SS Brotherhood of the Bell: The Nazis’ Incredible Secret Technology (21 page)

Why was is not in Russian?
¹⁵⁸

One answer to this disturbing question is, of course, that the divvying up of the “booty” had been decided before the end of the war, and by the Nazis themselves. We shall see in a moment how this idea actually – and most curiously – is able to explain and unite the various versions of the Two Space Programs Hypothesis.

Bennett and Percy’s version of the Hypothesis now reaches its final and full development. Noting that the Soviet Union began to return these German technicians in three drafts, beginning in 1952, and ending in 1954 when the last of the technicians were repatriated to Germany, they make clear one crucial difference between the Soviet Union’s use of Nazi scientists, and the American one. In the Soviet Union these technicians were principally employed
teaching Russian university students
, which students in turn
gained practical hands-on experience by working
in the Russian space program while they were still students.
¹⁵⁹
In this one may detect the steady hand of Sergei Korolëv, as well as appreciate the reason for the early Soviet successes in space achievement. The Soviets at least appeared to be serious about freeing their program from undue Nazi influence as quickly as possible.

And this brings us, finally, to Bennett’s and Percy’s version of the Two Space Programs Hypothesis:

Most conveniently, at the end of WWII the political globe had been divided into two – one ‘public sector’ in the West and one private sector in the East. What could be more simple than to exploit this division and lower the iron curtain in exactly the same way as the safety curtain comes down in the theatre. This ruse enabled the organizers of the space project to go to work in relative obscurity.

In the sense that two teams were targeting the Moon there was always a space race. In reality the objectives were not those of competition. These two teams, while wearing different colours, were in truth on the same side. And even if many of the key players were unaware of the real script, it is likely (in our view) that at least both Korolëv and von Braun were aware of the true situation.
¹⁶⁰

Thus, in the Bennett and Percy version of the Hypothesis, the two space programs are precisely that of the US and NASA, the program for “public consumption”, and that of the USSR, the covert program which carried on the secret agenda of its hidden masters. Indeed, as they point out, control of these two programs was vested in no more than “a few score men” who also “controlled the services of some of civilization’s most highly trained specialists” and “the large funds appropriated for armaments.”
¹⁶¹

But to assert that the two superpowers’ space programs were carefully contrived along “public” and “private” lines is to suggest a degree of coordination between them that hitherto was hardly ever seriously suggested. However, this, Bennett and Percy urge, is precisely what the record seems to indicate. “The American/Soviet space timetable demonstrates how carefully progress in space had been shared between them, with alternating monthly flights in some cases. This can only have been the result of close planning and continuous liaison at the very highest levels.”
¹⁶²
In support of this suggestion, they produce the following launch schedules of the respective programs:

But why the secrecy? And why the apparent coordination between the two programs? Bennett and Percy pull no punches: “We propose that the secret and subtle aspect…was the certain awareness by the authorities of the existence of
extraterrestrial intelligence.”
¹⁶⁴

Moreover, “this awareness of ET was the driving force behind their mission to land on the Moon. However, the Moon was only a staging post to their avowed destination – a manned mission to a location on the plains of Cydonia, Mars.”
¹⁶⁵
While Bennett and Percy do not offer much to elaborate why they believe these things, what should be noted is the clear implication of their remarks, namely, that this “ET awareness” was the real hidden agenda driving both space programs
since the end of World War Two
, and the real hidden goal of both was a manned flight to Mars, again,
since the end of World War Two.

While not offering much to substantiate this astounding assertion, they do offer a couple of clues, namely, that in addition to a public and private consumption space program, there was also a public and private consumption
physics
that accompanied the two programs. First, they note that during the era when both superpowers were still conducting atmospheric tests of hydrogen bombs, these tests curiously produced auroral displays in the
opposite
hemisphere from that in which the detonation took place. That is, hydrogen bombs are partially harmonic devices.
¹⁶⁶
Very little is ever publicly discussed in physics texts about this phenomenon. The question is: why?

The second phenomenon, and one which
clearly
indicates an attempt by NASA to suppress serious and extended public discussion, is a much more serious one.

There is a significant phenomenon concerning the alleged outward journey to the Moon during ‘Apollo 11’ which has to our knowledge never been elaborated upon, explained, or indeed mentioned in relation to any of the subsequent Apollo ‘trips’ – a phenomenon which may have assumed gigantic proportions for NASA and the space scientific community. So much so that (as far as we can tell) it has been ‘locked down’ in an attempt to sweep any discussion or knowledge of it under the carpet.

To what are we referring?

It is the neutral point, which is also called the equigravisphere. This location is just what it says it is:

• The point between two planetary bodies where the gravitational ‘pulls’ between the two bodies
cancel each other out.

• Once this point is space is passed, a craft is no longer affected by the gravity of the planetary body which it (is) leaving but is now progressively under the influence of the planetary body towards which it (is) moving.
¹⁶⁷

The “Neutral Point Discrepancy” is one of the glaring features of the Apollo programs and their published data, and it raises a number of very important questions.

It was Sir Isaac Newton who had first calculated the Earth-Moon neutral point using his theory of gravitation. That theory gave him an average Earth-Moon distance of 238,900 miles, and the neutral point thus occurred at approximately 23,900 miles from the Moon.
¹⁶⁸
This of course gave the now familiar figure that the Moon’s gravitational attraction was about 1/6
^th
that of the Earth.

But then came a 1969 edition of
Time
magazine, an interview with Werner Von Braun himself, and the beginning of a persisting mathematical mystery concerning the Earth-Moon dual planetary system. Time reported that “43,495 miles from the Moon lunar gravity exerted a force equal to the gravity of the Earth, then some 200,000 miles distant.” And that, note Percy and Bennett, “gave a total distance to the Moon of 243,495 miles.”
¹⁶⁹
And it means something more, which Bennett and Percy
do not mention,
namely, if this neutral point figure is correct, then the Moon is much more massive than any standard view of celestial mechanics will allow. The difficulties that this poses – which Bennett and Percy never adequately address – will be seen in a moment.

In any case, Bennett and Percy note that a mere two weeks after the
Time
magazine article, Werner Von Braun quite suddenly resigned all his NASA posts and took a position as Vice President of Engineering for Fairchild Industries, leading them to ask a question many other researchers have asked in regard to the Neutral point Discrepancy: “Could that
Time
magazine article…have anything to do with Wernher von Braun’s somewhat hasty departure for pastures new?”
¹⁷⁰
It is my opinion that it definitely did, and the possible reasons – once again – will be seen in a moment.

Whatever else the
Time
article may have done for the space science community, at the minimum it began, according to Bennett and Percy, a process of “arithmetical obfuscation” that can only be seen as deliberate, since to view what happened next as
not
being deliberate would be akin to charging NASA with gross mathematical incompetence. For example, in the 1981 edition of Baker’s
Space Technology
the Apollo 11 distance to the Moon is given as 253,475 miles. But in 1989 the book
Apollo 11 Moon
Landing
gave the distance as just under 250,400 miles. Then in 1996, Baker’s
Spaceflight and Rocketry
gave the neutral point as 38,925 miles from the Moon and 214,550 miles from Earth, giving a total distance to the Moon of 253,475 miles. Then, to
really
complicate matters, George Pinter assured authors Bennett and Percy that the neutral point really
was
exactly what Von Braun told
Time
magazine, namely, 43,495 miles.
¹⁷¹
Yet, prior to the
Time
article, and according “to the majority of references” the old Newtonian figure was still being used to calculate the neutral point.
¹⁷²