Popov Alexander Ivanovich- Soviet physicist and inventor, academic title - senior researcher, academic degree- Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences.

Graduated from the Moscow Engineering Physics Institute (MEPhI), Faculty of Experimental and Theoretical Physics in 1966. He worked in special design bureaus, but most of the time he worked at MEPhI. Currently, he is a MEPhI veteran. Currently, she is a physics teacher at a private school.

Author and co-author of 15 inventions and more than 100 publications in the field of laser technology, spectroscopy, absorption analysis, laser gas analysis and optics. He repeatedly participated in VDNKh with his developments. Laureate of bronze (1978) and gold (1981) medals of the Main Committee of VDNKh of the USSR, medal "850 Years of Moscow".

Author of articles on exposing the so-called "lunar conspiracy", as well as exposing the book, which exists both in electronic and in print. Both articles and chapters of the book are regularly corrected and supplemented by the author, so their versions differ in different sources. Not being a specialist in space technology and related fields, he makes a huge number of factual errors in his work, demonstrates complete illiteracy in everything, and constructs fantastic constructions.

From the publisher: Many times I gave a link on the pages of KONT to the site http://manonmoon.ru/ containing the book by A.I. Popov "Americans on the Moon: a great breakthrough or a space scam". But no one seems to have followed the link and read this book. Recently, several KONT authors published materials at once claiming that the Americans really landed on the moon ... This prompted me to start publishing the book on the pages of KONT. From my point of view, the lies of the Americans are too obvious ...

VIVas.

In the 60s of the past century, according to NASA (NASA - National American Space Agency), Americans made dozens of manned space flights with access to near-Earth orbit. Including - nine flights to the Moon, six of which ended with astronaut landings. These messages raised the prestige of the USA incredibly. However, year after year, the number of skeptics grew who, after studying NASA materials about these landings, came to the conclusion that the Americans were not on the moon.

“There were - they weren’t, what’s the difference after more than 40 years?” one reader wrote to the author. How do Americans feel about their space history? Here is what is written in http://ria.ru/radio_brief/2015...:

“From the windows of the Congress Building in Washington, you can clearly see the National Air and Space Museum and the thousands of enthusiastic children and adults who come there every day. In other words, congressmen guess what astronautics and space are for Americans. How else? Propaganda of the victories of the past raises the strength of the spirit and pride of the nation, unites it and creates the foundation for victories in the present and future. On all fronts of geopolitical battles.

Is it possible to see "thousands of enthusiastic children and adults" at the entrance to our Central Museum cosmonautics in Moscow? No! Is it because every schoolboy knows that the Americans were on the moon? And they will tell him about it in the same museum. That is, we were the first in space, and became the second. And who takes pleasure in realizing that we are the second?

If we were deceived with the Moon, then this is a lesson for the future. But then we remain in space first! And then you can understand why today's NASA astronauts fly to the orbital international space station not otherwise than on our ships. Do you think such findings will strengthen our national pride? If you agree with this, then let's continue to understand together.

Introduction

The loser was doomed and cursed

(Pages from the history of space rivalry)

Fig. 1. The first satellite of the Earth (USSR, 1957) The first cosmonaut of the Earth (USSR, 1961)

Russia is advancing

On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched the world's first artificial satellite Earth and those opened the space era in the history of mankind (ill.1). The Americans took this event hard.

“The first Soviet satellite shook millions of Americans to their core as it cast doubt on their confidence in the complete superiority of the United States for the first time. The technical victory of Soviet scientists led the United States to a political defeat, ”recalled one of the New York Times editors.

"A country that leads in space will be judged as the most technologically advanced, with the best education and the best return of the political and economic system as a whole," wrote the New York Herald Tribune.

“We unreservedly denounce President Eisenhower for his failure to use the vast 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, his glasses flashing.

"Sputnik 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.

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

Fig.2. Joy of Russia) employees of the Moscow telegraph were among the first 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

The Americans took this new blow to their prestige hard, because they did not hide the fact that they considered themselves as a world leader. “In terms of propaganda, the first man in space is worth perhaps more than 100 divisions or a dozen ICBMs ready to take off on the first order of intercontinental missiles ... State Department representatives fear the international consequences of Gagarin’s flight,” wrote the New York Herald Tribune and Wall Street journal" .

In one of his campaign speeches, Senator D.F. Kennedy, who soon became President of the United States, said:

“The peoples of the world witnessed that the Soviet Union was the first to penetrate into space. His satellites were the first to orbit the Moon and around the Sun. They concluded that the Soviet Union was going uphill, and we were marking time. I think it's time for us to change that mind."

America's counteroffensive

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

By tradition, only once a year (usually in January) the President addresses the Congress with a State of the Union message, 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 State of the Union address and announced that by the end of the 1960s, the United States would land a man on the moon (Figure 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.”

A year later, in September 1962, speaking at Rice University Stadium, Kennedy said, in part:

“We swore that we would not have to see an enemy invader flag on the moon, [there would be] a banner of freedom and peace.”

As you can see, the terminology is almost military.

The lunar race has begun - a fierce rivalry between the US and the USSR to be the first to send a man to the moon. Both sides attached great importance to achieving victory in this competition.

“…Rivalry for the Moon was a kind of war. "The loser is doomed and cursed," 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."

The USSR failed to send a man to the moon, and the United States in 1969-1972 reported six astronaut landings on the moon.

Brief information from NASA reports on flights to the moon

To win the lunar race, the Americans carried out a special program called "Apollo". It cost 20-25 billion dollars (according to various sources) and was carried out under the leadership of NASA (National Aeronautics and space Administration - NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration). Below, instead of the name "Apollo", the abbreviation "A" is often used.

According to NASA, the giant Saturn-5 rocket put into orbit around the Moon a ship with a total mass of 45 tons and a crew of 3 people (Fig. 4). Then the lunar module (1,2) with two astronauts separated from the ship and landed on the Moon. The command and service module (CSM) with one astronaut on board (3.4) remained in orbit. After their stay on the Moon, the astronauts in take-off stage 2 returned to the circumlunar orbit, transferred to the SCM and returned to Earth in it.

