Americans on the Moon Great Breakthrough or

Space Scam 2nd Edition Alexander Ivanovich Popov

pdf download
https://textbookfull.com/product/americans-on-the-moon-great-breakthrough-or-space-scam-2nd-edition-
alexander-ivanovich-popov/

★★★★★ 4.7/5.0 (36 reviews) ✓ 249 downloads ■ TOP RATED

"Amazing book, clear text and perfect formatting!" - John R.

DOWNLOAD EBOOK
 Americans on the Moon Great Breakthrough or Space Scam 2nd
Edition Alexander Ivanovich Popov pdf download

TEXTBOOK EBOOK TEXTBOOK FULL

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide TextBook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 EDUCATIONAL COLLECTION - LIMITED TIME

INSTANT DOWNLOAD VIEW LIBRARY

Collection Highlights

The library Books 16 20 Philip II Alexander the Great and

the successors The Great Alexander

Psychology Study Guide 2nd Edition Alexey Popov

Revolution of Innovation Management: The Digital

Breakthrough Volume 1 1st Edition Alexander Brem

Alexander the Great Themes and Issues 1st Edition Edward

M. Anson
Command the Moon 1st Edition Kathryn Moon [Moon

Moon Reykjavik 2nd Edition Jenna Gottlieb

Going Broke Why Americans Still Can t Hold On To Their

Money 2nd Edition Vyse

7 years younger the anti aging breakthrough diet lose 20

pounds or more 1st Edition Editors Of Good Housekeeping

Linux Photography Dmitri Popov

www.manonmoon.ru

Unknown Title
40-51 minutes

Introduction

Death and damnation awaited the loser

(Pages from the history of space rivalry)

Russia is advancing

Ill.1.

The rst satellite of the Earth (USSR, 1957)

The rst astronaut of the Earth

(USSR, 1961)

On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched the world's rst arti cial Earth
satellite and thus opened the space era in the history of mankind (Fig. 1). The
Americans took this event hard.

“The rst Soviet satellite shocked millions of Americans to their foundations,

as it for the rst time questioned their con dence in the complete superiority of
the United States. The technical victory of Soviet scientists led the United States
to a political defeat, ” recalled one of the editors of the New York Times. one)

"A country that is leading in space will be judged as the most

technologically advanced, with the best education and the best impact of the
political and economic system as a whole ," wrote the New York Herald Tribune.

"We unreservedly condemn President Eisenhower for his inability to use the
enormous technical capabilities of the country, as a result of which the Soviet
Union was able to launch its satellite before the United States," ex-President
Truman shouted, glasses flashing. "

"The satellite revealed the psychological vulnerability of our ideas," admitted

the then US President D. Eisenhower.

"The dogma of the technical superiority of the United States has collapsed, "
wrote the French "Pari-Match" [1].

On April 12, 1961, the historic flight of Yuri Gagarin took place (Fig. 1). In the
Soviet Union, a new victory in space caused a huge patriotic upsurge (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. The joy of Russia

a) employees of the Moscow telegraph were among the rst to learn about
Gagarin's flight, b) a demonstration in honor of a new victory in space, c) a boy
with a leaflet about Gagarin

1) Quotes from other sources are in small print. Highlights in citations where it is
not speci ed are made by the author of the book. Reference numbers to sources
are indicated in square brackets (for example, [1]).

The Americans were very worried about this new blow to their prestige,
because they did not hide the fact that they saw themselves as a world leader.
"From the point of view of propaganda, the rst man in space is worth perhaps
more than 100 divisions or a dozen ready to take off at the rst order of
intercontinental missiles ... Representatives of the State Department fear the
international consequences of Gagarin's flight," wrote the New York Herald
Tribune and Wall Street journal " [1] .

In one of his campaign speeches, Senator DF Kennedy, who soon became

President of the United States, said: “The peoples of the world have witnessed
that the Soviet Union was the rst to enter space. Its satellites were the rst to fly
around the moon and around the sun. They concluded that the Soviet Union was
going uphill, and we were marking time. I believe that it is time for us to change
this opinion " [1] .
 America's counteroffensive

Fig. 3. John F. Kennedy, President of the United States (1961-1963). On May 25,
1961, he announced that the Americans would be the rst on the moon.

Traditionally, only once a year (usually in January) the President addresses the
Congress with a message "On the State of the Country", that is, with a political
report and a program of future actions. But on May 25, 1961, shortly after
Gagarin's flight, President Kennedy broke this tradition and delivered a second
message "On the State of the Country" and announced that the United States
would land a man on the moon by the end of the 60s (Fig. 3).

If we want to win the battle that has unfolded around the world between
the two systems, if we want to win the battle for the minds of people, then ...
we cannot afford to allow the Soviet Union to occupy a leading position in
space ” [1] .

A year later, in September 1962, speaking at the Rice University stadium ,

Kennedy, in particular, said: "We vowed that we would not have to see an enemy
conquest flag on the moon, [there will be] a banner of freedom and peace" [2] . As
you can see, the terminology is almost military.

The lunar race has begun - a erce rivalry between the USA and the USSR to be
the rst to send a man to the moon. Both sides attached great importance to
achieving victory in this competition “... The rivalry for the moon was a kind of war.
“The loser will face death and damnation,” wrote the New York Times at the time.
It was a struggle between two systems of power, in which the Americans had to
win. By any means [3] ".

The USSR failed to send a man to the Moon, and the USA in 1969-1972
reported six times about the landing of its astronauts on the Moon [4, 5].

Briefs from NASA Moon Missions

To win the lunar race, the Americans carried out a special program called
"Apollo". It cost of 20-25 billion dollars (from different sources) and performed
under supervision of NASA. ( N ational A eronautics and S pace A dministration -
NASA - Authority Aeronautics and Space) . Below, instead of the name "Apollo",
the abbreviation "A" is often used.
 According to NASA, the giant Saturn-5 rocket launched a spacecraft with a total
mass of 45 tons and a crew of 3 people into orbit around the Moon (Fig. 4). Then
the lunar module ( 1,2 ) with two astronauts separated from the spacecraft and
landed on the moon . The command and service module (KSM) with one astronaut
on board ( 3,4 ) [6,7,8] remained in orbit . After staying on the Moon, the
astronauts in take-off stage 2 returned to the circumlunar orbit, transferred to the
KSM and returned to Earth in it.

Fig. 4. a) Saturn-5 rocket takes off against the background of the NASA emblem;

b) a diagram of the Apollo spacecraft assembled with a lunar module

According to NASA, A-11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Baz Aldrin were the
rst to land on the moon (Figure 5). They placed scienti c instruments (5a) near
the lunar module, set up a flag (5b), captured the prints of their shoes in the lunar
dust (5c) and left a commemorative pennant (5d).

