THE APOLLO MOON HOAX:

HOW DID THEY DO IT?

A GENERATION DECEIVED BY NASA

Trevor Weaver

“The truth will out”

Wliiam Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice
 Copyrights
No infringement of any copyright is intended.
All NASA video footage and documents referenced in this book
are in the public domain.
The reference to any copyrighted material is used under the
guidelines of "fair use" in title 17-107 0f the United States Code.
Such material remains the copyright of the individual holder and is
referenced here for the purposes of education, comparison, and
criticism only.
The UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 also permits
"fair use" for the purposes of criticism or review. Similar rights exist in
most countries.
The copyright of all other works referenced in this book likewise
remain protected by the original authors.
This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way
of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or otherwise
circulated without the authors prior consent in any form of binding or
cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar
condition, including this condition, being imposed on the subsequent
purchaser.

The author retains all rights to this work.

First Published 20 July 2019

Imprint: Independently published
Typeset: Georgia 12 point
Cover Design: Germancreative
 Personal Dedications

I would like to say a big thank you to all those who have assisted
in bringing this book to fruition. In particular my unpaid proofreaders,
who hopefully will not be back to claim a slice of my vast book
profits. My dedicated proofreaders of this book were:
Jo Weaver, my helpful and loving daughter
Marcus Allen, UK Distributor of the bi-monthly alternative news
magazine NEXUS

I do not claim to have personally exposed any particular

anomalies in the Apollo record but have simply stood on the
shoulders of giants and brought together the work of others.

If you mention people by name then you will always be guilty of

omissions. However, I must give special thanks for advice and
guidance from many of the experts on the Apollo story, in particular:

Marcus Allen,UK
Scott Henderson, Canada
Pascal Xavier, France
Jarrah White, Australia
Bart Sibrel, USA
Jet Wintzer, USA
Ted Aranda, USA
Mark Lowe, USA, Deep Thoughts Radio

Also, I would like to thank all others who have contributed

directly, or indirectly, in some way, or another and have added to this
investigation. Especial thanks to my sources of reference from both
the pro-NASA believers and the Moon landing sceptics, be it
documents, videos, or photographs. I recognise the sterling efforts of
all these previous individual researchers.

Last but not least, I wish to express my gratitude to my long

suffering wife Elena and my little boy Maxim for allowing me the time
to sit at my computer and seemingly ignore normal family life. Elena
missed me helping in the garden and Maxim didn't understand why I
wasn't playing with him and his beloved trains.

Bill Kaysing
(1922–2005)
No book on the Apollo Moon Hoax would be complete without
reference to Bill Kaysing. As we approach the 50th Anniversary of the
supposed Apollo 11 Moon landing it is fitting to recognise the great
contribution that Bill made to exposing the deceit of NASA.

Although Kaysing was not the first to publically publish his doubts
about the Moon landings being a hoax, he was the most dedicated
and consistent in his desire to expose the hoax[*]. In 1976 he self-
published his book “We Never Went
to the Moon: America's Thirty
Billion Dollar Swindle”. The book was republished in 2002 by Health
Research Books. Bill is now rightly regarded as the initiator of the
Moon hoax movement.

I have included a dedication to Bill Kaysing by his friend Jarrah

White as a fitting end to this book.
    

The late Bill Kaysing photo courtesy Wendy Kaysing

 Dedication to the Astronauts and Cosmonauts

"In thy face I see the map of honour, truth and loyalty.”
William Shakespeare, Henry VI

Before we start our investigation into the evidence for a Moon

landing I would just like to pay our tribute to the brave men, who
dared to challenge the unknown and risk their lives in the pursuit of
man's journey into the universe. Whether the Moon landings
eventually had to be faked or not, these men volunteered for what
they believed to be fact, recognising and accepting the dangers that
lay ahead and putting country before self. This requires bravery
beyond what most of us could aspire to.

Imagine you were asked, even commanded, by your Head of

State to enter into some glorious risky pretence in the interests of
national security, and for the benefit of your country, and perhaps
even for the entire world.

Would you not stand, and serve the national good?

It would mean that you would suffer to live the lie for the rest of
your life, you would need to hold the pretence that you were a false
hero to the world, even to your closest family. Imagine the stress of
that life, having to smile when congratulated knowing that all this
hero worship was false. These astronauts, and cosmonauts, perhaps
greatly contributed to the continuation of life on this planet.

We must never forget the situation in the 1960s, a time when the
world was shaking with the possibility of world annihilation any
second.  One wrong move by either side, one mistaken interpretation
of some intelligence message, one Hitler-like imbecile hovering over
that button, one final push of a simple button, and life as we know it
could have been over. We survived this Cold war reasonably intact,
perhaps even because of these men.

We may never know the truth.

 I think what I want to say was best summed up by the well known
sceptic Jet Wintzer.

“I want to take a moment to actually praise the astronauts

involved with the Apollo missions, and all astronauts. To strap
themselves to these rockets, during the Cold War, on a mission to try
and change the world, to try and inspire the world, and to try to avoid
a real war. This was an attempt to project technological superiority,
and if it could be done without firing a shot, then great, more power
to them. The astronauts have my utmost respect, and it really makes
me mad, when I see some of the other hoax researchers harassing
the astronauts. These guys were operating in a chain of command,
during the Cold War, and they deserve our respect and gratitude”.

Jet Wintzer 2015

 About this Book
The story of the Apollo Missions was dogged with doubt from its
very inception. The technical challenge was immense, almost
starting from virtually nothing, and within seven short years to
fashion a system to land men on the Moon and bring them home
safely, not just once but six times. It was the very essence of
dreams.

For 50 years people have argued, and debated almost endlessly,

about the pros and cons of the story. Surveys show that the majority
of people do believe what NASA say they did between 1969 to 1972
to be true and one of man's greatest technological triumphs. For
men to travel such great distances at unheard of speeds and return
to tell the spell binding tale is beyond comprehension. It must rank
either as the greatest historical achievement of mankind or the
biggest hoax ever perpetrated in human history.

