All Episodes
Oct. 23, 2009 - Art Bell
02:35:28
Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell - Stephen Rorke - Lunar-Landing Hoax Theory, Research of Ralph Rene
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
From the Southeast Asian capital city of the Philippines, 7,107 islands, there are many of us.
Manila, this is Coast to Coast AM from the other side of the world.
Good morning, good evening, good afternoon, whatever the time may be in whatever time zone you reside in.
I'm Art Bell, filling in this night for George Norrie, who's taking a well-deserved night off.
It is Friday night where you are, and Saturday afternoon where I am, and I might add a sunny one.
Listen, all the ABs are well.
And, uh, everything is fine here.
We, uh, we live, obviously, in the middle of Typhoon Alley here, as you know, and, uh, we've got another one right now north of us, which, uh, and it's going to remain north and take off toward I really don't care.
Taiwan or Japan or somewhere else but here.
We still have, from Andoy, we still have people wading through waist-deep water in parts of the capital.
And so, it's been rough.
You know, there's no question about it, it's been rough.
And if you're so disposed, you might check with the American Red Cross and donate anything that's headed toward the Philippines.
Because they sure can use it.
All right, briefly, let's look at the news.
Bank failures.
Bank failures.
Boy, I'll tell you, the market's up, but banks, the cascade of banks failing this year surpassed now 100.
On Friday.
That's the most in nearly two decades in America.
And the trouble in the banking system from bad loans and the recession goes even deeper than the number might suggest.
Dozens, perhaps hundreds of other banks, this is top AP news, top banks and hundreds of them remain open but they're weak.
Weak as kittens.
Perhaps as many as already have been closed.
Regulators are seizing banks slowly, selectively, partly to avoid inciting panic, and partly because buyers for bad banks are, well, hard to find.
Who wants a bad bank?
Were the pilots distracted?
Maybe catching up on a little sleep?
Federal investigators struggled to figure out what in the world happened To the crew members of a Northwest Airlines jetliner at 37,000 feet, about 150 miles past their Minneapolis destination.
Apparently, they were in some sort of deep discussion, heated discussion, about airline policy.
And they just zoomed by their place to land.
Maybe they just got carried away.
It happens to me all the time, really.
You know, I run right over All kinds of commercial breaks and that sort of thing when I get really fascinated with what I'm maybe maybe that was it You think there'd be a little ding ding ding when they were getting close, huh?
the Obama oh Obama hey, I checked my email yesterday, and you know our people going to give this president a chance or what?
Now I swear to you the following is true in my email just yesterday I found the following email headers.
Now obviously I'm not going to read the entire emails because I'm sure many of you get these on a daily basis anyway, but this is from yesterday's email.
These are email headers only.
Obama not eligible to be POTUS.
That's the President of the United States.
Not eligible, mind you.
Obama to shoot down Oh no, I'm sorry.
Obama to shut down the Internet.
Obama to kill millions with flu shot.
Obama to cede U.S.
Constitution at Copenhagen.
Obama to take all guns after declared on tax return.
Obama poised to cede U.S.
Constitution.
Obama's gun-free America.
Obama climate scam.
A global climate scam and Obama.
Obama fires talk show hosts.
Obama tortures elderly.
Obama to sacrifice America.
And then finally, this one I really love, it sums it up.
Kid asks Obama, why do people hate you?
Why do people hate?
Okay.
Were the elections upside down in Afghanistan?
Yes.
Holbrook says yes, and there's going to be apparently a runoff election there.
More Americans have been vaccinated against seasonal flu this fall than ever before by this time of year.
According to federal health officials, 60 million of you have gotten the winter flu vaccine, probably because they're paying more attention to flu warnings in general, thanks to swine flu.
To everybody at once, thank you swine flu!
Coming up in a little few minutes we're going to talk to Dr. Stephen Rourke about any number of things, but mostly whether or not America really went to the moon.
But first a couple of items.
Scientists claim the giant atom-smashing large hadron collider, the LHC, is being jinxed from the future In order to save the world.
I would bet this one's been on coast already, but it's a fascinating story and a bizarre sci-fi theory.
Danish physicist Dr. Holger Beck-Nielsen and Dr. Masao Naomiya from Japan claim that nature, nature mind you, is trying to prevent the LHC from finding the elusive Higgs boson called the God particle.
The theoretical boson could explain the origins of mass in the universe If physicists can find the darn thing, the scientists say, their math proves that nature will ripple backwards through time to stop the LHC before it can create the God particle.
Kind of like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.
One could even almost say that we have a model for God, according to Dr. Nielsen.
He rather hates the Higgs particles and attempts to avoid them, while it is a paradox, obviously, to go back in time and kill your grandfather.
Physicists agree there's no particle and there's no paradox if you go back in time and save him from, say, for example, being hit by a bus.
In the case of the Higgs and the Collider, It's as if something is going back in time to keep the universe from being hit by a bus.
The whole universe.
Boom!
It must be our prediction that all Higgs producing machines shall have bad luck.
That bad luck should be in quotes.
European science agency CERN designed the world's biggest particle accelerator in order to shoot beams around a freezing 27 kilometer concrete ring underground near Geneva, Switzerland, smashing atoms together in search of the elusive God particle believed to be present at the Big Bang.
The multi-billion dollar machine built almost 20 years Built over, rather, almost 20 years, was set to launch in late 2008 but broke down after it overheated during a test run.
Bad luck?
Bad luck?
The relaunch was pushed back to late 2009 as more parts had to be replaced.
Concern was recently scandalized when the LHC had a scientist who was found to have approached Al-Qaeda for work.
That's bad.
The LHC, which is featured in many sci-fi plots like Dan Brown's Angels and Demons and the new TV show Flash Forward, has been dubbed a doomsday device.
With claims that it's going to open black holes.
There's also a very great deal of controversy about how long those black holes would stay open.
So, very interesting.
I've been following that story, as you know.
Physicists at Yale University have made the first definitive measurement of what's called persistent current.
A small but perpetual electric current that flows naturally through tiny rings of metal wire, even without an external power source.
And I'll tell you why this caught my eye.
It's from Science Daily.
It's very small, and it's a loop.
It's a round loop.
And it's extremely small, and what scientists have done is, without any starting electrical voltage or current, they're measuring a continuing current in this loop.
Now, flashback to my antenna at home, the one that produces voltage and current in tremendous amounts, and think about it, that's a loop.
In fact, my loop at home is probably About a mile of wire at least a mile of wire scattered over 13 towers.
It's a double loop and With one loop about seven feet below the other and it produces a tremendous amount of electricity and current and This loop which takes no which is very small simple circle and Takes no starting voltage, no starting current, and it has eternal voltage and current running through it.
In fact, you can measure it with a, you know, regular current meter.
Quoting, these currents will flow forever, even in the absence of an applied voltage.
Although persistent current was first theorized decades ago, it was so faint and sensitive to its environment that scientists, physicists were unable to accurately measure anything at all until now.
It is not possible to measure the current with a traditional ammeter, because it only flows within the tiny metal rings, which are about the same size as wires used on computer chips.
So it's very, very small.
And what I have, of course, is very, very big.
But the whole point is an interesting one, and that is that these things apparently flow in loops.
So it caught my eye.
That's a maybe.
Maybe, maybe that's why.
It still doesn't tell us where it comes from, does it?
There's a new heart assist device.
Heart surgeon Bud Frazier and his team are working with two such devices.
One rather traditional, I suppose, in the sense that you would have a heartbeat, or you would seem to have a heartbeat, even though it's an artificial heart.
Second one, though, is very interesting.
It's a constant flow heart pump.
And it might, though it's still large, you know, these things always start out too big.
Eventually we're going to have a good replacement heart for those who have heart trouble, for those who are losing their heart in one way or the other due to disease or some sort of defect.
And they'll just be able to put these hearts into you and blood keeps going.
Be wonderful, huh?
But this, this one is interesting.
It's a constant flow.
Instead of a pump, it just simply flows as some pumps do.
A constant flow.
So I suppose it's not too romantic because your lover would, you know, instead of a beating heart or perhaps a rapidly beating heart at a romantic moment, your lover would put her ear to your chest and just hear...
Perhaps when excited.
I don't know.
But it's a constant flow heart.
That's interesting.
We'll see where it goes.
According to experts at the American Space Agency, the concentration of cosmic radiation around us has increased considerably this year, reaching its highest level in more than 50 years of observations.
Now that is interesting because We have this really weird thing going on right now where we have no sunspots, virtually no sunspots.
Occasionally one or two will appear and they quickly blink out.
And that's bad news for amateur radio operators and a lot of other people because, well, without sunspots we don't have the activity that excites the ionosphere and allows long-distance communication, so it's very disappointing.
And also, downright weird, we're supposed to have sunspots, we're supposed to be well on our way toward a new solar maximum that was widely advertised to occur in 2012, along with, according to some people, the end of the world.
So, it's all quiet out there, except...
For this weird concentration of cosmic ray radiation all around us.
All right, coming home, reminding you that I do have a webcam shot up.
That is done in the last few days.
That is of Miss Asia Bell.
Those of you who have been following Asia since her birth I think will be quite surprised.
Really has grown to be quite the young woman, and she's now 2 point something, 2.4 or so.
This photograph was taken, we found, chopping in an area called Greenbelt close by, where you can buy all kinds of interesting things here in the Philippines.
And what you'll see in the photograph is a wood hobby horse.
A rocking horse, actually.
And it's obviously all hand-done.
It has a real horse tail on it.
You can't see that in the photograph.
At any rate, she's standing next to her, very proudly next to her horse.
And you'll see that she's really grown.
She's now speaking, I think, parts of three languages.
And so it's kind of amusing to listen because you'll hear, for me anyway, I will hear some words that are, you know, absolutely clear that come out in English, other words that come out in any one of two other languages that she's being taught.
So we read a recent article that indicated that when a child is a toddler, you know, a couple of years old plus a little, It's quite reasonable and quite alright to teach her several languages, and scientists have found out that by the time the child reaches three or four years of age, they automatically, themselves, sort those languages out.
And have no problem with them at all.
So while they used to think it was a bad idea to try to simultaneously teach several languages to a child, they now know that though it might be confusing in the early stages, by the time they're three or four, everything in the brain sorts out and they can simply speak any number of languages.
All right, what we're going to do now is take a break.
When we come back, Dr. Stephen Rourke is going to be here.
And we're certainly going to cover, did NASA really take America to the moon or not?
And a little bit from the previous show, because of course, I was on the air while this horrible flood hit the Philippines.
In fact, I put up photographs, you may recall, of the flooding that occurred right below our own building.
It didn't last long, but it was pretty severe and surprised us.
And so, in a way, I think Not in a way.
Clearly, I was the first to bring the news to America of what was going on here in the Philippines because it was live.
And I'm sure you began hearing about it on the news a couple of days later.
With that in mind, Dr. Stephen Rourke, up in a moment.
All right, Dr. Stephen Rourke has experience as a professor instructing Masters of Science courses at the university level, has undergraduate, graduate, and doctoral degrees, and uses disblend inquiry and critical thinking to articulate his message that the role of science should be to investigate the unexplained, not explain the uninvestigated.
In addition to having an interest in paranormal, Dr. Rourke has always had an interest in the esoterica of parapolitics.
You know, what lies beneath the overt politics and events like the moon landings.
This interest led Dr. Rourke to collaborate with Ralph Rene, who tragically took his life in December of 2008.
Dr. Rourke, is the appointed representative of the research and publications of Ralph Rene, famous or infamous if you prefer, author of NASA Mooned America.
And so, Dr. Rorick, welcome back from our Typhoon Interruptus program of some couple weeks ago.
Ah, good to be here, Art.
Good to have you.
All right, before we move on to the moon landings, just, I don't want to rehash the whole thing, but with regard to Spiracom, the The amazing, amazing Spiracom tapes.
I was going to come back with you last time and kind of finish up in the next hour, and that's what I'd like to do right now.
It is your assessment, if I heard it all correctly, that the whole thing may have been hoaxed.
It's not your absolute belief, but your kind of assessment, right?
Well, yeah, let's just say it's so assailable or can be so easily deconstructed at the evidential level that the tapes themselves appear to be a hoax.
Now, what I left hanging out there was the notion that there still remains some high strangeness around the strange story of Spiracom.
And that simply all cannot be explained away by one-man hoaxing tapes.
And that's why I thought it would be an interesting conversation to have, really, where we would explore the implications of a further study that kind of came out of this conclusion about the hoax tapes.
That could be everything from, you know, what does this say about our modern-day cult of techno-mediumship, you know, the folks with the boxes and the And all this, doing this similar kind of exploration in ITC, which is Instrumental Transcommunication, and a subset of ITC, which is EVP, or Electronic Voice Phenomenon.
All right, that all said, with regard to EVP, we're short on time to the bottom of the hour here.
I do a number of shows with people who collect EVP and play them on the air, and a lot of it's very eerie.
You're not saying that the whole EVP thing is tainted by whatever you may or may not believe about Spiracom, right?
No, and I'm glad you gave me that opportunity to clear it up because that's most of the hate mail that came in was in fact people accusing me of throwing the EVP baby out with the Spiracom bathwater and nothing could be further from the truth.
Right.
All right, when we get back, and I am glad you had an opportunity to say that, Dr. Orkin, when we get back we're going to turn our attention to whether or not America really went to the moon.
I've got a lot of friends who are just convinced that we never went, and I mean they're convinced.
Conspiracy theorists abound.
I'm not one of them, but it's going to be an interesting program.
I'm Art Bell.
It is.
That music is really special to me.