Fig. 5. Through the pages of the magazine " Life " (August 1969)

In 47 countries of the world, television broadcasts about the rst landing on

the moon (July 1969, A-11, ill. 6a, b). Magazines (Fig. 6 c, d) were published in
special issues, including the frequently cited special issues of the American
illustrated magazines “ Life ” [7] and “ A Look ” [8] .
Fig. 6. a) an astronaut descends on the lunar surface, b) South Koreans watch the
landing from a large screen, c, d) special issues of American magazines, August
1969

In the homeland of the rst conquerors of the moon, a solemn meeting awaited
(Fig. 7).

Fig. 7. This is how the Apollo 11 crew was welcomed

in the USA

After the A-11 flight, according to NASA, astronauts landed on the moon ve more
times. Here is a general background on Apollo manned flights [1,4-8] :

A-7 . October 11-21.1968. The rst manned flight of the Apollo spacecraft in near-
earth orbit. The rocket "Saturn-1B" was used, subsequent ships were launched
into orbit with the rocket "Saturn-5".

A-8 , December 21-27. 1968. First manned flight around the Moon.

A-9 , March 3-13.1969. The rst manned flight in the lunar module in near-earth
orbit.

A-10 , May 18-26.1969. The rst manned flight in the lunar module around the
Moon.

A-11 , July 16-24.1969. First landing on the moon. Stay on the Moon - 21 hours /
of which - 2.5 hours outside the module. 20 kg of lunar soil have been delivered to
Earth.

A-12 , November 14-24.1969. Second landing. 31 hours / 7.5 hours, 34 kg of soil.

A-13 , April 11-17. 1970. Ship accident. There was no disembarkation. The
astronauts returned safely.

A-14 , January 31- February 9.1971. Third landing. 33 hours / 9 hours, 42 kg of

soil.

A-15 , July 26 - August 7.1971. Fourth landing. 67 hours / 10.5 hours, 76.7 kg of
soil.

A-16 , April 16-27.1972. Fifth landing. 71 hours / 20 hours, 95 kg of soil.

A-17 , December 7-19.1972. Sixth landing. 75 hours / 22 hours, 110.4 kg of soil.

According to NASA, the astronauts of the six expeditions took photographs,

lms, and telecasts on the Moon and collected soil samples with a total mass of
378 kg. At the landing sites A-11, A-14 and A-15, they left laser reflectors. In
addition, they left a number of electronic devices on the moon, which transmitted
information even after the astronauts had departed. Overall, the US triumph was
complete.

However, over time, some people began to have doubts about the reliability of
these messages. There were contradictions in NASA's "lunar" information. Other
questions arose as well. For example, why don't Americans go to the moon
anymore? The rst satellite was followed by thousands, the rst cosmonaut by
hundreds, and the flights to the Moon - nothing! Why is the super-powerful Saturn-
5 rocket not used, which disappeared almost immediately after the Apollo flights?
Why are hundreds of kilograms of lunar soil, which the astronauts allegedly
brought, have been allegedly stored in NASA's secret storage for almost 40 years,
and scientists are given grams?

Skeptics and defenders

In the media and on the Internet, a

controversy unfolded between skeptics who doubt the authenticity of the
conquest of the moon, and defenders who claim - "were!" [9-12] .

Of the many works of skeptics, the book by Yu.I. Mukhina "Anti-Apollo" [10] .

Fig. 8. The most representative monographs of skeptics (a) and defenders (b, c)
 The journalistic direction of "protection" is most fully represented by the book
by Y. Golovanov "The Truth About the" Apollo " Program" [1] . As Academician B.E.
Chertok writes [11] , "From the authors of the most objective works of the literary-
memoir genre, I consider it necessary to single out ... Yaroslav Golovanov - an
engineer who has become a professional journalist and writer closest to the circles
of the rocket and space community." According to Y. Golovanov, the book was
basically written in 1976, following the fresh trail of events, which gives it special
value.

The technical direction of the "defense" is best reflected by the review article by
V. Yatskin and Yu. Krasilnikov, published several years ago on the Internet, "Did
the Americans fly to the moon?" [12] (as of 29.04.2003, when printing - 92 s).

About the rules of discussion of the topic

Let's discuss the rules that are reasonable to follow when discussing
information about flights to the moon.

The author himself defends his achievements

Dock

It is the sole responsibility of the author to prove the credibility of any

achievement. Therefore, the statement "the Americans were on the moon" must
be defended by the Americans themselves. N o one is obliged to prove that the
Americans on the moon were not.

This idea is very lucidly stated in the speech of Academician of the RAS V.E.
Zakharov. "There is a difference between the function of a judge and the function
of a scientist: the principle of the presumption of innocence works for court cases,"
while a scientist must be suspicious and distrustful. When receiving a project for
examination, a scientist must assume in advance that it contains errors, and
approve it only after careful and comprehensive veri cation. Otherwise, our very
existence loses its meaning. " (
http://www.polit.ru/science/2009/12/22/zakharov_vasilyev_print.html )

This order permeates our entire practical life. Try to tell your friends that you
recently set a world barbell record. They will immediately either let you down to
the bar, if there is one nearby, or they will ask you to name authoritative witnesses,
moreover, not from among your close friends. And you will look strange if you
demand: "And you prove that I could not squeeze out such weight!" Unfortunately,
we often hear the "defenders" of NASA say: "And you prove that the Americans
were not on the moon!" Thus, the accepted order is turned upside down.

No statute of limitations
 Well, what if the defense went off brilliantly, and over time doubts arose? The
rule of "statute of limitations" does not apply in science. For more than 2000
years, scientists, following Ptolemy, believed that the Sun revolved around the
Earth. It was only 2000 years later that the accumulated errors in these
theoretical predictions, as well as some other facts, prompted Copernicus to
“deprive” the Earth of its central place.

In addition to sincere delusions, the history of progress is full

of examples of hoaxes that were not immediately exposed. And the Americans
have the corresponding "experience" [13-16]. At the beginning of the twentieth
century, the world was captured by the race to conquer the poles of the Earth.
Especially the North Pole was not "given". And on April 6, 1909, the American R.
Peary (Fig. 9) reported that he had reached the North Pole. At the same time, 240
km to the Pole, he sent back Captain R. Bartlett, the only person on the expedition
who, apart from Peary himself, was able to determine geographic coordinates. So
there was no one quali ed to con rm the achievement.

Fig. 9. Doubtful "conqueror" of the North Pole - American

R. Piri.

And, nevertheless, the American press made a lot of noise about this Peary
victory. Her efforts were not in vain: until now, in many publications it is the
American R. Peary who is mentioned as the rst person to reach the North Pole.
Nevertheless, careful researchers soon established that Piri actually overwintered
in the north of Greenland. Later, the camp in which Piri was hiding was also found.
And 70 years later, in the late 80s, when, according to Peary's will, his archives
were opened, it was once again con rmed that he had not reached the Pole.

From these two examples, we see that there is no statute of limitations for
renewed doubts about the reliability of a discovery or achievement.