The truth, as we will see,  is that the Apollo Missions never went
to the Moon but it is still a story full of technological innovation,
brilliance, daring adventure, intrigue, danger, and utter fascination.
How they constructed the hoax is in itself fascinating and full off
ingenious and clever trickery.

This book examines the evidence for the deception by NASA and
perhaps the US Government or some clandestine elements of
Government. The value of this book to the interested reader is that
for the first time it brings together all the clear evidence that exposes
the fakery

The range of evidence is vast and it would take  considerable

time, and effort, to search it out. I know because I just spent the past
three years of my wasteful life doing just that.
 This book is somewhat unconventional in that it relies on a
website to show much of the evidence. This is in the form of videos
and documents from a wide range of sources.

In order to use this book fully you will need to sit by your
computer or tablet, and access the website:

https://tinyurl.com/theapollohoax

In each chapter you will be directed to appendices in the form of

(App 13.03). This refers to chapter thirteen appendix number three.
To view the appendix select the chapter number from the main Home
Screen of the website and then click on the appropriate appendix
number. The resulting information will be opened on a new webpage
outside of the "TheApolloHoax" website, so after viewing you will
need to close down the new webpage by clicking on the "X" in the
top right corner.

Hope that is clear, now don your fake spacesuits, take one extra
breath and enjoy your adventure.  I think we are off to Arizona or
some other place in the United States of America.
 

          
A Generation Deceived by NASA
 THE APOLLO MOON HOAX:
HOW DID THEY DO IT?

A Generation Deceived by NASA

CONTENTS

Foreword     Description Of The Issue

Chapter 1     The Cold War
Chapter 2     Kennedy's Dream
Chapter 3     Building The Dream
Chapter 4     When Did It Go Wrong
Chapter 5     Too Much Radiation
Chapter 6     Visions of a Moon5
Chapter 7     The Suns of Apollo
Chapter 8     Defying Gravity
Chapter 9     Silent Sounds
Chapter 10   Diminished Technology
Chapter 11   Keeping the Secret
Chapter 12   Creating the Evidence
Chapter 13   Lights, Camera, Action
Chapter 14   Conclusions

“Lord, what fools these mortals be!”

William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night's Dream

 
  

Hanging on your every word !

 FOREWORD

DESCRIPTION OF THE ISSUE

“You told a lie, an odious damned lie;

Upon my soul, a lie, a wicked lie”
William Shakespeare, Othello

It just didn't look real enough

On 20 July 1969 NASA proudly claimed to have landed the first
two astronauts, Neil Armstrong and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin, on the
surface of the Moon. The entire population of the globe was
captivated by this extraordinary technological achievement as they
watched the event unfold in ghostly black and white on televisions
around the world. It is estimated that half a billion people across the
globe watched on television and this remember was in 1969.

It may surprise some of you to learn that it never actually

happened. No men set foot on the Moon, it was all an elaborately
designed plan to deceive us all. It was simply a convincing hoax
perpetrated by NASA, or perhaps more accurately, by some small
clandestine group working within NASA. Most NASA employees
were equally fooled as were the rest of us.

The great majority of people in the world were utterly deceived by

this event, myself included. The majority still believe the Moon
landings to be true. It is now an accepted historical fact, so much so
that it is now taught as true history on the curriculum in many
schools, alongside the likes of Christopher Columbus, Vasco da
Gama, Captain James Cook and many of the other great world
explorers.
 This is wrong in all respects, it is a deceit, a travesty of the truth.
As the well known Moon Hoax sceptic Bart Sibrel would say, nothing
less than a dark satanic lie.

The education of our children is our paramount responsibility and

it is our obligation to ensure that what we teach them is the truth.  It
may well be argued that there is no attempt being made by teachers
to deceive as they themselves may believe that man did set foot on
the Moon so strong has been the indoctrination by NASA.

Gerhard Wisnewski in his excellent book “One Small Step” when

discussing the effect of the supposed Moon landings on the historical
record states:“These heroic deeds have long since found their way
into school and history books and now belong to the cultural heritage
of humanity as a whole. Both in the USA and Russia the adventures
of the space travellers have attained cult status. Especially in the
United States schoolchildren are systematically primed concerning
the heroic deeds of the astronauts with whom they are expected to
identify. The adventures of both astronauts and cosmonauts are not
forgotten but have now become obligatory components of school
curricula, important for unifying a nation.”

I firmly believe that it is time that the Apollo Missions were

exposed for what they were, an attempt by the USA to show global
superiority for their brand of ideology. It was less of a space race, but
more of an ideological confrontation deemed necessary during the
so-called Cold War. Science is all about achievement and it should
not be sullied by spurious claims of technological falsehoods. The
fact is that the Apollo astronauts did not go to the Moon or anywhere
near the Moon as we shall discover as we progress through these
pages.

My Journey to the Truth

I myself witnessed that historic event in grainy black and white on
a tiny TV, around which were crowded far too many people for me to
have a good view. Since that time, I too was a staunch believer that
what I saw actually happened far away on the distant surface of the
Moon. I had remained excited by the event and proud of man's great
achievement since that time. I recall years later when my children
were old enough to understand, describing to them what a wonderful
achievement it was that men could fashion the means here on Earth
to reach the Moon and return safely to tell the tale. It was for me the
dawn of an exciting new age in the exploration of the universe.

As my children have grown into adulthood and formed their own

opinions about the world in which they live, they had begun to doubt
that men could have reached the Moon in 1969. I would spend
countless hours debating the subject with my son and daughter
trying to convince them that it had actually happened.

My daughter would ask me how I could be so certain that men

had actually been to the Moon. I recall that my stock defence was
that the astronauts placed several retro-reflectors on the Moon and
that scientific institutions and universities around the world were
using these reflectors to study how fast the Moon was drifting away
from the Earth. So it must be true. As an aside, we are slowly losing
the Moon as it constantly drifts away from the Earth, but do not panic
just yet, it is only at the rate at which your fingernails are growing.
Did you just look down at your fingernails?, I thought so.