In the final few episodes of Dead Like Me, I wonder how many of you remember Dead Like Me, and the star of that, George, one of the stars, main star I guess, What a great show that was.
What a super show that was.
They played that music in, I don't know, the last couple of episodes or so.
And I just fell in love with it.
That's when I began using it on the air.
And I happened to notice, just, I don't know, maybe a week ago, the Dead Like Me movie showed here.
And I watched it, and doggone if they didn't use that music at the very end.
I told George how much I loved that music when she was on the program.
And so they used it at the end of the movie.
Now, I didn't like the movie as well as the show, and I didn't like the second year of the show as well as the first.
I think they made some changes, you know, in the production staff or something of that show, and so the first year of it was just absolutely incredible.
In fact, when they began to replay it, I started to get all these emails saying, hey, Art, boy, what a great, great program.
That was.
And it was.
First year of it particularly was just outstanding.
And I wish they'd do a reprise.
All right.
In a moment we're going to talk about whether or not America really went to the moon.
And as I mentioned going out of the break or into the break here, I have a lot of friends who are just really tied up, really invested in this topic and will spend Hours and hours talking about it, and so I'm never in a million years going to be able to bring up all of the various questions that need to be answered or controversies that need to be discussed about whether or not we did go to the moon.
And there's new information, by the way.
I guess a lot of people think that Stanley Kubrick did the whole thing.
There's a website suggesting that may be the case, so we'll talk about that and all of the rest of it as well.
And I'll kind of make it a caller-intensive program, I think, tonight, because a lot of you know an awful lot more about it than I do.
So, in a moment, Dr. Stephen Rourke, right back.
One more quick item.
Joyce in Mesa, Arizona fast blasts me.
You can do that, you know, send me a little message.
Art, I always look forward to hearing you, so please don't make me not want to listen.
Actors make that mistake discussing their political preferences to the degree ad nauseum where I refuse to watch them.
I won't even watch them.
I'm a 70-year-old Republican and Obama scares me.
Ah, Joyce, that's okay.
Pretty soon I'll be a 65-year-old, most of my life Republican, and it doesn't scare me.
Anyway, Joyce, what I'd suggest to you and all the others that generate the kind of headlines we see, that I was reading earlier, wait and see if there's any reason for fear before, you know, before getting wide-eyed and shaky.
All right, Dr. Roark, welcome back.
Great to be here.
All right.
Now, as I mentioned, I have all these friends who are... I'm not one of them, so I warn you that up front.
I think we went too far, but I'm open-minded.
You can get into the most heated discussions, I mean heated enough that if you were flying a jetliner you'd be in Europe before you finished, you know, on your way to the East Coast.
So there's a big split in the United States, in the world, about whether or not America ever really went to the moon and what I'd like to do, as I mentioned I think, I want to make it fairly caller intensive tonight because I know there's a lot of Fanatics is the wrong word.
What would be the right word?
Help me here.
How would you describe people who are just... Well, I guess what you're saying is they're so tied to a belief system, maybe one that's not based entirely on sound research, that they become kind of dogmatic.
I've come across the same thing.
And to be really clear, you're not speaking to a wild-eyed You know, conspiracy theorist.
As a matter of disclaimer, I'm actually speaking tonight on behalf of the researcher Ralph Rene, who died December 10th of 2008 of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
So nothing I really say here tonight regarding the Apollo lunar hoax, albeit posthumously, should be construed as my personal opinion.
I'm really taking the research and presenting it.
To be clear, I'm interested in the subject, to be sure, and have even collaborated with Rene.
I've performed the service of proofing his calculations and often grounding his speculations in conversations we had.
And I made a promise to a friend, Rene, that I would not allow his research to die with him.
Sorry, let's try and make it even a little clearer.
I mean, being just really honest with me, before we get into it, do you think we went to the moon or not?
Yes, I'm glad you used the word think, because belief really shouldn't come into it.
I think there's evidence we went to the moon.
My difficulty is with the Apollo record.
There are anomalies and inconsistencies in the Apollo record.
uh... at photographic record level the record of testimony there's some
disagreement on to the side of the past of the science related to radiation
uh... which really leads back to a discussion of the apollo photographic
record uh... image anomalies a lack thereof
some bizarre lighting anomalies happening in the world Oh, all kinds of things.
I mean, whether or not they could have squeezed through the lander and, you know, the escape hatch.
So, I guess, let's see, how can I ask this so I get an answer that I'm comfortable with?
With respect to Spiracom, you felt that the evidence added up to the probability of at least a partial hoax, right?
Okay.
With what you know about the moon landings, America's trip to the moon or not, does the evidence, all the evidence when you consider it together, in your mind, add up to a possible hoax, a probable hoax, or how does it, I'm trying to pry this from you.
Oh yeah, no, I'm really not trying to parse it, I'll state it more plainly.
The Apollo record, Absolutely, there are aspects of the Apollo record which are hoaxed in my mind.
Okay.
You know, the fact we landed is a separate question, really, that is dependent upon a really sound discussion, a dispassionate analysis of these discrepancies and inconsistencies I talked about, and that's why I intentionally, I'll divulge my presentation methodology to you.
I culled the audio, video, and print archives of Ralph Rene, who bequeathed them to me upon his death.
I culled those specifically for things that were kind of radio, that lent themselves to radio presentation.
There's lots of audio in the way of soundbites that support things I'll be saying.
There's also a nice gallery of photos It's been put up by Tim Banal, the Coast-to-Coast Webmaster this evening, that folks can go see some picture examples.
So we have audio of actual NASA moon landing audio, we have pictures, and we have no shortage of a discussion of those anomalies.
And I think before we jump to a discussion really about did we go or not, it's predicated upon this very evidential record I'm discussing.
All right.
Can you help me out with how all of this got started?
In other words, what are the origins of the whole moon hoax theory?
Any idea how it got started?
Well, I suppose there were doubters from the beginning, but the grandfather of the moon hoax conspiracy theory was a guy named Bill Kaysing.
He was kind of an offbeat guy who worked for NASA.
In fact, he worked with, I believe it was the hypergolic fuel At a NASA facility, and his calculations of, you know, fuel to mass to distance ratio led him to believe we couldn't have gone based upon the technology presented.
Now, he was willing to entertain the notion that all of this was done as a matter of, you know, theater, maybe faking the moon landings in a movie studio to convince the world that the U.S.
had beaten the Soviets to the moon.
Kind of putting a noble angle on a reason behind faking moon landing evidence.
But in the end, he did conclude that there was no way man could have gone to the moon.
So if Bill Kaysing is the grandfather of the moon hoax conspiracy theory, Ralph Rene would be the father, or his prodigal son at least.
Ralph Rene took the research of Bill Kaysing a step further, really.
Kaysing put together manuscripts which were almost hodgepodge, mostly photostatic Xerox reprinted, whereas Rene took it to the next step with solid calculations, tons of references to the available literature, and referring to primary source NASA photos in which the anomalies are present.
And so I really think it begins with casing, and not ends, but let's say a reincarnation of it in a more scholarly presentation of the moon hoax conspiracy theory was brought forward by Ralph Rene in his book, NASA Mooned America.
It's a very unfortunate title, but that was kind of Rene's sense of humor.
How long has this stuff been on the net that I'm reading right now about Stanley Kubrick?
The headline is Stanley Kubrick just about lost his marriage and everything else over the whole hoax business.
Yeah, I don't know what to make of that.
There was a film, which appears to be some sort of a mockumentary, You know, almost like an Alternative 3 kind of thing, but dealing with the moon landing rather than, you know, a moon space program relocating scientists to create a colony and all this.
So, I honestly don't know what to make of it.
There's no way to verify this film.
There's many people in this film, I have seen it, there's people speaking in languages I don't speak, so I have to trust the translations.
If the translations are true, what's being said was either scripted to intentionally appear that Kubrick had something to do with the moon landing films.
If anybody could have done it then, it would have been Kubrick, for sure.
Well, for sure, and I think their evidence relies on, to me, a kind of bit of evidence that strains credulity.
Cooper could have had any camera he wanted, essentially.
At the time, for all practical purposes, he had more money than God.
But he was interested in making a film.
He needed a special camera that would do something for him in low lighting.
His movie, Barry Lyndon, which, you know, not an incredibly complex plot, but it was just beautifully shot.
These look like Victoria-era paintings, the way the film came out.
And supposedly, he needed a NASA camera to do this.
In my mind, he could have just as easily gone to Hasselblad and kind of bought a prototype himself.
So I don't know why he would have to trade his services in hoaxing the NASA films for a camera.
It doesn't make much sense to me.
That's just what leads me to believe it's a mockumentary.
Yeah, okay, we're back on.
I'm sorry about that.
A brief interruption.
You know, when we're doing a show from one side of the world to the other, I guess you have to expect something.
Okay, anyway, please continue.
Yes, well, so this issue of Kubrick needing a camera so bad, you know, needing this NASA camera, which was intended to shoot in low lighting Um, needing this camera so bad to create his film, Barry Lyndon, that he would participate in a moon hoax.
To me, or at least hoaxing the, you know, the visual and film record of the Apollo landings.
To me, it kind of strains Credulli, because he could have just as well gone and gotten a camera from Hasselblad that would have performed exactly as he wanted, which is what I believe he did for the film, Barry Lyndon.
He wasn't running around with a chest-mounted Hasselblad.
And here's something that's always bothered me, and maybe you can answer it.
If the United States had faked the whole thing, if it had been done in a studio, I mean, after all, we were in a race with the Russians.
It always seemed to me that, you know, the Russians have a lot of very able scientists.
They would have certainly caught on to it.
And the Russians, more than anybody else, would have screamed bloody fraud, bloody murder, if they had even a clue that we really didn't go to the moon.
Ah.
Well, again, I'm presenting Rene's thesis, so let me explain how his thesis would have mitigated what you just stated.
Sure.
Rene's thesis was that Apollo's history was steeped in deception.
This is the assumption going forward, and he presents his case for that with evidential point after evidential point.
From its very beginnings with Operation Project Paperclip, Nazi Germany found a rebirth from the ashes of World War II through the Central Intelligence Agency, the NSA, and NASA.
And Rene came to understand that the space race at the top, this was his model, Uh, was orchestrated as a false dichotomy along with the arms race to concentrate wealth in a few hands and control the masses with a combination of fear and false idealism.
Um, so, you know, keeping that in mind, there's a second explanation in our conversations.
He often stated, he said, you know, Steve, if that were not true, there's still the issue of if the Russians faked it too, there would essentially be a balance of powers at the At the level of releasing such information.
In other words, there would have had to have been an agreement between the Russians and the Americans to do this.
But I can't see... Or not.
Again, the secondary theory, because there are multiple models to explain these things.
Again, the second model would be that we knew that they were faking their spacewalks.
And if they thought we were faking our landings, we would expose each other simultaneously, which would be advantageous for neither side.
So it's more of a stalemate in the PR war with their own people, it would have been.
Again, this is another model.
Okay.
That model, though, should have collapsed along with the Berlin Wall.
In other words, I'm saying that when communism fell, somewhere in all the records retrieved after that happened, and there were many even in ufology in a lot of areas, that we were able to suddenly read, you know, all of that would have, seems to me, it would have come to light.
Maybe not.
Maybe there are some secrets so secret that no matter what, you know, it's not... Well, if you look at the history of our own country, there are some secrets, let's say, related to M.K.
you know, the CIA's mind control program, we know that the bulk of those records were
shredded.
So we, you know, we're left with small bits and scraps and this may very well be the case
and something tells me that's how other countries operate too.
They have a big shredding party.
Yeah, I'm sure that's fair.
Okay.
Now, a big one, another big one, and that is hasn't the whole issue been settled by
the moon hoax theory debunkers?
In other words, we've sent up satellites that have done a lot of high-definition meandering about the moon since that time, and have there or have there not There have been photographs showing, I don't know, the American flag or the footsteps or pieces and parts that were left from the moon landing.
Do we or do we not have that evidence?
Well, yes, there have been, in fact, lunar reconnaissance orbiter photos taken photographing the Apollo sites.
If we look to NASA launching the LRO, To take pictures with a resolution of 0.5 meters per pixel.
This LRO took photos of the landing sites, but the artifacts imaged are only a few pixels in size.
And here's where the difficulty comes in.
They are indistinguishable from boulders.
Now, of course, people often look for confirmation, not information.
So, as you stated, when People who absolutely believe we did not go.
They'll look at this and they'll see smudges and blurs and say, that's not the landing site.
For people who absolutely believe we did go, they'll say, look, it's the landing site.
But if we look directly at the evidence... Interestingly though, Doctor, when we see some stuff on Mars, for example, we say, my God, there's Mickey Mouse, look, or there's a human hand or a skull.
And people see that, but they're... You're right.
You're right.
But if I could continue on this path... Yes, go ahead.
It's quite interesting to consider that when, quite ironically, the LRO photos, new discrepancies that I'm discussing, where it appears these are only a few pixels in size, it was promoted that the space probes Selene and Clementine photographed a soil disturbance, supposedly caused by Apollo 15's engine plumes spreading out across the descent path.
Hold on, I'm sorry to interrupt, but we're at the top of the hour.
Believe me, we'll have plenty of time to get into this.
We'll pick up on the LRO photos when we get back.
You know, usually NASA says, that human hand, that skull, that's just a bunch of bunk, that's what you're seeing.
Until it comes the other way around.
Other side of the world.
Well, it's true.
You know, it really is true that it, I guess, depends on which side of the argument you're on.
If Richard Hoagland says, look at these Mars photographs, I see a Martian condominium, I see windows, I see child's playgrounds and pools, and I see... And NASA says, no, what you see is pixelated nonsense, right?