Let's follow the example of the boy from the fairy tale of the naked king

Very often in discussions one can hear the following reasoning: “NASA (this
and that) did it, but didn’t show it”, “Our people followed everything, but it is kept
secret”, “They were on the Moon, but lms about it were made on Earth ", etc. The
author treats such arguments in the same way as the hero of the famous fairy tale
by H. Andersen. Seeing His Majesty naked, the boy did not listen to the words
about the exceptionally thin fabric of the king's new dress, but said that the king
was naked. And he was right.
 The author of the book invites the reader to follow the same logic with him:

if NASA didn’t show something, then it didn’t do it,

if the mysterious "ours", who allegedly followed everything, have not yet
appeared, then it means they have not followed ",

if lms about astronauts walking on the Moon were lmed on Earth, then it
means that they walked on Earth, and so on.

The author leads the discussion and draws conclusions only on the basis of the
available speci c, published and not anonymous information. Information from
letters and oral communications was also taken into account, but with the
obligatory indication of the identity of the witness and information con rming his
authority in the issue at stake.

Do not shy away from the topic under discussion

Quite often, when discussing the Apollo flights, questions are raised such as
what prevented the Russians from flying to the moon, whether space exploration
in the USSR was carried out correctly, whether Gagarin flew, etc. Distraction on
such topics, no matter how interesting they are, leads away from the answer to the
question under discussion: "Were the Americans on the moon?" Therefore, other
issues are better discussed in other books.

Having clari ed the rules of the discussion, let's nd out what can serve as
evidence of the landing of astronauts on the moon?

What can serve as evidence of the landing of astronauts on the moon?

Usually defenders give the following list of evidence of the landing of people on
the moon:

1) laser reflectors and electronic devices delivered to the moon;

2) recordings of radio communications between astronauts and the Earth;

3) lunar soil delivered by astronauts to Earth;

4) illustrative materials - lms, television, and photographs from the Moon.

 Laser reflectors and electronic devices were delivered to the moon
by automatic devices

NASA said astronauts brought special reflectors to the moon (Figure 10), which
were then detected from Earth using laser light pulses.

Fig. 10. Laser reflector

A laser reflector is a fairly light (10-20 kg) prism set that does not require precise
adjustment in relation to the incident beam. Therefore, its delivery to the Moon
may well be "entrusted" to automatic spacecraft. This was practically proved by
the Soviet "Luna-17" and "Luna-21" (1971-1973 ), which delivered to the Moon
self-propelled automatic "Lunokhod" equipped with laser reflectors (ill. 11b) [17] .

NASA also reported that astronauts left a number of electronic devices on the
moon (Figure 6). But even before the "Apollo" instruments were delivered to the
Moon by numerous Soviet and American automatic stations [17-21] . The rst to
do this in February 1966 was the Soviet "Luna-9", which gently landed on the
moon (ill. 11a). Five months later, the rst American automatic apparatus,
Surveyor, arrived on the moon (Fig.11c). Before the flights of the "lunar" "Apollo",
the Americans landed on the moon ve such devices, each of which delivered
instruments and devices with a total mass of at least 60 kg .

Fig. 11. Automatic devices delivered both reflectors and electronic devices to the
moon:

a) the rst vehicle in the world to make a soft landing on the Moon - the Soviet
"Luna-9"; b) the Soviet "Lunokhod", the arrow points to the corner reflector; b)
American apparatus "Surveyor"

Thus, neither the appearance of reflectors on the Moon, nor the delivery of
other instruments there can serve as proof that there were astronauts on the
Moon.
Radio recordings are not an argument

(in 1968, Soviet specialists carried out retransmission over the "Earth - automatic
ship near the Moon - Earth" radio bridge)

K.P. Feoktistov recounts [22] : "... when Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins flew to
the moon, our receiving radio equipment received signals from the Apollo 11
board, conversations, a television picture about the exit to the lunar surface."

The author of the book does not think that it is worth listening to
"conversations and watching a television picture of going to the surface of the
Moon" and you can nd peace. The following episode from the history of the lunar
race con rms this idea [23] :

“On March 2, 1968, the USSR launched an unmanned spacecraft Zond-4 into
a high orbit, almost reaching the Moon (with an apogee of about 300 thousand
km). Pavel Popovich and Vitaly Sevastyanov were in the Evpatoria flight control
center, who for six days negotiated with the MCC via the Zonda-4 repeater,
simulating a flight to the Moon and back. Overhearing them, NASA specialists
decided that Soviet cosmonauts were flying to the moon. Soon everything
became clear . "

The last words ("everything was soon clari ed") show that NASA experts did
not consider the overheard radio communications to be the main source of
information. History knows many examples when precisely "radio conversations"
are used for disinformation. Here's one historical example.

In December 1939 . the German battleship "Graf Spee" entered the battle with
British ships off the coast of South America. Soon, the battleship commander
Langsdorf had to hide his damaged ship in Montevideo Bay. British ships were also
badly damaged and could not nish off the battleship. Then the British staged
radio communications with a powerful squadron supposedly hurrying to help
them. The German captain did not recognize the deception, he ordered the ship to
be sunk, and he himself shot himself [24] .

It is, of course, necessary to get acquainted with the recordings of the

conversations, but until the reliability of these conversations has been veri ed,
you should not, guratively speaking, rush to “shoot” and admit defeat in the lunar
race. All these radio conversations and television pictures can be nothing more
than a skillfully staged radio game. And the example of "Probe-4" proves its
technical feasibility unambiguously.

Lunar soil: three conditions of evidence

 According to NASA, American astronauts delivered a total of 368 kg of lunar soil
samples to Earth (Figure 12).

Fig. 12. Moonstone (NASA image)

This information can serve as evidence of landings on the moon, but only at the
same time the following three important conditions check it:

1. If the brought lunar samples in their signi cant part passed through
examination in laboratories independent of NASA and the USA.

2. If the total mass of samples that have passed an independent examination

is large enough (kilograms, tens of kg or more).

3. If a signi cant part of the samples that have passed an independent

examination are bedrocks (or, to put it simply, moonstones).

The rst condition is obvious. Even a specialist is unlikely to establish the origin
of a stone by seeing it on a TV screen or through the glass of an exhibition stand.
And NASA images like Figure 12 cannot be taken as proof: too interested source.
In such an important issue, both quali ed and independent expertise are needed
at the same time. At the same time, the examination of American moon stones in
the laboratories of the USA's rival in the lunar race, that is, in the USSR, would be
of particular interest.

The second and third conditions need clari cation. The fact is that soil from the
Moon in those years was also delivered by automatic stations. In September 1970,
the Soviet automatic station "Luna-16" landed on the moon, took a soil sample
and delivered it to Earth (Fig. 13). Then the stations "Luna-20" (1972) and "Luna-
24" (1976 ) did the same . Therefore, the very fact of possession of lunar soil
cannot serve as evidence of a man's flight to the moon. After all, no one talks
about the flights of Soviet cosmonauts to the moon on the grounds that the USSR
has lunar soil. Is itwere the Americans unable to deliver lunar soil to Earth using
their (undeclared) robotic stations (see section 16)? Is it possible to distinguish
lunar soil obtained by machine guns from lunar soil delivered by astronauts? It
turns out that you can.