In view of my children's reservations as to the truth of the matter,

I decided to investigate and find more irrefutable evidence to prove
to them that men actually did land on the Moon. Now, NASA is not
stingy when it comes to documentation so there must be ample
evidence to prove beyond doubt that the Apollo Missions actually
landed on the Moon. They covered everything from the overall
design of the project, the construction of the ancillary equipment and
spacecraft, detailed mission planning, to a second by second
coverage of the Apollo missions in the published transcripts. I read
somewhere that at the time it was the most documented project ever
undertaken, so I was sure I would be able to find my irrefutable
proofs that the Moon landings were an indisputable historical fact.

As I spent many hours ploughing through documents,

photographs, and watching videos, making copious notes, I decided
that it may be better to go the full nine yards and set it all down in a
book which I finally did and don't forget I was still a firm believer at
this stage.

My previous book had the objective of taking an impartial look at

all the evidence from both sides of the fence. I would look at a
particular anomaly suggested by the sceptics and examine how
NASA, or the NASA believers, “debunked” that particular suggestion
of an anomaly. This provided me with great insights into the whole
complex morass of information.

Now here is the sales pitch, that book is available right now on
Amazon at an embarrassingly measly price of £12.99 in the UK for
the paperback, and for equivalent amounts in other countries
currency. An Ebook version is also available for an even more
measly price of £5.99. Just type in “Trevor Weaver” in the search box
to find it on Amazon.

Man on the Moon: Fact or Fiction?

The book is associated with a website which contains about 900

hours of video, and over 2,000 pages of documents.

www.man-on-the-moon.info
 I will from time to time make reference to that previous book and
its associated website as much of the evidence that I need for this
present book is already included there.

I do not intend to cover again many of the anomalies suggested

by the sceptics as these are well covered in my previous book. So in
this book I will disregard such anomalies as waving flags, semi-
obliterated cross hairs, temperature differences on the Moon, blast
craters, fake Moon rocks, communication delays etc, as these are
fully discussed in my previous book, so rush out and buy it now.
When I say disregard these anomalies, I do not mean to imply that I
am dismissive of these anomalies, as some may, in fact, be
germane, but I do not wish to repeat the same arguments here
again.

Parallel Shadows
Having said that, I do want to mention again the question of the
inconsistent shadows as this erroneous anomaly is still being quoted
by many well-known sceptics as undeniable proof of fakery. It is not.

The point being made is that as the Sun is so far away from the
Moon then the light rays reaching the Moon are basically parallel. So
all shadows cast on the Moon, or the Earth for that matter, must be
parallel and trust me it is true they are actually parallel.

It is simply a matter of whether you can ever see them as being

parallel in photographs given that you have a two-dimensional image
of a three-dimensional scene. Take as an example a long straight
parallel road here on Earth, like the shadows created by the Sun the
sides of the road are indeed parallel. Now pick up your camera and
take photographs from whatever angle you wish, but you will never
produce a photograph showing parallel lines. In a photograph all
parallel lines will converge to a vanishing point. Even if you stood in
the middle of the road and look into the distance the sides of the
road will be seen to converge to a vanishing point even though we
know they are truly parallel.  The exception to this is if the shadows
are cast precisely at right angles to the camera.
 It is all down to perspective, and in no way is it proof that NASA
faked the Apollo Moon landings. There are more irrefutable proofs
that it was all faked as we will see. I am not suggesting that NASA
did not use multiple light sources to take photographs, but the
erroneous conclusion that this can be detected by non-parallel
shadows is a fallacy. For a better use of shadows then ray tracing
may be the answer as described in this article from Luis E Bilbao
posted on Aulis.com (F.01). The author examines the problem of the
supposed inconsistent shadows and concludes that:

“.... it is possible to demonstrate that there are no reliable

grounds – based on shadow directions alone – to assert whether or
not more than one light source is present in any given Apollo lunar
surface picture.”

I believe that this one photograph reproduced from that paper

clearly illustrates the point I want to make. It shows that shadows
created by the parallel sides of the window do not look to produce
parallel shadows. Now, step inside the building and measure the
shadows and you will find that they are truly parallel.

   
Source:  LUIS E BILBAO AULIS Online CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
 Now the sceptics would vehemently insist that they should see
parallel shadows as these shadows are caused by parallel light rays
from the Sun and are being cast by truly parallel objects. As you can
observe from the photograph this is simply not true, the shadows
must converge to a vanishing point due to perspective. This is not
evidence of a second light source. Conversely, it does not prove that
a second light source was not used in some Apollo photographs.

Finally on this subject, take a look at this genuine photograph

taken in the French countryside, again we do not see any parallel
shadows.

Source: Pascal Xavier

I imagine that some sceptics may have a problem with the

shadows on this photograph and perhaps claim that there must have
a been a secondary light source as the shadows are anything but
parallel. I can assure you that the only light source was from the
parallel rays of the Sun. The simple fact is that the shadows will
always intersect at some distant point, in this case somewhere in the
far hedge. I trust that this finalises the debate concerning parallel
shadows.
 The Evidence of Fakery
As I have already mentioned NASA does have a vast amount of
evidence that on the face of it undeniably proves the Apollo Moon
landings were true. However, it is only when you examine this
evidence in detail that you begin to notice the inconsistencies,
impossibilities, falsehoods, cover-ups and the disingenuous science,
that you realise something is not quite right about the whole story. It
is akin to looking at an impressionist painting at a distance, it looks
perfect, but go examine it closely and you see it is not as perfect as
you first thought.

In this book, I will guide you through the major indicants of fakery
in the Apollo story. As you read this tome you will realise that there
are too many glaring inconsistencies that cannot be ignored and
which clearly expose the fakery by NASA. I can sense now the
grimaces of the Apollo true believers, the NASA Fanboys and
Fangirls. Not another Moon Hoax book, repeating the well-worn
anomalies, which they believe they have been “debunked” many
times over.

In the research for my previous book, I contacted quite a few of

the well known NASA supporters. I was somewhat surprised by their
reactions, they mostly do not have the ability to engage in a scientific
discussion, but rather immediately brand you as another “ hoax nut”,
“brainless moron”, or “ignorant fool”, just to quote a few of the more
erudite responses.