But if NASA gets a photograph and it's pixelated, They say these particular pixels indicate that we went to the moon, because here are the artifacts, and the other side will say, pixelated nonsense!
Dr. Stephen Rourke, back in a moment.
Once again, Dr. Stephen Rourke, and we were talking about the LRO photos, Doctor.
Yeah, actually, your summary was spot on, so I think little more needs to be said, except that the LRO photos show disturbance, really.
To be a cluster of bright impact craters, and so it is arguable both ways.
Now, you can well imagine that the folks who say we never went, as you stated, that there's no significant disturbance seen surrounding what is assumed to be the lunar module, and that's problematic really for the folks who say we did go to the moon.
The next logical question, as I think through the arguments, trying to be intellectually honest at every turn, It's really, well, what about a ground-based telescope capable of seeing the Apollo artifacts, right, and proving that the moon hoax advocates are wrong?
Well, as of 2003, well, first I need to say Jarrah White is a documentary filmmaker, was also associated with Ralph Rene, and he interviewed Joss Hawthorne in 2006, and Hawthorne is the head of instrument science at the Anglo-Australian Observatory.
And he explained that the Gemini Observatory for some time had a ground-based telescope capable of seeing the artifacts, and that all they needed as of 2003 were adaptive optics, a small budget item, to overcome the distortion caused by the atmosphere.
These adaptive optics have long since been installed on the telescope, and yet the folks at Gemini Observatory have yet to find and popularize evidence of the Lunar Module or other Apollo artifacts.
Hey, how about that telescope we have circling the Earth outside the atmosphere?
There have been many who have asked, well, why can't we use that?
Yeah, Hubble.
Well, so far as I know, it's got something to do with what Hubble is specced for.
In my mind, I haven't found very good reason why they wouldn't just close the case with what you've suggested.
Using the Hubble to do some high-res images, show everyone that the, you know, the artifacts of the Apollo landings are there.
In fact, interesting, people have put their kind of theory on the line, and have said, Bill Kaysing, that we mentioned earlier, among them, and have said, if you just show us, show us solid evidence the artifacts are there, undeniable proof, you know, they say, we'll shut up and go away.
And yet, it's kind of hung out there.
So, this comes back to, really, this issue of telescopes that may be able to see things, reconnaissance orbiters that should have seen things, really comes back to an interesting article in the BBC, which I'm sure caught your attention about this fake moon rock revealed.
And that was a kind of interesting article because that moon rock was given by the Apollo 11 crew to Dutch Prime Minister, and it turned out to be a fake.
It was petrified wood, in fact.
That's right.
Yeah, and this has incredibly important implications, and I'll give folks some background.
Just to be clear, I've researched this.
I've looked for every NASA explanation and follow-up.
NASA has no explanation.
Here's a single sentence from the article that summarizes it.
It was given to former Prime Minister William Dries during a goodwill tour by the three Apollo 11 astronauts shortly after their moon mission in 1969.
That was from the BBC article in late August of 2009.
Now, NASA has no explanation, so this leaves some to wonder what else about the moon landings might be fake.
And as we look back, there are only a few explanations, maybe three of them, let's say, possible explanations.
One, the Apollo moon landing was a hoax, or at least the Apollo 11 moon landing was a hoax, from which this supposed rock came.
Two, maybe the moon landing was real, but there's petrified wood on the surface of the moon.
Or three, the moon landing was real, but someone absconded with the real moon rock, replacing it with a petrified chunk of wood.
And if the third option is what happened, the three main suspects immediately become the Apollo 11 astronauts themselves.
This is problematic and probably why NASA has no explanation.
Well, if you're going to hand somebody a rock and say it's from the moon, you probably wouldn't substitute petrified wood.
You probably wouldn't.
Yeah, I have every inkling that these astronauts believe they were handing this moon rock.
But that's just another one of these little bits of information that Strain the credulia of the story that, you know, there's just nothing to it.
These are wild-eyed crazies who question the Apollo record.
Well, that is interesting.
Either it's a hoax, or there's petrified wood on the moon, or it was replaced.
Now, all right, what else do we know while we're on the subject of the rocks?
What do we know about the rocks?
How much difference do you know is there between the earth rocks and moon rocks?
Well, a lot.
But, you know, there are moon rocks in Antarctica, obviously, from cataclysmic ejecta.
However, the more interesting question is, why is there a difference between moon rocks and moon rocks?
It wasn't only our NASA's LCROSS, which was the latest impact study of the moon's surface.
There was also Australia's, I'm sorry, European Space Agency's SMART-1 space probe to the moon and upon impact with the moon's surface dust, just as our LCROSS did, lunar soil and moon rocks were dispersed and analyses performed.
Well, it turned out that the moon rocks The dust and the like, upon dispersal, when analyzed, were different than those collected by Apollo astronauts.
So the real question is, why do those results differ?
We can make up all kinds of excuses.
Let me go backwards.
Let me go a little backwards.
Is there always a difference between moon rocks, a discernible, easily discernible difference between moon rocks and Earth rocks?
Or could you find rocks here on Earth that are identical to the moon rocks?
No, you could not.
You could not.
So, we know for sure when we've got a moon rock and when we don't.
Well, I'm not a geologist, but there are ways under, there are means under high pressure, just as people can make cubic zirconias appear to be diamonds, there are clearly means of creating what could approximate a moon rock.
I'm not stating that I have any evidence for this.
What I'm stating, you asked if it was always the case.
I'm stating that maybe not necessarily, but so far as I know, they're easily distinguishable by By testing.
And again, the more interesting question is, you know, if you went to the moon and brought back a moon rock, then a probe were sent to the moon to analyze the same material, wouldn't you expect the same results?
Yes.
Basically.
I mean, I suppose even here on Earth, depending on where you land, you might find different mineral properties in the rock, right?
Yes, that's true.
However, if you notice the L-cross and the SMART-1, Were very near landing sites.
That's pretty interesting.
I know they were in craters quite intentionally, but the differences are non-negligible.
And this is what leads folks to say, hmm, an inconsistency in the Apollo record?
The jury's out, but clearly it requires an explanation.
And speaking of explanations, Art, really, I completely am aware of the majority view of the moon hoax as ridiculous.
I know that.
People saying that The idea that the Apollo Project was faked is just ridiculous, and common sense dictates it.
This is a canard, by the way, constantly thrown out by folks who want to dispassionately question the evidence.
They say, oh, it's just ridiculous.
The common sense proves we went, or Moonrock's proves we went.
Well, you know, the Moonrock thing's in question.
Let's talk about this common sense.
The establishment view, while not held by everyone but held by most, misses the point entirely, and is really not a reason for ignoring disturbing findings.
Or questions that people have about the authenticity of the Apollo record from NASA, the People's Space Agency.
The quantity of suspect pictures and questions about the Apollo record, really, it's not the real issue.
It's what the images convey.
It's what the questions say to us about the honesty of our space program.
But sticking to the pictures for the moment, Pictures have been presented to the entire world, let's say, as authentic and actual photographs of the most significant event, mankind's first steps onto a world other than his own.
So my position is that to ignore or dismiss the questions raised by the discovery of even one suspicious photograph, purporting to be part of the official NASA record, is really to sidestep the issue.
You know Dr. Mitchell, Edgar Mitchell?
Yes.
I've interviewed Dr. Mitchell.
He walked on the moon.
I've interviewed Dr. Mitchell many times.
We became friends.
And I know this is just going to feed the whole thing, but I'll say it anyway.
During one of the, I don't know, more intimate interviews we did, I did with Dr. Mitchell, I asked him, I asked him, I'd like you to tell me
What it felt like to walk on the moon.
I'd like you to tell me your feelings as you walked on the moon.
And, you know, your best emotional memories.
I mean, it must have been something that in all your life you're never going to forget, obviously.
It's just going to impact your life as probably not much else ever would.
And there was a long pause.
I wish I had the audio to play for you.
There was a long pause and he said, This is going to sound strange, but I don't remember much of it.
I don't remember much of how I felt.
Now, that just blew me away.
I was expecting this long explanation of, you know, the emotional freight train that went by as he walked where other humans, very few humans have ever walked.
And I didn't get that.
And it just, it always, to this day, it stuck with me as, what?
What?
You don't remember what you felt when you walked on the moon?
What?
So, there you go.
That's kind of a strange one, huh?
Yeah, these are, now I don't know if you can call any of this a preponderance of evidence so far.
I really think the strongest case is to be made, again, as I stated.
Inconsistencies and anomalies in the Apollo record, I would think regarding the record of testimony, that really does fall into that category and would lend itself to the preponderance of evidence.
But yeah, that fact alone is quite interesting.
Yeah, it is, and it's one of those things that I've never been able to let go of.
All right.
How much of what the conspiracy theorists have believed over the years has been, in your opinion, firmly knocked down?
Any of it?
Oh, yeah.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, this business of not seeing stars, for example.
Now, in fairness to Ralph Rene's theses, The astronauts themselves cannot make their own minds up whether they saw stars or not.
We have some audio with conflicting reports of astronauts being able to see stars and not being able to see stars.
You can see it.
Look, we're looking through the atmosphere here on Earth.
Good, clear night.
You can see stars.
They had no atmosphere.
They had to see stars.
Well, if you want to play Cut 9, we can hear from Armstrong and Collins, who are quite conflicted on the issue of seeing stars.
Oh, for that, yes, let's do it.
What is it, Cut 9?
Cut 9, yeah.
Cut 9, alright.
At the studio, if they're quick and nimble, let's have Cut 9.
When you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars and the solar corona in spite of the glare?
We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the moon by eye without looking through the optics.
I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the sonar curler what stars we could see.
I don't remember seeing any.
Yeah, and the reporter asking that question, by the way, was Sir Patrick Moore.
And kind of compounding this Recollection is the fact that Michael Collins, astronaut Michael Collins, in his book called Carrying the Fire, notes that, quote, the stars are bright and they are steady.
Referring to the moon in daylight, by the way.
He also said, this is 150 pages later, he wrote, what I see is disappointing, for only the brightest stars are visible, and it is difficult to recognize them when they are not accompanied by the dimmer stars.
So, they deny seeing stars, but then write about seeing stars.
It's kind of confusing.
And compounding this, Renee thought, this was interesting, that professional astronomers assured us that once we got above the Earth's atmosphere, the view would be incredible.
We would leave behind the moving thermal layers of air, which causes those pinpoints of light called stars to twinkle.
And we would also leave behind the reduction of intensity due to pollen, dust, humidity, and the thick layer of air itself.
And so quite in contrast, you know, we've got Rene Collins saying, you know, gee, we don't see them, but then we write about seeing them.
I'm sorry, who was answering that in what we just heard?
That was Armstrong and Collins.
Armstrong first, Collins second.
And the question was asked by Sir Patrick Moore in a press conference.
I don't remember seeing stars.
That's unbelievable!
It really is.
And the source for that, by the way, in case people think I'm finding this here, there, or everywhere, the source for that was the Apollo 11 post-flight press conference from Rene's files labeled August of 1969.
This is an indication, by the way, when Rene said in his book, NASA Moon America, when he said, They said this, and here's the source.
He would have the book, he would have the video of the press conference.
This was not a man dealing in hearsay.
To be fair to his theses, no matter what people may think about its validity.
No, listen, that's very fair.
How could they not see stars?
You know, I always thought the stars were not in the photographs because obviously the cameras, I mean, anybody who's been outside trying to take pictures of stars Knows full well that unless you really do a time exposure, you know, you open the aperture and everything, you're not going to get them.
You just don't get them.
Any light at all will overwhelm the camera and you're not going to get something as faint as a star.
But to hear an astronaut say... Yeah, didn't perceive them at all.
And this, by the way, is not only in contrast to what professional astronomers would have assured us, but Michael Melville, From a documentary called Space Tourists.
I'll remind folks, the Apollo 1 crew claimed they couldn't see stars on the daylight side of the moon.
And yet in 2004, when one of the first space tourists, Michael Melville, became the first commercial astronaut aboard Spaceship One, he had no problem seeing the stars on the daylight side of the Earth.
Which, by the way, would have albedo and brightness greater than that of the surface of the moon.
So, it's incongruous, to say the least, and it seems that from the first Mercury shot, according to Rene, each and every astronaut has been compromised by the stars.
These very same stars are clearly visible by test pilots who flew high-altitude rocket planes in the 1950s.
So, a very incongruous record.
And this is to say nothing of some of the earliest NASA photo fakery, also in NASA Moon America by Rene and presented on Coast to Coast AM in the photos gallery.
We have a zero G and a spacewalk flight compared side by side.
It's clearly the same photo, which has been retouched and yet NASA calls them two separate photo numbers and two separate activities.
Yeah, I know about that controversy, but to hear Armstrong say what he just said is... We're at a break, Dr. Rourke, and my mouth's hanging open over that one.
It's the mouth of Art Bell.
My God, the stars.
Remember that line?
The stars.
My guest is Dr. Stephen Rourke and we are talking about whether or not America ever went to the moon.
It's a fascinating discussion.
What I'm going to do is I'm going to occupy Dr. Rourke for this break, this 30 minutes.
With some of the audio I know he's got and some additional discussion at the top of the hour, we're going to open the lines and let all of you hit all the fine points that I know you have.
And again, I know there are many of you out there who really believe we didn't go to the moon.
Many of you are my friends who believe that and believe it very strongly.
So I want to give you a voice and that will be coming at the top of the hour.
Right now, we'll take a break and be right back with Dr. Rourke.
All right, Doctor.
A couple of things that do stick out.
I don't have all the minor points that so many have, but there was a big, big controversy about the amount of radiation the astronauts would receive on the way to the moon, and of course solar flares and all the rest of that radiation.
