, gee, me too.
I just can't wait till he calls, sir.
I literally count the moments from call to call.
Well, Charlie, I broke the time you had him on for a whole hour.
That was one of the all-time classics.
That was an all-time classic, all right.
Thank you very much, JC.
A handful whenever he calls.
And I'm sure that as time goes on, JC will... I can't say that on the radio.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air.
Hello?
Hello, Art Bell.
This is Tawasi calling from KPNW Country in Eugene, Oregon.
Yes, Tawasi.
I was just calling to let you know that here in the city of Eugene, we're calling for the repeal of the USA Patriot Act.
The city council... Yeah, but you can't do that in Eugene.
The city council came out and said, repeal it.
They can't, yeah, but the city... Eugene can't do that.
Well, we just became the 14th city in the nation To come out and say that it was a bad law.
It infringes on our constitutional rights.
I don't think that's the way to go get that law, though.
I mean, I understand how you feel.
I just don't think that's the right path to getting it.
I think that, you know, when there's something wrong with a law, that people have to say so.
Something like 300 people showed up at the city council meeting, and they voted unanimously to repeal it.
Can I mention a paper?
Uh, like as in newspaper, you mean?
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, sure.
It's in the, uh, Eugene Register Guard.
Okay.
Yeah.
Alright, 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 war and a lot of those things, those laws are generally repealed later.
Now, or found unconstitutional, particularly.
So 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.
But yeah, I kind of support you.
I mean, I understand what it means for America.
It's not a good thing.
Wildcard Line, you're on the air.
Hello.
Hi, Art.
Hi.
This is Greg from Cape Cod, listening to you on WXTK.
Yes, sir.
And I know that you don't like to have your previous caller almost turn into a political thing when he was cutting down Kissinger.
Well, there's a lot of people who consider Kissinger part of the New World Order, and he may be.
Oh, I know, but I didn't care much for him either then, but at least when you were referring to China, at least he didn't give them missile technology like happened in Clinton's watch, but that's not why I called.
But you got that in anyway, didn't you?
I just wanted to ask you if you had taken a I saw that.
I saw that.
I don't know.
of the picture sent you of the clouds when they have on your
web uh... very lost me uh...
it's the arm in the clouds coming in to jesus on the cross since right
out of the clouds i don't know
all you know i i i i saw that i saw that i don't know i don't know i thought that was uh... an
interpret interpretive matter and i i i didn't see it the way you saw
i didn't i was able to make out jesus uh... and and i sort of barely saw the
arm or what could have been maybe an arm
i didn't put up with anything was strong enough East of the Rockies, you're on the air, hello.
All right, how are you?
I'm all right, sir.
Call from New York?
Yes.
A little off topic, I just recently attended a law enforcement conference in regard to anti-terrorism.
Okay, turn your radio off if you would, please.
Okay.
One of the, it was attended by FBI, CIA, INS, and a couple of speakers that brought up, and I had never heard this before, I want to know if any of you listeners heard this, in regard to the plane that went down in Pennsylvania?
Yes.
Had you heard that the tail section was found seven miles away?
Uh, no, I didn't hear that.
And, um, I would be happy to look into that.
Believe me, I'm sorry, we're out of time.
I would be more than happy to look into that.
The tail section found seven miles away.
He's talking about a plane that, uh, was brought down by the passengers in Pennsylvania.
Uh, 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 gonna die, but we're not gonna 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 way on the other side of the ocean.
In Great Britain, I'm Art Bell from the high desert.
This is Coast to Coast AM.
The trip back in time continues with Art Bell hosting Coast to Coast AM.
More somewhere in time coming up.
I am your soul.
You and me, we ride along through the night.
Be it sight, sound, smell, touch, there's something inside that we need so much.
The sight of the touch, or the scent of the sound, or the strength of an arc when it moves deep in the ground.
The wonder of flowers to be covered and then to burst up through tarmac into sun again.
Or to fly to the sun without burning a wing?
To lie in a meadow and hear the grass sing?
To have all these things in our memory stored?
I'm the user, the compass, the guide.
I let you soar with this pace on this trip.
Just go on and see it.
Ride, take a free ride, to the rest of the sea, it's for free.
The question is, more like, did we take a ride?
I've had to risk my fears, had to risk my life for my friends, but by now, by now, I'm sure I'm right.
Premier Networks presents Art Bell's Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from November 27, 2002.
The question is, more like, did we take a ride? Huh?
Or were we on their ride?
Which wasn't to the moon.
We could be talking about that.
I've got this very interesting article and then one man mentioned in here, Marcus Allen.
I've got him from Great Britain.
Marcus Allen actually is the British distributor and publisher of the UK edition of Nexus Magazine.
Nexus, as you probably all know about it, originates from Australia, deals with news and information overlooked, unrecorded, 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, a part of the apparent success of those visions was seven years later, after he attended a lecture in which he questioned, in which rather, I guess, during the lecture was 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.
Now, we take you back to the past, on Arkbell Somewhere in Time.
And now, we take you back to the past, on Arkbell Somewhere in Time.
www.arkbell.com Alright, I read it to you earlier, but once again, from the London Telegraph, that's what got Mark Zolland 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, if, 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 saw that the way everybody else did.
Marcus, Marcus Allen, not the football guy.
Welcome.
Good evening.
Good evening.
What is it there anyway?
It's just gone 7 o'clock in the morning in the UK.
The sun is just, well, I don't think the sun's going to come out today.
It hasn't been out for a few days.
It's been raining.
Yeah, well, situation normal.
Situation very normal.
Where are you, London?
Just south of London.
I'm very close south of London.
Another wonderful, actually, it's a wonderful day like that in British Isles.
Most people like days like that in British Isles.
Do you?
I see.
We get used to it.
Dreary, foggy, rainy.
It's a wonderful day.
Basically, if you can't take a joke, you shouldn't be living here.
That's right.
Well, all right.
This is a very, very interesting article.
The one appeared in the Telegraph, and you, of course, were quoted in here.
I was.
I was indeed.
And I thought there would be an interesting guest, somebody who obviously believes that... And let's establish right at the beginning what it is you do and don't believe, and then we'll kind of get into the details.
You think we may have gone to the moon.
But you don't think that man went to the moon, do you?
Not in the way we've been told.
Getting to the moon isn't really a problem.
Certainly it wasn't a problem back in the 1960s.
Um, one has to look at the whole context of this.
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, and also... Like what?
I mean, what are the reasons?
Why is it suddenly back with us?
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 Ehrberg to finally put to rest these strange rumors that NASA had not been 100% truthful about its Apollo moon landing program.
Yeah, I laughed a lot about that, actually.
And we all fell about it.
In fact, that probably was generated by the considerable interest that was raised when, I believe, it was Fox TV in the United States I broadcast a program about 18 months ago.
Or conspiracy theory.
Did we land on the moon?
Yeah.
And, of course, that raised a lot of interest, and it raised, it brought to the attention of, shall we say, a new generation.
Well, I'll tell you how good it was.
I, of course, watched that program and commented for my listeners here, and I thought that program was so good.
I mean, when I went, before I watched the program, The Truth Here, Marcus, I thought people who, you know, thought we didn't go to the moon were crackpots.
I really did, Marcus.
But by the time I finished watching that program, it was so good that I was asking myself a lot of really hard questions.
Right.
Now, as time has gone on, Marcus, I've kind of drifted back the other way, to be honest with you, and I still think we did go to the moon.
But, I don't know, it's nagging.
Well, it was a result of that program, 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.
Oh, yeah.
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 my class, they're 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 Well, you and I and many others watched this event live on television.
This was thirty years ago.
And a new generation now has grown up but is not necessarily familiar with it, and look upon it more as history than anything else.
For us, it's part of our lives.
Now, right now, in this generation, we know, for example, it would be nothing to fake that.
I mean, it would be nothing to fake it.
I mean, Hollywood these days could make A moon landing, frankly, looked more real than what you and I saw on television.
They could do that today, right?
No sweat at all.