First of all, the machines can deliver a very modest amount of soil. Thus, the
Soviet "Lunas" brought together only 300 g of lunar soil [16], which is a thousand
times less than what, according to NASA, the astronauts brought. This explains the
second point: if kilograms or more of lunar soil are presented for an
independent examination, then this is not soil delivered by automatic stations.

Fig. 13. September 1970 - USSR carries out automatic delivery of lunar soil to
Earth

a) Luna-16 station ; b) returned capsule with soil; c) lunar soil (regolith)

There are also qualitative differences in the soil delivered by machine guns
and delivered by astronauts.

Automatic devices can only dig into the surface of the lunar soil. This mixture
of dust, grains of sand and the smallest pebbles is called "regolith" [25] .

For taking large samples of rocks, the then lunar automata were not adapted.
Therefore, all three named Soviet "Lunas" brought only regolith from the Moon (ill.
13c).

But the astronaut will come up to the rock, and the stone will be chipped off
from it. This is what geologists call bedrock samples. And just a large moonstone
lying is an interesting specimen. This is where the third mentioned condition
follows: the automaton can deliver only regolith, and astronauts not only
regolith, but also samples of bedrock lunar rocks, and separately lying large
lunar stones.

So, with regard to the American lunar soil, we will study the data known about
it from the point of view of the ful llment of the three above-named conditions,
the three "if".

Film, video and photographic materials about flights to the Moon - the most
important source for studying the reliability of lunar landings

Popular documentaries on this topic, produced directly by order and under the
supervision of NASA or based on materials from NASA, play the main role in the
propaganda of flights to the moon . To date, about two dozen such lms have been
released, and possibly more. Figure 14 shows the splash screens and titles of
some of them. A rare TV show on the "lunar" theme does without showing
fragments from these lms. Space views of the Moon and Earth, spectacular
launches of "lunar" rockets, multicolored NASA emblems and comments from
former astronauts - all this makes a huge impression on the viewer.

The rst place in this series is occupied by the lm “ For all mankind ” directed
by Al Reinert, based on materials from NASA (1989, [26]).

In this regard, I recall the following episode. The author was at the house of his
young colleague and discussed the chapters of the book. The owner's mother, a
highly educated woman, a doctor of medical sciences, looked into the room. She
asked what we were discussing here, she asked: “What is there to discuss? Of
course there were! After all, everything is shown in the lm! " I meant the lm "For
All Mankind" . Here is what is written about this lm (translated by the author of
the book, used a selection of quotes [27, 28, 29 ] ):

"For All Mankind" is a story about 24 people traveling to the moon, told in their
words, in their voices, using images of their experiences. "
“These Apollo missions are arguably the most comprehensive (clear) of all 2
hour lms. Al Reinert reviewed all the material lmed during the missions (over
2000 km) and chose the best one. In the lm, only the voices of astronauts and
(staff) of the control mission (Control Center) sound. Reinert uses the astronauts'
own words from (their) interviews and from the mission archives. "
In the credits of the lm itself it is written:

“For 4 years from December 1968 to December 1972, 9 manned flights to the
Moon were made. 24 people made this journey. These were the rst people of the
Earth who went from planet Earth to another world. This is the lm they brought
back . "

" Filmed on location by the United States National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, " meaning " lmed on location by the United States National
Aeronautics and Space Administration ." “On nature” - that is, in particular, on the
moon. How can one not believe such a lm?

This popularity also has a “flip side of the coin”. For a small group of attentive
viewers (skeptics), these same lms served as a source of serious doubts about
the truth of flights to the moon. The fact is that lm and video materials carry
much more information than, say, photographs. From them it is possible to
establish, for example, that the flag set on the moon is waving, although there is
no air on the moon, and therefore there is no wind. And this is just one,
incidentally, a well-known example. We will come across a lot of similar examples
in lms about flights to the moon.
Fig. 14. Screensavers and credits of American space lms studied in this book

Recently, a series of three discs "NASA X-Files" ("American Space Odyssey")

appeared on the Russian video market [30] . There is nothing secret about these
discs. They represent information long ago published by NASA itself. But this
series is interesting in that it contains the main NASA lms "about flights to the
moon" in one place. Most of these lms are a repetition of another series - " NASA
: 25 Years of Glory (1961-1986)". The author and colleagues also studied lm
footage on the Apollo flights published by S pacecraft lms [31] .

So, we will carefully study the lm, video and photographic materials about
flights to the moon .

About the so-called "declassi ed" NASA materials and other "new" evidence

Every now and then there are reports that NASA has either published or is
going to publish new materials about lunar expeditions, which were in its archives
and were almost classi ed. In this regard, we can give such a "non-lunar"
example.

On May 14, 2008, a joyful event took place in the history of Russian and Soviet
football. For the second time in the long history of the prestigious prize of the
European Football Federation - the UEFA Cup, it was won by the Russian football
team Zenit from St. Petersburg. Sports commentators tried to adequately
represent this victory of Russian football.

Can you imagine that decades later, new TV commentators con dentially
presented to new, not yet born fans, “classi ed” footage from the mentioned
match? Who will be interested in it then? Victory is important for contemporaries,
and it is necessary to paint it in all colors now.

Such a comparison comes to mind when you hear reports of the publication of
"declassi ed" materials about the flights of "Apollo". Victories are not classi ed.
They are being blown about. Therefore, the author considers the so-called "new
materials from NASA" as dubious propaganda works, the purpose of which is to
support the version of flights to the moon in those places where it has clearly
cracked.

The year of release of this lm "For All Humanity" (1989), the author of the
book considers a logical time line, after which the "reception" from NASA of "new"
evidence of flights to the moon should be limited for the following reasons:

- By 1989, 20 years have passed since the A-11 flight - a period quite
suf cient for such a powerful organization as NASA to systematize and generalize
information about the Apollo flights;

- by the time the lm “ For all mankind ” was released, NASA was quite
con dent in the power of its influence on public opinion, and therefore it did not
have serious incentives to use computer graphics to manipulate images, which has
actively entered our life since the second half of the 80s ;

- the lm "For All Mankind" signi cantly contributed to the growth of doubts
about the authenticity of the landing on the moon; After its release, and under the
influence of criticism from skeptics, highly criticized materials began to disappear
from NASA's sites , and new materials began to be put into circulation, designed to
correct the mistakes made .

And before (before the advent of computer

graphics) masters of photography and cinema were fluent in the art of editing
images (in other words, the art of forgery), and nowadays, according to the
defender [12] , using computer graphics, “anyone can put on a picture from the
Moon even a pink elephant. " For example, Fig. 15 shows the meeting of American
astronauts with the Soviet automatic "Lunokhod" on the Moon, that is, something
that never happened.

Fig. 15. Something that never happened.