But even without a major solar flare, and I can't remember the record whether there was one or not, but even without one, there are those, I believe, who contend that the amount of radiation would have killed them and there would not have been enough protection to have done the whole moon trip thing.
So, what do you know about that?
Yeah, well firstly, records show that, and in fact this is something Rene had been able to uncover and present in his book, NASA Moon America, that NOAA's Comprehensive Flare Index for Major Solar Flares.
A look at the data shows that there were in fact powerful major flares August of 1972 during Apollo.
And we can hear some of the clips that tell us just how powerful and fast the protons from that solar flare were.
It's particularly important to note that NOAA 720 Which is the solar flare I'm referring to, was nowhere near as powerful as the major flares recorded in 1972.
This is the benchmark in the data.
There's also the issue that Rene found the combined index value for all the major flares during Apollo 12 exceeded that of the single largest flare from the August 1972 period.
So, you know, he did his homework.
He also did his homework regarding the radiation.
This is a controversial issue that, really, NASA continues to send a mixed message about.
In the credits of an ABC News segment from 2004 called Back to the Moon, ABC is sending a confused message by way of their consultation with NASA.
If we can listen to track 15, Peter Jennings in a Closer Look segment says, and he presents a reporter who states, and I quote, nobody knows how to protect the astronauts from the radiation that is found in deep space.
All right, let's play it.
Now that's track 15, go.
We are going to take a closer look tonight at President Bush's plans for a new American
adventure in space.
Some of these things are not yet technologically possible.
Nuclear rockets might take years of research yet, and nobody knows how to protect astronauts from the radiation that is found in deep space.
Nobody knows how to protect astronauts from the radiation that is found in deep space.
Yes, I just repeated that there for effect, obviously.
But we also have Dr. Tony Phillips at NASA who presents audio articles And he contends that the spacesuit would have offered little resistance to this issue of radiation and flares.
This, again, is from a NASA advocate in his NASA audio article in which we are told about the major solar flare of NOAA-720 that I referred to earlier as the Benchmark Flare.
So there's plenty to be said about discrepancies in this business of radioactivity traveling through the Van Allen radiation belts.
To say nothing of how this radioactivity would have affected the film, which is another question.
And again, this is not to make a final judgment, in my mind, about did we land on the moon.
That's kind of hyperbole.
I think a decision like, did we land on the moon, ought to be predicated upon a dispassionate analysis of the evidence.
And it's important that discrepancies be looked at.
When moon hoax theory questions are brought up, for example, to the then-acting Director of Media Services for NASA, he says things like, I don't really know.
Things like, the fact of the matter is, we did go to the moon.
Instead of addressing the issue, NASA flirts with releasing a book and then pulls the project from Oberg.
They were going to release a book that dispels moon hoax myths.
So, the messages are quite mixed.
You know, we've gone there, but it's tough to get there again.
We could get there again, but now we don't know how to protect them from radiation.
But they've been there, and are not dying of cancer in any rate greater than the normal population.
So, I'm kind of confused, and looking at the evidence, ought to be.
I am too.
Now, this seems a matter of pure science to me.
We knew at the time how much radiation they were taking based on the activity on the sun.
We know, basically I believe, how much is going to be taken in a trip through the Van Allen Belt.
So, this should be not a matter of controversy.
This should be a matter of simple science, or maybe not so simple, but science, right?
Yeah, well, it should be.
It should be.
Because we have the issue of, you're correct, it could be tracked back to rem per hour.
And, you know, the facts are all you need is 500 rem and you're dead.
And we were looking at a total dose of 1800 rem from a single flare alone.
That number triples if you consider traveling through the Van Allen Belt, even at its weakest point.
And all of these facts and figures are, in fact, delineated in Rene's book.
1800 REM.
So we should have, at least, we should have had a bunch of dead bodies.
Yes, and French fries.
Which might explain, again, from a public relations standpoint, why this hints at a parallel space program.
You know, you can't have dead guys in cans floating around.
And also claiming to be there first, right?
So if you fake it till you make it, I completely get why that was done.
But I think at this point, as you said, the falling of the wall and all this, I would think it's time to break some honesty off with the American people about the space program.
And again, these hands in the air, this waving about, you know, the fact or matter is we did go to the moon and these are These are media services directors for NASA just saying, oh, I don't really know.
It doesn't matter.
The fact is we did go.
You know, it's interesting that NASA, via its media representative, declares itself not accountable to the public for its actions.
And this, despite the fact that NASA went to the moon for, quote, all mankind, and surely the fact that one individual spokesman for NASA claims that he doesn't understand the questions asked, That doesn't invalidate the demand with a proper response.
The necessity for proper response, frankly.
Yes, well, Professor, when they ask NASA directly, or, you know, they've had a million press conferences, I mean, hasn't somebody said, look, at minimum, these astronauts would have taken 1,800 REM.
How are they alive?
That's a very direct question.
How's it answered?
Well, Philip Plait has done That in his book, you know, he's the bad astronomer who demystifies moon hoaxes, you know, moon hoax theories, and what he says is that the point at which they traveled through the Van Allen radiation belt was through a point where there was a dip, okay?
And this dip in the belt would have allowed them to pass unscathed, okay?
But his Assertion of that is belied by empirical evidence.
In a book called The Hubble Wars on page 75, it shows that film cannot even travel through this path he's alleging unscathed, much less... Right.
Well, one could imagine, Professor, that they would have containers, possibly, to hold the film in that would protect it from radiation, but not the astronauts.
Right.
Well, there's that argument, too.
That's an interesting contrast.
But even in the containers, Art, this is the point.
There's an image in this book called Hubble Wars made with one of the Hubble's cameras while passing through, and I'll name this area of the belt that is supposedly safest to travel.
It's called the South Atlantic Anomaly.
And the image in the book here shows a fast-moving cosmic ray particle streaking across its detectors.
The camera shutter was closed at the time.
It was encased at the time.
And it clearly demonstrates the penetrating power of the rays.
You know, we don't have any film fogging.
We don't have any anomalies on the film like cosmic ray striking.
This is another question about the near perfection of the images in what is a very unforgiving environment.
Okay.
I know you have a number of sound clips, so if you can dig into your vault and get what would be the most compelling that we could play in the next 15 or 20 minutes, what would they be?
Well, people are probably picturing an astronaut on the moon in a spacesuit, and so it's probably worth a listen to Dr. Tony Phillips, Director of Science at NASA.
Regarding an audio series he called Sickening Solar Flares.
That is track 16, and folks should be listening for his description of the fact that a spacesuit would not have offered resistance to these solar flare activity.
The January 20th proton storm was, by some measures, the biggest since 1989.
It was particularly rich in high-speed protons, packing more than 100 million electron volts of energy.
Such protons can burrow through 11 centimeters of water.
A thin-skinned spacesuit would have offered little resistance.
Yeah, that makes sense.
I'm convinced myself that a spacesuit would not offer much resistance and protection.
And then there's the other issue of the, you know, the limb itself.
We've got this, this, people don't realize the construction of the limb.
It's quite deceiving.
It looks sturdy.
Um, but I mean, there's an issue of the fact that the skin is, uh, is paper thin on the limb.
So if you listen to a track 20, you'll have, Harold Lowden, Apollo 11 Mission Controller, and Gene Kranz, Flight Director, discussing this exact point from a 2006 documentary, Apollo 11 The Untold Story.
And that's track 20.
Go.
The skin on the crew cabin was very thin, and that was all done because of weight savings.
Weight was a very critical item that always had to be considered in anything that you did.
If you really took your finger and poked hard at it, you could poke right through the outer skin of the spacecraft.
It was about the thickness of two layers of aluminum foil.
But it's the kind of thing that you were reasonably cautious that you didn't jab any pointed objects through.
Well, you see, both of these men, whose credibility is unimpeachable, both these men talk about how thin the limbs Walls were.
Krantz in particular says that one could easily jam their own finger through the walls.
So Rene questioned if this could have been effectively pressurized to one-third sea level atmosphere as claimed by NASA.
I think that's a good question.
I do too.
Which almost brings us from this issue of could you get there, could you survive, to all right, what did survive and was presented to the American people?
is the business of the Apollo film, and so this is a good transition to image anomalies.
We have an expert, Dr. David Groves, who discusses really what are many inconsistencies.
I will note that Groves is a physicist in the UK, and he's a specialist in image processing with a PhD in image analysis.
He, not being an American, doesn't really, let's say, have the Uh, the vested interest in protection against disconfirmation of the whole, uh, we landed on the moon thing, you see.
So, if we listen to track 22, Dr. David Groves has some perplexing things to tell us.
I've been involved in image analysis for 25 years now.
I did my PhD developing holographic computer techniques for analyzing images.
My company, Quantic Image Processing, use these image processing techniques to extract three-dimensional information from two-dimensional images used in industry and used in medicine.
The NASA pictures that have analyzed contain many inconsistencies, a whole core of which have no rational explanation or excuse.
So, it's important to note here, in the interest of time, we have many from Groves, but in the interest of time I'll summarize.
The many inconsistencies he refers to in the photographic record of Apollo are, one, converging shadows from a single light source, two, what appears to be backfill and what's called hotspots, In the Apollo astronaut lunar photos, what he believes is due to an additional light source.
Now, this is perplexing because no additional light sources were brought on any of the Apollo missions, just to be clear in case folks didn't know.
And equally perplexing for Groves was the absence of any fogging in the film due to radiation, or even film cracking and warping as a result of the temperature extremes.
Groves took the trouble to take the type of film used and did an exposure experiment using the same camera using Hasselblad specs and in fact fogging occurred with minimal radiation exposure basically like the radiation exposure in proximity to an x-ray device maximum 25 rem this was exceeded easily traveling through to Van Allen and on the moon itself
And I know the film was protected to some extent, but it was protected a lot less than people would think if they looked into the Hasselblad camera specifications, not to mention that the shutter has to open to take the picture.
Yeah, allowing exposure to this.
Yeah.
So these are questions like what effect would these temperature differentials have?
You know, the temperature is 240 to 280 degrees Fahrenheit on the bright side of the moon.
And it's below zero in the shadow of the moon.
And so it could be expected that these types of temperature extremes could not be compensated for by what NASA defender Brian Welch, again, then acting director of media services for NASA, claimed was a very special film designed with thin, and I quote, designed with thin gels and special emulsions.
Well, you know, this This business of thin gels and special emulsions really doesn't wave away the questions we've just brought up.
No, it doesn't.
No, only protection or a description of the protection provided could do that.
And I just, I understand that they might be able to store the film on the way to the moon and protect it to some degree anyway, but certainly not while they're out walking around on the moon.
Yeah, that is admittedly problematic.
In fact, if we look at this magical film, the expert on the entire matter is an individual named H.J.P.
Arnold.
He tends to counter NASA advocates, especially spokesman Welch.
H.J.P.
Arnold has a completely different view of this NASA film used.
Quite to the contrary, he does not think it contains thin gels.
And special emulsions.
If we play track 26, it's only nine seconds long, it will close the case on the argument against.
It was Kodak film.
It was a century the same as ordinary film at that time.
It was a century the same as ordinary film at that time.
The same as ordinary film.
Yeah, and so this leads to the question, because I know we're kind of presenting the audio evidence here, it leads to the question, well, perhaps the camera was special, right?
Maybe Hasselblad in Sweden was the NASA... by the way, Hasselblad in Sweden was the NASA-appointed manufacturer of a camera capable of functioning on the lunar surface.
And Jan Lundberg was the project engineer responsible for the design and building of the camera.
And Jan Lundberg tells us some quite interesting things.
He has questions himself about how the pictures could have shown what they show.
We have just some of the questions.
We'll get to include the ordinary ectochromic film somehow surviving the vacuum and temperature extremes.
We have the issue of astronauts descending ladders in deep shadow and yet we can see them plainly.
Listen, we're at the top of the hour.
Time is flying.
So, we'll take a break here at the top of the hour and be back with more with Dr. Stephen Rourke and whether or not we went to the moon.
Fly to the sun without burning a wing?
Why not?
You can go cruising through 1800 REM.
And just feel great, then what's the sun without torching a wing?
Hi everybody, I'm Art Bell, filling in for George Norrie, taking a well-deserved day off.
Dr. Stephen Rourke is my guest subject.
Did we or did we not go to the moon?
Did we hoax the whole moon landing?
I'm opening the phone lines now, so feel free to start us down a road that you'd like to be on.
I know there are a million different questions about all of this, and I imagine Dr. Warwick can address most of them.
So, as I said, feel free.
By the way, I've got email and I'd love to hear from you.
I try my best to answer my emails, but I get many of them.
I'm artbell at MindSpring.com.
That's A-R-T-B-E-L-L at MindSpring, M-I-N-D-S-P-R-I-N-G dot com.
Feel free to fire me off an email and I'll do what I can.
From the other side of the world, this is Coast to Coast AM, which absolutely owns the night.
We'll be right back.
Alright, Dr. Rourke, I know that we're about to go to the phones, but before we do, if there's any other sound clip that you feel is very compelling and you want to get on prior to going to the phones, now would be the time.
Well, if we could, perhaps punctuate our conversation with callers with some of the audio evidence, if it lends itself.
Sure.
Because I do warn the folks that they'll ask me a question, I give very complete answers.
All right, well in the interest of time, we'll do what we can.
All right, let's begin then.
Let's go to Ted in Wisconsin.
Ted, you're on the air with Dr. Stephen Wark and Art Bell.
Howdy.
Hi.
I'm wondering with the history, long history, of people who have been trying to get into areas that the alphabet agencies didn't want them to get into.
We've got a word now that they say someone was suicided.