Well, in fact, Hollywood have done exactly that.
They can make it look better!
Yeah, it's called Apollo 13.
And we all know that was done in Hollywood, in fact.
Ron Howard, the director, said it was all made in Hollywood.
No, if anybody has seen that film, that's the one starring Tom Hanks.
Oh, of course I've seen it, yes.
If anybody's seen that film, they will, no doubt, be as impressed as everybody is by the sheer quality of the production that Hollywood turns out.
It is a very polished commercial product.
Absolutely.
But it was all made in Hollywood.
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 a problem.
Yes.
The oxygen tank had exploded and Kraft was in danger.
Now at that point, it was decided that the three astronauts would move from the command and service module down into the lunar lander.
That's right.
As a sort of lifeboat.
Yes.
And in order to be safe, they had to put their spacesuits on.
That's right.
And one of the shots, this was a very, very small shot, was as they were getting into their spacesuits, of zipping them up.
Now, there was no reason to have that shot in the film at all.
The point I'm making is that how can you pressurize a zipper?
Well, you probably can't.
Well, exactly.
This is the point.
That was Hollywood, though.
They had to get suits on quickly.
Otherwise, don't the real suits take a long time to put on?
You don't zip them up, right?
They do have zippers.
They do?
Most people are familiar with spacesuits by the rather natty white overalls that we see, with all the tubes and things attached.
The ones they do spacewalks with, right?
That's right, yeah.
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.
Right.
We've got 14 pounds of air, 14 pounds per square inch of air above us everywhere we go.
Right.
That's atmospheric pressure.
Yes.
Humans can survive with a pressure of about five 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.
Right.
And we do it in a spacesuit.
Okay.
Now if you're gonna have a spacesuit which is going to withstand an internal pressure
of five pounds per square inch.
5 pounds 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... Balloon-like.
Sort of balloon-like.
Well, that's how they would appear.
They appear that way, yes.
Made of basically fiberglass.
You can imagine a fiberglass shell fitting over you.
That's what a spacesuit is.
It's not very flexible.
You can make joints that move, yes.
So that's why they have such a hard time with construction up there.
Basically, yes.
The movements of anybody in a spacesuit are severely restricted.
And you can't have half a spacesuit.
It's the whole thing or nothing at all.
So that's why you have the helmet and the gloves and the boots and everything.
Okay, I'm sorry, we're on a delay here.
I don't mean to interrupt you, but how does this bear on anything to do with the moon, for example, or doesn't it?
Well, it has a great deal to do with it.
When we come on to the detail, I was just explaining about the film Apollo 13 and these two little instances which I had noticed.
Maybe I'm reading more into it than I 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.
Right.
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 would, 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.
Right.
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 was these things which in my mind add up to many questions that haven't been answered.
Okay, but I, you know, 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 we did or did not send man to the moon.
And that's the question, did we send man to the moon?
What are the hard, contentious reasons that you could give that we were unable to actually get a human being to the moon?
Okay.
We both agree, I think we could get machines to the moon.
I can see that we could, and I'm sure you do as well, right?
I do, yes.
So the only question is, did we get men there or not?
That's the key question.
Did we get men to the moon?
Now, yes, physically, you could put a man, maybe they weigh 150 pounds, and it's not particularly heavy.
Physically, they could be got there.
The point is, could they get Get there and come back alive.
Yeah, that is the question.
Okay.
What is the showstopper of space?
What will prevent this happening?
And this is possibly the key to it all.
Radiation.
Okay.
Now, radiation, we know, is lethal.
Certain types of radiation are lethal to humans.
Correct.
On Earth, we survive very comfortably.
Of course, if we don't lie out in the sun for too long, we're going to get ourselves burnt a bit.
And that is radiation in action.
Right.
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.
Correct.
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.
How far above, or out from Earth, or above, is the Van Allen Belt?
Right, the Van Allen Belt starts 500 miles above the Earth's surface.
So, anybody launched into space above low Earth orbit is going to be in, or go through, the Van Allen Radiation Belt.
That's right.
Now, he's strapped on a Geiger counter.
He's strapped on a Geiger counter.
He's strapped on a Geiger Right.
As that first satellite passed through, he thought there was none because the Geiger counter wasn't working.
Well, what had happened was that the Geiger counter had not been set at a high enough level that the radiation had gone off the scale.
So when they repeated the experiment with a Geiger counter able to record much higher levels of radiation, yes, that's when they found it.
And they found that it was very severe.
How severe?
Certainly severe enough to cause damage to satellites which operate within it.
Now, at the moment, commercial satellites, uh, geosynchronous satellites, those which stay in one place above the Earth's surface.
22,300 miles out.
22,300 miles out.
They're a slap bang in the middle of the, um, banana radiation belt.
So they're getting slammed.
They would be if they weren't protected against them.
It's what's called hardening.
You can harden a satellite, which means basically you protect it.
You protect the internal electronic workings from the dangers of radiation.
Well, hardening requires weight.
I mean, you've got to put lead or something like it up there to shield.
Well, for electronic equipment, you don't need a great deal.
Hardening is more of a technical term rather than a weight term.
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?
That's correct, yep.
Yep.
Well, one of the known results, or one of the known effects of a nuclear explosion is that it takes out all electronic equipment.
Quite so.
And that is due to the levels of radiation Which result from a nuclear explosion?
The electromagnetic pulse.
Electromagnetic pulse.
It's part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Uh-huh.
Of which we use visible light as part of it.
Okay, but... To see our way around.
Yes, okay, but a satellite, of course, in geosynchronous orbit in the Clark Belt, has got to stay in the Van Allen 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 and 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.
In the nighttime, you're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from November 27th, 2002.
This is a tribute to the late and great John Lewis.
He was a young man who was a little girl in a Hollywood bungalow.
With a little girl in a Hollywood bungalow.
Are you a lucky little lady in the city of night?
Or did you get a lost angel in the city of night?
She packed my bags last night, three flight.
Zero out, nine a.m.
And I'm gonna be high As a kite by ten
I miss the earth so much I miss my wife
And this lonely outer space On such a time
I am just right And I'm gonna be high
As a kite by ten you
And I think it's gonna be a long, long time Till touchdown brings me round again to find I'm not the man they think I am at home Oh, no, no, no I'm a rockin' man, rockin' man Burnin' out his fuse out every home And I think it's gonna be a long, long time Since uptown brings me round again to find I'm not the man they think I am at home
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from November 27, 2002.
My guest from the British Isles is Marcus Allen.
And we're talking about the moon landing.
Whether we really, really sent a rocket man to the moon.
A 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.
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from November 27, 2002.
AMC News Dispatch Theme Okay, let's talk about the Van Allen 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 Allen Belt, minus whatever protection they had on board, right?
That's right.
Correct.
Which adds up to about what?
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 valon 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.
Right.
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.
That's right.
The electromagnetic magnetic 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.
It's the equivalent of 30 feet of Earth.
Earth will protect you as well.
Water will protect you.
Lead will protect you.
But 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 in space before.
Well, I make two assumptions.
One is that experiments had been carried out prior to humans going through the Valentine radiation belts.
These experiments would, regrettably, have almost certainly have included animals.
We know the Russians launched a dog called Leica, and we know that certain small rodents have
been set up.
Okay, what happened to Leica and what happened to the rodents?
Right. Leica died within a few hours of launch.
Oh.
Though that was not announced at the time. What was said at the time was...
Gosh, you know, I never heard that.
Yeah. This has only recently come out. Since the Iron Curtain was torn apart, what, 12, 13 years ago,
So much information has come out of Russia which we were not privy to before.
So, like of the dog, uh, assumed room temperature within hours.
Um, basically within hours, yes.
Um, she overheated.
And, uh, that is another area that we'll possibly look at, uh, a wee bit further down the line.
Oh, okay, so she didn't die of radiation.
And she did, well, it's unlikely she died of radiation, because she died so soon.
She died within a few hours of launch.
It was announced that she had food and water available to her for 10 days of flight.
That was what was announced.