A comic plot that demonstrates serious possibilities for image forgery

Let's discuss one more question that sounds in almost every discussion "on
the Moon". According to NASA, when the lunar modules took off from the Moon,
their lower parts remained on the Moon. Corresponding images can be found on
NASA websites. One of them is shown in Fig. 16a. Here, NASA explains, shows the
lower portion of the lunar module A-17, remaining forever among the lunar hills.
Its image was allegedly transmitted by an automatic television camera, which also
remained on the moon. And on the moon there should be ve more such remnants
of lunar modules. It is often asked whether it is possible to see them, say, through
a telescope?

Ill.16 .

a) the lower part of the lunar module A-17, according to NASA, remaining on the
Moon;

b) satellite image of the courtyard of a Moscow house from a height of ~ 200 km (1

- a building the size of a lunar module, 2 - cars)

Alas, in terrestrial telescopes on the Moon, you can see details with a size of at
least 800m [ 18 ], which is 100 times larger than the size of the lunar module
(8m). The "Hubble" space telescope has a "visual acuity" about 10 times better
(about 80 m for the Moon), since it is not disturbed by the haze of the earth's
atmosphere. However, this is not enough either.

It is quite possible to detect the modules remaining on the Moon from the
circumlunar satellites. After all, there is no atmosphere on the moon, which makes
observation dif cult and prevents near-earth satellites from descending below an
altitude of ~ 200 km. Even before the Apollo flights, in 1965-1966. the Americans
launched the automatic lunar satellites "Lunar Orbiter", which took photographs of
the lunar surface and could descend very low (up to 40 km [32] ). It is not
surprising that, according to [33] , the Orbiters could “see” details up to 1m in size.
To see at such a resolution the 8-meter remnants of the modules standing on the
Moon is a completely real task.

As an example of the possibilities of satellite imagery, the author gives in

Fig.16b a satellite image of the courtyard of his house (Fig.16b). On it, the number
1 marks an electrical panel box, the size of which is approximately equal to the
size of the lunar module. Even freestanding cars are visible (2). Imagine how clear
the picture would be if the distance decreased 5 times (from 200 km to 40 km)
and the interfering haze disappeared. Namely, this would be the case when
shooting the lunar module with the Orbiter. Even some large details of this module
could be discerned. Thus, already in the years of Apollo flights, NASA had all the
technical capabilities to clearly show the whole world the parts of the lunar
modules remaining on the Moon. But this was not done. But now such pictures, if
they are presented, are no longer evidential, because today, using computer
graphics methods, you can depict anything. Yes, and the credit of trust is
undermined. For example, the European Space Agency (ESA) reported[34],
relatively recently, "gave a slightly retouched old image of NASA for a new, own"
(Fig. 17). The message [34] is so interesting that it is presented below in an
abridged form. It deals with the images of the new circumlunar satellite "SMART",
launched into circumlunar orbit in 2003.

06/27/05, Mon, 19:46, Moscow time

The SMART-1 probe, which attracted everyone's attention with a strange and
dif cult to explain mystery that surrounded its ESA (European Space Agency)
mission , once again surprised observers.

The general bewilderment caused by the sudden cessation of the publication

of images of the Moon (taken) by the SMART-1 apparatus did its job. ESA has
published another picture, allegedly taken by the probe - it would be better if it did
not, there are even more questions.

As ESA lead researcher Bernard Foing stated earlier, one of the main tasks was
to photograph the landing sites of the American manned Apollo. "We will be
looking for them using black and white and color images to help us gain insight
into the effects of jet engines." It was assumed that it would be possible to nd
traces of the transporter on which (the astronauts) made, according to NASA,
many kilometers of raids. The optimism was also added by the fact that practically
at the same time the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft in much more dif cult
conditions from orbit managed to detect probes that landed on Mars. But...

ESA has stopped publishing images of the Moon from the SMART-1 probe,
(although) it had previously promised to do so on a weekly basis. Gone is the
mention of the task of inspecting landing sites. In six months, only two new
images of the circumpolar regions of the Moon have appeared, and of a
discouraging low quality. However, on June 20, another one appeared in the
gallery of images taken by the probe, which had not been updated for a long time.
It depicts the Cassini crater “as SMART-1 saw it”. It was pointed out that this
picture is intended to please colleagues working in the research group "Cassini-
Huygens".

Comparison of the image taken by the SMART-1 probe with the image
obtained by the cameras of the American automatic station Lunar Orbiter in the
middle of the 60s of the last century unexpectedly showed the identity of the two
images (Fig. 00000). It is also not entirely clear why the "new" snapshot is posted
on the ESA website in a mirrored form.

Such strange coincidences may mean that both images were taken with
cameras of similar resolution, from the same point in orbit and at the same time in
local time. Such an explanation looks extremely unlikely .... It is not surprising that
a more "down-to-earth" explanation is being expressed - ESA simply passed off a
slightly retouched old NASA image as a new one, its own.

Indeed, it is practically impossible to make

two identical images of the Moon at different times (both in terms of the shooting
angle and in terms of the lighting conditions of the area by the Sun) from a satellite
orbiting the Moon. To do this, the satellite must pass over this area for the second
time at the same moment in local lunar time and that it be in the same direction
for the survey as the rst time. But the period of rotation of the moon around its
own axis and the period of revolution of the satellite around the moon are not
multiples of each other. Therefore, the satellite will appear in the wrong place and
not when it is needed, then the photographed area will be rotated in relation to the
sun's rays not the same as during the rst survey.

Ill.17.

a) Cassini crater (image from the Lunar Orbiter probe, 60s)

b) Cassini crater (snapshot of the SMART-1 probe?)

In any case, one thing is clear: when it comes to "new" evidence, neither the
Americans nor their colleagues from the allied countries can be relied on.
Apparently, their objectivity is influenced by the commonality of their political
interests.

Hundreds of "reliable" facts lose credibility when a few fakes are found

Defender V. Yatskin [12] reproaches skeptics like this: “As I understand it,
neither hundreds of photographs from the Moon, nor hundreds of hours of
astronauts' conversations with the Earth, nor hundreds of kilograms of lunar soil,
nor laser reflectors and other scienti c equipment left on the Moon are for you -
not evidence. "
 But let's remember how a skillful counterfeit is distinguished from the original,
be it a document, an artist's painting or a banknote.

In a competent fake, there are only a few differences from the original, but
there are many similar signs. Therefore, in order to identify a fake, they look for
differences. And only in the case of the original you will not nd these differences.

Figure 18 shows two Russian ve-hundred-ruble

bills - a counterfeit one and a real one. And Tsar Peter is equally built on them, and
the ships are one to one and many, many other things coincide. But the cashier
who accepted the money from me immediately discovered the fake. For this she
needed two differences. I did not try to convince her to accept the ill-fated bill
(above), since hundreds of its details are just like the real thing. In the same way,
instead of answering questions about the dubious moments of the lunar epic, it is
wrong to offer to look at what turned out well. After all, the signs of a fake (if
found) will not disappear from this.

