Dr Garcia is a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst by training and practice, therefore schooled to look consistently beneath surface representations. Coming late to the issue of the Apollo missions, his reaction is that of so many who were teenagers at the time these missions took place. He reiterates many of the major issues raised by other investigators. His full commentary and references can be found on the Nexus Newsfeed. Here, we publish an edited extract dealing with the author's observations of the human response to the problems of human space travel.
One of the advantages of aging is that one may look back and with hindsight events which, at the time of initial perception seemed perfectly plausible, can be seen for what they really were. In so doing one also discovers that the current term "fake news" is nothing new. Since time immemorial it has been used as a cover for subterfuge, lying, deceit, deception, and also for the benefit of advertising or public relations.
More recently in our history, Pearl Harbour, the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Gulf of Tonkin 'incident' that launched the Vietnamese debacle, and the ostensible discovery of Iraq's 'weapons of mass destruction' – all of these events, considered in the reflective hindsight of reason, have been exposed.
We now know that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was, at the very least, a provocation; that the unleashing of nuclear weapons upon Japan was strategically unnecessary; that the Gulf of Tonkin events were a lie and, of course, that Colin Powell's 'proof' to the United Nations that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction was false.
Lies of course have consequences and governments employ them to serve various interests of State: all governments lie, needless to say, to serve themselves. Indeed a complete catalogue of governmental deceptions would be virtually immeasurable: it may be far more fruitful to ask when these entities actually tell the truth. And even then, one should be sceptical: for truth, like Scripture, may be a devil's tool as well: “And oftentimes, to win us to our harm, The instruments of darkness tell us truths, Win us with honest trifles, to betray ’s In deepest consequence” as Banquo tells Macbeth in Shakespeare’s great tragedy (Act I, Scene 3).
In casting my eye over the vast array of State deceptions during my own lifetime, from JFK’s assassination by a lone rifleman to the implosion of World Trade Center building 7 from office fires on 9/11, I had never thought to question the Apollo Moon missions. These achievements, after all, represent humankind at its best: the striving for and reaching a goal that had hitherto been thought impossible.
The landing of a man on our Moon was, we were told, something that transcended nationalism: although carried out by the United States, it unified all of our fragile species for several glorious years.
The Apollo missions occurred at a time when the United States was deeply at war, both hot and cold, and in the aftermath of a series of political assassinations, civil rights marches and student revolt. They were, as I remember them, the bright and shining examples of America’s masterfully benevolent exceptionalism, a kind of salve for the wounds we had inflicted, a beacon to our shuddering masses in the midst of strife. To doubt them – as a few cranks I knew at the time insisted on doing – was as absurd as doubting apple pie. Or so I thought.
History, in the decades since I was a teenager and now, has intervened, and I suppose that the weight of so many duplicitous occurrences has led me to cast an eye on what I had hitherto thought to be unassailably true. In so doing I have been led to the conclusion that this giant leap for mankind was the greatest deception of them all.
It wasn’t a cover-up, it didn’t hide a crime, it wasn’t a provocation used to justify another egregious assault somewhere far away. It was a masterstroke of propaganda, a masterpiece of psychological persuasion whose radiant glow continues to this day. How could a State capable of such powerful magnificence be so tawdry, bellicose and relentlessly destructive? Impossible – unless one is willing to face the very heart of the evil of power.
I write therefore not to persuade but to invite my readers, whatever their number, to question, and to contemplate the human response to these events.
NASA’s Right of Return
Given the wonderfully successful lunar landings of twelve astronauts during the Apollo missions, one would expect that returning to the Moon nearly 50 years later would be a cinch for the agency that orchestrated the accomplishments in an era of relatively low computational technology.
Not so, apparently. Incredibly enough NASA astronaut Don Pettit asserts that NASA destroyed the technology used during the Apollo missions and that “it’s a painful process to build it back again.”
NASA engineer Kelly Smith, when speaking of the Orion program, asserts that the problems of radiation have to be solved before we can send people into deep space beyond low-Earth orbit.
For the definitive treatment of these baffling matters, please see New Zealander Phil Kouts’ most recent article:
NASA is having so much trouble getting ‘back’ to the Moon simply because they never got there in the first place, and the obstacles posed by sending and returning a human being into deep space beyond low-Earth orbit have not yet been overcome.
The Stars that Didn’t Shine in the Night
Apollo 11 view of the lunar sky: sadly without any stars
Hubble Space Telescope image of the stellar sky: imagine the view from the Moon!
Like the famous dog that didn’t bark in Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes story Silver Blaze, during the Apollo missions stars apparently didn’t shine. In a lunar sky that had no distorting atmosphere Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin would have been provided with a dazzling and spectacular display the likes of which no one had ever seen before, a peering into the vast bright twinkling immensity of the universe. At the Apollo 11 post flight press conference, the three astronauts were asked specifically about stars by reporter Patrick Moore. The incredulous answer from Michael Collins was: “I don’t remember seeing any.”
This response becomes ever more incredulous when one realises that the question was posed to Buzz Aldrin, who had ostensibly been on the surface of the Moon, whereas Collins had remained in the Command Module. It is an extremely strange moment during which Collins acts as if he himself had been traipsing among the craters when in fact he was orbiting the Moon. If nothing else, he might have offered his own opinion of his view from the Command Module cockpit, and we may contrast his reticence with that of ISS astronaut Jack Fischer's comments: “Can you see stars from up here? Oh yeah baby! Check out the Milky Way as it spins & paints the heavens in a thick coat of awesome-sauce!” (August 17, 2017)
Post Flight Press Conference on Tuesday 12 August 1969 in Houston – Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong and Michael Collins
The post flight press conference in its entirety was highly unusual: instead of ebullience, elation or the modestly restrained exuberance of champions after having accomplished one of the most daring and magnificent feats in human history, Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins acted like rather nervously subdued miscreants. It is an item worthy of an essay or perhaps even a book in its own right.