So the assumption was made that she lived for about 10 days.
Now obviously you don't send a dog up into space without recording the effects of the launch and the travel in space.
So you have telemetry.
And so obviously if her vital functions had ceased like she did, It would have been known pretty rapidly by anybody monitoring her progress.
And that is what has come out of Russia very recently.
Small rodents were sent out, rats, earthworms were sent out, many different types of animals.
I, despite a great deal of searching, have been unable to find the results of that.
What we do know is that none of these animals launched into space returned.
One or two monkeys were supposed to have returned.
They were launched fairly early on.
And one has to make the assumption that they were being launched in order to establish what effect space travel would have on life.
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, I'm not really expecting to necessarily even get them back.
They just sort of keep going?
They would just keep going, yes.
Oh, that's pretty horrible.
Getting them back alive was relatively difficult.
Launching really wasn't too much of a problem.
Also expensive.
I mean, you know, you'd get a lot of money to bring them back.
And you've got to go find them.
This is one of the reasons why quite a lot of the original research That really hasn't been discussed in much detail about the... Gotcha.
Well, of course, I can see why it wouldn't be discussed.
So the dog died very quickly, and you don't know the fate of the others?
Not fully, because the results really haven't been announced.
But there's one thing which we all know is affected by radiation, and is not human, and that is photographic film.
Oh, yes, indeed.
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.
I rather think the newer inspection equipment somehow doesn't harm Film with radiation.
Because they always say, will not harm film.
There's a little sign up there that says, won't harm film or something.
That's right.
Because the more modern equipment is far more sensitive.
But the older x-ray machines, they'd zap film like goodbye.
They would zap it.
And if you were a professional, you were always advised to get the film hand-searched.
Gotcha.
I mean, we're talking maybe 10, 20 years ago.
Gotcha.
But not that long ago.
So the point is that photographic film So are you saying all their film would have been zapped?
you get on it is called fogging. Fogging purely means that the film has been partially exposed
Yes.
by the radiation. Right. And it reduces the contrast level.
In effect, the film, if you're using it for professional purposes, the film is useless.
Okay. So you have to avoid this.
So are you saying all their film would have been zapped?
Yes. But it wasn't? That's right.
In fact, the pictures were startlingly beautiful and clear, and you had the blackness of space without the fog of radiation?
That's right.
What I'm saying is that the photographs that we're all very familiar with, the 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.
They are brilliant photographs.
They certainly are.
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.
Yes.
If you have to have reams of explanation, this picture is taken there and it's basically failed.
Yes.
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.
This is a defining image.
This is an iconic image.
It is a brilliant photograph.
And you're saying it's an impossible image?
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.
But why could they not take special precaution?
Because they weren't dummies.
They knew that photographic film was going to get hit by radiation.
They knew there was radiation there, right?
So why not take special precautions?
That's the obvious point, isn't it?
Now, what precautions would be taken?
Exactly.
This is what happens on the space shuttle today.
Well, you can have a look.
They didn't have a lead container on Apollo.
Absolutely.
Are you quite sure?
None.
Absolutely.
Then what precautions were taken for the film on Apollo?
None.
None?
That's the problem.
None?
You know, can we go back to the radiation for a moment?
You said two hours in the Van Allen Radiation Belt.
How much actual radiation in Renkins, or however you want to measure it, would film or man or whatever be exposed to?
I'd like to know a figure.
Do you know a figure?
Okay.
Just as a point of comparison, If we use the term REM, which is what I'm familiar with, REM stands for European Equivalent Man.
It's a measurement of radiation level.
Right.
We measure radiation and the exposure to that amount of radiation for whatever X amount of time, right?
That's right.
Okay.
The average background radiation on Earth, because there is some, it comes from rocks, it comes from the sun, is 0.5 REM.
Right, 0.5.
If you are If you work in the nuclear industry, obviously you're much closer to higher levels of radiation.
Yes.
The level that you are allowed to be exposed to in any one year is 5 rem.
5?
Quite low.
Alright.
From 0.5 to 5?
To 5.
5 would be the upper limit in terms of what you could legitimately be exposed to if you work in the nuclear industry.
Alright.
And if you recall, there are ways in which these things can be measured and can be recorded.
Radiation is cumulative.
Yes.
So if you have more than 5 Rem in a year, you obviously have to come out of that particular environment and you have to start working.
Right, somewhere else.
Okay.
The point at which radiation will affect man Or affect people.
Yes.
Start at about 35 rem.
35 rem.
Okay.
35 rem.
Now that means that you're going to start exhibiting the first signs of radiation sickness.
And the first signs of that are nausea and vomiting.
Right.
So nausea and vomiting at 35.
Yep.
Okay.
If you start getting up to the 100 plus levels, 100 plus rem.
Yes.
You're going to start being disabled.
Disabled.
Now, if you have radiation treatment for, shall 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.
Your hair falls out, yeah.
Okay, that is one of the... We've all seen it with cancer victims undergoing... That's right, cancer victims are familiar with this as an effect.
Alright, and so they're up in that 100 plus.
It's starting to get to that level.
Yeah, okay.
The point at which you start dying... Right.
Is 500 rem.
500 rem.
And above.
And it's good night?
Once you get above that, you're in serious trouble.
Good night.
Alright, got it.
So, going through the radiation belt, spending two hours in it, what would one expect to collect?
Probably.
One would expect to collect around 15 to 20 rem.
Each way?
Well, each way.
Now, depending on the levels of radiation that are in the radiation belt... Well, that's below what you call disabling.
Below disabling.
But still, you would begin to feel that you would have felt the effects.
You could be nauseated, you could be throwing up, that kind of thing?
Yeah.
But it's not below the level at which photographic film is affected.
And where would that be?
That would be around 5 to 10 rem.
five to ten rem that's when photographic film if it's unprotected
and at forty rem what happens to the film it starts to show distinct levels of
uh... fogging which would be
uh...
visible on any
prints developed from it and how do we know they didn't take some special precaution
and 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
I'm sorry.
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, you might live through it.
It's not an automatic death sentence to go through the Van Allen belt at that speed.
It's not an automatic death sentence, no.
This is the lowest point.
We haven't got on to the real showstopper.
OK.
Well?
Solar flares.
So what will you need?
Solar flares are unpredictable.
They cannot be known about in advance.
We know they exist because there was a very recent Demonstration of the power of a solar flare in California a few days ago.
I'm extremely well aware of what a solar flare can do, Marcus.
Very well aware of what it can do.
I'm a ham operator, you know, and I've followed solar flares for a long time.
What happened in California?
There was a major spike.
There was a major solar flare which started to seriously affect the Earth's magnetic field.
Because it's the Earth's magnetic field which holds the Van Allen radiation belts in place.
Yes.
They're formed by the Earth's magnetic field, or they're held in place by the Earth's magnetic field.
This solar flare was so powerful that the Earth's magnetic field was actually bent.
Now, over in Brazil... He's quite correct, actually.
Toward the south, which would mean that a lot of us in the southern hemispheres might see northern lights, for example.
That's the main point that you would actually identify.
Mark's quite right about that.
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 apart, 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?
Correct.
And what was the forecast back then?
Specifically on Apollo 16, there was a major flare.
A major?
It's called an M-class flare.
Yes.
There was an M-class flare during the time The Apollo 16 craft will be on the Earth's magnetic field, beyond the valiant radiation belts.
And what would that have meant to the astronauts?
Death.
What sort of rim value would they have gone through?
That particular flare was around 900.
They'd have gone through 900 rims?
Yep.
Yeah, they'd be dead.
They'd be very dead.
They're not.
The Apollo 16 astronauts are not.
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.
Sure.
And it is very, very difficult to get accurate figures.
But you're sure about that M-class flare?
Absolutely, yeah.
You're also aware that there is a cycle of flares.
There's what's called a solar maximum.
An 11-year cycle, yes.
An 11-year cycle.
The height of the 11-year cycle at the time of Apollo was 1970.
Quite correct, yes.