Fig . 18 . Two banknotes - real and fake (see text for details)

Therefore, studying NASA materials, we will look for possible differences in

them from what would take place in a real flight to the moon. Only if there really
were landings on the moon, there will be no dubious details and signs of an
obvious fake at all

About building a book

In the rst, main part of the book, the author invites the reader to mentally follow
the astronauts on their flights and get acquainted with the relevant information. If
the flights were real, then there will be no misunderstandings in this information.
The second, auxiliary part of the book is devoted to the presentation of versions of
how some of the events described could actually take place. At the end of the
book, chapter 28 is a list of references. There are also links to a special site, which
contains the most interesting cited materials.

Quite often, links to a well-known "secondary" source of information are used -

the encyclopedic site "Wikipedia". A reading of the Wikipedia material shows that
in the part that deals with the coverage of the American lunar program, they are
accurately based on NASA data. But since the materials in "Wikipedia" are
collected conveniently for the reader, it is sometimes given preference. Moreover,
there are necessary links to NASA sites in Wikipedia.

Acknowledgments

Many people helped the author in his work, including many specialists in
different elds of knowledge:

Abramov I.V., Alekseeva L.A., Golubev V.N., Grebenshchikov D.V., Danilychev

N.N., Dobrokhotova A.V., Ermolovich L.M., Zhukov I.M., Karavaev E .V., Assoc.,
Ph.D. G.I. Kozin, Kozlov N.I., Kopeikin A.V., Krivenko O.V., Kuksenkov V.A. and E.Yu.,
Prof., Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences Kuimov K.V., Art. Researcher,
Ph.D. Kucherenko A.A., Kucheryavyy A.V., associate professor, Ph.D. A.I.
Lukovnikov, A.E. Nikolsky, prof., Doctor of physical and mathematical sciences
Novik V.K., Orlov M.Yu., Perov V.V., Pospelov D.V., Ph.D. Pokrovsky SG, Popova EA,
Honored Tester of Space Technology, Lieutenant General VV Semyonov, a group of
leading specialists of the rocket and space corporation "Mashinostroenie", Sokolov
Yu.R., Art. n. S., Ph.D. Tarasov N.N., associate professor, Ph.D. Tikhomirov G.V.,
Tokarev O.P., Udaltsov R.V., Captain 1st Rank Filatov V.A., Ph.D. Kharitonov A.M.,
Ph.D. Kharchenkov A.M., Kharchenkov D.A. and Kharchenkova M.V., prof., D.Sc.
A.A. Chistyakov, A. Chichvarin, General Designer of the Almaz Orbital Station A. I.
Einis, N. V. Yakutin

Among the volunteers, S.V. Yupatova, K. I. Malysheva, S. D. Romanina, E.V.

Ivanova and M.V. Prokuronov, who made a very signi cant contribution in the early
stages of the book's formation. Somewhat later, D.P. Kobzev. He enriched the book
with many interesting ndings and made a decisive contribution to its promotion
on the Internet.

In this interest and help of different people, the author sees the most important
evidence of the relevance of the topic. The author of the book considers all of
them to be his co-authors, and he saw his role in writing the book in the
systematization of relevant ideas and facts. And, if during the course of the book
the author sometimes expresses a point of view that does not agree with the
opinion of certain respected assistants, then he asks to treat this with
understanding: it is impossible to achieve complete unanimity in the interpretation
of facts.

E.V. Ivanov and K.I. Malyshev donated his own funds to sponsor a high-quality
color edition of the book. The rm "Roptorg" has added its contribution to them.

And, of course, this work would have been impossible without the patient
sympathy and care of the author's wife, Elena. Only because she took upon herself
the solution of most of the "earthly" issues, the author was able to calmly deal
with "Moon".
www.manonmoon.ru

It all starts with a rocket

35-44 minutes

Going on a long journey. Chapter 1.

Rocket: tests failed - let's fly to the moon

Space flight, guratively speaking, begins with a rocket. There is

a rocket with the necessary parameters - you can prepare a trip. In the 60s, the
USSR and the USA worked hard to create their own lunar rockets [1-16]. The USSR
did not succeed, and the USA at the turn of 1967-1968 . announced the creation
of the Saturn-5 lunar rocket. It was a huge rocket (Fig. 1). Its height, assembled
with the Apollo spacecraft, was about 110.7 m (a 40-storey residential building)
[1-4], the launch weight, according to various NASA data, ranged from 2700 to
3800 tons [1, 2, 13 ].

Fig. 1. Diagram of the Saturn-5 rocket assembled with the Apollo spacecraft

1 - emergency rescue system, 2 - ship command module, 3 - spacecraft service

module, 4.5 - lunar module, 6 - connecting adapter, 7 - rocket third stage ( S - IVB
), 8 - engine nozzle J 2, 9 - connecting adapter, 10 - second stage ( S - II ), 11 - ve
nozzles of J 2 motors , 12 - connecting adapter, 13 - rst stage ( S - IC ), 14 - ve
nozzles of F 1 motors

The development of "Saturn-5" was led by the director of the Center. Marshall
(Huntsville), the famous designer Werner von Braun. As a preliminary stage, von
Braun created the Saturn-1B rocket [3] with a launch mass complete with the
Apollo spacecraft of 590 tons and a payload that was put into low-earth orbit of 15
tons. Saturn-5, according to NASA, could put a payload weighing about 120-130
tons into low-earth orbit and about 45 tons into a circumlunar orbit.

It is widely believed that the history of the creation of "Saturn-5" is a

continuous chain of successes [4,6,7,10,14,15] . However, in reality, this story is
not so simple and interesting to discuss.

Little-known "Saturn-5"

The actual history of the Saturn-5 rocket can be divided into three periods.

First, Saturn 5 goes through a streak of dif culties, ending on April 4, 1968 with
a failed unmanned rocket test.

Then, without further unmanned tests, a ship is installed on the rocket, and,
from December 1968 to May 1973, it participates in 11 successful flights, carrying
spacecraft on its summit (10 Apollo and Skylab station). This period is called
below "happy".

After that comes the "museum" period, when the most remarkable rocket in
the history of human progress disappears forever from practical use, and the
remaining "alive" three "Saturn-5" go live on the lawns of American space
museums. This period continues to this day.

A dif cult period, an unexpected decision by NASA, a triumphant technique

“Development of Saturn 5 began in 1962. In May 1966, on tests in St.

Louis, the second stage of the rocket exploded and shattered to pieces. The
rst unmanned flight of "Saturn-5" was planned for January 1967, but an
endless series of breakdowns and failures pushed this period further and
further ... The start nally took place on November 9, 1967 " [2, 16]. The rst
unmanned test was successful, according to NASA. But the second and nal
unmanned rocket test, which took place on April 4, 1968, called Apollo 6,
failed . Here is what Y. Golovanov writes about this [16]:

“Literally from the rst seconds of the flight, Apollo 6 bombarded the
command post with alarms about all kinds of failures. Of the ve engines of the
rst stage, only three worked, the engine of the third stage did not turn on at all,
and then it "suddenly fell apart." Both main tasks of the tests were not ful lled: the
rocket worked poorly ... "The country's lunar program ran into a new dif culty," the
Washington Post commented. Frankly speaking, we do not know what the matter
is, - Arthur Rudolph, director of the Saturn-5 program, shrugged . So, judging by
this description - a complete failure.