I'm wondering just what were the details of his friend in regard to this?
Okay, I'm actually looking at the Scott County Health Department Certificate of Death and I happened to be speaking to Rene in the days leading up to his death and he was in a great amount of pain.
He was a kind of stubborn guy who refused medication and believed it would cloud his thinking.
Um, he didn't want pain meds.
Um, you know, he, I believe he left this place on his own terms.
He was, he was a colorful, stubborn, single-minded man.
There's every evidence that he took his own life through what the coroner's calling an intraoral gunshot wound using a 20 gauge shotgun.
Okay.
Well, I just know that there's plenty of other cases where The original findings were later brought into dispute when someone was getting into areas like this, like the scientist David Kelly in England, for instance.
No, I agree.
It's just, um, there were discussions of the kind of pain he was in, and I'm not saying I completely exclude any hankiness, but he was in incredible pain and he was, uh, this, this discussion had come up and he, he took his life the way, um, The way he would have.
What was he dying of?
He had a variety of ailments.
He was considered disabled.
Every step resulted in great pain.
The specific ailment relating to the pain leading up to his death, and he was in pain for about 38 years of his life leading up to his death, but the pain was flared incredibly by the fact that he was in a van accident.
And so it just compounded all of his problems.
And again, he was in terrible pain.
Every evidence he took his life because of that.
Did he leave any note?
He actually sent postcards to everyone in his will days before, essentially, you know, saying when he took his life.
So that too is kind of evidential that this was In fact, a suicide.
And about the will, this is an interesting fact people might want to know.
They're probably wondering, like, with all of the moon hoax advocates out there, why would Rene pick Rourke?
Like, I was a thorn in his side a lot of the times.
I would question his math, make him reissue copies of his book.
I would check his sources and citations.
And I think in the end that says a lot about Rene, that he would rather have someone bequeath the responsibility of presenting his research in a way that Really does cite the compelling evidence, ask people to think without just being dogmatic about it.
I think it says a lot about the man.
It does.
All right.
Very good.
I promise phones.
Let's keep going.
Jay in all the way in Miami, Florida.
Jay, welcome to Coast to Coast AM.
Oh, thank you, Art.
I'm a longtime listener and a great fan of yours.
So thank you for coming back on the radio.
It's a great pleasure to have you.
You're very welcome.
And, Doctor, thank you for coming on.
This is a great subject, of course, the idea of the moon landings and the hoax, and I think that if you get into the photographic evidence, it's just overpowering that there's just so many things that don't make sense there at all.
Yeah, in fact, this is an appropriate time to direct people to the photograph gallery on Coast to Coast AMS, some of the photos that will go along with our discussion.
You know, you're right.
We do need to get into the photographic anomalies.
It's really the centerpiece of anyone's line of questioning about the authenticity of the Apollo record.
What do you find most interesting, perhaps, in one of the galley photos, or what do you find questionable about the Apollo record?
Well, I find, you know, I mean, of course, the discrepancy with the shadows converging and this type of thing, and then some of the video evidence of, of course, Buzz Aldrin coming down the ladder Where he's in a complete shadow and all of a sudden a bright light comes on him and illuminates him.
Actually, sir, this is a perfect time.
I have every intention of hearing what you say, but it's the perfect time to play that actual NASA audio of the ladder descent in darkness.
It's only 17 seconds, it's cut 30, and it's the exact astronaut, the exact moment you're talking about when they say visibility is not too great descending the ladder in darkness.
All right, let's do it.
So what Rene pointed out, by the way, that this gave eyewitness testimony to the fact
that the LEM was in the shadow side during this Apollo 11 mission, he further wondered
how such brilliant images of the astronauts' shadow side could have been taken.
He wondered how such brilliant images of the astronaut descending down the ladder could have been captured in such darkness, especially when the video camera was fitted with a night lens, but the still camera was not.
Yeah, I mean, it's amazing, because I had gone to the library and gotten a DVD Well, I've got to disagree that there was no other light source.
And immediately I said, wait a minute, he's, apparently he's up there, but it's in complete
shadow.
Now, if there's no atmosphere whatsoever, obviously there's, there's no other reflection
or light that can be in that area.
It's pitch black and all of a sudden, it's as though they put a spotlight on it all of
a sudden.
It just brightens and lights right up.
Well, I've got to disagree that there was no other light source.
I mean, there is the issue of the albedo of the moon.
You know, the moon surface is, is somewhat reflective.
However, what you just mentioned about this bright spot on the heel of the boot and the brightness of the astronaut descending the ladder, that could simply not be from albedo.
The numbers don't support it.
In fact, this lends itself to a question about the contrast of the film.
This must be magic film NASA used, because the still camera is not fitted with a night lens.
According to H.J.P.
Arnold, expert in all things NASA and film, he claims it was ordinary ectochromic film.
So we're wondering, yeah, how do these nearly perfect publicity shots occur when all the scientific facts would belie such a shot existing?
That's what I'm thinking.
I have one question.
I'm sorry we're taking so long with me.
Something I thought of, I haven't seen any other person come up with this as a question, but apparently now the Hasselblad cameras, which were just standard Hasselblad cameras, were strapped to their chest.
And you can see that, of course, in the famous photo of Buzz Aldrin standing there.
Now, if that's the case, wasn't it Buzz Aldrin who took the famous photograph of the footprint?
Am I correct that that's Buzz Aldrin's footprint?
So far as I know.
Okay, now if he took that picture, that footprint, and it's perfectly centered and a beautiful picture, how did he do so if the camera was strapped to his chest?
Did he bend over?
Did he hold on to something?
How did he see it?
My understanding is that not all the NASA photos were in fact perfect.
A more complete look at the Apollo record shows that there are some Jumbled and and and poorly shot photos But yeah, the that could have been taken by simply leaning on the ladder and as you said kind of bending over and approximating the center of the image Yeah, I mean, I mean it's possible, but I doubt if he was actually leaning on a ladder the other just one more point I'll get off the air with you, but thank you for letting me come on and and
Of course, I don't believe there's any really real photograph of Neil Armstrong on the moon, is there?
There's a reflection in the visor of another astronaut that clearly shows Buzz.
So, yeah, I mean, there are photos of Neil Armstrong.
I'm sorry, yeah, Neil Armstrong.
I apologize.
But thank you for having me, Art.
It's a pleasure, and thank you, Doctor.
Oh, you're welcome.
And in fact, to kind of punctuate his point, if in between this next call, Art, if we could play track 31, it's H.J.P.
Arnold discussing the enormous contrast problem of the film, and it speaks to this caller's wondering as to how this latter descent in darkness could appear so bright in the still pictures.
Track 31, it's only 10 seconds long.
In the moon, where you have no atmosphere, shadow is black, and highlight is really violent highlight, so you have an enormous contrast problem.
And it needs to be stated that an example of this contrast is found in the shadow side of the LEM, in the Apollo 11 picture that we're talking about.
Reference works establish this as a fact, as do the TV images of the event.
As I mentioned earlier, The night lens TV images of Aldrin descending the ladder in the shadow side of the LEM show the astronaut to be in total darkness.
And this is with a night lens.
When compared with the still images of the same event, Aldrin is well lit.
And there are even bursts and what seem to be light flares from an additional light source being deployed to make what would have been an unusable picture into like a perfect A publicity photo that NASA would need to communicate lunar superiority over our Soviet competitors.
And that image with the boot heel, brightly lit, by the way, is in the gallery.
It's labeled as AS11-40, some other numbers.
It's called Hotspot on the Boot Heel.
They can see that picture for themselves.
It's quite curious.
All right.
To Florida, once again, and Bob.
Bob, you're on the air.
Hi Art, hi Dr. Rourke.
Listen, I'm sitting here stunned that we're even having this conversation given the LRO sub-meter resolution images of all Apollo landing sites and the tracks that the Apollo 15 astronauts made traveling back and forth between the ALSAP instrument package and the Apollo lander.
Let me just raise one specific issue to challenge the validity of his arguments and also to call into question how well-versed the doctor is.
The doctor last hour stated, as I remember, that The SMART-1 impactor from the European Space Agency and the recent October 9th LCROSS impact in the crater Cabeus in the southern hemisphere of the moon both landed near Apollo landing sites.
Now I don't know about the SMART-1 impactor, I can't remember, but I can tell you that the LCROSS that impacted with the mass of an SUV at high velocity into that crater in the southern hemisphere of the moon was vastly far away I was just about to congratulate you on correcting me.
I'm not one of these guys who pretends I'm right about everything.
in the question for me his expertise.
Mm-hmm.
Yeah, well, I'd have to concede your point if you're correct on that.
May I make a point, Art?
Sure.
If I could finish, buddy.
Let him finish and then you can have your point.
Sorry, I'm sorry.
I was just about to congratulate you on correcting me.
I'm not one of these guys who pretends I'm right about everything.
I'm a pretty quick study, but there's a lot to know with all this, so there's every possibility
Martin, may I make one more point?
Oh, okay.
I wasn't quite done, but yeah, you go ahead.
Why would I want to talk?
Go ahead.
No, no.
I'm sorry.
I'm not used to this.
I apologize, Doctor.
I will stop.
No.
You go right ahead.
Okay.
One thing is, please consider the fact that on the Moon, the Earth is blindingly bright as far as an object in the sky.
Vastly brighter than the Moon.
Is it possible that Earthshine was responsible for the anomalous brightenings during these photographs?
Okay, I'm going to give a complete answer if you're okay with that.
Listen, that the astronaut would have been adequately lit while in the shadow side of the LEM solely from natural light like Earthshine bouncing off the lunar surface is untenable according to Ralph Rene's research and in direct contrast with the Apollo 11 TV footage.
This surface reflection argument is really advanced by the debunkers of the moon hoax.
But again, Rene found it to be untenable.
To make a direct comparison, the surface of the moon has an average, on average, has the ability to reflect light from any source whatsoever at whatever distance from its surface to the same degree as asphalt on Earth does.
That's about 7%.
In other words, whatever the strength of light arriving on the lunar surface, whether by natural or other means, The ability of the average lunar surface to reflect light remains, that's constant.
In fact, the lunar surface luminosity is what you're referring to, is so low it doesn't even manage to illuminate the shadow side of the smallest rocks.
Consider that.
And this has much to do with the fact that there is no atmosphere on the moon to aid the light reflection and refraction as it does with low luminosity.
However, the same argument holds.
If natural light on the moon doesn't backfill and illuminate the shadow side of even the smallest rocks, how do astronauts in the shadow side of the LEM become well-lit and illuminate to the point of actual hot spots and film flare?
So this is why some people, experts I presented, were asking the question, why does it appear that artificial light sources were used in the creation of the Apollo record?
I'm asking the question.
May I respond?
Yeah, sure.
Okay, we're not talking about the reflection off a very low reflective albedo from the moon.
We are talking about direct reflection from the Earth, not bouncing off the lunar surface, which you're correct is about 7% close to asphalt.
We're talking about direct illumination, analogous to the full moon on Earth, but vastly brighter because it is the Earth with its cloud layer being reflected directly on the astronauts.
I understand, but you're missing the point.
If the astronauts are in the shadow side of the LM, there's nothing direct about Earthshine and the astronauts.
There could be, Doctor, and you might be right on this point, but consider this.
The shadow part of the LM is defined by the solar illumination, not the Earth's illumination, which is at a different altitude and azimuth on the lunar surface.
Therefore, while they could be in the shadow from the Sun, that doesn't mean they were in the shadow from the Earth.
Also, I would like to point out that there are a number of other problems, but you know what, Art?
I don't want to take up any more time.
There are a bunch of problems with what the doctor is proposing.
Yeah, well, Rene's theories, while encapsulated very well in his book, NASA and Moon America, with high, glossy, high-res, glossy NASA photos, reprinted in full color, lithographed, it's just an amazing book, and he does a better job of presenting this than I do, but again, I made a promise to a friend that his research would not die with him.
I will state, however, for the record, that while the book is available Uh, there's only about 50 copies left.
The bulk of them are on, let's say, you know, eBay and available on the site.
Once this research is gone, records like this on air will probably be the surviving research of Ralph Rene until I get some sort of a commemorative book out about him.
So I feel it's necessary to restate the caller's position.
What he's saying is, They're in a shadow, but they're not in a shadow.
This doesn't exactly make sense to me, whether you're talking azimuth, sunshine, earthshine, or any other shine.
They're in a shadow, and yet we can see detail of the spacesuit to the point of a flare on the astronaut's boot.
All right.
All right, Professor.
Hold it right there.
Good questions.
Good answers.
Not all of the research.
You may not have all of it down.
Pat, but you're doing a great job.
I'm Art Bell.
Or better said, the other side of the world, Southeast Asia.
Good morning, everybody.
I think it's pretty much morning across the listening audience area.
Dr. Stephen Roark is my guest.
I think it's worth bearing in mind that this man is presenting somebody else's research.
And so, in doing so, he may get some things wrong.
He may not present it as passionately or as in detailed form as the The original researcher might have done.
So bear that in mind as you're listening.
We're discussing whether or not we actually went to the moon.
It is a deeply, deeply controversial subject and I understand, I understand the passions.
So everybody try and keep yourselves under control and where corrections are needed, certainly we'll make them back with Dr. Wark in a moment.
I've got a suggestion by a Fast Blaster that it's an insult to those who died in the Apollo program to be even discussing this.
I don't go along with that.
I think that something of this magnitude, I don't know, it would be kind of an insult to the American Constitution, freedom of speech, and all the rest of it, not to discuss this sort of thing.
Doctor, welcome back.
Yeah, I'm sure not out to insult anybody.
And so far as I understood, neither was Ralph Rene.