So the whole of the Apollo missions, which were 1969 to 1972... Would all have been in the upswing of the cycle.
Exactly.
So, if you say, okay, maybe they dodged the raindrops, maybe They were aware of this.
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.
I know, but it still doesn't get past your, they got 900 REMS and they're still alive revelation.
Hold on, Marcus.
We're here at the top of the hour.
I'm Art Bell.
Did we or did we not send men to the moon?
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from November 27, 2002.
November 27, 2002.
The news of the death of a young man in the city of New York, New Jersey, was the first in the history of American
history.
The death of a young man in New York, New Jersey, was the first in the history of American history.
The death of a young man in New York, New Jersey, was the first in the history of American history.
The New York Times was the first in the history of American history.
Thank you all.
And on my last...
Education hasn't hurt enough.
I can read the writings on the wall.
Hold a phone with a nice bright color.
It'll read your soul.
It'll make you think all the words.
Oh, yeah.
I got a high-tech camera.
I love to take a photograph.
And I was the day I called home away If you took all the girls I knew when I was single
You oughta know I'd give it all for a man I'm only dead when that's my sweet imagination
And everything looks worse in black and white Hold the phone, the hills and the night, bright colors,
they give it to me You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight, featuring Coast to Coast AM, from November 27, 2002.
Marcus Allen, from Great Britain, Bridge House, is my guest.
Tonight, we'll talk about whether or not man went to the moon, and we just got a lesson in rims, 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 rims, film would be Jet black, actually.
So, I don't know.
There's some pretty good arguments.
Maybe we didn't go.
Sound of a car crashing.
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
in time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from November 27th, 2002.
Well, maybe I was exaggerating with the song there, but I don't think so.
Coming through as a Van Allen belt at 900 rims, that film, you would think, would be toast.
I mean, just like black or something, or fully exposed, maybe white, I don't... Would that be true, Marcus?
It would certainly be adversely affected.
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 Ektachrome Transparency slide material, which is a very, very high quality film.
It's what you'd expect on a mission of this importance, that you would use the very best equipment.
And the Kodak Actochrome film was certainly the very best film at the time.
The point is that the 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 colors 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 color negative material.
Of course, this is affected by radiation as well.
But the photographs that we look at are absolutely brilliant.
I've already said this, and I'll 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 had to operate the cameras have been trained to use them actually.
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.
It was a film of this thing crashing.
Yes, indeed, but that was with Earth gravity, yes?
In other words, on the moon, you've got what, I'm trying to recall, is it one-eighth gravity?
One-sixth is the... All right, one-sixth the gravity.
So their presumption was...
That the craft would be very much more controllable in 1-6, the gravity, than it was on Earth.
I guess, right?
Certainly, yes.
I mean, 1-6 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.
I always hope that.
You do hope that because you don't want him to practice with you on board at 30,000 feet.
You want him to be absolutely fully trained.
No, the last thing you want to hear echoing back in the fuselage is, Damn, I wish I practiced for this!
Anybody know what we do now?
Yeah.
No, you don't want to hear that.
Right.
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 the 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 a picture.
And you hear the motor clicking and the film winding forward.
And basically, it's an almost instinctive thing now.
We don't even think about it.
I mean, we're here tonight to talk about the fact that you don't even think man went to the moon.
Now, how does this go to prove other... I'm certainly on track with you on the film problem, the radiation problem, even the radiation problem for the humans, but I don't see where we're going here that talks about, look here, we weren't on the moon.
Okay, if at some point it was discovered that there was so much danger in space that the chances of man surviving in space were diminished considerably.
Like you'd crash the craft, you'd die of radiation, whatever.
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.
Yeah.
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.
Well, I watched a lot of live TV in my early days, Marcus, and I can tell you right now a lot of things did go wrong.
A lot of things did go wrong.
One of the things that would want to have been avoided at all costs is any astronaut throwing up in his helmet.
That would not be good.
Dying wouldn't be good.
Twitching wouldn't be good.
Anything, anything... Any adverse reaction would have been, let's say, a non-starter.
Yeah.
But obviously, until anybody has carried out the experiments, nobody actually knows.
Now, at some point, I'm sure you're going to say to me, well, if this is true and it didn't happen, why didn't the Russians blow the whistle?
Why didn't the Russians gain their political advantage on America not doing it as they were telling the world they were doing it?
This is an obvious question.
Absolutely.
All right.
So, there you are.
The Russians, as we know, were doing much the same thing, or we were told they were doing much the same thing.
There was a space race on, because we have to put Apollo into context, into its political context.
This was the height of the Cold War.
This is a few years after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, the Cuban Missile Crisis.
This was also still really in the shadow of Sputnik.
I mean, we heard the Russian thing going around the world and we went, oh my god, they're in space!
They won!
I know, I know.
Okay, so it was in the shadow of that too.
I mean, I understand the political reasons why we did what we did.
I understand the political forces that were at work.
But that doesn't explain why the Russians didn't scream bloody murder.
All right.
That explains that they would scream bloody murder.
Exactly.
Of course they would.
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, that Bernadotte has made, is that the Russians told him that they were not going to be sending any of their cosmonauts beyond the Valley of Radiation belts until they could ensure the safe return of their cosmonauts.
But since when did the Russians care so much about anybody's life?
That of animals, or that of their cosmonauts, or anything else?
I mean, I've heard all kinds of stories.
The cosmonauts died.
That, in fact, even before low Earth orbit was achieved, cosmonauts died.
Nobody was ever told about it.
Isn't that true?
Exactly, yes.
So what the hell should the Russians care about Chris being a cosmonaut or two trying to beat us to the moon?
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 man into space.
There were, I believe, three.
fatalities before he succeeded in his uh...
and his orbit who they were is really any just coming out now
yes the russians were desperate to do it and the russians appear not to have as
much uh...
concern for human life
as should we say that uh... opponents in the west uh...
america britain europe generally 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 you become much more public if they're going to try to get
to the moon Going into Earth orbit is a relatively... It's a relatively easy thing to do.
Agreed.
Going to the Moon is much more public.
If you fail in going to the Moon, especially if you have met... 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.
We don't want to do that.
It's one of the basic parts of humanity.
Yeah, I guess I haven't given that a lot of thought, but I suppose you're right.
I mean, having a body up there would kind of, I don't know, it'd change the way everybody thinks of the moon forever.
Well, that's true.
It's because we can see it.
Why, I don't know.
Well, maybe, maybe not.
So, given the political context that we've got, given that Russia had continually achieved space firsts, they've been first to the moon, they've been first to Mars, been first to Venus, first for the man in space, first for the woman, first for the dog, first with actually everything.
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.
That's right.
At the time, nobody knew if that was possible.
This was Kennedy's vision.
This was Kennedy's challenge.
This was Kennedy uniting.
The question is, did we do what Kennedy said we were going to do, or not?
And you say not.
Well, I'm saying that at the time he made the announcement, nobody knew if it was possible.
But I'm saying, making the charge that we didn't... Okay.
Making the charge that we didn't is a very serious charge.
Damn right.
Absolutely.
It is something which I have been already accused of being all manner of strange things.
Being from Britain, I can look at it in a slightly more dispassionate way.
It is not part of my political history.
Maybe.
I can look at it from a purely scientific point of view.
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.
I mean, I just trotted out.
What is the... Okay, what is the evidence that we went to the moon?
What is the evidence and who presents it?
Or that we didn't go?
No, that we did go.
That we did go?
Well, the photographic evidence, the television that we all watched.
That's it.
That's it.
The photographs, the television, I don't know what else.
The moon rocks!
The moon rocks!
The moon rocks.
The astronauts.
Yeah, the moon rocks.
Let's talk about the moon rocks.
We brought back moon rocks.
How many pounds?
840 pounds.
That's a lot of rocks.
It's a stack of harsh bricks about three foot high.
At least.
It's a whacking great lump of rock.
A whacking great lump?
You wouldn't want to bump into it in the middle of the night.
A whacking great lump.
Yes, it is a whacking great lump of rocks now.