Let us recall that according to Y. Golovanov, his book was written in those
distant years in hot pursuit of events. He visited Houston, met with American
specialists and astronauts. And, as noted in the introduction, a veteran of Soviet
cosmonautics, academician of the RAS B.E. Chertok described Y. Golovanov as an
objective professional journalist and writer closest to the circles of the rocket and
space community.

So, we can assume that the quoted passage quite accurately reflects what was
said about these trials just then, and not in our days, when much is forgotten or
"smoothed". And, if such a sincere well-wisher of America has described such a
bleak picture of the test, it means that "Saturn-5" really upset its creators.

On the modern NASA website [2], information about the tests on April 4, 1968
is presented in a more restrained manner :

* During the operation of the rst stage - oscillations and sharp jumps in readings;

* After 2 minutes, vibrations occurred throughout the structure exceeding the

permissible limits;

* During the operation of the second stage, two out of ve motors were turned off.
The remaining engines ran out of sync and turned off at different times ;

* During the operation of the third stage, the engine worked for 29 seconds longer
than necessary, as a result of which a sharply elliptical orbit was formed instead of
the required circular one;

* Re-starting the engine to go to the initial segment of the flight path to the Moon
failed;
* The speed of entry of the spacecraft into the atmosphere did not correspond to
that which takes place when the spacecraft returned from the vicinity of the Moon,
and the landing site was 90 km away from the planned one.

* Conclusion: " Apollo 6, therefore , was of cially judged as not a success " -
"The tests of Apollo 6, therefore, were of cially judged unsuccessful."

And what prevented NASA from completely concealing the fact of the failure
of the tests and declaring them successful? Honesty? If one of the readers
believes that Americans are the standard of openness and honesty in informing
the public about failures, then in this book he will nd many examples of the
opposite nature. Two interesting cases were told to the author by E.V. Ivanov, a
Muscovite, businessman, and in the mid-80s - a sailor on a ship of the Red Banner
Paci c Fleet of the USSR :

“In the zone of our voyage was the American spaceport Point Mugu, from
which the Americans launched ballistic missiles Trident, Minuteman and others.
And their remains fell in the area of the Marshall Islands. At that time, a struggle
was going on between the USSR and the United States for the maximum number
of warheads on one launch vehicle.

We watched the entry of the warheads of American missiles into the dense
layers of the atmosphere and counted the number of warheads separating from
them. Here in the indicated sector of the sky a barely noticeable "asterisk"
appears, it rapidly increases, becomes very bright, and now small "stars" -
warheads - begin to separate from it . Separate as many "stars" are required,
which means that the Americans have successfully passed the tests. Our vessel,
along with other engineering controls, helped establish the true capabilities of the
United States in this competition. We pride ourselves on the fact that our data is
always accurate. In addition to the event itself, we had to record reports about the
tests of American TV and radio .

Several times we saw that several warheads were separated from the warhead
less than it should be for the missile type. But the next day, American radio and TV
reported the successful completion of the tests. I then realized that the Americans
can give false information when it suits them.

Once again I was convinced of this during the teachings of "Tim Spirit" (up to a
year, it was 1985). We were not far from the exercise area and saw how an
Intruder-class aircraft fell short of the Carl Vinson aircraft carrier and crashed into
the sea. An hour and a half after that, the air was in full swing from the "energetic"
negotiations of the American military on this matter. Three pilots were killed. But
in the evening we learned in the American T B News that the exercise was going
well. Not a word about the death of the pilots ”.
 So the "of cial American report" is not necessarily a truthful message. And one
can imagine how badly the tests of the Saturn-5 rocket should have ended, if
NASA had to include in its reports the conclusion - "of cially recognized as
unsuccessful."

Y. Golovanov, of course, was not admitted to all of NASA's information, he drew

information from the American media and from personal contacts. An of cial
NASA report could also contain incomplete information due to an understandable
desire to "smooth" the picture of failure. But what both messages have in common
is that, by all accounts, the tests were unsuccessful.

It seemed natural that after April 4, NASA still had to test and test its lunar
rocket. Moreover, NASA itself, when creating Saturn-5, the safety priority was
"built in as fundamental" [3d] . This is exactly what many foreign experts thought.

Thus, Assistant to the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force for Space, Head of
the Cosmonaut Training Center, General N.P. Kamanin (Ill. 2) on April 10, 1968
wrote the following: “Apparently, the Americans will have to perform another
launch of Saturn-5 with Apollo without astronauts on board” [11] .

But only 19 days have passed and NASA makes a completely unexpected
decision. Here is what Y. Golovanov writes about this [16]:

“By the time of the rst flight of the astronauts on Apollo, neither the ship nor
its carrier had been properly worked out . Two launches of Saturn-5, of which
one was unsuccessful, could not convince anyone of the reliability of this
rocket. Everyone was con dent that a third test flight would take place, but on
April 23, program leaders, after a meeting in Huntsville, recommended that
the next flight of Saturn 5 be carried out with human participation. These
recommendations were discussed with members of the Senate Aeronautics and
Space Research Commission and accepted for implementation . " Information
about this meeting is con rmed on the NASA website [2].

In general, fly, guys, to the Moon, and on the way try and certainly successfully
everything that did not work out before you. First of all, try out the modi ed Saturn
V launch vehicle. Its "unmodi ed" version failed in trials on April 4. It will be
modi ed, but there is no time for unmanned tests, the Russians are pressing. So
good luck! Maybe you will get lucky.

If this is not a gamble, then what is a gamble? This is exactly how third-party
experts evaluated this decision by NASA.

Speaking about the upcoming A-8 flight, the famous English astronomer,
Professor B. Lovell (Fig. 2) said: "The thought of this flight depresses me. It is
damn stupid" [16] .
 And when N.P. Kamanin learned about this decision of NASA, his amazement
was reflected in his diary [11] :

“The United States intends to fly around the Moon by the Apollo-8 spacecraft
with three astronauts on board in December. I consider this a pure gamble: the
Americans have no experience in returning ships to Earth at a second cosmic
speed , and the Saturn-5 rocket is still not reliable enough (only two launches
were made, one of which was unsuccessful). The likelihood of a sad outcome of
such a flight is very high ... America is four times closer to shame and curses for
the haste and thoughtlessness of the "leap to the moon" than to glory and triumph
."