The pro-NASA devotees act as though they are members of

some cult whose doctrine should never be questioned and in which
alternative evidence has no meaning. It reminds me of one of my
favourite Shakespearian quotes:

“I would challenge you to a battle of wits,

but I see you are unarmed”

It does seem that NASA knows how to sell their fraudulent

product to a wishful group of believers, a group of people who want
to blindly believe, no matter what the evidence or science may
otherwise suggest. I find this hard to explain, but I do realise that if
you have publicly supported NASA and the Apollo success, then it
must be hard to suddenly change your opinion despite what
evidence to the contrary you may be offered. It is difficult, particularly
in a science-based debate, to admit you have been conned.

Psychologists refer to this behaviour as “cognitive dissonance”

which is the mental discomfort experienced by a person who
simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or
values. This discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a person’s
belief clashes with new evidence perceived by that person. When
confronted with facts that contradict personal beliefs, ideals, and
values, people will find a way to resolve the contradiction in order to
reduce their discomfort. So instead of engaging in some new
evidence,, they will simply resort to  attacking the messenger with
derisory taints.

I went through this personally when I wrote the first book. I found
myself being certain that my previous beliefs were true and then one
single piece of evidence had me doubting all. It really is an
uncomfortable experience. I would believe everything one minute
then doubt it all the next as I gained more and more insights into the
issue.

The reaction from the NASA believers whom I contacted to

ascertain evidence for my last book on the Moon saga was at first
quite shocking. Remember, I was a curious “believer” at the time
wishing to provide an impartial view of the evidence, for and against,
the Moon landings. A simple enquiring question would have them
jumping up and down with delight, as though they had discovered
some medieval witch who should immediately be burnt at the stake.
A typical reaction would be:

“I watched it! It happened! Don't care what you say!“

so much for scientific debate, the case is now firmly closed. As

the late astronomer Carl Sagan once said;
 “If we are not able to ask sceptical questions, to interrogate those
who tell us that something is true, to be sceptical of those in
authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or
religious nut, who comes ambling along”

What I found really strange was the remarkably common

approach of these NASA believers, first attack the messenger rather
than the message. This approach is so prevalent from the pro-NASA
group, that one is left with the impression that they must have all
attended the same group mental therapy sessions.

A typical example of this is shown by a pro-NASA supporter who

goes under the title of Astrobrant2 but who is an American NASA
devotee named Brant Watson (App F.02). After you have watched
this video you are left wondering what point he was trying to make. It
is just a lobotomy of self-indulgent verbiage directed at anyone who
has ever questioned any aspects of the Moon landings and to
enforce his point he uses a verbal scattergun. It does not address
any fundamental science or evidence, but it is merely an opinionated
rant devoid of any merit. I feel sure that Copernicus, Galileo and
Charles Darwin would be quite familiar with the method. I should
also point out that  Brant Watson has made several videos in which
he delights in being able to demonstrate that NASA were clever
enough to fake the gravity of the Moon, in order too fool people just
like him.

True scientific debate does not work like this. As Mark Twain
eruditely once remarked:

“It is easier to fool people

than to convince them that they have been fooled”

I think this is the nature of humankind, we do not like to be fooled,

and if we discover we have been, then we resist all attempts to
accept it.

One other thing I noted in my research was that the pro-NASA

group only provide a rebuttal of anomalies in cases in which it is
possible to provide something of a feasible explanation, but there are
many instances when they are suspiciously silent. Having said that
there are occasions when they have quite rightly rebutted anomalies
in which the sceptics have clearly been mistaken.

I think my main point is that there is a very intensive fervour to

support NASA, no matter what the evidence or science may
otherwise suggest. They look for ways to rationalise any evidence
that may conflict with their previously held views. One well-known
NASA supporter gave me this scholarly answer to a quite reasonable
question:

“It is obvious that anyone who claims that one or more Apollo
lunar landings were 'faked' is either ignorant, deluded or delusional”

History is full of great scientists who were accused at the time of

being ignorant, deluded or delusional, for suggesting some new
evidence of discovery. Perhaps I may take great comfort from that.

The Moon Conspiracy is an emotive subject, as are most such

conspiracy theories, with ardent, often bigoted points of view. I can
testify, that is it not the easiest hobby to be a sceptic concerning the
truth, or otherwise, of the Moon landings as described by the well
own sceptic Pascal Xavier, a French aerospace engineer (App F.03).
The whole concept of “conspiracy theories” carries a corrosive taint.
There have been conspiracy theories about almost everything
imaginable, from the feasible to the outright ridiculous. In many
people's opinion, the Moon landing hoax perhaps resides in the latter
category.

Michael Hanlon, writing in the Daily Mail (28 Aug 2012), perhaps
rather scathingly, summarises how the Moon landing sceptics are
often viewed by the more normal people, no doubt in his opinion, like
himself;

“They walk among us. From the outside they appear to be normal
human beings. They speak our language, appear outwardly
intelligent – well-read, even with university degrees. The way their
move their limbs, the gait – they have got it all off to a tee. And yet
underneath that façade of normality lurks a terrible, sinister secret.
These are not People Like Us (well, not like me anyway).

No, I am not talking about the Illuminati or David Icke’s Lizard-

people, nor about re-clothed Roswell aliens, but about that strange
subset of humanity known as the Apollo Deniers or Lunar Hoaxers. I
have long ceased to be interested in what these people believe.
Refuting their simple-minded claims is so embarrassingly easy it is
like using dynamite to catch trout in a fish farm.

No, what interests me is why so many apparently bright people

persist in believing that 50 years ago the American government, in
cahoots with its allies in Europe, Australia and elsewhere, and – and
this is always the bit glossed over by the hoaxers – with its sworn
enemies in the USSR – engaged in the mother of all cover-ups, a
gargantuan project to convince the world that humans had visited the
Moon when in fact they had not”.