I think, as you said, these are questions that are really fundamental to the people's right to know the entirety of the data from the space program.
And essentially what's being done here with the callers is questioning the Apollo record.
If you noticed, I do not take a hard, fast stand on whether we went or not, because there are compelling theories about parallel space programs.
You know, the rule in government is, why buy one when you can buy two for double?
There's every opportunity that we did go to the moon.
I'm simply discussing anomalies in the Apollo record.
And in fact, speaking of email, I've been emailed twice so far while I'm on the show, people saying, well, these were probably retouched or publicity images were processed to bring out the detail of the astronauts and the LEM.
And apologists would claim this.
Well, I need to remind people that Any retouching of the images, like the descent down the ladder to make them brighter, any retouching of the images cannot apply to the Apollo photographs when they are a part of a continuous roll of film.
You see, none of the suspected photos that I'm discussing with lighting and other anomalies could have been retouched unless they'd been collectively re-photographed onto a continuous roll under entirely different conditions.
Then we've been led to believe, which is exactly why we're asking the questions.
Now there's lots of legitimate questions.
All right, let's go to David.
Dallas, Texas.
David, you're on the air.
Hello, good to be on the show.
Good to have you.
Hello, Dr. Wark.
Hello.
Yes, I was wondering, if the moon landing is a hoax, of course the three astronauts would have to have kept it a secret.
Not necessarily.
ARC presented evidence that some astronauts just don't remember.
Okay, but how many people would have known, involved in NASA and whoever else, that would have known?
I have no idea.
Wouldn't it be a large number?
Wouldn't it be a large number of people that would have known it was a hoax at the time?
I have no idea.
That's like asking You know, how many people know that the sinking of the main was a hoax?
You know, who knows?
I don't know how many.
The question is, I can't, there's no way to answer that.
I mean, could you surmise an approximate number?
No, I don't think so.
I think it was quite a few.
Also, I had a couple related questions.
Would the same, some of the same arguments that you're making to debunk the photographs of the alleged moon, of the possible hoax of the moon landing, Could you use some of the same arguments to debunk such things as photos of Bigfoot and things like that?
Of course, yes.
I guess.
I wouldn't know.
I don't know why you put me in that camp.
This is not about Bigfoot, but okay.
You seem to be walking me through some path.
If I say enough yeses, I gotta say yes to the next thing you say.
I would add now, then, that I don't know much about Bigfoot.
I'm not really curious about that.
The discussion's not about Bigfoot.
And I don't know how many people were involved in a conspiracy if there was one.
What I do know is that if there were a parallel space program, and we did go to the moon under a different set of technical circumstances, it would have been wise to publicize the method that you told everyone you were going to the moon via.
And as far as the number goes, I have no idea how many people would have known or if they did know.
I don't know.
It could have been a large number, but one would imagine, if you're imagining the whole thing was a hoax, that it would have been a small number.
I mean, all of the, I suppose, the controllers could have been fed false information, so that they certainly believed that it was really occurring.
Well, the data was, you're correct, the data was extremely controlled that way.
In fact, the first images we had were actually images of images off of a large telescreen.
So, almost in a bizarre way, they Did a time delay and this controlling of the raw feed.
It is quite interesting that maybe in that manner you wouldn't have to have a great number of people, let's say, involved in any knowledge of a conspiracy.
Or it could be a lot more innocent than that.
Again, I remind people of the alternate explanation that if your government had every intention of your safety in its heart and decided to allow the real astronauts to go, That might have taken longer.
Maybe they faked it until they could make it because we had to beat the Russians.
You know, I don't know what people think Rene was proposing or what I'm representing as his research, but I haven't been discussing any diabolical individuals with blood coming off their fangs, you know.
I don't know how many people were in any conspiracy if there was one.
Okay.
All right.
To Virginia.
Mike, you're on the air with Dr. Stephen Rourke and Art Bell.
Thank you for taking my call.
And Art, nothing against George Norrie and Ian Punnett, but it's nice hearing from you again.
Great to be heard.
Not only was the United States and the Soviet Union racing each other to the moon, but there were several other nations that would have been able to follow our spacecraft to the moon with radar and back.
It seems to me that if they were to try to not have something go into orbit and fly to the moon and back when they said they did, that it would be taking a huge gamble.
I think there were amateur radio operators that tracked the communications.
There were... And how many optical telescopes were capable of seeing what was going on?
I'm not sure, Doctor.
I'm not sure about that either, but I do know that Rene proposes the argument in his book that satellites could well have delivered fraudulent pings, signals.
Likewise, this could have been entirely robotic, thereby not risking the embarrassment of dead astronauts floating in a can to the utter embarrassment of the United States, thereby giving supremacy to the Russians in the public mind.
That's a good point.
So, in other words, it could have been sort of a partial hoax.
Something really went to the moon, something orbited the moon.
I doubt you could have done a mechanical moon landing and then taking off again, but certainly it could have been a spacecraft sent and then orbiting the moon.
Well, there's this issue too, Art.
I want to bring this up because it's almost a middle ground here.
You know, as a person who is willing to concede, you know, hey, we, you know, we went to the moon.
I get it.
But there's so many anomalies in the Apollo record, there must be a model to explain why.
So the reason why may be the very thing we stated.
If NASA had to fake it till they could make it, now they're stuck with keeping all the preceding missions to have the same look and characteristics of the initial photos.
So it may be that while Apollo 11 was faked, maybe the mission for Apollo 16 was not, but the photos had to be so they wouldn't look discontiguous in the set of all of the landing mission photos.
By the way, I'm hearing the administration is considering skipping the moon and going directly to Mars.
Had you heard that?
Yeah, I had heard that.
I don't know.
I thought that was kind of counterproductive.
The point of learning more about the moon was to see if this could be some sort of a, you know, a bulkhead in space, a place, a platform from which to lift.
It seemed to me that it'd be a lot wiser to make a position on the moon and go from there, but I'm not an astrophysicist, so I don't know.
Nor am I. I just wondered about that decision.
Why skip the moon unless it was simply bereft of any No, again, that would be the only reason.
We're not bereft of any reason.
We do have a reason.
We'd use that as a launch platform and a lot more, so.
Yeah.
I don't know.
All right, to Brandon in Kalamazoo.
Brandon, welcome.
Hi, it's nice to talk to you, Art, and I've been listening to you for 11 years, and it's a privilege to hear you tonight.
Thank you.
Um, this kind of relates to something McCuller was talking about earlier.
I've seen some work, I've read about reports that saying, in general, this would have been harder to fake it than to actually really go to the moon.
And, um, originally I was going to talk about, you know, the conspiracy and all the people that would have to be involved, but just in general with, um, What it would take physically and with technology, what would make it more difficult to fake it than to actually do it?
Well, Rene proposes in his book, NASA Moon to America, and I remind folks that the very last copies of the author's book are available on eBay and through RalphRene.com.
You know, he proposes that The opportunity to quote-unquote fake the visual record of the Apollo missions was quite an opportune one.
They had the ability to fake them because they had all means of practice runs.
You can find many photos, which these photos of them practicing, by the way, really quite amazingly approximate the photos of astronauts on the moon.
You know, these ones in the studio and in the darkened desert accented by floodlight They look quite similar.
I'm not saying they're precise.
What I'm saying is they're similar enough to say enough was in place to provide an Apollo record that would assure space supremacy over the Russians in the public mind.
Now, if you were running NASA, would you roll the dice if this is the race of your life against the scourge of communism?
Or would you create a prefabricated record of success With a parallel space program, so that if your astronauts die, you have a story that, let's just say, gives you a win against the Russians in the Great Space Race.
It seems to me it's a no-brainer that this would have happened.
Okay.
Let's go to Colorado and Scott.
You're on the air with Dr. Rourke.
Hi.
Dr. Rourke, Dr. Bell, what an honor.
Thank you very much.
Yeah, well, you burned it.
My uncle turned me on to you about 20 years ago, Kurt.
But anyway, if there's water on the moon now, why didn't they find water on the moon back then?
Yeah, well, there's two reasons, two possibilities.
One, you know, if Rene were alive, he would say that this confirms His prediction that when the moon is revisited by any means and the soil thereby analyzed, he would have said, it's going to show that there are differences, differences that are non-negligible.
Well, there's also another issue though.
It could be a measurability problem.
I'm not sure that the spectrographic analyses are that much better, but let's face it, the technology for spectrographic analysis must have improved somewhat.
So it might be a measurability issue.
I'm not willing to take every point of evidence and graft it onto the theory, but I believe Renee would have taken that as a feather in his cap.
But for intellectual honesty, I'm willing to say that it could be the instrumentation was more sensitive, so they're finding more.
There you go.
Thank you both.
Okay, thank you and take care.
Lots of good questions, many good answers.
The whole thing has actually bothered me for a long time.
All the way, well I shouldn't say all the way, it's a close neighbor of mine.
Australia, Samuel, welcome to the show.
Hello Art, hello Doctor, how are you going today?
I'm well, how are you?
I'm very good.
I'm just wondering what you think about the theory That with all of the extremes in temperature and radiation that are outside our atmosphere, that if that's the reason why the footage had to be faked and the landings didn't happen, if that could be the reason why, with all of our vastly superior technology now, we haven't continued manned missions to the Moon or beyond.
Yeah, that's a very reasonable take and the reason I like your position, your perspective, It's because it doesn't tell people that, you know, their notion we've gone to the moon is wrong.
It simply tries to account for the photographic anomalies.
And this is the model that needs to be pursued.
It's the model heavily pursued in Rene's work.
You're correct.
If they expected, and they would have expected, extremes in vacuum, extremes in temperature, extremes in radiation, I think they would have known they could have had Fogging, streaking, film cracking.
So, if you were NASA, would you simply come back and tell folks, you'll have to trust us, we really did go.
You'll have to tell the Russians, you'll have to trust us, we really did go.
Or would you, in fact, fabricate a record in advance of the missions, so that if these, if the documentation of the moon landings came back and was flawed to the extent of not being presentable or believable, Because of these temperature extremes and the cracking of the film, you would have wanted to have this prefabricated record on hand.
I don't really think, with all the conspiracies our government is in fact guilty of, this would be a minor one.
Yes, I don't think that anyone would blame them if that was the case, except for the fact that if it is the case, why don't they just come clean and say so?
Well, that's just it.
And people forget.
They like to get in this dichotomy.
Where they argue, they just do an us-them kind of thing, so they would call up and want to have a wrestling match with me about whether we went to the moon or not.
They're really missing the point.
It's what you just stated.
The real point is, we need to ask the questions about why these anomalies exist.
Maybe there's some incredible scientific fact we don't know.
Maybe it's about the Apollo record being faked and they'd give us a good reason why.
The truth is paramount.
This is what Ralph Rene searched for.
He was a flawed man like the rest of us, but a good man looking for the truth.
And these questions, by the way, these contrarians like Rene, they serve an organizational purpose.
They keep stuff honest.
He kept poking, he kept prodding, he kept asking the annoying questions, and there's nothing more American than that.
That's what we do.
We poke and prod till we get the answer.
And frankly, we haven't gotten the answer about these photographic anomalies and other anomalies and high strangeness in the Apollo record.
Yes.
Well, Dr. Rook, thank you very much.
And Art, I think that I'm probably slightly closer to your time zone at the moment.
Alright, thank you very much for the call from Australia, and take care.
You know, to me, as I listen to all of this, I'm more intrigued, I think, by the radiation question than the photographs.
I understand there are very many good questions about the photographs, but the radiation seems like simple, hard science to me.
Well, there's a problem though.
The complexity of the radiation argument is one that's difficult to grasp because the rad, it's a calculation.
You've got rads, which vary by belt, by distance traveled.
Then there's the issue of time traveled through the given areas.
So ultimately, it takes a very complex analysis, which was done in chapter, it's in chapter 10 of Renee's book, but it is really, It's a kind of nerdy analysis, and it wouldn't play well on radio.
I'm afraid we'd have people careening off the road snoring.
But if they were to eBay search and pick up the book, it's a rare find.
It's extremely compelling.
He does a complete and thorough analysis using NASA's RADREM data.
Okay, certainly they had detectors with them, right?
How much radiation did they take?
Well, that varies too by mission.
But no matter which mission you contend they went on, the radiation exposure was too high for, if not survivability, let's say prolonged health after survivability.
Okay.
All right.
Dr. Stephen Rourke is my guest.
And what?
I think he said anything over 500 and you'd be a body returning to Earth.
A dead body.
I guess I need to know more.
I'm Art Bell, and this is Coast to Coast AM.
Ah, the never-ending ride.
Good morning, everybody.
Dr. Stephen Rourke is here.
He is presenting evidence gathered by another of Of the suggestion that we never went to the moon, that the moon, the whole thing was faked.
Or, actually let me correct that, that it was perhaps partially faked or entirely faked.
And I know it's hard for a lot of people to swallow and it produces anger, people get angry about this kind of thing.
Everybody, including me, by the way, wants to believe that we went to the moon.
And, in fact, I do believe we went to the moon.
Some of these questions, though, are very troubling.
The radiation is a prime example for me.
It seems to me that they would have had extremely careful records of how much radiation was, in fact, received in transit by the spacecraft and, in fact, by the astronauts While they were on the moon.
So, all of that should be a good, solid record.
And NASA should have good, solid answers.
And yet, it remains controversial, as do the photographs and other aspects of the whole mission.
Or missions, I guess I should say.
More in a moment, taking your calls for Dr. Stephen Rourke.
We'll be right back.
Thank you, by the way, for all the good fast blasts.
Tom in Canyon Lake, Texas fast blasted the following to me.
Please ask him about the one-sixth G of the moon.