Fig.4. a) against the background of the NASA emblem, the Saturn-5 rocket takes off; b) scheme of the Apollo spacecraft assembled with the lunar module

According to NASA, A-11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were the first to land on the Moon (Figure 5). They placed scientific instruments near the lunar module (5a), planted a flag (5b), imprinted their shoe prints in the lunar dust (5c), and left a commemorative pennant (5d).

Fig.5. Through the Pages of Life Magazine (August 1969)

In 47 countries of the world, television broadcasts about the first landing on the moon (July 1969, A-11, ill. 6a, b). Magazines came out as special issues (ill. 6 c, d), including the often cited below special issues of the American illustrated magazines “Life” and “A Look”.

Fig.6. a) an astronaut descends to the lunar surface, b) inhabitants South Korea watching the landing from the big screen, c, d) special issues of American magazines, August 1969

In the homeland of the first conquerors of the Moon, a solemn meeting awaited (ill. 7).

Fig.7. This is how the Apollo 11 crew was greeted in the USA

After the A-11 flight, according to NASA, astronauts landed on the moon five more times. Here is a general background on the Apollo manned flights:

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

A-11, July 16-24.1969. First moon landing (less than a year after the first manned flight! - Note. VIVas). Stay on the Moon - 21 hours / of which - 2.5 hours outside the module. 20 kg of lunar soil delivered to Earth.

A-13, April 11-17. 1970. Accident on the ship. There was no landing. The astronauts returned safely.

According to NASA, the astronauts of the six expeditions took photographs, films, and television shots on the Moon and collected soil samples with a total mass of 378 kg. At 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 departure of the astronauts. On the whole, the US triumph was complete.

However, over time, some people began to have doubts about the veracity of these reports. Inconsistencies have been found in NASA's "lunar" information. Other questions arose. For example, why don't Americans fly to the moon anymore? Thousands followed the first satellite, hundreds followed the first cosmonaut, and nothing after the flights to the Moon! Why is the super-powerful Saturn-5 rocket, which disappeared almost immediately after the Apollo flights, not being used? Why are hundreds of kilograms of lunar soil allegedly brought by the astronauts supposedly stored in NASA's secret repository for almost 40 years, and scientists are given grams?

Skeptics and defenders

Fig.8. The most representative monographs of skeptics (a) and defenders (b, c)

In the media and on the Internet, a controversy has unfolded between skeptics who doubt the authenticity of the conquest of the moon, and defenders who claim - "there were!" .

Of the many works of skeptics, the book by Yu.I. Mukhin "AntiApollo".

The journalistic direction of “defense” is most fully represented by the book by Y. Golovanov “The Truth about the Apollo program”. As Academician B.E. Chertok writes, “I consider it necessary to single out among the authors of the most objective works of the literary and memoir genre ... Yaroslav Golovanov, an engineer who became a professional journalist and writer, closest to the circles of the rocket and space community.” According to Y. Golovanov, the book was mainly written in 1976, in the wake of recent events, which makes it especially valuable.

The technical direction of "protection" is best reflected in a review article by V. Yatskin and Y. Krasilnikov published several years ago on the Internet "Did the Americans fly to the Moon?" (as of April 29, 2003, when printed out - 92 s).

About the rules for discussing 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

The proof of the reliability of any achievement is the exclusive business of the author. Therefore, the statement "the Americans were on the moon" must be defended by the Americans themselves. No one is obliged to prove that the Americans were not on the moon.

This idea was very intelligibly stated in the speech of Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences 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 verification. Otherwise, our very existence loses its meaning. " (http://www.polit.ru/science/20...)

This order permeates our entire practical life. Try telling your friends that you recently set a world barbell record. They will immediately either bring you to the bar, if there is one nearby, or ask you to name authoritative witnesses, moreover, not from among close friends. And you will look strange if you demand: “And you prove that I could not squeeze out such a weight!”. Unfortunately, quite often one hears how 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 brilliantly, but over time doubts arose? In science, the rule of "statute of limitations" does not apply. For more than 2,000 years, scientists, following Ptolemy, believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth. And only after 2000 years, the accumulated errors in these theoretical predictions, as well as some other facts, prompted Copernicus to “deprive” the Earth of its central place.

Fig.9. Doubtful "conqueror" North Pole- American R. Piri.

In addition to sincere misconceptions, the history of progress is full of examples of hoaxes that were far from immediately exposed. And the Americans have the corresponding "experience". At the beginning of the twentieth century, the world was captured by the race to conquer the poles of the Earth. Especially not "given" the North Pole. And on April 6, 1909, the American R. Peary (ill. 9) reported that he had reached the North Pole. At the same time, 240 km to the pole, he sent back Captain R. Bartlet, the only person on an expedition capable, besides Piri himself, of determining geographical coordinates. So there was no one qualified to confirm the achievement.

And yet the American press was a big fuss about the victory of Piri. Her efforts were not in vain: until now, in many publications, it is the American R. Piri who is mentioned as the first person to reach the North Pole. However, attentive researchers soon enough established that, in fact, Peary had spent the winter in northern Greenland. And later, the camp in which Piri was holed up was also found. And already 70 years later, in the late 80s, when, according to Piri's will, his archives were opened, it was once again confirmed that he did not reach the Pole.

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

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

Very often in discussions such arguments are heard: “NASA (this and that) did, but did not show”, “Ours followed everything, but it is kept secret”, “They were on the moon, but films about it were made on Earth”, etc. The author treats such arguments in the same way as the hero famous fairy tale 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 turned out to be right.

The author of the book invites the reader to follow the same logic with him: if NASA didn’t show something, it means it didn’t do it, if the mysterious “ours”, who allegedly followed everything, have not yet shown up, then it means they haven’t watched”, if films about astronauts walking on the moon were filmed on Earth, then it means that they walked on the Earth, etc.

