The Great American Moon Hoax

The Great American Moon Hoax
Joan d’Arc Interviews Ralph René (1995)

René, author of NASA Mooned America!, believes that there have been no manned flights to the moon. In this exclusive interview, René asserts that the Apollo moon photos are studio creations. He also shows that NASA has lied about deadly solar radiation and the true temperature in space, and charges that NASA has instituted a policy of lying by its “astro-nots.” So what did NASA really do with the money that went into its deep space pockets? Currently enjoying a wave of popularity in Russia, René believes the Apollo program helped to finance the CIA’s secret war in Laos and Cambodia.

Joan: René, you claim that NASA faked the photos of Apollo moon landings, and in your book you analyze several of these photographs showing why they are hoaxes. Let’s talk about the most famous official NASA photograph, from the cover of your book. The photo of Alan Bean entitled “Astronaut Collecting Lunar Samples, Apollo XII” was purportedly taken on the moon by Peter Conrad on October 20, 1969. At first glance it is an artistically contrived picture of an astronaut with the reflection of another astronaut, standing some distance away, reflected in his faceplate. Is it actually possible for astronauts to get this creative on the moon?

René: I think that the creative layout was the result of a composite picture from studio photos created by snip and paste in a photo lab.

Joan: So, in your estimation, what’s wrong with this picture? [See Alan Bean photo on page 52]

René: The first thing I noticed about the photo was that the shadow side of Al Bean’s suit was brightly lit. The top front of Bean’s left shoulder and his whole left side is much too bright for the singularly directional sun light found in the vacuum of space.

The next thing is that the lower inside of his right arm should have been in a shadow. Then there is the fact that the Moon’s actual horizon is on the same level as the horizon reflected in Bean’s faceplate. Both faceplates are curved, and mirrored curves double the angle of incidence. Obviously since only two astro-nots were supposed to be on the Moon, this photo had to have been snapped by Peter Conrad. But when you take a magnifying glass to the original photo, Conrad’s hand is nowhere near where the camera should be. In fact, Conrad has no camera, or if he has his hand obscured the lens. An X-ray camera perhaps!

Examination of Bean’s shadow as shown in his faceplate shows that the two figures were less than 10 feet apart. Because of the faceplate’s curvature, the camera that took the picture had to be at least 10 feet in the air directly between them. Since we don’t see anything there, it had to have been either taken from a camera boom using a timer mechanism to trip the shutter, or there was another astro-not (stage hand) on that camera boom that we have never been told about.

We’ve all seen the TV travel adventures where a lone man pits his life against the wilderness and goes from hither to thither being photographed from every angle by … nobody! And if these explanations don’t sit well, try this one. The Man in the Moon is very tall and happened to be passing, so he obligingly snapped the shot for the two tourists before he went on his way.

Another problem is found in the shiny object in Bean’s hand. Again there is no shadow side even though his shadow (shown in his face plate) proves that the sun was behind him and off to his right. Since neither flash nor spotlight can compete with the light from the Sun the brightness is inexplicable.
Look at the bright circular object that is level with the top of his helmet and off to his far right side. Notice the two long structural—looking objects below it. It looks like a spotlight on scaffolding, doesn’t it? Spotlights light best that which they are aimed at, hence the name.

Check out Conrad! Of all the places one can imagine, the Moon must be evenly lit because it lacks atmosphere, clouds and trees. Why should an extremely bright pool of light be centered on Conrad? Does the Sun play favorites on the Moon?
If you look at Conrad’s feet you will notice the main shadow on his right going toward his rear and another one on his left coming forward. Two shadows, one Sun. Strange things were happening on the Moon.

Joan: Leading Russian space scientists have stated that they know of no way of protecting cosmonauts from deadly solar radiation beyond the Van Allen Belt. How does the Van Allen Belt protect earth from deadly space radiation?

René: In 1963, Bernard Lovell, the famous British astronomer, was allowed free access to the entire Russian space program. He was told by the leading Russian space scientists that they “could see no immediate way of protecting cosmonauts from the lethal effects of solar radiation.” This is why I call most of the Apollo astronauts “Astro-nots.” The Russian space scientists made this statement to Bernard Lovell six years prior to the first Apollo landing. He dutifully reported it to NASA’s chief administrator, Hugh Dryden, who just as dutifully…ignored it! The Van Allen Belt (Shield) is a natural magnetic field which diverts from the Earth much of the deadly radiation (X-rays and gamma) that the Sun routinely spits out during solar fires.

Joan: Is this why the USSR didn’t bother to compete with America in its zeal to “walk on the moon?”

René: Not being a mind reader I have no idea why Russia (which lied about everything else) didn’t also claim to have landed on the Moon. However, in the summer of 1972 (after the next to the last Apollo landing) the Russians were allowed to buy (at a low fixed price) one quarter of our entire year’s grain crop. This raised our price over 60 percent. I believe that the deal still holds. Hey, a little blackmail never hurt a hungry nation.

Joan: How has the Van Allen Belt become one of NASA’s best kept secrets?

René: It wasn’t the Van Allen Belt that was played down. It was the fact that solar radiation is deadly.

Joan: How many chimpanzees have gone into orbit beyond the belt and what exactly was their fate?

René: NASA sent a number of space monkeys and apes beyond the shield but I have been singularly unsuccessful at finding any data on those shots. Rumor has it that once past the Van Allen shield only cockroaches, which are able to withstand amazing amounts of rem (roentgen equivalent in man) were able to live past ten days.

Joan: How much shielding would be required for protection against this deadly radiation, and how much would such a vehicle weigh?

René: It took a couple of years to get the X-ray and proton solar data from NOAA [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] and when the floppy came it carried a virus that wrote DOS into every one of my files that had the word NASA in it. When I finally found someone able to read the data we found that only particle energy is given. NOAA Imagineers pretends that there is no space radiation by giving only the data on the velocity of the particles. This man not only gave me the word Imagineers but also told me to ask NOAA “How many rem are there in a 20 ton meteorite moving at 20,000 mph or a car traveling at 120?

According to ex-NASA astrophysicist John Mauldin, six feet of water or the equivalent mass of another material is needed to protect life forms from an X-ray flare. Because these flares are always present there is no safe time to make the trip. In fact, the greatest series of flares ever recorded happened in 1972 near the low of that solar cycle. Not being a rocket scientist I cannot say how much weight a shield would add to a vessel. If I subtract the volumes of the command ship and the LEM [Lunar Landing Module] from respective spheres, each 12 feet greater in diameter, we are looking at a volume of water of about 500,000 pounds. When we add tanks and structure to support this, plus fuel and more tanks and structure to lift that fuel, we are probably looking at another 15 million pounds of mass. This would bring the total mass from 6.5 to 21 million pounds. It would also require another 13 engines for a total of 18.

Joan: What would be its chances of getting off the earth, landing on the moon, and again taking off from the moon?

René: The chance of lifting 20 million pounds using chemical fuel reaction motors ranges from none to absolutely zero.


Continued in PARANOIA: The Conspiracy Reader, Volume 1, available at:http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/volume1.html