Measuring the height of jumps and the time duration of each should verify if the video was in fact taken on the moon.
Doctor?
That's true.
An analysis of exactly what he's discussing was done by Rene.
That's been furthered and rather popularized on the web, in fact.
Some people have alleged it's as simple as the fact that some wire assisting may have been done and a mere slowing down of the film.
I don't know.
I haven't made a decision one way or another about it.
I would think slowing of the film would be detectable, technically.
Yes, it sure would.
Then there's the issue of aligning the narrative with the Apollo record.
Yeah, I'm going to put that in the kind of, you know, who knows column, but it's an interesting thought.
Oh, Art, I wanted to tell you, I looked through Rene's book, NASA Mooned America, and found something interesting by James Van Allen, cited by Rene.
This, of course, is the discovery of the Van Allen radiation belts.
Right.
For the folks who say, well, the Apollo crews only spent an hour in the most dangerous parts of the belts.
This, uh, this rad exposure issue is a non-issue, uh, claiming it's not long enough to cause damage.
It needs to be stated that James Van Allen himself disagreed in the March 1959 Scientific American.
He stated, and a quote, it's a quick quote, the discovery, um, is of course troubling to astronauts.
Somehow the human body will have to be shielded from radiation, even on a rapid transit through the region.
And then later in December of 1961, Uh, in an issue of Space World, he wrote, quote, Owing to the great penetrability of the high energy protons therein, effective shielding is quite beyond engineering feasibility in the near future.
Hence, the inner zone of the Van Allen Ration Belts must be classed as an uninhabitable region of space as far as man is concerned.
The outer zone is much more difficult to avoid.
A living organism could not survive this level of radiation damage.
Hence, All manned spaceflight attempts must steer clear of these two belts until adequate means of safeguarding the astronauts has been developed.
And of course, Rene argued that adequate means had not been developed with the thin skin of the lamb.
And obviously, ABC News, after consulting with NASA, was not convinced either.
You heard the 2004 Closer Look report where NASA is still claiming, gee, we don't know what to do to protect astronauts from radiation of space.
Mm-hmm.
Michigan finds John.
John, welcome to Coast to Coast AM with Dr. Stephen Wark and I'm Art Bell.
Good morning, gentlemen.
There is a BBC special documentary that came out some years ago called, um, A Funny Thing Happened to Me on the Way to the Moon.
Mm-hmm.
And, uh, have you guys seen it?
Well, if you're talking about the Bart Sabrell work, uh, do you mean A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon?
Oh, okay.
That's what I meant.
If I misspoke, I apologize.
No, no problem.
Bart Subrow, that was an independent piece that perhaps was aired on BBC, but to be clear, that was not a BBC production.
Yes, that's correct.
But it showed on television over in England, and if you can go up to Google it and download it on your computer, everybody should be able to see that.
It's wonderful.
It has footage from NASA showing the hoax.
And on the screen it says, this should not be aired to the public.
And it gives a time and date stamp when they're supposed to be approaching the moon, and they're four days away from the travel.
Yeah, to give credit where credit's due, you know, Sabrell and I are not exactly on the same page.
He's got a very confrontational style.
He's getting punched out by astronauts.
That wouldn't be something I'd advise.
I didn't know anything at all about that.
All I did was to watch the show.
A friend of mine gave it.
Excuse me for cutting you off.
No problem.
A friend of mine gave me the movie.
And I watched it on my computer, and it's just absolutely fantastic.
90% of the things that you're discussing tonight are shown in this video, to back you up.
Yeah, and in fact, well, yeah, to back Rene up, and to be clear, you know, Rene, this is why I stated, if he was not the father of the modern-day moon host conspiracy theory, he certainly was the prodigal son after Bill Kaysing.
You know, but to be clear about the level of Ralph Rene's work, I can't put it over the top enough.
He expanded what was rather elementary research about the moon hoax.
He includes mathematical proofs, sources, and citations, and not to mention the inclusion of full-color, lithographed, glossy reproduction of actual NASA photos in his book.
These photos in NASA Moon America, by the way, they have since been difficult to obtain, which is a whole other story.
And his publication is still widely popular today, obviously, because I'm looking at the eBay availability of the book.
It's gone from 53 to 31.
I can't stress enough that once these are gone, I'm not reprinting these.
I have no way to do that.
Rene's instructions were to recoup the funds from the sales of his remaining stock and to reissue a book.
Like a second edition, but that would take me years because I plan on confirming every citation and source and expanding the book.
Okay.
Out of curiosity, why are those photographs now difficult to obtain?
Well, there was some confusion when NASA had re-coded the photos.
They made HQ numbers, headquarter numbers, and so it changed the numbers they were recognized by Thereby having some of them fall between the cracks.
And they've been since rediscovered, but I'll have you know, Art, that some things are now missing from the photos that used to be in the photos.
Things like the letter C existing on a rock and in the dirt just in front of a rock.
Things like the reticles, the little crosshairs, which were anomalously placed, are now quite repaired.
Many, many photographic anomalies after reissuing were changed, shall we say?
We have a lot of history of documents simply disappearing.
For example, the entirety of the Roswell documents just gone.
Like somebody threw them away or something.
Interesting parallel, yeah.
And for a while, if you remember Art, the entirety of the NASA tapes was lost for a while.
Do you remember that?
I do.
Yeah, which is kind of insane, and then it just kind of pops up stored somewhere in some university, and yeah, it's all quite strange to me.
This rather historic record should have been vaulted in something approximating a humidor, but it appears these folks are treating their cigars better than our posterity of the record of the Moon mission.
Our Rosemary Woods really gets around.
Michigan brings us Sam.
You're on the air with Dr. Werk.
Hi, Sam.
Hey there, Art of Talk, your voice in your minor golden.
Thank you.
And previously, some of the callers did, and now Dr. has identified the Van Allen radiation bill.
And I brought this, this concern up to Richard Conspiracy Hogan, Hogan, some time ago, and he dismissed it as so much Poppycock nonsense, he said, because, well, it was just a very brief period and they did have, quote, radiation shielding technology on board.
Well, seems I heard somewhere recently some NASA officials said or identified the very real radiation threat as a reservation in returning to the moon.
And so, I just think we've been lied to so many times.
I think John Lear would corroborate doctors claims here that there is a parallel secret
program.
Well we obviously have been lied to and we've been lied to a lot.
And so, of course, after a period of time, the American public begins to doubt just about everything that our government says.
So, is there reason to doubt here?
There certainly are legitimate questions to be answered.
And again, I would love to have, I really would, Doctor.
There's got to be a A dosimeter that rode along probably tons of them because they were so concerned about radiation.
So we should really know how much in totality radiation was taken during the trip itself, during the period on the moon, all the rest of it.
We should know.
It should be public record.
Well, we should, but again, there's that concession of the measurability problem, the sensitivity of instrumentation, the possibility of faulty instrumentation.
And so, this is why it goes back and forth, Art.
It's a complex problem.
The numbers you're asking for are presented in the aggregate and disaggregated in Renee's work, but then the people who would counter Renee's theses, they would say, well, you know, your time and duration is off, or these RAD exposures are not consistent.
And see, this is how it goes back and forth.
In the end, this is why I reply, ultimately, I choose to select from Renee's work to discuss Really focus upon the Apollo record itself, the photographic evidence, which is highly suspect.
But related to this issue of what's called radiation biology, we have Dr. Eleanor Blakely claiming that aluminum, which a good part of the LEM was made of, aluminum worsens the radiation problem.
She's a radiation biologist of the Life Sciences Division at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
This is from one of her lectures.
If we could play cut 18, you'll hear that officially the Apollo astronauts were protected by a less-than-three-inch layer of aluminum on the command module, a paper-thin layer of aluminum on the lunar module.
And NASA claims that this is perfect protection from space radiation, but here's Dr. Blakely Yes, I was just wondering if you could speak to how difficult it would be to shield a spacecraft or even a spacesuit against different types of radiation.
You ask another good question.
The only problem is particles undergo a process called fragmentation.
So if a particle comes in and hits like an aluminum shielding, it actually fragments into an array of particles of lower atomic number.
So you actually have a higher affluence on the inside than you would have on the outside.
So this is a serious problem at many levels.
You see what she's saying is because Aluminum increases the risk of particle fragmentation.
This means that when a particle hits an aluminum shield, it shatters into a dangerous spray of secondary particles, making the radiation inside the ship worse than on the outside.
And so this, you can see how complicated this radiation argument is.
Yes, I do.
I do.
But again, there should have been, I'm sure there are dose monitors inside the spacecraft.
I just I kind of wonder what they said.
I'd like to know.
Do we know?
Yes, we do.
As I said, Rene has calculated analyses in his work.
But the issue is the fill plates and the like would come forward and say, well, we disagree with your numbers.
And this is what statisticians do.
And that's what mathematicians do.
And so in the disagreement over the numbers, you end up getting a little more heat than light.
But in the end, if you look at what Dr. Eleanor Blakely just said, you look at the thin composition of the LEM, you look at, in the aggregate, the problems that the founder, the finder, of the Van Allen radiation belts, what his position was on safety of astronauts traveling through said belts, you can see that the preponderance of evidence is kind of in Rene's camp on it being difficult to say the least to travel through.
Yeah, Van Allen's quote is troubling.
What the lady just said is additionally troubling.
So, off to Portland, Oregon, and Tim, you're on the air with Dr. Rorikai.
Hey, you guys.
First of all, Art, I just want to say I love it when you host.
I was listening last time you hosted, so I'm glad to know that you're okay and your family's okay.
We are.
Thank you.
And for the doctor, I wish I knew more about this topic, but I was just wondering what your thoughts are and what Dr. Rene's thoughts were on the Lunar Laser Ranging ongoing experiments and his explanation for that.
Okay.
First, Rene was a didact, like a self-taught guy.
He had a folksy kind of way about him.
And I think he might have even been insulted if you called him Dr. Rene.
Just keep that in mind.
And this is not a cop-out.
I don't know enough about what you're asking to answer intelligently, but I know this much.
I'm thumbing through the pages now, and it's covered in here somewhere.
It's a very comprehensive approach.
I just don't, rather than fake it, I'm just going to tell you I don't know enough about it.
I apologize.
Good enough.
No, that's good enough.
Thank you very much.
I understand the difficulty of presenting somebody else's research.
It is very difficult and he would be able, were he here, I'm sure he'd be able to just simply rattle it off and boom, you'd get a quick answer.
So everybody bear in mind.
That Dr. Rourke is presenting somebody else's research, and that's a very difficult thing to do.
And also, you're not a person who's saying, look, we absolutely did not go to the moon.
You're saying, I'm presenting this research, I'll do the best I can, but here it is, right?
Yes, you're correct.
And there's every reason to ask these questions about these anomalies in the record of all sorts, the photographic record and the like.
Because again, it serves ultimately an organizational purpose for our country.
These troublemakers, these contrarians, they ask the tough questions which ultimately will demand the truth.
Very quickly, Steve in Costa Mesa, you're on the air with Dr. Rourke.
Good evening, hi Art and Dr. Rourke.
I've been listening to the show and when it first opened I thought, boy I wish I could have met Dr. Rene or is it Rene?
The reason I'm calling is because I worked for a studio in 1969 that owned the color lab that did all the still work that came back from the moon.
That same studio also owned an optical house, in other words, a place to do special effects with film.
I remember the names of everybody, and I remember the names of the companies, but I wouldn't want to say them over the air, because I might get a million phone calls.
I don't know.
Yeah, I wouldn't do that.
If you wanted to know, I could give you my phone number off the air here.
Well, I'm available via email.
If you go to www.RalphRené.com, it gives my email, which begins with S-R-O-R-K-E.
I'm easily contacted via email if you want to give me that info.
Okay, sure, I can give you the information because I remember as soon as the landing occurred, it was like days later and all over the studio there were color pictures of the moon and the famous face shield shot and all that stuff.
I knew the two guys that ran both the color lab and the optical end of the place very well.
And these guys, they were capable of about anything.
Okay.
All right.
We've got to hold it there.
We're at a break point.
But again, do please contact Dr. Rourke via email.
It sounds like you might have some important information.
Dr. Rourke, hold tight.
We're at a break.
An absolute pleasure and an honor to be here.
I'm Art Bell filling in for George Norrie on a night that he takes off and I hope has a great weekend.
This is Coast to Coast AM.
That's right, from the other side of the world.
I'm convinced my board operator must have some bell genetics, because I couldn't have picked the bumper music any better myself.
My guest is Dr. Stephen Rourke, and we're addressing a very, very passionate controversial subject, whether or not we actually went to the moon.
It does arouse gigantic passions, and I want to thank you all for pretty much keeping it in check.
We'll get back to phone lines and Dr. Rourke in a moment.
Alright, once again Dr. Stephen Rourke is our guest.
I've received an article on the dosimeters that were actually on the missions and it's going to take a lot more reading than I have the ability to do right now.
So I guess I will get the answers to those questions soon.
Keith in Ontario, Canada is on the air with Dr. Rourke.
Keith, welcome to the show.
Hey Eric, good to talk to you again.
Um, I missed half the show, so I have to apologize there, but I completely agree here.
I mean, since they aired that show, I believe it was called, Did We Land on the Moon?
It's hard to believe that more of a push didn't happen for answers.
I mean, like he was saying, the photographs, you know, it shows the crosshairs behind the subject matter.
You know, there was close to the stars you can get, but there's no stars in the footage.