And they've all been examined by scientists around the world.
With what result?
It's kind of strange.
You didn't ever hear much about that.
Well, no, we didn't.
There's an interesting story behind that, actually.
Well, first of all, you have 840 pounds of moon rocks.
That is what we are told has been returned from the moon.
Yes.
Where is it?
Where are these moon rocks?
That's a lot of rocks.
I'm sure, in fact, there is what is called a piece of moon rock on display in the Natural History Museum here in London.
Right.
I'm sure there is a display of a piece of moon rock in the Smithsonian Institute in Washington.
Yes.
I'm sure that there are displays of what is labeled moon rock in many of the major museums of the world.
Now, most people, when they hear the term moon rock, they think of something like a half-brick.
They think of a fist-sized lump of sort of rock, and we've heard that scientists around the world have examined this moon rock 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.
Now, have we really determined that?
That's one of the funny things that I never really heard follow up on.
In other words, what the hell did they find with the moon rocks?
Did they have properties that indicated that the Earth was never part of the moon,
or the moon was never part of the Earth, or whatever?
I mean, they just know.
They can examine it and say, atomically, look at this sucker.
The structure is not one of Earth.
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?
And what are the answers?
And the answers were, to be honest, they were ambiguous.
Now, what happened was, a lot of laboratories and universities and organizations around the world did receive what's called moon rock.
And as I said, we all assume moon rock means lumps of stuff, pebbles and things like that.
No, it wasn't.
It was a few grams.
Graham's Crushed Rock.
Yes, Graham's Crushed Rock.
Wait a minute, I remember seeing the astronauts picking up objects and putting them in little carriers.
Do you remember that in the video?
Absolutely, yes, I remember that.
There's one rock that's supposed to be, I think it was Apollo 17, it's called the Genesis Rock.
This is what we came for.
Uh, Schmidt picks up this, uh, rock off the, off the ground.
I recall that utterance, yes.
And... Yes, they, they got large lumps of rock.
No, sorry, 840 pounds is the total allegedly returned on these six Apollo missions.
So where are the rocks?
At Houston.
They're at Houston?
Over 600 pounds of that total.
Are still at Houston?
Are locked in the vaults at Houston.
You're really quite sure of that?
Absolutely.
Yep.
I like the way you say Houston.
Yeah.
Houston!
Who's, who's, who's?
Houston!
Houston!
Awesome!
Houston!
It just shows how much gut I have in the brain, doesn't it?
Hahahaha!
Well, uh, pretty interesting.
All right, listen, hold on to this rock thing for a moment.
We'll be right back.
I've always wanted to know what happened to those damn rocks.
I've always wondered.
This is Premier Networks.
That was Art Bell hosting Coast to Coast AM on this Somewhere in Time.
Throw down innocent.
I gave you love. I thought that we had made it to the top.
I gave you all I had to give, but didn't have to stop.
You've blown it all sky high By telling me a lie
Without a reason why You've blown it all sky high
She's got something that moves my soul And she knows I'd love to love her
She's got something that moves my soul And she knows I'd love to love her
But she lets me down every time Can't make her mine
But she lets me down every time Can't make her mine
She's no one's lover tonight With me she'll be so in fine
She's no one's lover tonight With me she'll be so inviting
I want her all for myself Our temptation has
I want her all for myself Oh, temptation has
Improved my, my, my core Our temptation has
Improved my mind, my soul Oh, temptation has
You've got to love me Got to love me tonight
You've got to love me Got to love me tonight
Got to love me baby, yeah All I do is since it's just a game
Got to love me, baby All I do is think it's just a game
We're just the same My head is spinning
But just the same My head is spinning
She's got a way to keep me on her side It's just her ride
It's never ending tonight With me she'll be so exciting
I want her all for myself Oh, temptation has
Now, we take you back to the past On Art Bell Somewhere in Time
My guest from the Lost Empire is Marcus Allen, Great Britain.
He's talking about why we did or didn't, in his view, did not go to the moon with man.
It doesn't dispute the fact that machines were taken there.
In fact, there's a telescope that's about to go find those machines on the moon.
Marcus, however, would not be surprised because he does think we sent machines to the moon.
He just doesn't think we sent man.
At the moment, we're talking about all the rocks they brought back.
The fact that down at Houston they still got 600 pounds plus of those rocks.
Now we take you back to the past on Art Bell Somewhere in Time.
Now we take you back to the past on Art Bell Somewhere in Time.
you you
Alright, you know, Jim in Michigan, in Detroit, I think, really does have a very good point here.
We're going to get back to the rocks in a second, but you know, he brings up a good point.
Please, he said, finish explaining why the Russians didn't cry foul.
In a way, we didn't get to that.
I mean, you gave me a reason why the Russians perhaps believed that it couldn't be done, but you sure didn't tell me why they didn't cry foul.
That's right.
And then why?
Right.
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.
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 of what they were watching from the Apollo landings, or incorrect?
Are you saying they were fooled too?
I'm saying they were fooled too, because there was nobody who had A, the knowledge, and B, the political clout 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 this, 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.
Indeed.
A better question would be, why didn't anybody in the West blow the whistle?
Why didn't any of the photographers?
Well, you mean right away?
Well, essentially right away.
I mean, there's plenty of people like you today.
I've had others on the show.
There are a lot of people who don't think we put a man on the moon.
That's right, because we've now had a chance to examine the evidence.
That's why I asked the question, what is the evidence presented by NASA For the achievement of the Apollo moon landing program.
And you said quite rightly, as many people would, on the same question.
It's the photographs, it's the films.
And you think a bit more, and you think, well, it's the rocks, and the astronauts, and look at all the interviews, and the books.
Right, well, let's go back to the rocks.
So, you know, I did, I always wondered, what about the analysis of the rocks?
Um, did they, uh, did the analysis of the rock show clearly that it was not, they were not of Earth?
Was that clear?
That is one of the great anomalies.
No, they didn't.
It didn't show that there was a great deal of difference.
It showed that there were differences, yes.
Now, one of the experiments that was done was, um, because at that time, of Apollo, most people, most scientists thought that the
moon was of volcanic origin, i.e. 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 Vancouver in Canada.
Yes.
Which is a volcanic area.
Right.
And they would take a sample of rock from Hawaii, which we know is volcanic.
Definitely.
And they would put them in three boxes.
Marked Hawaii, Columbia River Basin, and Moon Rock.
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 moon rock, so the scientists knew what they were looking at.
And NASA said, well, here's the money to conduct the research.
And?
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.
Why?
A, B, and C. Yeah, blind test, right.
So that nobody knew what was in any of them.
Okay, that's fair.
I understand that science Okay.
Now, if that was the case, if that is what had happened, you would get what you expect.
You would get a difference.
look hard for any little thing they can attribute to any of the other samples.
Okay, fine. I understand what you're saying.
Okay, 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.
Well, how startling!
It's called ALH 84001.
Yes.
Which supposedly showed fossilized microbes that supposedly came from Mars.
Yes, yes, Mars.
But what that says is that rocks originating from a different planet to ours can be found on Earth.
Now, please don't make the immediate assumption that that is what I'm suggesting, because I don't know.
I don't have the answer on this one.
I don't know whether...
There are rocks which can be found on Earth, which can be proven to have come from the Moon, but it's a logical step to take that they could have happened if you get a major meteor impact.
Well, if they can get here from Mars, then I'm going to assume they can get here from the Moon.
It's a reasonable assumption.
It is, yes.
If they can get here from Mars, which, by the way, is very controversial and a lot of people actually dispute that, but if you make the assumption they can get here from Mars, they can definitely get here from the Moon.
A meteor impact is going to toss something off and somehow it's going to make it here.
It's certainly an interesting calculation to do, you know, what power of impact has to hit Mars for a rock to be sent out into free orbit, and for it to then land up on Antarctica or on Earth.
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.
Correct.
And that is the only Example put forward, this rock has never had any water in contact with it.
Otherwise they could not tell that rock from... It would be the same as Earth.
Then you go back to the origin.