The author leads the discussion and draws conclusions only on the basis of the available specific, published and non-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 confirming his authority in the matter at hand.

Don't shy away from the topic

Quite often, when discussing the Apollo flights, such questions are raised as what prevented the Russians from flying to the moon, whether space exploration was carried out correctly in the USSR, did Gagarin fly, etc. Diversion to such topics, however interesting they may be, 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 clarified the rules of the discussion, let's find out what can serve as evidence of the landing of astronauts on the moon?

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

Typically, defenders list the following list of evidence for landing people on the moon:

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

2) records of astronauts' radio conversations with the Earth;

3) lunar soil delivered by astronauts to Earth;

4) illustrative materials - film, television - and photographs from the moon.

Fig.10. Laser reflector

Laser reflectors and electronic devices were also delivered to the Moon by automatic vehicles

NASA reported that astronauts delivered special reflectors to the Moon (Figure 10), which were then detected from Earth using laser light pulses.

A laser reflector is a fairly light (10-20 kg) set of prisms that does not require fine tuning with respect to the incident beam. Therefore, it is quite possible to “entrust” its delivery to the Moon to automatic spacecraft. This was practically proved by the Soviet Luna-17 and Luna-21 (1971-1973), which delivered self-propelled automatic Lunokhods equipped with laser reflectors to the Moon (ill. 11b).

Fig.11. Automatic devices delivered both reflectors and electronic devices to the Moon: a) the world's first device that made a soft landing on the Moon - the Soviet "Luna-9"; b) Soviet "Lunokhod", the arrow points to a corner reflector; b) American apparatus "Surveyer"

NASA also reported that the astronauts left a number of electronic devices on the Moon (Figure 6). But even before the Apollos, numerous Soviet and American automatic stations delivered instruments to the Moon. The first to do this was in February 1966 the Soviet Luna-9, which gently landed on the Moon (ill. 11a). After 5 months, the first American automatic apparatus, the Surveyor, arrived on the Moon (ill. 11c). Before the flights of the “lunar” Apollos, the Americans landed five such vehicles on the Moon, each of which delivered instruments and devices with a total mass of at least 60 kg.

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 relayed over the radio bridge "Earth - an automatic ship near the Moon - Earth")

K.P. Feoktistov says: "... 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 surface of the moon."

The author of the book does not believe that it is worth listening to "talk and watching a television picture about the landing on the surface of the moon" and you can find peace. The following episode from the history of the lunar race confirms this idea:

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

The last words (“everything was cleared up soon”) show that NASA experts did not consider the overheard radio communications to be the main source of information. History knows many examples when it is "radio talk" that is used for disinformation. Here is one historical example.

In December 1939, the German battleship Graf Spee entered into battle with British ships off the coast South America. Soon, the commander of the battleship Langsdorf had to shelter his damaged ship in Montevideo Bay. The English ships were also heavily damaged and could not finish off the battleship. Then the British staged radio conversations with a powerful squadron allegedly hurrying to their aid. The German captain did not recognize the deception, he ordered the ship to be sunk, and he shot himself.

Of course, you need to get acquainted with the records of conversations, but until the authenticity of these conversations has been verified, you should not, figuratively 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 with Zond-4 unequivocally proves its technical feasibility.

Lunar soil: three conditions of evidence

Fig.12. Moon rock (NASA image)

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

This information can serve as proof of the moon landings, but only if the following three essential conditions its checks:

1. If the brought lunar samples in their significant 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 significant part of the samples that have passed an independent examination is bedrock (or, in simplified terms, moon rocks).

The first condition is obvious. Even a specialist is unlikely to establish the origin of the stone, seeing it on a TV screen or through the glass of an exhibition stand. And NASA images like fig. 12 cannot be accepted as evidence: too interested source. In such important issue We need both qualified and independent expertise at the same time. At the same time, the examination of American moonstones in the laboratories of the United States rival in the moon race, that is, in the USSR, would be of particular interest.

The second and third conditions need clarification. The fact is that the 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 Luna-20 (1972) and Luna-24 (1976) stations did the same. That's why the mere fact of possession of lunar soil cannot serve as proof 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. Couldn't the Americans have delivered lunar soil to Earth with the help of their (unannounced) automatic stations (see section 16)? Is it possible to distinguish lunar soil mined by robots from lunar soil delivered by astronauts? It turns out you can.

First of all, machines can deliver a very modest amount of soil. So, the Soviet "Moons" together delivered only 300 g of lunar soil, 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 independent examination, then this is not soil delivered by automatic stations.

Fig.13. September 1970 - the USSR carries out automatic delivery of lunar soil to Earth a) station "Luna-16"; 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 deeper into the surface lunar soil. This mixture of dust, grains of sand and tiny pebbles is called the word "regolith".

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

But the astronaut will come up to the rock, and the stone will break off from it. This is what geologists call bedrock samples. Yes, and just lying large moonstone is an interesting sample. This is where the third mentioned condition follows: the machine can deliver only regolith, and the astronauts can deliver not only regolith, but also samples of primary lunar rocks, and separately lying large lunar rocks.

So, as far as the American lunar soil is concerned, we will study the data known about it from the point of view of the fulfillment of the above three conditions, the three “ifs”.

Film, video and photo materials about flights to the moon are the most important source for studying the reliability of lunar landings

The main role in the promotion of flights to the moon is played by popular documentaries on this subject, issued directly to the order and under the supervision of NASA or based on NASA materials. About two dozen such films have been released to date, and possibly more. Figure 14 shows screensavers and credits for some of them. A rare TV show on the "lunar" theme does without showing fragments from these films. Space views of the Moon and Earth, spectacular launches of "lunar" rockets, multi-colored NASA emblems and comments by former astronauts - all this makes a huge impression on the viewer.

First place in this series is occupied by the film "For all mankind" ("For all mankind") directed by Al Reinert, created based on NASA materials (1989, ).

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

For All Mankind is the story of 24 people traveling to the moon, told in their own words, in their voices, using images of their experiences."