Scathing commentary indeed, like David Icke, he clearly sees

alien beings among us. Even the supposed first man on the Moon,
astronaut Neil Armstrong, had a comment on conspiracy theories
when in 2012 he confidently stated;

“People love conspiracy theories, they are very attractive. But it

was never a concern to me because I know one day somebody is
going to go fly back up there and pick up that camera I left”

No doubt Armstrong envisaged a bidding war on Ebay, sometime

in the distant future for his beloved camera.

The late Sir Patrick Moore, the celebrated British astronomer,

also aired his thoughts on the subject of being sceptic about the
Apollo Moon landings.

“If ignorance is bliss they must be very happy”

 On another televised interview, Patrick Moore said about the
Moon landing sceptics:

“their ignorance of science is so complete

it's pointless to try to argue with them”

I do sense a case of arrogance confronting ignorance, but this

characterises the feebleness of many Apollo believers to confront
scientific fact.

Lying was a powerful technique used by more famous tyrants and

distorters of the truth:

“Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually
they will believe it.
Adolf Hitler”

Even President Kennedy had his own view on lies:

“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie,

deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth,

persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.

President John F. Kennedy”

So it would seem that we are confronted by a solid wall of NASA

belief no matter what the evidence may suggest. For the majority of
the pro-NASA believers, this is a closed case that cannot, and
should not, be debated any further. I will show you in this book that I
do not accept this blind faith in NASA. For me, the evidence is up for
scrutiny, discussion, and debate. This is the scientific method which
cannot be diminished by NASA or its band of blind devotees.

This offering from the Smithsonian National Air and Space

Museum in their “Ask an Expert” series has Dr Roger Launius,
curator in the National Air and Space Museum's Space History
Division, explaining to us about the So-Called Moon-Landing Hoax
(App F.04). He gives a very incomplete account of the Moon landing
hoax and does not directly address any real issues. This generalised
dismissal of the issue is typical of the pro-NASA group. The Fox
News documentary to which he refers to in his presentation can be
viewed here (App F.05).

Another example of this selective “Moon Hoax Debunking” can

be seen in this book “Moon Hoax: Debunked!” by the Italian pro-
NASA evangelist Paolo Attivissimo. He graciously offers his book
freely online for you to read (App F.06). The sub-title of the book is
“Debunking Doubters and Lunatics, Celebrating Courage and
Ingenuity”. I can well imagine that for the uninformed general reader
this book could be seen as closing the debate about the Apollo Moon
Landings being faked. The technique, which is often used by the pro-
NASA group, is to offer a large number of elements of the hoax and
dismiss each one. The reader is left with the impression that the
hoax theory has been shown to be completely wrong. However, the
author is extremely selective in his “debunking” catalogue. He
concentrates on the more debatable issues but glosses over most of
the real signs of the fakery.  For a supposed expert in the Apollo
Moon landings this is inexcusable and disingenuous.

His perfunctory treatment of radiation, gravity, sounds on the

Moon, the “Kubrick Horizontal” (to be explained later in this book)
and the Apollo “suns” is absent or derisory.  Having said that many of
his analyses are correct which only adds to his eruditeness. I would
recommend that you read Attivissimo's free book and my previous
book “Man on The Moon: Fact or Fiction?” not free but freely
available on Amazon.  Attivissimo's free book is a good example of
the twisted way in which the pro-NASA group attempt to hoodwink
the reader.

The number of people who actually witnessed this historic event

of men walking on the Moon is gradually reducing. Over half of the
population now living on Earth were born after 20 July 1969 and this
increases everyday. Their concept of what happened so many years
ago is tainted by the pro-NASA group who adamantly defend
NASA's version of the story, so much so that it is now “actual”
history. It is not history, it never was, it was totally although cleverly
faked as we will discover in this book. Men have never left low Earth
orbit, that is no higher than 400 miles from the surface of the Earth,
let alone walked on the surface of the Moon which is about 240,000
miles away.

Now we will finish this section on a more educational note. I have

often been asked why the same side of the Moon always faces the
Earth. We only ever see one side of the Moon and we never see the
“dark side”. In fact the “dark side” is an erroneous concept as it too is
also illuminated by the Sun, it's just that here on Earth we never see
it. Astronomers refer to it as the “far side” and the side we always
see as the “near side”. I found this excellent and rather clever video
from the “Conceptual Academy” which explains it better than I could
ever do (App F.07). Incidently, I would highly recommend this
“Conceptual Academy” YouTube channel for those of you who want
to know about how “stuff” in the universe works (App F.08).

So now we will venture forth and examine the evidence

presented by NASA and show that it is flawed to an extent that we
can easily see the telltale signs of the fakery.

How did they do it?

If you mistakenly bought this book thinking the sub-title read
“How they did it?” then you are to be greatly disappointed. The
simple fact is that I don't know how they did it and there are probably
very few people remaining alive who do know. Before you start
writing to Amazon for a refund on the price you paid for this book, let
me explain.

I will be using the broad term “NASA” when I talk about the
perpetrators of the fakery, but what I really mean is some small
clandestine group within NASA, most probably the DIA (Defence
Intelligence Service) , or some other secretive agency of government
like the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency).  The DIA was established
under President Kennedy by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara.
The DIA was involved in US intelligence efforts throughout the Cold
War
and has rapidly expanded since. I will occasionally refer to the
clandestine element within NASA as NASA-X when I need to
particularly emphasise this clandestine element rather than the
actual NASA scientific organisation.

I would imagine there were very few people who knew exactly
how the fakery was conceived and I would envisage that most of
those people are no longer with us. The best we can do now is to
examine the evidence that we have and try to reconstruct the deceit.
As you will see in this book we have undeniable evidence that is was
faked, the real question is how would that have been possible.

The pro-NASA supporters will often tell you that it would be

easier to go to the Moon than to fake it. I would wholeheartedly
agree with this. Faking it would have been extremely difficult, but
perhaps going to the Moon may not even have been a viable option.
The scenario is so complex that the pro-NASA group tell us that
fakery would have been impossible. I would also agree with this
statement because as we shall see the fakery was not entirely
successful, it was imperfect, and that is why we have this book. I
have to admit that NASA-X, with the tools available at the time, did
produce at first glance a very convincing deceit, but there are many
aspects in which the fakery can be easily detected. 