The lander looks like it was launched up by a crane.
uh... the flags and be blown around the wind uh... you know it's just
so hard to believe that more of a push was done and you know if you look at the news uh... i think that
block senator or something about broken his own house and the news and brock
obama you know they continued endlessly but
you know ask about the moon system now why bother we went that uh... i mean
you know so much like me and and the dog we want answers uh... who who's
how can this happen yeah and and answers is
is just what about you know site the uh... did we land on the moon program
That was an interesting program because astronaut Brian O'Leary on that show said, and I quote, I can't say, and this is Brian O'Leary saying this, astronaut Brian O'Leary, I can't say 100% for sure whether these men walked on the moon.
It's possible that NASA could have covered it up to cut corners and to be the first to allegedly go to the moon.
Now, we have that on record.
That's actually cut two in the clips.
But I precisely quoted it, it's exactly what he said.
Since that's an astronaut, let's play the clip.
You say it's cut to?
Cut to, you're correct.
Okay, let's go.
I can't say 100% for sure whether these men walked on the moon.
It's possible that NASA could have covered it up just in order to cut corners and to be the first to allegedly go to the moon.
Now of course there's that question and I also I added that I give very complete answers.
Now, you just brought up the business of the reticles or the crosshairs, and if I could comment, and then we'll get your follow-up.
There are anomalies regarding these crosshairs.
The most compelling piece of evidence, in many ways, is really the photos with these anomalies surrounding the reticles or crosshairs that are superimposed on the image at the time the photograph is taken.
The largest reticle always appears at the center.
And that is the central position is fixed in the camera.
It cannot move.
So with an image that hasn't been interfered with in any way, you would have to have that larger center reticle appearing at the center of the image.
If one looks at some of the Apollo images, specifically the classic Apollo image AS11-40-5903 available on the Coast to Coast Gallery, this is referred to as the man on the moon photo or the reflecting visor shot.
We can see the center reticle is toward the bottom of the astronaut's leg.
And in the official NASA photograph, this is significantly offset from the center of the image.
So this superimposed crosshair could not occur in that position unless the photograph had been copied and reframed.
And I'll remind you, if the photographs are contended to be a part of a continuous roll of film, This is not possible unless it was re-shot and put on a role that was intended to be popularized as a continuous roll of film.
And that would be, in itself, evidence of falsification of the Apollo record.
Legitimate questions.
Fullerton, California brings Vincent.
You're on the air, Vincent.
Hi, good morning.
Yeah, I was just wondering if any of you ever heard, there was a documentary a few years ago about Grissom being murdered for knowing that this was all a hoax.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, that's kind of, yeah, I mean, that's in Rene's book and all that.
It's a tenuous, obviously highly circumstantial speculation.
It's labeled as such, and with so much in the way of Actual anomalies and evidence and sound clips and photos to refer to while it's in the book and it's it's quite compelling at many levels I'd rather focus from speculation on to the actual Anomalies in the record.
Okay.
Thank you.
All right.
Thank you very much for the call and let's go to a wild-card line and say John and Long Beach your turn Art it's great to hear you again You might not remember this, but I was a newspaper reporter in Long Beach, and I was going to come over in Pahrump many years ago, and I'm still in the newspaper business, and spend a night on you on the show, but then a couple things happened that didn't happen.
But I always regretted that I didn't.
Well, come see me now.
Yeah, I'll come to Manila.
I'll stop in.
But I wanted to say, you know, I lived in Cincinnati at one time, and Neil Armstrong, of course, taught At University of Cincinnati.
And the guy was like a hermit.
He wouldn't talk about anything.
And it always gave me pause a little bit.
His unwillingness.
Of course, Auburn will sign anything.
Actually, I did a story on him once, and he signed my hometown newspaper.
This picture of the footprint in the moon.
You know, he'll sign anything.
But Armstrong always gave me pause a little bit.
He seemed like a stand-up guy, you know.
But he just won't talk about this.
And it made me think that maybe he was hiding something.
And just to make an addendum, one other comment quickly.
You know, once people, even a person, digs his heels in about a point, it's hard to get them off of it.
And if the government did this, we will never know the truth about it.
They'll do anything to keep us from knowing about it, because they can never admit it.
It's almost like UFOs, it would change our religious structure.
Everything, you know, aliens, it would change the way we look at things.
You know, going to work the next day wouldn't mean as much.
They have too much involved in this.
ever come off the with the truth so when you say that search for the truth will
eventually happen I doubt it even though that I agree with a lot of your
questions about this but I mean do you think the government would ever admit it
under any circumstances and also Not a chance.
Not a chance.
Oh yeah.
Not with any ease, let's put it that way.
And that's why I think it's important that tough questions be asked.
Hey, in response to the caller actually, you're a newspaper man.
Yeah.
You're probably familiar with this man on the moon photo, the most highly popularized image.
It's called the reflected visor shot.
Yes.
I have to admit I'm not as conversant with this subject.
As you, I mean, I think you ask a lot of questions.
I've always had positive, you know, Armstrong's thing is the first thing you think about this.
You know, we'll just be clear.
It's this image I refer to is on coast to coast for anyone to see.
Go to the website and to the image gallery.
It's the most popularized image, and yet it contains like the greatest number of flaws and anomalies.
And I'll point one out.
John Lundberg, he's again the group manager of space projects for Hasselblad.
That's the camera.
That was contracted for him to create to go to the moon and take these images.
Lundberg is wondering why, in this particular image and some others, it appears like Armstrong is standing in a spotlight.
If we play cut 32, it's a little over 11 seconds long, people would be amazed with how Lundberg has no explanation.
This, again, is the group manager of the Hasselblad Space Project's camera.
And cut 32, would really shed light on the issue of why it seems like Armstrong is standing in a spotlight.
Okay, go.
Yes, it seems like he's standing in the spotlight.
And I can't explain that.
That escapes me.
Why?
So maybe you have to find Armstrong and ask him.
So look at what we have so far.
You know, Rene would suggest with tongue-in-cheek that additional lighting sources must have been brought to the moon.
You know, we have other stringers.
I'll just summarize them.
We have Jan Lundberg explaining that first, no additional lighting gear was brought to the moon, in case folks were wondering.
The photographic space astrophotography expert, J.P.
Arnold, revisiting the contrast problem.
We have that in Rene's records.
While images of an astronaut standing on a bright lunar surface would be evenly lit because of the aperture speed of the film and settings, we have issues Or should expect to have issues when the astronauts are standing in near darkness.
We have NASA audio of the astronauts guiding each other down the ladder due to the darkness of their descent.
And this belies the apologist's suggestion that, well, it could have been asthma, albedo, earth shine.
They're saying they're in the dark.
They are in the dark, and yet a photo shows they're brightly lit.
And Jan Lundberg, he also speaks to the fact that no flashbulbs were obviously used in lunar photography.
So he's wondering why there's a bright hot spot on the heel of the astronaut in the shadow side of the limb.
You know, had they known then that there would have been this sort of controversy now, and they had to do it all over again, would there have been anything they could have done to absolutely beyond any shadow of a doubt prove where they were at the time?
What could they have done other than what they did?
Yeah, I mean, a very hypothetical question, but a fair one, because you're right.
I think there's people that would always, you know, believe that we didn't go.
And this may have to do, to some extent, with, let's say, like a kind of ignorance about scientific facts.
If we look at some of the polls that have been done, there'd always be this core of people that just say we didn't go.
There's a headline, 20% of Americans have doubts we went to the moon.
Now that number's a bit misleading.
A 1999 Gallup poll showed it was more like 6%.
A number which agrees with a poll taken in 1995 by Time CNN, according to the Gallup website.
But still, look at that 6%.
It translates into millions of people who would like answers.
And in a democracy, you know, two wolves don't agree what the sheep ought to do.
You know, in a democracy, it ought to be where the individual with questions has those questions answered.
I think these are legitimate questions about anomalies in the Apollo record.
I do, too.
Scott, in Utah, you're on the air with Dr. Vork.
Hi.
Hi, Art.
It's great to hear your voice.
And, Doctor, I really appreciate everything you're doing.
You're very fair.
You're very analytical.
You look at the process and see it in a new light.
And what I wanted to ask is kind of a little bit of link to what the last caller was saying.
Have the astronauts themselves, if they were together the whole time, all the way to the moon and back, have they ever contradicted each other in their stories, or been asked questions and answered differently?
Because you think if this thing was hoax, that it would be impossible to kind of line all their stories up, and there might be some diversions and things like that in their stories.
Yep, and you bring up a very good point.
I failed to mention that.
The core of Rene's book, NASA Moon America, is essentially this section called gotchas, where he does just that.
He looks at the narrative.
He looks at the open literature.
This is not wild-eyed conspiracy stuff off of forums.
He goes to the astronauts' books.
He goes to the NASA record, and he does just what you said.
He does a narrative comparative, and he does find these inconsistencies.
They are far too numerous to mention, but we'll start with...
Yeah, we'll start with the book, Carrying the Fire, just as a case in point before the next caller.
That book was by astronaut Michael Collins, and Rene believes that Collins' book shows plainly the earliest NASA photo fakery of the Gemini spacewalk.
Side by side, we have two photos which are essentially Collins in a zero-g practice spacewalk This is in a plane in Earth's atmosphere doing a zero-g drop.
And then we have photo two, which is supposedly a spacewalk.
These two photos have two separate NASA numbers indicating two separate years they were even taken.
And yet they're clearly the same photo with the second photo having the background blacked out and retouched.
So this shows, again, talk about inconsistencies, all over carrying the fire by Collins.
He can see the stars.
He can't see the stars.
The other astronauts do and don't agree if they did or didn't.
So, clearly, there are these kinds of inconsistencies you're discussing.
They're all detailed in a gotchas section in NASA Moon to America, which, again, there's now, I think, 19 copies left.
If anyone's in eBayer, they're going quick.
If you just search NASA Moon to America, you'll find it.
You know, it's interesting, Richard Hoagland, who is very passionately an advocate that we did go to the moon, very passionate, on the other hand, has had complaints and made accusations that photographs have been perhaps tampered with, you know, the Mars photograph.
So, I don't know, tamper with one, tamper with two, maybe.
Yeah, there's that.
Now, a caller a while back kind of pretended to speak for Richard.
Now, I've got a great deal of respect for Hoagland.
He's an incredible researcher.
He labels what he's speculating about speculation.
So, to that level, I think it's okay.
But one thing that is not speculation, we both agree on that, there is evidence that NASA has quite a history of tampering with photographs.
So, let's just say, if they did Tamper with the photos in the Apollo record it it sure wasn't the last time they ever did it Baltimore finds Rick Rick.
Good morning.
You're on with dr. Rourke How you doing dr. Rourke fine one of the things I know just from working with photography in my own experiences that I You know, with aperture speeds and everything, you can do an incredible amount of things to make something look like it's not.
And for something which, you know, like, you know, a lot of times people take black and white photography pictures in complete darkness and just allow the film to expose over a long period of time.
And the picture almost looks as though it was taken during the daytime, except there's certain things like you won't see a certain amount of shadow.
You won't see certain things that angles of light.
You know, that cannot be reproduced unless there's a light source actually being, you know, focused and shined into the direction of whatever the object is.
One of the things I think was rather interesting that they keep bringing up, or you mentioned earlier as well, was the, um, the boot print.
And the fact that, you know, when they were actually descending from the lunar lander, they actually had to guide each other down because of how dark it was.
Um, one of the things, uh, One of the perhaps explanations for maybe the light surrounding the blueprint and the angle of it, perhaps it could have had something to do with overexposure of the film.
I know a lot of times when you expose film or when you're developing film, there are different ways that you can actually get something to make it look brighter, so you get more detail in it.
Has anything ever come to surface about that?
Well, first, I don't recall anything about questioning the light surrounding the boot print.
I was actually talking about some of the lighting anomalies and other photos, but your point is taken.
Yeah, exposure speed's got everything to do with it.
This would have to be some rather special film.
But again, the fact that this was some sort of highly sensitive film that would enable us to do this is belied by astrophotography expert H. J. P. Arnold, who we heard earlier say it's ordinary ectochromic film.
The sensitivity was rather ordinary as well.
You know, everyone's kind of, everyone who knows what they're talking about in their areas of expertise, when asked, they're kind of flummoxed, like, yeah, how did this film get back without fogging?
Pictures from Chernobyl, after Chernobyl, years after, are fogged.
I mean, admittedly, the camera used a The Chernobyl site would not have been a lunar astrophotography camera.
But we've got Groves wondering, how could this not be fogged?
We've got H.J.P.
Arnold saying, hmm, how did this stuff do what it did?
They are impressive pictures.
The film, essentially, it performed well beyond its expectations.
And the best NASA can do is have then acting director of media services for NASA, Brian Welch, come forward and say, Well, there's thin gels and special emulsions.
Well, I'm afraid that that's not a complete enough answer.
We've received incomplete answers to a lot of very good questions, and so that makes it, even if I still think we went to the moon, and I do, a legitimate topic of inquiry.
Dr. Rourke, I want to thank you.
You're saying that this book now, not very many copies left on Amazon, is that correct?
No, it's actually being sold through a buy-it-now on eBay, or they could email me through the www.ralphrenet.com site, and folks should do their own research.
There's plenty of great sites out there.
Jarrah White is an individual on YouTube doing some pretty cool presentations about anomalies in the photographic record.
Quite interesting.
Well, you did a pretty cool presentation this night yourself, so I want to thank you for being here.
It's been my pleasure, and perhaps we'll have an opportunity to do it when you write your book.
Take care, Doctor.
All right, folks, that's it.
From the other side of the world, Manila in the Philippines, still kind of hip deep in water in many places.
It's been really something over here with the typhoons.
We've got one north of us now, but it's going to take off and go away.
It has been my pleasure, and until the next time we meet from the Philippines, I'm Art Bell.
Export Selection