“These film documents about the Apollo missions are perhaps the most comprehensive (clear) of all two-hour films. Al Reinert went through all the footage from the missions (over 2,000 km) and chose the best. Only the voices of the astronauts and (employees) of the control mission (Control Center) are heard in the film. Reinert uses the astronauts' own words from (their) interviews and from the mission archive."

In the credits of the film itself it says:

“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 first people of the Earth who went from planet Earth to another world. Here's a movie They brought back."

Filmed on location by the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration "On nature" - that is, in particular, on the moon. How can you not believe this movie?

This popularity also has a "reverse side of the coin." For a small group of attentive viewers (skeptics), these same films served as a source of serious doubts about the truth of the flights to the moon. The fact is that film and video materials carry much more information than, say, photographs. They can be used to establish, for example, that a 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, by the way, widely known example. We will see many more similar examples in films about flights to the moon.

Fig.14. Screensavers and credits of American space films studied in this book

Recently, a three-disc series NASA X-Files (American Space Odyssey) has appeared on the Russian video market. There is nothing secret in these discs. They present information long ago published by NASA itself. But this series is interesting because it brings together the main NASA films "about flying to the moon" in one place. Most of these films is a repetition of another series - "NASA: 25 Years of Glory (1961-1986)". The author and colleagues also studied film materials on the theme of the Apollo flights, released by Spacecraftfilms.

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

On the so-called "declassified" NASA materials and other "new" evidence

Every now and then there are reports that NASA has either published or is about to publish new materials about lunar expeditions that were in its archives and were almost classified. 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 present this victory of Russian football.

Can you imagine that, decades later, new television commentators would confidingly present to new, as yet unborn fans, "classified" footage from the said match? Who will be interested then? The 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 "declassified" materials about the Apollo flights. Victories are not classified. They are trumpeted about. Therefore, the author considers the so-called "new NASA materials" as dubious propaganda works, the purpose of which is to support the version of flights to the moon in those places where it gave obvious cracks.

The author of the book considers the release year of this film “For All Mankind” (1989) to be a logical time boundary, 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 had already passed since the flight of the A-11 - a period quite sufficient for such a powerful organization as NASA to systematize and generalize information about the Apollo flights;

By the time the film “For all mankind” was released, NASA was quite confident in the power of its influence on public opinion, and therefore she did not have serious incentives to use computer graphics for image manipulation, which has actively entered our lives since the second half of the 80s;

The film "For All Mankind" significantly 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, especially criticized materials began to disappear from NASA sites, and new materials began to be put into circulation, designed to correct the mistakes made.

Fig.15. That which never was. A comic plot demonstrating the serious possibilities of fake images

And earlier (before the advent of computer graphics), the masters of photography and cinema perfectly mastered the art of image editing (in other words, the art of forgery), and today, according to the defender, with the help of computer graphics, “anyone can put even a pink elephant on a picture from the Moon ". For example, Figure 15 shows the meeting of American astronauts with the Soviet automatic "Lunokhod" on the Moon, that is, something that never happened.

Fig.16. a) the lower part of the A-17 lunar module, according to NASA, remained 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)

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. On the NASA websites you can find the corresponding pictures. One of them is shown in Figure 16a. Here, as NASA explains, the lower part of the A-17 lunar module is shown, remaining forever among the lunar hills. Her image was allegedly transmitted by an automatic television camera, also left on the moon. And there should be five more such remnants of lunar modules on the Moon. People often ask if they can be seen, say, through a telescope?

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

It is quite possible to detect modules remaining on the Moon from circumlunar satellites. After all, there is no atmosphere on the Moon, which makes observations difficult and prevents near-Earth satellites from descending below a height of ~200 km. Even before the Apollo flights, in 1965-1966. the Americans launched automatic lunar satellites "Lunar Orbiter", which photographed the lunar surface and could descend very low (up to 40 km). Not surprisingly, according to the Orbiters, they could "see" details up to 1m in size. To see the 8-meter remnants of the modules standing on the Moon at such a resolution is a completely real task.

For an example of the possibilities of shooting from a satellite, the author shows in ill. 16b a satellite image of the courtyard of his house (ill. 16b). On it, the number 1 marks the electrical box, the size of which is approximately equal to the size of the lunar module. Even stand-alone cars are visible (2). Imagine how clear the picture would be if the distance decreased by 5 times (from 200 km to 40 km) and the interfering haze disappeared. Namely, this would be the case when shooting the lunar module "Orbiter". One could even see individual large details of this module. Thus, already in the years of the Apollo flights, NASA had all the technical capabilities to clearly show the whole world the parts of the lunar modules that remained on the Moon. But this was not done. But now such pictures, even if they are presented, are no longer conclusive, since today anything can be depicted using computer graphics methods. Yes, and the credibility is undermined. For example, the European Space Agency (ESA) reportedly recently "passed off a slightly retouched old NASA image as a new one of its own" (Fig. 17). The message is so interesting that it is given below in an abbreviated form. It is about images of the new SMART lunar satellite, launched into lunar orbit in 2003.

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

SMART-1 probe: an unexpected embarrassment?

SMART-1 probe chained to itself everyone's attention strange and difficult to explain the mystery that surrounded his mission ESA (European Space Agency), once again surprised the observers.

The general bewilderment caused by the sudden cessation of publication of images of the moon (made) by the SMART-1 apparatus did its job. The ESA has published another picture allegedly taken by the probe - it would be better if it did not, there were even more questions.

As ESA Lead Scientist Bernard Foing stated earlier, one of the main tasks was to photograph the landing sites of American manned Apollos. "We will look for them using black and white images and color images that will help provide information about the effects of engine blast." It was assumed that it would be possible to detect traces of the transporter, on which (the astronauts) made, according to NASA, multi-kilometer raids. Optimism was added by the fact that almost simultaneously the Mars Global Surveyor, in much more difficult conditions from orbit, managed to detect probes that landed on Mars. But...

