Submit news tips and press releases to Editor at WeeklyUniverse dot com. All submissions become property of the Weekly Universe and deemed for publication without compensation unless otherwise requested. Name and contact information only withheld upon request.


About Us





Guest Book



Conspiracy Watch

Consumer Watchdog

Girls In Black




Quirky & Bizarre


Weird Science


Hollywood Investigator

Horror Film Aesthetics

Horror Film Festivals

Horror Film Reviews

Tabloid Witch Awards








by Der Voron, guest columnist.  [January 16, 2003]


[]  It may be that both Americans and Russians never flew to the Moon, because of a very simple thing:  Take-off after landing on the Moon (to return to Earth).

To take off, a spacecraft, both modern and of that time (1960-70s), needs a carrier rocket weighing many hundreds of tons, hundreds of tons of fuel for it, and a powerful space-vehicle launching site.

How to take all this with a spacecraft to be able to take off from the Moon after landing on it?

The mid-rank carrier rocket Ariane-5, for example, weighs 750 tons (the rocket itself and the fuel), and the "lite" carrier rocket Dnepr-1 (created based on the strategic intercontinental ballistic missile SS-18 Satan) weighs 211 tons.  They develop the power of about 10-20mn KWt.

A rocket able to launch a spacecraft from the Moon should have the power of about 6 times less than here on the Earth (as Moon gravitation is 6 times smaller), but even in this case the rocket would weigh about 750/6, i.e. about 125 tons minimum (the rocket and the fuel), plus the weight of details for deploying a temporary launching site.

Even if the weight of these details equals to the minimum possible weight of about 50 tons, then the spacecraft should be able to take with itself a minimum weight of ~175 tons. No such spacecraft were developed before the flight to the Moon, none even close to that; today's most powerful spacecraft's weight carrying capabilities couldn't approach even the numbers thrice smaller than this. (For example, one of the most modern Russian carrier rockets, Titan-4, which is approximately equal to the Space Shuttle carrier rocket by its parameters, is able to carry only about 17.5 tons of weight.)



The official story of American flights to the Moon says that the larger command module rocket "Columbia" remained in lunar orbit while the lunar module "Eagle" separated and descended with firing retro rockets to the lunar surface.

The astronauts exited "Eagle" to take pictures and recover lunar material from the surface. They then returned to the lunar lander module to return back to the "Columbia" command module. The "Columbia" broke out of lunar orbit to go back to Earth and splash down with parachutes.

"Eagle" weighed about 16 tons, or about 5,500 pounds if we mean lunar gravity. To launch satellite of such a mass, at least an Ariane-5 class rocket is needed. But if even it is a Dnepr-1 class rocket, then the mass of rocket for launching 5,500 pound "Eagle" from the Moon would be about 35 tons (211/6). Before launching "Eagle" from the Moon, a 35-ton rocket itself needs to be delivered to the Moon. (See above for delivering capacities even of modern spacecraft.)

Plus, launching satellites even of this mass requires deploying a launching site. How was such a site deployed on the Moon?

If even we suppose that several carrier rockets like "Columbia" could deliver all this to the Moon in several lunar module "Eagles" (seems this should have been a very hard task for such modules to land on the Moon since the Moon has no atmosphere, which diminishes the speed of similar modules when these land on the Earth), then how was, for example, the Lunar launching site deployed?  On-site by astronauts in spacesuits?

And why was all this praiseworthy process not shown on the photos or videos?  Where are photographs of such a praiseworthy achievement like the Lunar launching site?

And if somehow no launching site construction was required to take off from the Moon, why are there no photographs or videos of the spacecraft taking off from it? Wasn't it possible to take photos or videos of the spacecraft taking off from the Moon, from the "Columbia" rocket?

And if this was a hard technical task in those times, then why weren't at least preparations for this takeoff photographed or videotaped by astronauts on-site? Did the NASA astronauts return to "Columbia", "which remained in lunar orbit", using the rope that was hanging out of it?

And where are the Russian photographs and videos dedicated to their "Lunar takeoff" preparations?



Unless we assume that by 1969 NASA could build an antigravitation craft (aka antigrav, starcraft, starship, and flying saucer), for which all the described obstacles don't exist. (Such a device is not necessarily able to fly to stars; intersteller travel depends on the device's capacities, i.e. it is the starcraft's construction that determines whether it will be able to fly to stars, or only to the Sun system's planets and planet satellites.

Antigrav only means that the device uses antigravitation for flying (i.e., not wings, rotors, etc). Its velocity can vary from 10 meters per second to overlight speeds, depending on its capabilities.

This seems more plausible, taking into account that the American flag, and a plaque with inscriptions on it next to the flag, are reported, by many persons who visit observatories, to be clearly seen on the Moon surface. But this means NASA already had antigravs in the 1960s, and that it has them now...

Or did NASA borrow antigravs from an extraterrestrial civilization (Zetas Reticuli, hominoids from Orion, or maybe those who mutilate cattle)?

One detail suggests this might have occurred: one of the astronauts, during the first flight to be transmitted by television, said on air that he was seeing giant artificial objects.

Perhaps the aliens imposed this as a condition for NASA's lease of their craft: to have NASA astronauts say something on TV that would prove to viewers that the astronauts had met craft from another civilization?

This may be confirmed by the following fact: several years after the moon landing, the American Congress acknowledged the existence of extraterrestrials in a special report.

The NASA photo (see right), with its absolutely impossible (for the lunar landscape) shadows -- looking as if they were created with the use of multiple projectors shining at different angles -- is additional proof for a faked moon landing. Perhaps NASA, let's say, "feels ashamed" for the mystification, and therefore provided such photos as hidden hints?

Or, more probably, NASA provided contradictory materials to entangle all this more and more?

Or maybe NASA astronauts did visit the Moon (in the antigrav) and recorded all that which is claimed to be lunar photos and videos, but they were of such a poor quality due to some details of lunar atmosphere and climate that NASA decided to order new "better looking" photos/videos from Hollywood? Then we may understand why there are such errors in them...

I think Russians, shocked by such a "challenge" from NASA, in turn invented their own "success story" about "flying to the Moon" and "taking samples of lunar rocks" by their "unmanned" "Lunohods".

Or did Russians also create antigravs -- or receive them from another civilization?

Copyright 2003 by Der Voron.  Photos courtesy Der Voron.


Der Voron authored Unidentified Flying Objects: Starcraft.  For info about Der Voron or to contact him click here.
Readers may also enjoy Bill Kaysing's We Never Went to the Moon. Published in 1981, Kaysing's book was the first to expose the whole "moon landing hoax" conspiracy!
Also read Big Jim and's shocking responses to Der Voron -- Apollo Moon Landings NOT a Hoax!
"Weekly Universe" and "" and "Mystic Gray Buddha" trademarks are currently unregistered, but pending registration upon need for protection against improper use. The idea of marketing these terms as a commodity is a protected idea under the Lanham Act. 15 U.S.C. s 1114(1) (1994) (defining a trademark infringement claim when the plaintiff has a registered mark); 15 U.S.C. s 1125(a) (1994) (defining an action for unfair competition in the context of trademark infringement when the plaintiff holds an unregistered mark). All articles copyright the author or