My biggest issue with the NASA-X fakery is that it diminishes

technological achievement.  I believe the well-known Moon landing
sceptic Marcus Allen put it quite succinctly in a talk he gave on “After
Hours AM” radio in 2017 (App F.09):

“Until we find the truth about Apollo and find out how limited it
actually was, human space travel will be constricted by the refusal of
NASA to confront it's past and that's all we ask them to do. To
confront their past, admit their position so that we can all now move
forward because there are many exciting things happening in space.
The Apollo legacy is holding us all back. It is a tragedy so anybody
who works for NASA and reads this, please do your duty and
confront the Apollo legacy because until you do your function as a
space scientist will be severely restricted”
 Advancement in science is always based on repeatable
experimentation. It offers proof that the findings are factual and
robust. NASA is distorting science by its refusal to admit the truth. At
this point the pro-NASA boys and girls will raise their arms in protest
and tell us that it was repeatable, they went to the Moon nine times.
What they really mean is that it was faked nine times (three Apollo
Missions 8, 10 and 13 were not claimed to have landed on the
Moon). I believe that this reluctance to admit the fakery simply
denigrates the real contribution made by the Apollo astronauts. Their
contribution in the period of the Cold War was not only one of
outstanding bravery to volunteer to venture off the Earth on top of an
experimental exploding rocket but also to serve their countrymen in a
way that none of us would ever wish to be so compromised.

They agreed to take part in a hoax for the benefit of falsely

proving that America had the most superior technology on Earth
which at the time would have had great strategic significance. In
doing so they may have averted a third world war. The sacrifice they
made must have haunted them for the rest of their lives. They had to
always play the false part of the national hero in the limelight when
inside themselves they knew the truth. Imagine needing to pretend
for the rest of your life that you are a hero for something you know
that you never did. To stand and take the applause, the acclaim, to
accept the honours, and to live the lie everyday of their lives. We
know that several of the astronauts suffered because of this. Neil
Armstrong, the acclaimed first man on the Moon, became something
of a recluse and avoided as much as possible to be in the spotlight.
He did only a few interviews after 1969 although he had many
requests. He even refused to attend the 40th- anniversary celebration
of the first Moon landing, such was his apparent shame.

Neil Armstrong, the first “supposed” man on the Moon, is no

longer with us, he passed away in 25 Aug 2012 aged 88. Even
though he was due a place in the Arlington National cemetery his
family insisted that he was to be buried at sea which surprised many
people. It could be that they were aware of the hoax and did not
want a permanent national memorial, or simply that he was originally
a naval aviator and it is not uncommon for naval veterans to be
buried at sea. Neil Armstrong never walked on the Moon, but
nonetheless, he certainly served his country well as a true patriot.

In Chapter 12 we will examine in detail how NASA-X managed to

create such a convincing fakery that basically fooled the world.
Perhaps equally importantly, they also fooled the very NASA
operatives who truly believed that they were controlling a live “real”
event.

    

Source NASA: Apollo 12 Lunar Module Intrepid

 CHAPTER 1
THE COLD WAR

“I do believe,
induced by potent circumstances
That thou art mine enemy.”
William Shakespeare, Henry VIII

World Wars
In order to understand the situation in the 1950s and 60s we
need to examine some history of what happened after the Second
World War (WW2). This was a conflict that spanned the entire globe,
very few countries were immune from its grasp. It was certainly on a
scale never before seen in human history in terms of destruction and
deaths. It is estimated that over 60 million people died in just six
years. To put that in some context the population of the UK at the
start of WW2 was just 46 million, while the United States had a
population of 148 million. Germany lost almost 9 million out of a total
population of 87 million, but Russia suffered the worst number of
casualties with 24 million deaths out of a population of 168 million.

War on this scale was previously unimaginable

and there was a
resolve among nations that it should never be repeated. However,
we had heard all this before following the First World War, the war to
end all wars, but it didn't. The First World War also saw death on an
unprecedented scale as in that conflict over 10 million died.

In an effort to avoid future wars the United Nations (UN) was

created on 2 October 1945. The first paragraph of Article 1 of the UN
charter states:

“To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to

take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of
threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or
other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means,
and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law,
adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which
might lead to a breach of the peace;”
 

Source: Foreign and Domestic Policy Bruce Moody

This was a concerted effort by most nations in the world to avoid

future conflict. Unfortunately, that great hope didn't last long as in
1950 war broke out on the Korean peninsula. This involved North
Korea supported by China and Russia on one side and South Korea
supported by the western UN forces on the other. The war lasted
three years and ended in stalemate as Korea remained still divided
into North and South, as it so remains to this day.

Following the end of the Second World War in Europe, we were

faced with a situation in which the continent was divided between the
Soviet Union and the Western Allies notably the USA, UK and
France. Europe was divided not only geographically, but also
politically. The western nations followed a philosophy of democracy
and free-market economics, whereas the Soviet Union practised
communism in which the state controlled almost all aspects of the
day to day life of its people. These were diametrically opposing
views of how society should be governed.
 Imperial War Museum: D-Day on Omaha Beach

After the war Germany itself was separated into East and West
Germany and the capital Berlin was divided into four military sectors
controlled respectively by Britain, the USA, France and the Soviet
Union. Germany was to remain so divided in the west until 1955,
when West Germany was formed and in the east until 1989, when
the Soviet Union collapsed as a political entity, leading to the
reunification of Germany in 1990. Remember the jubilation at the fall
of the Berlin Wall. Perhaps you own a tiny souvenir piece of the wall
in some forgotten drawer. Nothing to do with the Moon but his video
from the German public broadcast service DW provides a very
interesting overview of the Berlin Wall and the wall separating East
and West Germany (App 1.01).
 Research.archives.gov: Berlin Wall August 1961

These competing ideologies were so entrenched that the other

side was seen as a menace to the other and brought fears of world
domination by one side or the other.

It was in this state of fear, and trepidation, that we lived through

the late 1940s right up to the 1980s. Both sides possessed massive
arsenals of nuclear weapons capable of eliminating the other within
a few short minutes. I remember the relief in the UK when we were
told we would have an “early” warning of five minutes before being
totally annihilated, barely enough time to say goodbye.