I always wondered about that, Marcus, and that's the only difference they could find?
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.
The 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 that.
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% and 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.
Right.
Around the time of Apollo.
Right.
Those unmanned craft had little gadgets on them to drill into the lunar surface and bring back, in fact, a total of 300 grams.
Samples.
Yep.
Regolith, which is the sort of surface material on the moon.
They returned 300 grams of material from the moon.
One can say with a degree of certainty that material from the Moon has been returned to the Earth.
So what is 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, it's a matter of knowing whether the samples examined are different.
That I don't know.
It's just that there is a degree of confusion surrounding these rocks.
Everybody quotes the rocks as the definitive proof of the Apollo landing as well.
You couldn't have gotten the rocks if you hadn't been there.
That's the obvious statement to make.
And because we all saw it on television, we all saw them picking up the rocks, we all saw the photographs.
And you're saying you could have gotten the rocks without going to 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?
I don't know.
Well, I mean, you're right.
How are we to know?
It looks like a rock.
So we have to rely on NASA telling us the truth.
We have to rely on scientists Let's back up on this whole thing for a second.
And let's put ourselves in the mindset of NASA and the American government at that time.
And let's assume that what you're saying is correct.
And we never did put a man on the moon.
Well, then that means that somewhere, somehow, On some Hollywood-like stage, we faked all of this for the cameras.
Right?
That's a reasonable assumption, but... No, no, that would almost have to be a conclusion.
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.
Okay.
It's a very good point, and I would say that there is a much more simple, a much simpler solution to this problem.
Yes, let's assume that at some point they decided, hey, it's a hell of a risk going to the moon.
We've got to do it by the end of 1969, the end of the decade.
We've got to fulfill President Kennedy's challenge.
Right.
What the hell are we going to do?
Right.
Okay.
400,000 people worked on the Apollo program.
At the time, they were all doing the very best job they could do.
They were building the best rockets, the best landers, the best rovers, the best spacesuits.
They were doing the best job they could, knowing the conditions which were assumed at the time.
At some point, somebody would have made a decision, but let's just backtrack from that decision.
When you're practicing going to a different place, like the Mets, you will construct Absolutely.
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.
Do you remember that?
Yeah, I do.
I do.
I don't know whether you got to see CBS over there or not, but Walter Cronkite was doing that.
So we got to see some of those 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.
Logical thing to do.
No problems there at all.
Right.
The Lunar Lander was built... There was a simulator built for the Lunar Lander.
A simulator built for the, uh, Cosmos Service Module.
Which is, as you pointed out, crashed, yes.
And there were films created So that when you were inside the lunar lander, the films would show what you would see when you look out of the window.
And these films were created using models.
And there are photographs of these models.
There's nothing secret about them.
There's a model of the moon itself.
It's actually in San Francisco at the moment.
There were models made, very detailed models.
Some of them are 50 foot high, 50 foot square.
of parts of the lunar surface. These were built in order to be filmed by tracking cameras,
cine cameras, as if it was a spacecraft approaching the lunar surface. So all this film was made,
nothing secret about it at all. Lots of people working on it.
I believe it so.
There were certainly lunar sets built.
There are photographs which are quite easily available.
Okay, so what are you suggesting occurred?
Right, what I'm suggesting occurred is that when they were doing the simulations, they were being done in real time.
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 8 days, 10 days, or 12 days as it was for Apollo 17.
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.
Agreed.
So you would say, okay look, guys, as you come down the ladder, be careful on that last
It's a bit high above the surface.
You've got to stay, you know.
These are things which you would expect to happen.
That would be the mankind step, yes.
Now, if at some point it was decided that because it's 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, yeah, 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.
Nobody else had any access to any information.
Quite true.
So from that point on, we relied on NASA telling us what was going on.
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?
The rocket continuing on, or what?
No, I'm saying that the rocket would have been launched, and we saw it live on television.
Yes.
It disappeared from sight.
Yes.
It went into low Earth orbit, which we know happened.
It goes into low Earth orbit and stays there.
Didn't go to the Moon.
Stayed in low Earth orbit.
Stays in low Earth orbit, and the astronauts are in there.
We know that that isn't a big deal.
Nowadays, the space shuttle does this regularly, the space station's up there doing it regularly.
Yes?
To go into low-Earth orbit for the eight days of Apollo 11 really wasn't a problem.
They'd been doing 14, 20-day orbits on the Gemini craft before that, and they just stay in orbit.
Now, this is the worst-case scenario.
This is the real high conspiracy, if you like.
This is the worst thing that could have happened.
They go into low Earth orbit, they stay there.
They're communicating with the various stations.
Now, the communication is the key to this.
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.
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from November 27, 2002.
This is a great song to listen to on the road.
It's a great song to listen to on the road.
If I keep calm, I'll keep on getting loose After the moon has gone
Where's it go now that I'm home alone?
You will come and go When the bullet hits the bone
You will come and go When the bullet hits the bone
I'm falling down the spiral Destination unknown
Double-clock messenger All alone
Can't get no connection Can't get through
Where are you?
Well, the night is with heavy heart and guilty mind Let's start from the bottom line
When the hitman comes He knows damn well he hasn't cheated
Can't even help himself I'm stepping into the twilight zone
When the hitman's in that house He feels like he's gone
I'll keep on getting loose After the moon has gone
Where's it go now that I'm home alone?
You will come and go When the bullet hits the bone
You will come and go you're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight, featuring Coast to Coast AM, from November 27, 2002.
Hey, you know, there was recently a reporter that walked right up to one of the astronauts and said, uh, swear on a bible or something like this, you really went to the moon, you really go to the moon, and the astronaut hauled back in.
And, uh, I wonder if Marcus has thought, you know, anything about that, like, why that astronaut might have been so sensitive on that subject.
I wondered about that.
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from November 27, 2002.
AMC News.
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?
Marcus?
Good point.
Good point.
Is it a good point?
Tell me!
Well, it's a good point because, well, I have a question for starters.
What is the temperature of space?
Cold.
That's what most people would assume.
Space, because it's a vacuum, which means there's nothing there, has no temperature.
It's not hot, it's not cold, because there's nothing to have a temperature.
Until you put something in space, Like a spacecraft.
If you put a spacecraft into space, it is immediately affected by the sun.
The sun generates heat, it's radiant energy.
If you ever try getting back into your car when it's been parked in hot sun for a few hours, the interior of the car will be too hot to touch.
You switch on the air-conditioning and after a few minutes it's comfortable and you can go about your business.
In space, naturally, your spacecraft has an atmosphere inside it.
So you can breathe.
Or you're wearing a spacesuit.
But most of the time, if you're travelling to the moon, you're going to be travelling 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.
Yes.
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.
Right.
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.
So in space, you've got this vacuum.
So where do you dump the heat?
I don't know.
And that is a question which has exercised a few people.
Well, maybe you use some sort of something metallic that sticks out on the non-sun side of the spacecraft and irradiates the heat into space.
Well, that would be the obvious solution, but because space is a vacuum, The heat has nowhere to go.
When you do it on Earth, you're radiating the heat out into the atmosphere.
Well, okay, so where does the heat go?
I don't know.
Oh.
Now, the answer, in terms of how one can anticipate it, is that the heat is dumped into a water reservoir.
And if you... Yeah, but the water then would get warmer and warmer to the point where it And then you'd cook?
Right.
So what you have to do is to what's called explosively decompress the water, i.e.
you vent it into space.
You allow the water to go out into space.
Okay.
And that's called explosive decompression of water, which does remove a large amount of heat.
It's a known method of removing heat.
Okay.
If you do that, you're going to create a very photogenic image of these water molecules Like a whale blowing?
Yeah, just like a whale blowing.
But in space it would be much bigger and quite dramatic.
And if you get the right angle, you get a nice little rainbow.
But I know of no photograph showing that occurring on either the spacecraft or, more importantly, on the spacesuits.
Because the problem exists on the spacesuits as well.
Well, don't they have heat exchangers, what were called heat exchangers?