ESA has stopped publishing SMART-1 images of the Moon, 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 discouraging low quality. However, on June 20, another one appeared in a gallery of images taken by the probe that had not been updated for a long time. It depicts Cassini crater "as seen by SMART-1". It was pointed out that this image was intended to please colleagues working in the Cassini-Huygens research group.

A 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 mid-60s of the last century unexpectedly showed the identity of the two images (ill. 00000). It is also not entirely clear why the "new" image is posted on the ESA website in a mirror image.

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

Fig.17.a) Cassini crater (image of the Lunar Orbiter probe, 60s) b) Cassini crater (image of the SMART-1 probe?)

Indeed, do in different time two identical pictures of the Moon (both in terms of the shooting angle and in terms of the conditions of illumination of the area by the Sun) from a satellite orbiting the Moon is almost impossible. This requires that the second time the satellite passes over this area at the same moment of local lunar time and that it is in the same direction for shooting as the first time. But the period of rotation of the moon around own axis and the period of revolution of the satellite around the moon are not multiples of each other. Therefore, either the satellite will appear in the wrong place and not when it is needed, or the photographed area will be rotated in relation to the sun's rays not in the same way as during the first shooting.

In any case, one thing is clear: as far as "new" evidence is concerned, neither the Americans nor their colleagues from allied countries can be relied upon. Apparently, their objectivity is influenced by the commonality of their political interests.

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

Defender V. Yatskin reproaches skeptics in this way: “As I understand it, neither hundreds of photographs from the Moon, nor hundreds of hours of astronauts talking to the Earth, nor hundreds of kilograms of lunar soil, nor laser reflectors and other scientific equipment left on the Moon, are not proof for you ".

But, let's remember how a skillful fake is distinguished from the original, whether it be a document, an artist's painting or a banknote.

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

Fig.18. Two banknotes - real and fake (details - in the text)

Figure 18 shows two Russian five-hundred-ruble banknotes - fake and real. And Tsar Peter is equally built on them, and the ships are one to one and much, much more coincides. But the cashier who took my money immediately discovered a fake. To do this, she had two differences. I did not try to convince her to accept the ill-fated bill (above), since hundreds of its details are just like real ones. Similarly, 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 they are found) will not disappear from this.

Therefore, studying NASA materials, we will look for possible differences in them from what would take place during a real flight to the Moon. Only if there really were landings on the moon, there will be no dubious details and signs of obvious forgery at all

About building a book

In the first, main part of the book, the author invites the reader to mentally follow the astronauts in 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 occur. At the end of the book, in chapter 28, a list of references is given. There are also links to a special site where the most interesting cited materials are collected.

Quite often, links are used to a well-known "secondary" source of information - the encyclopedic site "Wikipedia". Reading the Wikipedia materials shows that in the part that concerns the coverage of the American lunar program, they are accurately based on NASA data. But since the materials on Wikipedia are collected conveniently for the reader, it is sometimes preferred. Moreover, there are necessary links to NASA sites in Wikipedia.

Thanks

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., Associate Professor, Ph.D. G.I. Kozin, N. I. Kozlov, A. V. Kopeikin, O. V. Krivenko, V. A. Kuksenkovs and E. Yu. Kuimov K. V., Art. researcher, Ph.D. Kucherenko A.A., Kucheryavy A.V., Associate Professor, Ph.D. A.I. Lukovnikov, A.E. Nikolsky, prof., d.p.m.s. Novik V.K., Orlov M.Yu., Perov V.V., Pospelov D.V., Ph.D. Pokrovsky S.G., Popova E.A., honored tester space technology, Lieutenant General Semenov V.V., a group of leading specialists of the rocket and space corporation "Mashinostroenie", Sokolov Yu.R., Art. n. s., c.g.-m.s. Tarasov N.N., Associate Professor, Ph.D. Tikhomirov G.V., Tokarev O.P., Udaltsov R.V., captain of the 1st rank Filatov V.A., Ph.D. Kharitonov A.M., Ph.D. Kharchenkov A.M., Kharchenkov D.A. and Kharchenkova M.V., prof., Ph.D. A.A. Chistyakov, Chichvarin A.V., General Designer of the orbital station "Almaz" Einis A.I., Yakutin N.V.

Among the voluntary assistants, S.V. Yupatova, K.I. Malysheva, S.D. Romanina, E.V. Ivanova and M.V. Prokuronov, who made a very significant contribution in the early stages of the formation of the book. Somewhat later, D.P. joined the work on the book. Kobzev. He enriched the book with many interesting findings and made a decisive contribution to its promotion on the Internet.

In this interest and help different people the author sees the most important evidence of the relevance of the topic. The author of the book considers all of them his co-authors, and saw his role in writing the book in the systematization of relevant ideas and facts. And, if in 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 be treated with understanding: in the interpretation of facts, it is impossible to achieve complete unanimity.

E.V. Ivanov and K.I. Malyshev contributed his personal funds to sponsor a high quality color edition of the book. The company "Roptorg" joined them with its contribution.

And, of course, this work would not have been possible 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 the "Moon".

To be continued

A preliminary (electronic) version of a future book appeared, entitled “Man on the Moon? What evidence?" On various Internet forums, Popov's co-authors called for a critical discussion of the book [,]. This preview is still available on a number of sites [, ]. In 2009, a revised and expanded version of the book was published (in paper form) by the Veche publishing house under the title Americans on the Moon. Great breakthrough or space scam? [, ]. The circulation was 5,000 copies, the price in different stores is ~ 350-500 rubles.

Author's approach

In the introduction to the book, Popov tries to convince the reader that the United States is still required to prove the reality of the Apollo program:

The proof of the reliability of any achievement is the exclusive business of the author. Therefore, the statement "the Americans were on the moon" must be defended by the Americans themselves. No one is obliged to prove that the Americans were not on the moon.
<…>Unfortunately, quite often one hears how the “defenders” of NASA say: “And you prove that the Americans were not on the moon!”. Thus, the accepted order is turned “upside down”.