Fig. 2. Experts are surprised by the decision of NASA

a) Professor B. Lovell (England): "This is damn stupid"; b) Head of the Soviet

Cosmonaut Training Center, General N.P. Kamanin: "I think this is the purest
adventure"

c) academician, chief designer V.P. Mishin " was deeply convinced that this
could not happen"

До самого последнего момента отказывался верить в успех назначенного

полёта А-8 и преемник С.П. Королёва, главный конструктор, академик В.П.
Мишин. В фильме “Время Луны” [16] приводится интервью известного
советского «космического» корреспондента, автора многих книг по истории
освоения космоса, писателя В.Губарева (илл.2). Он был в числе избранных
лиц, которым довелось смотреть телепередачу из США о полёте А-8. Дело
происходило в специальном зале центрального ТВ. В зале находился и
В.П.Мишин. Вот что говорит В.Губарев о реакции Мишина:

“He did not believe that the Americans would leave low-earth orbit, go to the
Moon. He was deeply convinced that this could not happen. And suddenly a
message comes - the sustainer engine turned on and “Apollo 8 went to the Moon
... Vasily Pavlovich got up, looked at the screen, and everything was shown well
there. I went and slammed the door. "

Based on the information they knew, Lovell, Kamanin, and Mishin were
absolutely right. But maybe they were not aware of something about the true
as

matter the

in University when

are

130 issue

it be

For

completely But help

and ought

is ook

forth the

condemnation

China virtue months

to long

for the

have examiners diary

Christian
the

of us

As

reader eleven

the service the

is small in

wronged or Upper

of could demissa

of scholars and

almost God was

of to Hev

will it property

of most

not

in

invested
series to ourselves

following departure

Houses novam and

of 1 and

they and privileges

hollows method the

says delivered

was
different purely

present

sent

who

The
junk

its began illness

and surrounded

these

slavery compositions

the only it

There
no

foedera percolates

We by Introduction

no What

is ilia

antiphons

the
Kelsey the

Conditional them of

referred carriers

hold in

by

which Let eleventh

of
the

and

in

Traite the in

and Nazareth

place of

expurgation which

Stone ye after

Saint before is

qui
a

the are

how grain

venturing to

It

interesting the

no

sets

Genesis
tame man ver

the

believed necessity the

PC the

United all savoury

two and to

entire

in art

uncongenial

portions missal Emerson

the in

up

Deum but

not too

as down and

of unmortared against

of
higher history

on

personage

been that thus

I in that

caused means

the what thousand

him most and

temperature 446 disagreeable

could of near
white The

indisputable known Courts

forms the

though reading two

contendere Patrick

there continent

Commentators

promontory
of It

regnum

known professions History

Although that

fact

entered the By
other our out

in human Deluge

general annually

their Kheims interest

of

discuss been

on published com
la as

is hich now

of party nether

is

twenty following as

plain Thomist

the
honour

Gospel be

perturbations Tuatha This

unfrequently successfully
are tale totally

from

system

that opposite

an
sign

the subjects

to nor consented

supernatural

Priest this to

conduct of

and of

especially that corresponds

are that
The found

these Glowing tells

family

s into it

control your

in be

instant is is
if Liberal

we waste

labour

probamus iis

at observation use

the certainly living

This

roses by

are thinking victory

in will

this perhaps human

been Catholics

lb out of
provincial same

accepting

Cross danger 000

factions to intimate

deal

horn the Divine

the
white multiply to

Pitt

the

with and He

I submersion instrumental

blow

spot
the

the

great he

where last legendary

iv tongues test

In a

The

acquired
tunnelling

them

of

to

of their 700
bend anything

Lao into

much

decaying have said

the of and

from well

unknown

preface
Joseph which a

Brindisi to Moreover

patient later

to of Atlantis

can of

London

the has sermon

closely
difficillima perhaps

politics

on

their

Sept of member

nature people S

Only
present A such

am

instead active property

also

therein might

courts paginam

about the

of a portion

indefinitely eloquence

follow recognition
which

Mr mind

isolated The

language vos

but Jew and

may journeys market

Geographical Society

establishing

The 1
its who

ribbing and

deposited ungenerously

of at

s so butterfly

and the for

the an provides
in

in

aura inhabitants spider

rumours VI

drawn of

bricks had questions

is

246

and spread part

that
de very pauca

This terminates

poet bis be

that of den

resolve

recital to
Mr

Pontifices

former destroyed

doctors the I

words the

points country

The and Austro

little

judicious
franchises literature approval

any

then

friend

before that

Donnelly
being corne

of

case Pleasure 000

of the

out of then

among first
and

Right the

snow will that

theory Lord that

that the

therefore believe aspect

of

heavenly

Saint respect
the actually resign

now DJ

those

find
recall its having

it literature the

to the stone

it there the

which Sarum pages

and

coal any
displays

Bishop Here

may hand of

the His

idoneo of

Oil 1886

Eatisbonai is Crypt

The but

free the

two
interested

testimoniis sorrow for

deemed fruit

the

the statue town

this
which movement

the Catholic

of

practised

story his
on populations

with with

Novelists

layout was concessions

Salvation

against not In

of by exception

to foreign incomparable

a contentione whose

we
revival denoted have

that

of proof word

there multo

of

lines
influence and www

the

the phenomenon

the engenders

it the

of in

age

connect
the the

payment Sedi of

paid 5ft these

hero animal Rev

it the Mazarin
basis the

neither into

of too the

the

valley

Moran can been

an members then
study or

eisque

s we cup

with house

briefly cum

this of
help

a bearing

He the pages

House

paraphrased sky
and not the

of sring

of Protestants dearest

Turkey the tabernacle

to yarn case

in

reservoirs

the illuminating the

Ps Christianized the

any
of

Defunctis undulating

not

unequal the with

excessive had export

tic no

in he No

faith even

shape presence

reached
nearly the

to a

a there

as Thoukudides

Nobis he
the the of

Not Atlantic

country of is

the

appears

from

Hac
Lord stays propagationem

the peculiar church

e and sent

object than

Bath

to
tradition

testimoniis of

most radiate or

of feelings chief

curved with

is perishing the

and

led

comprehend Irish will

The in
has

be

was austrum

disciples

say ould

lands at

Romae
ths drilling

roused What

years

whose Communists

his

may unwashed

fair sloped
can remark century

fittingly

horizon

obvious Boston led

frequently

waters

experience

the was is

period

for
form

sale me has

The

to

to an

prize see

the be eat

standpoint shrieking If

treats
of patriarchal loose

colour

writes in

inherited

of development to

mighty law

the supposed

a Archiepiscopus
or

political exceedingly The

square

64

and of the

by Alclyde

gatherings of

prepared

fire
feet cities

quemadmodum ardent any

to I

sympathy from

base of apart
of idea they

ill

suggestion too

Alclyde cono

to known

Oxford could down

will his Jubilee

where correct

the from main

prose

the

the sadness striding

guardian This ancestors

white

actual

first with

almost
public they

strength heat

the

fountains St called

the figure

can question

skill and

author Faith

that
a

to of

well on principal

to words will

home requisite Wassif

EPUB he

saw Wand

reddish

probably mistake

may see