When, in November 2016, Russian State Duma deputies stood up to welcome the news of Trump's election as President of the United States, I hope it became clear to many that power in Moscow is critically dependent on the attitude of the administration in Washington to it. And that the notorious confrontation between the Russian Federation and the United States, the screams about a new "cold war", about the threat of a world war are just a screen that is probably needed by both states.
But when did it start? Was it only after 1991? Or earlier? When did the goodwill of the White House begin to be perceived in Moscow as vital for the local government, and not only in the international arena, but also within our country?
You may ask: what is the connection between such questions and this picture? Let me explain now.
Previously, I was among those who laughingly rejected "sensational exposures of the falsification of the century - the flights of Americans to the moon." I even wrote an article and a bunch of blog posts on this topic, not counting the numerous comments in various discussions.
However, delving deeper into the argumentation of both "traditionalists" (ie, supporters of the "generally accepted" version that people landed on the Moon) and "seditious" (denying evidence of a person visiting the Moon), he began to doubt the correctness of the generally accepted version.
the book by A. I. Popov, as well as the most complete set of arguments of the "traditionalists", as well as a number of less significant materials, should note the following.
1. The writings of the "traditionalists" in this regard are based on a cheap propaganda technique, in which the qualities of the mentally handicapped are attributed to an imaginary opponent in advance. The arguments of the "seditious", refuted by the "traditionalists", are specially selected or distorted in such a way that they look as stupid as possible and so that it is not difficult to refute them.
Promotional video:
2. The “traditionalists” do not give an answer to a number of arguments of the “seditious”. There is also a cheap trick here: you see, they say, we have refuted a bunch of arguments of the "seditious". There is no need to disassemble each of them to the end, since, they say, they are all of this property.
As I noted above, I am a “lyricist”, not a “physicist”. Therefore, I cannot properly assess the arguments and counter-arguments associated with science and technology. Therefore, I will only work in the familiar sphere of history. The situation, if we recognize the traditional version, is as follows.
1. It is not clear why the technical developments of the super-powerful Saturn-5 launch vehicle and its F-1 engines were not further used in the US rocketry. Why even their analogues were not subsequently created, and the United States still buys engines for their missiles from Russia. It is impossible to believe that the super-advanced technologies for their time were completely lost, as well as that they would have been impossible to recreate at the current level of development of science and technology.
2. It is inconceivable that manned launches of Apollo, and even to the Moon, were made practically bypassing the stage of successful launches of the carrier rocket and unmanned testing of all systems of the spacecraft. Indeed, in this case, there was a very high risk of catastrophe, and the Americans risked getting into the stupidest situation when their cosmonauts would die, and ours (since the Soviet program was close to implementation) would fly around the moon with triumph and return back.
3. Documentary film materials, irrefutably proving the visit of the American astronauts to the Moon or even a circumlunar orbit does not seem to exist. The footage, shown as unequivocal evidence of the Apollo missions, could have been filmed on Earth and in near-Earth orbit. Moreover, many of them show these signs. "Traditionalists" do not explain these oddities in any way, except as the manic suspicion of seditious people. They, apparently, do not give facts that could not have an alternative explanation other than the actual visit of the astronauts to the Moon.
The story of the disappearance of a film shot by the Apollo 11 crew, which was supposedly miraculously discovered in Australia in the 2000s, is alarming. For consideration - I fully agree with A. I. Popov - only materials presented to the public in the first 20 years after the flights, before the development of computer graphics, should be accepted. Therefore, even the images taken now from the lunar orbit, which show the landing stages of the Apollo, abandoned rovers and the ruts they made, cannot be taken as evidence. Not to mention the fact that any photographs are now elementary fabricated, over the past 40-odd years it was possible to quietly deliver to the moon six layouts of Apollo landing stages and even self-propelled carts from the Earth).
4. As the “traditionalist” Anton Pervushin mentions in his book “Battle for the Moon”, the materials of the Lunar Orbiters and Surveyors were destroyed in the 1960s, before the Apollo flights, which mapped in detail almost the entire visible side of the Moon. in the 1990s without prior digitization. And now, in order to land a manned spacecraft on the moon, it is required to reconnoiter its surface again …
One of the favorite arguments of the "traditionalists": "Do you think that NASA is such idiots that they did not foresee this and that?" This is usually when it comes to oddities in pictures. That is, the meaning of such an argument is that if it were really a fake, then NASA specialists would have done so that no signs of a fake would be detected. It is clear that such an "argument" can, in fact, convince only that NASA is really capable of passing off any forgery as an original. But not in the authenticity of the flights to the moon themselves.
But I fully agree with the fact that NASA is not a sloven organization. Therefore, it is hard to believe that the most detailed cartography of the Moon, made with such difficulty, was at once lost due to re-documentation in the archives of NASA. From the word at all. It is much easier to believe that such cartography simply did not exist!
5. It is unclear where nearly four centners of the lunar soil, brought to Earth by the Apollo crews, have gone. No one anywhere seems to have seen more than a few hundred grams of this soil at a time. That is, no more than the Soviet AMS brought in.
Why not, for example, exhibit several kilograms of lunar soil from different places of its collection by astronauts somewhere in a museum? And so that scientists around the world can have access to his research? Then any skeptics would have no questions about the authenticity of lunar expeditions!
Or, as in the case of film and maps, after a few years "it suddenly turns out" that the lunar soil, through an oversight of some switchman from NASA employees, was thrown into a garbage dump and disappeared in an unknown direction? But NASA doesn't work for idiots, do they ?!
The adoption of the traditional version raises the question of why, after the conquest of the Moon, the world's manned astronautics is marking time or even experiencing regression. But if you accept the seditious version, then the bewilderment disappears. There is no regression. Cosmonautics is developing steadily. It's just that it has only recently matured to the real provision of safe flights to the Moon. And the organization of real flights there is now being slowed down for obvious political reasons.
The worldwide belief that the USA, despite the temporary lag behind the USSR in terms of space, is nevertheless the leader of world scientific and technological progress, has become a decisive factor in the success of the falsification of the century. The world wanted to be deceived by the States. And perhaps more than anyone else, the state leadership of the USSR wanted to be deceived by them, dreaming only of quiet rule over one-sixth of the land, in which it has not lost so far (although in a slightly changed format). And God forbid, there was no collusion with the Americans.
The "cruel" version of American flights to the moon does not diminish the power of the United States in the least. To organize such a successful deception of all mankind and skillfully maintain it for half a century is an achievement hardly less significant than an actual visit to the moon, and a testament to the colossal capabilities of the United States.
Fans of the United States and anti-Soviet people have no reason to reject such a version as supposedly belittling the United States, deserving of paranoid quilted jackets alone. The recognition by the Soviet Union of its defeat in the lunar race clearly brought the subsequent collapse of the USSR closer. It is all the more honor to the genius of the United States that such a victory was achieved by imitation alone.
All of the above should be considered not as a statement, but as a likely scenario. As an alternative history, if you will.