The very title of the original draft (“Man on the Moon? What evidence?”) indicated this approach.

Popov is silent about the fact that never in history has any space achievement (as well as other technical achievements) been defended before anyone, whether it be Gagarin's flight, Leonov's exit to outer space, or flights of automatic interplanetary stations. Only those who are convinced of the scam can act as provers: it is they who will have to prove that the space program was falsified.

Also, Popov is silent that the reality of the Apollo program has long been proven to the competent community.: its description has long been included in textbooks up to school, in encyclopedias, in reference books. The technology of the Apollo program is studied in specialized universities, and the scientific results of the program formed the basis of a number of sciences, technical and astronomical (for example, selenology). The demands to re-prove what formed the basis of generally accepted knowledge are similar to the requirements to prove the reality of the interplanetary stations "Mars" or the existence of Antarctica.

The "accepted order" referred to by Popov is in fact the following: one who claims to refute the generally accepted facts that are included in the textbook and form the basis of a number of areas of knowledge must provide evidence of his correctness - if, of course, he wants his views to be reflected in textbooks. No one is even obliged to answer the demands to prove again and again the flight of Gagarin, the visits of automatic probes to distant planets, and no one is obliged to prove again and again the reality of manned flights to the moon.

Co-authors

In the chapter "Keeping" Popov expresses gratitude a large number people, and “he considers them his co-authors, and he saw his role in writing the book in the systematization of relevant ideas and facts”. Popov does not forget to emphasize the ranks and titles of some of his "co-authors":

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., Associate Professor, Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences G. I. Kozin, Kozlov N. I., Kopeikin A. V., Krivenko O. V., Kuksenkovs V. A. and E. Yu. Kuimov K. V., Art. n. s., Ph.D. Kucherenko A. A., Kucheryavy A. V., Associate Professor, Ph.D. A. I. Lukovnikov, A. E. Nikolsky, Prof., Dr. Sci. Novik V.K., Orlov M.Yu., Perov V.V., Pospelov D.V., Ph.D. Pokrovsky S. G., Popova E. A., Honored Tester of Space Technology, Lieutenant General V. V. Semenov, a group of leading specialists of the Mashinostroyeniye Rocket and Space Corporation, Yu. R. Sokolov, Art. n. s., c.g.-m.s. Tarasov N. N., Associate Professor, Candidate of Physical and Mathematical Sciences 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.p.m.s. A. A. Chistyakov, Chichvarin A. V., General Designer of the Almaz orbital station Einis A. I., Yakutin N. V.

This list is intended to give the impression of solidity: since a whole a group of leading specialists of the Mashinostroenie Rocket and Space Corporation together with Popov exposes the moon landings, then the author's cause is clearly right! However, it is easy to check that rocket and space corporation "Mashinostroenie" does not exist in nature. However, in an article subsequently published on Popov’s website, he refers to the story of a certain former leading specialist “ firms "Engineering" (Reutovo)" (about the reference to this remarkable character, who signs only as " His Serene Highness Prince of the Russian Empire Vladimir Rodionov", Can ). Although there is no Mashinostroenie company in the city of Reutovo (however, like the city of Reutovo itself), there is a military-industrial corporation NPO Mashinostroeniya in the city of Reutov. Therefore, it can be somewhat stretched to assume that Popov twice confused the name of the enterprise where his co-authors are located, and once confused the name of the city where this enterprise itself is located.

Name General Designer of the Almaz orbital station should also impress general designer OKB-52, which developed Almaz, was the famous V.N. Chelomey, and the theme of the station was headed by V.A. Polyachenko. A. I. Eidis(Popov mixed up his last name) was Chelomey's deputy. Obviously, Popov had never seen this person and mentioned him as a company - otherwise he would hardly have managed to confuse not only the position, but also the surname.

Also mentioned "Honored tester of space technology, Lieutenant General Semenov V. V." About him in Chapter 21 Popov writes:

In November 2004, the author addressed a relevant question to a competent contemporary of those events - Lieutenant General, Honored Tester of Space Technology, and at that time Assistant Commander-in-Chief of the Strategic Missile Forces of the USSR Ministry of Defense V. V. Semenov. His answer was military brief: “Data According to telemetry, there are no Apollo flights.

However, we know nothing about such a person. Closest to the mysterious "Lieutenant General Semenov V.V." stands A. I. Semenov, who had very similar regalia:

"SEMENOV Anatoly Ivanovich (1908-1973) Lieutenant General, Hero of the Socialist. Labor (1961). Graduated from Art. acad. (1937). From 1941 he served in Ch. art. management of the Red Army, beg. Dep., one of the organizers of the production of military vehicles and ammunition for the Guards mortar units ("Katyusha"). Since 1954, deputy commander of artillery of the Ground Forces for missile weapons. In 1960-64 early. GU missile troops MO USSR. Since 1964, a member of the Scientific and Technical. Committee of the General Staff on rocket launches. Laureate St. etc. (1943). Reserved since 1970.

But it is unlikely that Popov could call A. I. Semenov, who died twenty-one years earlier, in 2004 ...

However, the very quotation from Popov's book shows that whom Popov is in a hurry to write him down as his co-author: apparently, it is enough for a person to answer Popov's phone call for him to write him down as a co-author of his work. This is confirmed by the words of a person who has common friends with Popov:

Karev1: By the way, Nikomo also knows Popov, although not personally. And he consulted his book. AI wanted (according to Nikomo) to express gratitude to him in the book.
Nikomo: I know, but I didn’t consult his book. The fact that I began to give him calculations and information that refuted his book, he for some reason perceived it as some kind of "consultation", which actually surprised me.<…>But about those to whom A. I. Popov wrote thanks in his book, I think that some of these people (I don’t know how many) have nothing to do with this book at all. For example, he wrote down my acquaintances who communicated with him there, although they did not participate at all in the creation of this book in any way. Did he do it for the mass character, or something, to create the appearance of how many people took part?