Well, that's right.
If you have a heat exchanger, you have to exchange the heat from one Medium into another medium.
And you're saying that could not have been done in space, short of water and short of what you just talked about?
Well, on the spacesuits, they had water circulated in little pipes all around their body.
And that removed the heat.
Because in a spacesuit, you're in a completely sealed environment.
And because, if you're walking about... So your argument, then, is that they would have been... To keep it short, they would have been toast.
They would have been fried alive on the way to the moon and back.
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.
And water's heavy too.
And water will retain that heat.
And there wasn't enough water carried on the backpacks.
These portable life support systems.
So you're making the argument man couldn't have lived to get to the moon and back.
This all had to be faked.
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 the Bible or whatever, that he really went to the moon, and the astronaut hauled off and just knocked the guy for a loop, what did you think about that?
My immediate reaction was the headline, but the fist has landed.
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, somebody says, would 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.
Um, maybe the astronaut in question, Buzz Aldrin, uh, objected to this.
Maybe.
And decided that... Maybe.
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... I mean, real problems in life.
Yeah.
You know, 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.
Well, that is one answer, isn't it?
It isn't one answer, yes, it is one answer.
It is a possibility.
It is certainly true that they have had a disproportionate amount of emotional upheaval in their lives.
Yes.
A marriage's ending are a tragedy.
Yes.
Taking excessive amounts of stimulants is a tragedy.
And these are men who basically are the best of the best.
They were chosen from thousands.
They were trained within an inch of their lives.
Psychologically profiled within an inch of their lives?
Yes.
You wouldn't expect the level of confusion that has evidently been visited on some of them.
You know, I have interviewed a man who's been on the moon.
That's Ed Mitchell.
And he said the damnedest thing, Marcus, when I asked him.
This was the most amazing response I could ever have expected in my entire life.
He said, you know, it's a funny thing.
He said on this program, he said, when I was The time I actually spent on the moon is more like a dream than reality.
And to tell you the truth, I don't remember a lot of the visuals from when I was there.
That stopped me dead cold.
I just couldn't believe that man said that to me.
Not reality.
It was like a dream.
When I think back on it, I can't remember the impressions, and I can't remember... And that just blew me away, Marcus.
That he would say that.
What a strange response to an experience that should be engraved, not just in your lifetime, but in all the lifetimes you have to come.
Right?
That is a very interesting response.
I've met Ed Mitchell myself.
I met him over in Britain.
He was over here on business.
I met him very briefly and I found him a charming and easy person to talk to.
Very, very nice.
I didn't ask him about the moon.
He was a guest in my country.
It was not appropriate to confront him with such matters.
But very interesting to hear that response to your question.
Alright, listen, I've got some phone lines and I'd like to get to them if that's alright with you.
Okay, yeah, sure.
Some of them are probably going to be a little hostile, you never can tell.
I look forward to that.
Do you?
First time caller on the line, you're on the air with Marcus Allen.
Hello.
Hi there.
Hi, I ask you to remember we've got kind of a transatlantic delay here, so it's like you've got to ask your question and then pause for the response.
Certainly.
Where are you, sir?
Right now I'm in Rochester, Minnesota.
I'm a truck driver.
Since I've got my CC radio, I can listen to the show on lots of stations, but I'm listening to WOAI 1200 out of San Antonio.
And you're doing that up in Minnesota?
Yes sir, Rochester.
Okay, that's a big signal.
Alright, go ahead.
Okay, my question is, I've heard a lot of reasons why we didn't go to the moon.
Sorry, I'm nervous.
That's alright.
My question is, what kind of proof do you need Well, actually, it's a pretty good question.
I mean, do you need an astronaut on the moon waving a great big flag?
Well, no, actually it's a pretty good question.
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
If you're trying to set out to prove the opposite argument, what would you use?
Right.
Very good question.
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.
Oh, wait a minute, that's what they're about to do, right?
I know.
Isn't that what they're about to do?
That's why I... But wait a minute, this article in the, um, um, in the, in the, what was it, London Observer, I think it was, London Observer, right?
Yeah, London Observer.
Um, it says that, um, you're saying that it won't prove anything, um, that if we take pictures Photographs of the lander would not prove that the U.S.
put man on the moon is what you're quoted here as saying.
That is correct.
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 2, 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.
Absolutely.
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... The one in Chile.
In Chile, yeah, it's a fairly new telescope, or it was taken, or a picture taken from an orbiting unmanned craft.
There's an interesting point here, because in 1994, NASA launched the Clementine satellite.
Right.
And that contained 1990s technology.
It was part, actually, of the Star Wars program.
Right.
Right.
Cheaper, faster, all that stuff.
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.
Oh, indeed.
So we're told, and I believe they can, and this was possible back in the 1960s.
I mean, the technology is quite remarkable, and the famous way in which it is described.
But we didn't see anything.
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 on the image, because it's digital pictures, of half a kilometer.
That is not going to show anything.
It certainly isn't.
This telescope then, presumably, in South America, is going to be much better than that, right?
Well, that's what they tell us.
They can see a human hair at 10 miles.
Well, that sounds impressive, doesn't it?
It does indeed.
All that means that at 240,000 miles, which is the distance the moon is, it can see something 20 foot across.
Well, that would be a start.
So you might see the lander?
Well, it... What you'll probably see, first of all, is the shadow of the lander.
For one thing, they know exa... Well, good point.
They know exactly where to look, right?
Well, that's what we're told.
I mean, I've got all the coordinates of the six landing locations.
So, if it comes back, we get the shadow, we even get a little of the lander, at that point, do you cave in and say, okay?
I shut up forever.
You do?
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 a minute, if what we have been fed is basically a fabrication for 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.
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 Fords 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.
Give us some more money, guys.
We'll get to Mars.
That's what we want to do next.
Uh, excuse me.
There's a problem here.
We can't even bring him to the moon.
Well, the problem was actually put into words by the new head of NASA, Sean O'Keefe.
Who said what very quickly?
He made an announcement, uh, April this year.
He said, in my tenure as head of, uh, NASA, I will have two objectives.
One is the development of more advanced propulsion systems for space travel.
And the other?
Research into the protection of humans from the dangers of radiation in space.
Oh, that's, that is interesting.
I'm Art Bell.
The trip back in time continues, with Art Bell hosting Coast to Coast AM.
More, somewhere in time, coming up.
Oh Lord.
And I've been waiting for this moment for all my life.
Oh Lord.
Can you feel it crawling in the air tonight?
Hola, Hola.
I'm going to play a song called, All of Time Shall Come.
Here for now, let it go.
Seasons don't feel the same, no to the wind, sun or rain.
Come on baby, don't feel the same.
Baby take my hand, don't feel the same.
We'll be able to fly, don't feel the same.
Baby I'm going to make it.
La la la la la.
You're listening to Art Bell, Somewhere in Time.
Tonight, featuring Coast to Coast AM, from November 27, 2002.
Hello, world!
I am Art Bell, and this is, it's Thanksgiving.
Happy Thanksgiving, everybody.
We are discussing whether or not man actually went to the moon with Mark Salant, 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.
Sound of thunder You're listening to Art Bell, somewhere in time.
Tonight featuring Coast to Coast AM from November 27th, 2002.
Alright, once again, Mark Zell.
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 this 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, 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 in the world, it will die.
It will be designed To be hobbled, so that should it, you know, escape somehow, it will immediately die.
Right.
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 planet, but we're hobbled and can't leave the planet.
That is a very, very interesting point.
Very good point.
If you look at the environment of space as we've described it, it is lethal to humans.
Whether you talk about levels of radiation or not.
Even if background radiation is not particularly unpleasant, I've read your book, The Source.
I find it very interesting.
They are very important.
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 Forch 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 high level, yeah.
Just a human cell in a Petri dish is a start.
Well, now, who would that little cell call God?
Those are the unanswerable questions.
It is, well, I hope.
Wildcard Line, you're on the air with Mark Sellin in Great Britain.
Hello.