In the Apollo 11 photographs there are no stars at all, but merely black space, which may be explained by limitations of the selected camera exposure settings. What is decidedly not explained, however, is the absence of a genuine human reaction to the unparalleled vision of the world of deep space beyond atmospheric constraints either on the journey to and from the Moon, or from the lunar surface itself.
As a human being I find this to be perhaps the most incredible omission of all. Since the dawn of what we call culture human beings have been mesmerized by the heavens, the vault, the canopy, the firmament, the starry sky. And yet somehow these three privileged people who allegedly were responsible for the greatest accomplishment of our species couldn’t recall seeing any stars.
Nor did NASA have the foresight to ask them while they or any of the astronauts on the following missions cavorted on the lunar surface, to adjust their cameras with an exposure setting that would show the world that indescribable sky filled with an infinite number of magnificently shining points of light.
Instead of setting up a telescope on the Moon that would give us a glimpse into the far reaches of the universe, they played a little golf.
From the political perspective of these Apollo missions, we are all familiar with President John F Kennedy’s pronouncement that the US would seek to put a man on the Moon before the decade (1960s) was out. The following comes from the last paragraph of his speech in the Rice Stadium, on 12 September 1962. However, it is the first two paragraphs which are the key to the events that would play out as the Apollo Missions. He said:
“We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say that we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.
"There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?
"We choose to go to the Moon! We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too”. [link]
JFK addressing the General Assembly at the United Nations, 1963
However over a year later, in his address to the UN General Assembly on 20 September 1963, he had this remarkable thing to say:
"Finally, in a field where the United States and the Soviet Union have a special capacity – in the field of space – there is room for new cooperation, for further joint efforts in the regulation and exploration of space. I include among these possibilities a joint expedition to the moon. Space offers no problems of sovereignty; ... Why, therefore, should man's first flight to the Moon be a matter of national competition? Why should the United States and the Soviet Union, in preparing for such expeditions, become involved in immense duplications of research, construction, and expenditure? Surely we should explore whether the scientists and astronauts of our two countries – indeed of all the world – cannot work together in the conquest of space, sending some day in this decade to the Moon not the representatives of a single nation, but the representatives of all of our countries." (Kennedy, 1963) [emphasis added]
Two months later Kennedy would be killed, and with him the hopes for an early peace in Vietnam and a new era of international cooperation with the Soviet Union. But the American quest for the Moon went on and NASA independently achieved in a few scant years what it somehow is unable to achieve today, after decades of technological and computational advances. Or so it seemed.
A part of me would still like to believe in this glorious myth, to believe that they really went and walked and did what we were told they did. But I don’t, and I can’t.
Emanuel E. Garcia, M.D.
Aulis Online, July 2018
There are so many improbabilities in the sequence of events that led to the Apollo landings that I can hardly do them justice: others have delineated and described them well, and they include the absence of a stepwise testing protocol, numerous photographic anomalies, and the lack of any independent verification of NASA’s claims.
Rather than attempt to manage this morass I will instead direct you to a compact handful of works which I believe are worth investigating. In passing the anomalies that caught my reflective eye were: the absence of dust on the landing pads of the Lunar Module (LM), the lack of a crater underneath the LM which would have been formed by the rockets thrusting for descent, and the repetition of identical background images in ostensibly different lunar locations.
Apollo 11 LM footpad – not even a speck of dust!
If you’re interested in delving a little further into the mystery, you’ll have to use a discerning mind and not to expect perfection from these researchers, sceptics and critics, but I believe that the weight of the improbabilities are so immense that you too will be inexorably led to the same disillusioning conclusion I have reached.
Moon Landing Questioners: A Brief and Selective Compilation
For what I think are the most well-reasoned and definitive articles, which rely solely on NASA’s own documents, see these by Phil Kouts:
For Dave McGowan’s highly illuminating – and entertaining – take on the entire mission, see Wagging the Moondoggie.
Bill Kaysing’s We Never Went to the Moon is the initial classic.
Nexus UK publisher and photographer Marcus Allen lectures brilliantly on the Apollo missions at the University of Huddersfield, September 2013.
Ralph René’s NASA Mooned America! provides much material to deliberate upon.
Jarrah White’s Moonfaker series on YouTube is fairly comprehensive although long, and somewhat irksome in certain aspects of presentation, but it addresses many significant issues.
Jim Collier’s Was It Only a Paper Moon? appears to be a valuable resource.
Gerhard Wisnewski's One Small Step?: The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space is a must-read.
Mary Bennett and David S Percy’s Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers
is an extraordinarily meticulous evaluation of the evidence for and against the Apollo missions, a comprehensive reference.
Aulis Online offers a series of articles by a variety of scientists and other experts on many problematic aspects of the Moon missions and is highly recommended.
Thanks to Dave Ratcliffe for the following:
Sergei Khrushchev said his father talked to him about a week before Kennedy’s death on the president’s idea for a joint lunar mission. Nikita Khrushchev had broken ranks with his rocket scientists. He now thought he and the Soviet Union should accept Kennedy’s invitation to go to the moon together, as a further step in peaceful cooperation. [link]
In Washington, Kennedy acted as if he already knew about Khrushchev’s hopeful change of heart on that critical issue. JFK was already telling NASA to begin work on a joint US-Soviet lunar mission. On November 12, 1963, JFK issued his National Security Action Memorandum 271, ordering NASA to implement, as he put it, my “September 20 proposal for broader cooperation between the United States and the USSR in outer space, including cooperation in lunar landing programs.” [link]
About the Author