So one can think that some of the people who Popov wrote down as his co-authors (especially with big names and titles) do not exist at all, while the other part is very far from Popov’s views, and their “participation” consisted in criticizing his arguments. However, Popov also made a reservation on this score:

Sources

Popov supplies each chapter of the book big amount references, aiming to give the impression of serious research. But Popov's solid references are mixed with references to sources like the Murzilka magazine, if not worse. Moreover, it is often on such references that Popov bases far-reaching conclusions.

For example, right in the Introduction, Popov gives a large quote from the CNews online publication. This article no longer accuses NASA of rigging 40 years ago, but the modern European Space Agency and its Smart 1 lunar probe. The quote, like most CNews materials on the "lunar" topic, is full of untruth and fraud:

As ESA Lead Scientist Bernard Foing previously stated bluntly, one of the main tasks was to photograph the landing sites of the American manned Apollos.<…>It was assumed that it would be possible to detect traces of the transporter, on which (the astronauts) made, according to NASA, multi-kilometer raids. Optimism was added by the fact that almost simultaneously the Mars Global Surveyor, in much more difficult conditions from orbit, managed to detect probes that landed on Mars.

Bernard Foing did not and could not claim that photographing the Apollo landing sites was one of the main tasks; traces of the "transporter" in the pictures of "Smart-1" could not be detected in principle (due to the low resolution of its cameras); the comparison with the "Mars Global Surveyor" is absolutely incorrect, since the resolution of the cameras of the Martian probe is much higher. The writings of CNews dedicated to "Smart-1" were disavowed in detail in the journal "Cosmonautics News".

• Popov shamelessly uses unreliable sources to support his opinion.
• Popov willingly extracts information from unreliable sources, if only this information is suitable for his theories; fraud and outright lies in these sources do not bother Popov.
• Popov does not look for original sources - why, if there is a retelling, even if it is full of lies and fraud?
• Choosing between an unreliable source and an official one, Popov chooses an unreliable source, if only it is more suitable for his theories; Popov will even defend his right to make such a choice, since, they say, an official source may write a lie, and the one he likes may have information inaccessible to others.
• When translating foreign-language sources, Popov can distort the translation, can throw out an important part of it.
• Correcting some errors in unreliable sources, Popov introduces new errors.
• Popov gives out one source for another; he can pass off a private site as a NASA site, an independent film as a NASA film, a distorted retelling as an official one.

Illiteracy

Despite academic title, Popov regularly bases his conclusions on trivial errors. So, Popov tries to challenge the role of perspective in the divergence of shadows - but he does not know how perspective works. Popov devotes many pages to the “research” of photo retouching - but he is not aware of either the tasks or the methods of digital retouching; as a result, he does not see retouching where it is, and if he finds it, he breeds absolutely fantastic theories.

Popov makes gross mistakes in elementary things within the first courses of the university. He is not aware of the features of the polar orbit and is not able to correlate the period of the satellite with the period of rotation of the planet.

The history of astronautics, easily verifiable facts - all this is alien to Popov.

1. A. I. Popov, “Americans on the Moon. Great breakthrough or space scam?, ed. Veche, 2009

Dedicated to the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 flight (1969)

Americans on the Moon

great breakthrough or space scam?

In the 1960s, the United States reported six landings of its astronauts on the moon. However, some skeptics argue that humanity has become the victim of a grandiose hoax that the Americans were not on the moon.

For most contemporaries, the US lunar epic is an unknown or almost forgotten history. Nevertheless, acquaintance with it is useful in that it allows you to take a fresh look at many events. recent history. These are the NATO war against Yugoslavia under the unconfirmed pretext of the genocide of Albanians by the Serbs (2000), the attack by mysterious planes on the towers of the World Trade Center in New York (2001), the capture of Iraq on an unconfirmed charge of developing weapons of mass destruction (2003), and much more.

For Russians, however, an analysis of the results of the striking gullibility of the then political leaders and the largest specialists in relation to a potential adversary is necessary in order not to repeat the mistakes made in the future, and not in order to “wave your fists after a fight.”

The author of the book, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, MEPhI graduate, Popov Alexander Ivanovich, with the support of numerous volunteers whose names are listed in the introduction, compared different points of view and supplemented them with his own research. To read the book, it is enough to have knowledge of physics at the level of a high school student high school. Those arguments that require special knowledge for their understanding are omitted.

A preliminary version of this work, titled “Man on the Moon? What evidence? about 2 years ago was posted and discussed on the Internet. In the new version, the author took into account the results of the discussion of the topic in various forums. The book "Americans on the Moon .." was published by the publishing house "Veche" (Moscow) in 2009. Selected chapters of the book are published below. Their content may differ slightly from the printed text due to the various technical capabilities of printing and electronic publications.

Alexander Popov

brief information

Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences (specialization - laser optics and spectroscopy), graduate veteran of MEPhI, inventor. IN Lately — school teacher. Author of the book Man in the Moon. Great breakthrough or space scam? » [, ].

Topics related to Popov

Popov as a debunker of "Apollo"

Articles in the newspaper "Duel" and "To the Barrier"

For the first time, Popov made a refutation of the Apollo program on the pages of the newspaper, the editor of the Duel newspaper, edited by Yu. I. Mukhin. The first publication refers to 2004 [, ]. In the first part of the article, claims are made against the Saturn-5 rocket, in the second - Al Reinert's film "For all mankind". At the beginning of the next year, another article [, ] appeared in the same newspaper. In the first part, Popov presents a list of evidence that, in his opinion, should have been presented based on the results of the first flyby of the Moon by people on the Apollo 8 expedition, in the second, he analyzes the frames of the launch from the Moon of the take-off stage of the lunar module and comes to the conclusion that the launch rigged.

The materials of these articles in supplemented and revised form were then transferred to the book “Man on the Moon? What evidence? ".

Later, Popov was published in Mukhin's newspaper "To the Barrier", which replaced the "Duel" after its closure.

The Americans on the Moon book. Great breakthrough or space scam?