Yes, this is Dr. Bishop in Omaha.
Hello, Dr. Bishop.
How are you?
Yes, I'm the one that gave you the... What was it?
The Nixon President for solving nuclear wars between Pakistan and India.
I see.
Do you have a question for my guest?
Yes.
I was going to try to dispute most of Marcus's whole... his whole idea.
Take on your best item.
The radiation.
Yes.
Probably his biggest argument.
All of these satellites, I think I just, I think you've got my blast.
I think he even sent 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 spacesuits had lead foil linings.
And all of the computers, everything that would be electrically, have any electrical problem from a sun flare, including the
cameras, all have lead foil linings.
Yes, and that, it just takes a little bit.
It can't stop gamma rays, but it can stop everything else.
So you contend that lead foil lining would have been enough to protect
both the astronauts and the film, to the degree that neither one would be damaged?
Right.
And if they were worried about a sun flare, what they would do is turn most of the capsule toward the sun.
Well, you darn well have to be worried about a sun flare.
You mentioned an M-class flare.
We've had numerous X-class flares, and even worse.
Over the last few years.
So during that peak period of the sunspot cycle, you'd have to worry a whole lot about sun flares.
Now, okay, so Marcus, so his argument is that they used lead foil.
Thin, albeit, but lead foil.
You said, as far as you knew, they used no protection.
I'm saying they used no protection.
All right, I would ask one question.
This lead foil, to be honest, I've not heard the term ever used before.
I've heard aluminum foil, but I've not heard the term lead foil.
I see.
Maybe it's because I'm British and I've missed out on that one.
All I would ask is, what weight per square foot was this lead foil?
Yeah, all right.
As far as I knew, for heavy radiation dosage, it's got to be very Very heavy.
That was certainly my impression.
And so that you would have a weight factor with regard to the... You would certainly have a weight factor.
Dr. Bishop also mentioned the cameras.
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 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.
They didn't have a viewfinder.
You just point and click.
You point and click.
It also didn't have an exposure meter.
So you had to set the exposure dials, the shutter speed dial, which is on the lens on the front.
Yes.
You had to set that manually.
You also had to set the aperture dial manually.
Yes.
You also had to focus it manually.
But you couldn't see the numbers on the dials from inside the space seat, because I tried it.
The shutter button is on the front of the camera.
Not visible from inside a spacesuit.
Did you actually get into a spacesuit?
I put on a mock-up of a spacesuit, which is basically a big... And then tried to see how you could set the camera, or if you could and you couldn't?
I couldn't see the dials.
And you can't hear in space, because there's no sound, if a picture had been taken.
You can't see if a picture had been taken.
So my question is, how were these cameras protected?
Because the electromagnetic spectrum in which the radiation exists, We'll enter the camera as soon as you click the shutter.
True.
It comes in with the light.
Absolutely.
Therefore, you would expect to see damage on the film, and you don't.
And the other point about the camera is, how did they get such brilliant photographs when they only took one?
Armstrong allegedly only took one photograph of man on the moon, and he then looked at another subject.
Any professional photographer, if asked, Right, you've got 100 films, 100 photographs on this roll of film.
You're not allowed to use a viewfinder, you can't use an exposure meter, you've got to wear gardening gloves when you're focusing it.
How many of the pictures out of 100 would you expect to get correctly focused, correctly composed, correctly exposed, and no heads cut off?
Almost none.
Well, most professional photographers might say 75-80%.
Oh, you mean, really?
Under those conditions I would say almost none.
This is what we're expected to believe occurred on the lunar surface with the Apollo astronauts.
They had a camera with those limitations and they took brilliant photographs.
I contend those photographs were taken on the training and simulation exercises I can clearly see you do.
Hi there.
East of the Rockies.
You're on air with Marcus Allen in Great Britain.
Where are you, please?
I'm in Denver.
Denver, Colorado.
OK.
Can you hear me OK?
I hear you.
Yes.
I'm going to kind of come at this.
I have doubts, serious doubts, of the fact that we landed on the moon.
I'm coming at it from a different angle.
I would think that if we actually, if it actually happened, that there would be given out, 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... Was there something like that?
Because I missed it.
I guess I did, too.
Marcus?
I've not seen a film as described.
Not in that respect.
I've seen the films that have been issued by NASA to record the events.
No, but he's talking about a post-documentary in which, you know, the astronauts were interviewed in great detail about their I've never even seen anything of a single astronaut talking.
Well, I of course had one on my program, sir.
His answers were very troubling.
That's one of the key points.
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.
And so it has caused it.
I mean, nobody would argue with that.
We all know what the record is.
And there was no such documentary that I'm aware of.
In fact, it was all sort of quiet, hush-hush.
It wasn't even hush-hush.
It was just not there.
It was not talked about.
You're quite correct.
West of the Rockies, you're on the air with Marcus Allen in Great Britain.
Hello!
Am I on the phone?
You're on.
Yes, it's you sir.
Where are you?
Okay, I'm in Cherry Valley, California.
All right.
My name is Tom.
Yes, Tom.
I have two experiences having been involved with NASA.
I worked at Bell Labs here in 1963 to about 1965 for a division associated with NASA called Bellcom.
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 the South, 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.
Went around, right, in near-Earth orbit.
Yep.
Needless to say, with eight Earth stations, Summer in Spain, Azores, Arizona, Australia.
It would mean that all eight stations, and there were civilians that worked at these stations.
Not even to mention the Russian operations.
Right, and they would all have to be involved.
And then, even more importantly, in 1968, I was at a communications base in Italy, outside of Pisa, called Coltano Communications.
I was installing a communications system.
And that's when they landed, if you remember, August of 68.
There were communication... And by the way, we were able to pick up the direct feed from NASA.
There were no delays.
It was the actual feed.
And we had communication specs.
There were maybe three, four of them who taped every second of Of that actual launch, and in fact... Alright, well, you've given us... You already... You've given us... You know, but there's so much for him to respond to already.
Well, let me just say real quick, though, okay?
Yeah.
When they took off from the moon, alright, as they were... And I heard it myself.
I... You know, so it's something I heard myself.
So when I don't be talking about simulating a video feed, we're saying there was a phony... They phonied up an audio feed.
Yeah, the communications.
Alright, well, the man raised a whole bunch of questions, Marcus.
Yeah, very interesting points, because this evidence from the tracking, the actual tracking stations, is actually very relevant.
Yes.
Just one point.
It was not August 68, it was July 69, that Apollo 11 landing.
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 different stations.
Including the Russians?
Certainly including 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 become available is that in the very early 1960s, at 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.
Yes.
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, the 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.
Yes, I do.
You have to know the frequency on which it's transmitted.
That's correct.
If you don't know the frequency... You're looking for a needle in a haystack.
Basically, you can go hunting forever.
That's right.
In order to receive these signals, you have to know the frequency on which they're transmitted.
That frequency was not publicly available at the time of Apollo.
Maybe that's why that guy was shaking down rather than screaming, what's the frequency?
Exactly.
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 I haven't thought about that.
Moonbounce, I actually talked about it in the first hour of the program and somebody called about that.
Listen, Marcus, you know what?
We're out of time.
We've done a whole show that fast.
Have we really?
And we've probably barely scratched the surface, but you do make some extremely compelling arguments, and I just really want to thank you for being here.
It's been a joy having you here, and I'm sorry the program's over.
Well, thank you, Art.
I've enjoyed our time together.
It has been illuminating for me as well.
My friend Marcus, good night, or good day to you, I guess it is over there, huh?
Oh, the sun has just come out.
It's good morning.
I'll take my leave of you now.
Well, at least the sun is out there.
You have a good day.
See you later, Marcus.
Thank you.
Good night.
And here she is to take us out.
Good night from the high desert.
This is Crystal Chow Chow.
Midnight in the desert Shooting stars across the sky This magical journey will take us on a ride Filled with the longing, searching for the truth Will we make it till tomorrow?
Will the stars shine on you?
Midnight in the desert, and we're listening None for you.
▲
Export Selection