The first sign of trouble occurred in June 1948 when the

Russians denied access to the corridor from West Germany to Berlin
(App 1.02). This corridor was established at the end of WW2 to
provide the three western nations, the British, Americans and
French, access through East Germany to Berlin.  The blockade
ended in May 1949 after the Western powers had used aeroplanes
to airlift food and everything else that the people in Berlin needed to
survive. Luckily they had enough surplus aeroplanes left over from
the war.

NATO and the Warsaw Pact

 Not surprisingly after this, the western nations became fearful of
the Russians and in 1949 established the North Atlantic Treaty
Organisation (NATO). In 1955 the Russians responded with the
establishment of the Warsaw Pact (USSR), a similar organisation to
NATO formed by Russia and its allies.

So the scene was set for the so-called Cold War. It was
euphemistically named the “Cold War” because NATO and the
Warsaw Pact forces did not actually engage in any major conflicts,
but the threat was ever present and still is.

This is the scenario that you need to judge what people were
thinking back in the 1950s and 60s. There was a clear and present
danger of a new world war ready to erupt any minute. Now both
sides armed with annihilative nuclear weapons it could well have
been a very short war with devastating consequences for humanity.
The only advantage was that both sides knew that any aggressive
action would be met with an equally devastating response from the
other side. It was this fine balance of explosive power that held the
peace for the coming decades.

The Cuban Missile Crisis

The Cold War dragged on, with each side producing more
powerful, but physically smaller nuclear weapons and vastly
improved delivery systems. In October 1962 an American Air Force
U2 spy identified Russian missiles bases being constructed on the
island of Cuba, which lies just 90 miles off the USA coast of Florida.
It was the first real crisis in which the two powers had come face to
face and one in which one side needed to back down in order to
avert a nuclear catastrophe. I remember it well, thinking it may be
the end of my brief unadventurous life.

The Cuban Missile Crisis, as it is now known, lasted just 13 days,

from 16 to 28 October 1962.  The Americans were resolute and
imposed a naval blockade around Cuba with the threat to stop and
search any vessels heading for Cuba and to turn back any carrying
weaponry. In the light of this tough response from President
Kennedy, the Russians finally agreed to dismantle the Cuban bases
and turn around the ships carrying nuclear missiles on board which
where already heading for Cuba.

In order for the Russians to save face, the Americans agreed, as

part of the deal, to dismantle their nuclear weapons in Italy and
Turkey. This was not a major concession by the USA as these
weapons were due for retirement due to obsolescence. It was
perhaps the closest the two sides had come to nuclear war (App
1.03). There is a dramatisation of this conflict in the movie “13 Days”,
which provides an excellent summary of what happened in those
crucial days. It maybe a good time to go watch a movie, and grab a
relaxing coffee,  before the history lesson continues.

The Race for Space

It was, in this atmosphere of the Cold War, that the importance of
gaining the ability to conquer space took on an all consuming
importance. The race to explore space was more of a disguise for an
all out race to develop more effective means of delivering nuclear
weapons. Space was seen as the ultimate means to serve as a
weapons delivery platform. The side that could advance space
technology would be seen to hold the upper hand (App 1.04).

The Russians were seen to be leading this space race, with the
first animal in space (1957), the first successful satellite (1959), first
data communications, or telemetry, to and from outer space (1959),
the first man orbiting the Earth (1961 Yuri Gagarin),  the first woman
in space (1963 Valentina Tereshkova), the first crew of three
astronauts in space (1964), and the first space walk (1965). This
Russian video with English narration tells the story of the Russian
space development (App 1.05) .

The fact that the Americans were seen to be falling behind the
Russians was a great worry for the American military. The problem
was how to respond since to compete with the Russians the
Americans would need a massive budget of many millions of dollars.
The saviour came in the form of United States President John
Kennedy as we will see in Chapter 2.


Source NASA: Saturn V Rocket at Cape Canaveral

 CHAPTER 2
KENNEDY'S DREAM

“Dreams are a sign of ambition, since ambition is nothing more

than the shadow of a dream”
William Shakespeare, Hamlet

During the war, Germany had made significant advances in the

development of rockets which climaxed with the V2 rocket, powered
by liquid ethanol and oxygen (App 2.01). The V2 rocket was capable
of delivering one ton of explosives over a distance of 120 miles, on a
parabolic trajectory that took it 50 miles above the Earth's surface. It
was, in essence, the first space rocket.
 

Source Unknown: German V2 Rocket

At the end of the war, there was a race by the victorious nations
to capture the scientists who had developed the V2 rocket,
particularly Wernher von Braun, the scientist in charge of rocket
development. Wernher von Braun actually surrendered to the
Americans and they took him, along with about seven hundred
German rocket engineers and technicians, back to the United States
via a secret program under the codename of “Operation Paperclip”.

The Russians, likewise captured some of the scientists who had

worked on the project and they also captured much of the German
rocket hardware. Both sides believing that they would benefit greatly
from the expertise of these men and the associated hardware. The
British also captured rockets and German technicians and
successfully built V2 rockets from spare parts and almost reached
space (App 2.02).

So began the race to develop more powerful rockets and

missiles, with a greater range, capable of reaching the other's
territory carrying an atomic bomb, later to become an immensely
more powerful nuclear bomb. The distinction between rockets and
missiles is that rockets are basically unguided, whereas missiles
contain some form of on-board guidance technology so they can be
accurately directed to specific targets. The Germans could only
roughly point the V2 rocket in the direction of London and give it just
enough fuel to reach. Many V2 rockets fired at London missed the
target.

Both the USA and Russia instigated programmes of rocket

development, with varying amounts of success. The research also
concentrated on complex guidance systems, thus increasing the
threat to the opposing side as specific targets could then be hit. The
Russians were first to fill the headlines when they launched “Sputnik
1” on 4 October 1957. This was the first artificial Earth satellite to
orbit the Earth. “Sputnik 1” weighed 100 kilograms and was launched
into an elliptical low Earth orbit, with a maximum height of 583 miles
above the Earth's surface.