<…>Imagine that in the difficult days of the summer and autumn of 1941, a representative German colonel arrives in Moscow with the permission of the Soviet government to tell in detail about how successfully german army crushes the Soviet. Would this contribute to raising the morale of our commanders, soldiers and the entire people? It is not difficult to imagine the powerful demoralizing effect of Bormann's visit to Soviet specialists. What was the ideology secretary M. A. Suslov guided by when he gave permission for this visit?

Four stations destroyed during launch
<…>if for the first 7 launches there was only 1 accident, then in the last six launches the accident rate reached 100%, that is, it increased by 6 times. But is it possible that violations of the technological process have become 6 times more frequent at the factories and the discipline and qualifications of workers have fallen just as catastrophically? Rather, someone's malicious intent intervened in the second series of tests.<…>if the evil spirit could, as A. A. Leonov is convinced, slip the wrong plug into the fuel path of the Proton rocket, then why should its attention to H1 be excluded?<…>A. A. Leonov’s confidence in sabotage against the Protons seems even more justified<…>

Thus, Popov's conclusion is absolutely unambiguous:

In general, we can conclude that in the top Soviet leadership and in high scientific fields In the days of the moon race, there were already powerful forces for whom a US victory in the moon race was not such a frightening prospect. And they carried out such decisions that helped this victory.

Popov is sure that the Soviet leadership and the highest scientific circles were aware of the "conspiracy". However, Popov, unlike Mukhin, does not yet write about the motives for the complicity of the USSR in the conspiracy:

<…>the tops of the Soviet political leadership and the leaders of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, apparently, understood what was happening under the guise of flights to the moon. This understanding has become the subject of some political bargaining.<…>Discussion of specific motives and rates in the said auction is beyond the scope of this article.

Popov's approach to proofs

Popov is convinced that the United States is still obliged to prove the reality of the Apollo program:

The reliability of a scientific discovery (manned flights to the moon) is proved by its author (USA) and those who share his point of view (defenders). Many readers are familiar with such concepts as “thesis defense”, “dissertation defense”. The very word "protection" (and not presentation, publication, etc.) reminds us that the author of a new scientific result has the duty to defend it in scientific discussion. From whom to protect? From skeptics. And other scientists and specialists act as skeptics, who, with their questions and doubts, check the information of the defender for logic, consistency and scientific reliability. So the business of skeptics is to ask questions, and the business of the author of the discovery is to defend himself. And it never happens the other way around - for a scientific speaker to "examine" his listeners. Understanding this point is essential to understanding the purpose and logic of this entire book. The fact is that in the course of numerous discussions about flights to the moon, more than once one has to hear how the "defenders" of NASA say to the "skeptics": "And you prove that the Americans were not on the moon!" Thus, the accepted order of scientific discussions is turned “upside down”.
Therefore, this book is structured in such a way that questions are mainly “accepted” from skeptics, and answers from defenders. And if the answers to the questions are generally unsatisfactory, then they say that "the defense has failed." And no one is obliged to prove that the Americans were not on the moon.

(Author's emphasis.) At the same time, Popov, firstly, commits a direct fraud: manned flights to the moon are not scientific discovery, neither a graduation project, nor a dissertation; the Apollo program is a scientific and technological achievement, and scientific and technological achievements are considered accomplished without any protection, unless they are recognized by the competent community and if they are not proven to be falsified. All established practice speaks of this, and Popov must know this. No one assembled any commission before which the USSR would defend the Gagarin flight, the Buran flight, etc. Neither the USA nor the USSR defended the flights of their automatic interplanetary stations before anyone: never in history has a single space achievement been who was not protected. Only those who are convinced of falsification can act as provers: it is they who will have to prove that the Soviet Venuses or the American Voyagers were falsified if they want to doubt the reality of these space achievements.

Secondly, Popov completely ignores the fact that the reality of the Apollo program, in fact, has long been proven at all levels: this program has long been included in textbooks up to school books, in encyclopedias, and reference books. The technology of the Apollo program is studied in specialized universities, and the scientific results of the program formed the basis of a number of sciences - planetology, selenology, etc. Therefore, the requirements to repeatedly prove what formed the basis of generally accepted knowledge look rather ridiculous. To whom to prove? Specialists in the field of astronautics, history of technology, selenology? They don't ask to be proven over and over again. Personally Popov and his supporters? Nobody is obliged to Popov to prove anything. Popov can doubt anything, even that Antarctica exists - but Popov’s doubts do not impose any obligations on geographers: no one is obliged to answer his, Popov’s, questions at all, and declarations “defending (the existence of Antarctica) failed” will be perceived as cause to doubt its adequacy. The demands to prove the reality of the Apollo program over and over again are akin to demands to prove that Antarctica exists or that the Earth is not square.

It can be concluded that Popov's requirements contradict both the established practice of recognizing technical and scientific achievements as well as common sense. From a legal point of view, they are also bankrupt.

Popov's approach to information sources

Popov usually provides his works with a large number of references, trying to give the impression of serious research (this applies to both his books and individual articles). But solid links Popov's are mixed with references to sources like the Murzilka magazine, if not worse. Moreover, it is often on such references that Popov bases far-reaching conclusions. But he also prefers to think creatively about references to solid sources. Besides, Popov regularly manipulates links(for example, attributing references to NASA that are not related to NASA), as well as juggling quotes(for example, manipulates dates and takes quotes out of context, rearranges late quotes ahead of early ones, completely distorting the time at th sequence of events, gives a truncated or simply incorrect translation).

Illiteracy

Despite his academic title, Popov regularly bases his conclusions on trivial mistakes that he manages to make even where his education, it would seem, should help him. So, Popov does not know how the perspective works, is not aware of the features of the polar orbit and is not able to correlate the satellite's period of revolution with the planet's rotation period,

14. “The agreement between the USSR and the USA on the Moon becomes obvious”

15. "USSR Helps US Win Moon Race", Popov's "cover-up" article Soviet Union the supposedly fake Apollo capsule he found