It didn't take the Americans long to realise that the satellite might
easily in future be adapted to carry an atomic, or later a nuclear
bomb, as technological developments had by that time reduced the
weight and size of such bombs. This Russian development caught
the Americans by total surprise and led to vastly increased funding
for space technology. The result was the hasty formation of NASA by
President Dwight D. Eisenhower in July 1958, mainly taking over
from the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics first founded
in 1915 (NACA).

The Cold War dragged on, with each side producing more
powerful, but physically smaller nuclear weapons and vastly
improved delivery systems.

It was in this atmosphere of the Cold War, that the importance of

gaining the ability to conquer space took on an all-consuming
importance. The Russians were seen to be leading this space race
with many firsts in space. America was seen to be losing the space
race and perhaps more significantly the all important arms race.

The fact that Russia was seemingly ahead of the USA in space
flight technology was a major concern to the Americans and further
increased the tension between the two nations.

America at this time was also involved in an increasingly

unpopular war in Vietnam and the popular movement against US
involvement in some far away place was gaining increased
momentum among the American public. Peace activists and left-
wing intellectuals on college campuses were organising protests
against the US Government.
 

Vietnam Protestors in Washington

 Most probably as a result of these factors, President
J.F.Kennedy, during the American Congress on 25 May 1961,
surprised almost everybody, maybe even himself, when he
announced a new national objective of "landing a man on the Moon,
and returning him safely back to the Earth within this decade", that is
by the end of the 1960s.

President Kennedy's objective was clear, unambiguous,

irrevocable, and somewhat shocking:

“I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the

goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and
returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this
period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the
long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or
expensive to accomplish. We propose to accelerate the development
of the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to develop alternate
liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being
developed, until certain which is superior.”

However, the most well known version of the Kennedy speech on

the Moon objective took place months later at Rice University in
Houston Texas on 12 September 1962 (App 2.03). This is the
speech that contained the famous sentence often repeated:

“We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in

this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but
because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and
measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge
is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to
postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too”

The full text of President Kennedy's speech at Rice University

speech is given here (App 2.04).

Kennedy's objective to put a man on the Moon and bring him

back safely to Earth before the end of the decade was a clear
attempt to project American technical superiority. If America could do
that, then they would be acknowledged to be ahead in the space
race and as a consequence be ahead in the more important arms
race. It was therefore crucial that NASA could fulfil Kennedy's
ambitious objective to put a man on the Moon. It had just eight years
to accomplish this, which many of the scientists at the time thought
would be unachievable. Failure to accomplish Kennedy's goal was
wholly unthinkable given the strategic aspirations of America.
 

As we have seen Russia had all the notable firsts in space

technology, which led to Kennedy's surprise “Man on the Moon”
speech, and the subsequent Project Apollo. For those of you who
are not familiar with Project Apollo, either because you are too
young, or spent the 1960s and 70s high on magic mushrooms and
free love, there is an interesting mini-series “From the Earth to the
Moon” (App 2.05). It is a twelve-part HBO television mini-series,
telling the story of Project Apollo during the 1960s and early 1970s. It
is available on CD (1998 co-produced by Ron Howard, Brian Grazer,
Tom Hanks, and Michael Bostick).

The goal was now set, Man on the Moon, by the end of the
decade. The objective was clear but the problem now was how to
construct the rockets and spacecraft to get men to the Moon and
how to ensure that man can survive his stay on the Moon and then
safely return to Earth. This was the challenge laid at NASA's feet
with just eight short years to achieve it. It is a remarkable story of
struggle, failure, innovation,  technological achievement on the one
hand and clever fakery on the other.

 CHAPTER 3
BUILDING THE DREAM

“Be great in act,

as you have been in thought”
William Shakespeare, King John

The Race Begins

More than a year before President Kennedy's Moon speech,
NASA was actively discussing a manned mission to the Moon. An
abstract from the NASA document “The Apollo Spacecraft - A
Chronology” (App 3.01) reports on a meeting held on 5-6 January
1960:

“During a meeting of the Space Exploration Program Council at

NASA Headquarters, the subject of a manned lunar landing was
discussed. Following presentations on earth orbit rendezvous
(Wernher von Braun, Director of Marshall Space Flight Center), lunar
orbit rendezvous (John C. Houbolt of Langley Research Center), and
direct ascent (Melvyn Savage of NASA Headquarters), the Council
decided that NASA should not follow any one of these specific
approaches, but should proceed on a broad base to afford flexibility.
Another outcome of the discussion was an agreement that NASA
should have an orbital rendezvous program which could stand alone
as well as being a part of the manned lunar program”

On 7 February 1961, the final report of the NASA Manned Lunar

Landing Task Group outlined "A Plan for Manned Lunar Landing"
within the decade using either the Earth Orbit Rendezvous or some
direct ascent technique. This led to Presidents Kennedy's “Man on
the Moon” speech to Congress on 25 May 1961. The race to the
Moon was on.

The Logistics
 The first issue to be faced by NASA was how do you get a man
to the Moon and safely bring him home. There were many major
obstacles ahead, the first of which was the logistics. To take a rocket
from Earth directly to the Moon and return it safely was quickly
rejected as being too difficult due to the massive weights involved,
mostly the weight of the fuel required. It is a paradox of escaping
Earth's gravity that most of the fuel needed is required to lift the fuel,
in fact fuel accounted for 94% of the weight.

There were some suggestions put forward by Werner von Braun

to take components of the system into low Earth orbit using multiple
launches and then assemble a Moon rocket in space. In fact as early
as 1955 von Braun had suggested his grand plan for Moon
exploration (App 3.02). This again was rejected as being too
complex as there was not then the experience of assembling
machines in space or more realistically doing anything in space.

There is a video from 1966 produced by the MIT Science

Reporter television programme which describes the lunar landing
(App 3.03). It is interesting as it shows some simulation equipment
by which the astronauts could practice the Moon landing. We will
discuss simulators later in this chapter.

The logistics method finally chosen was dubbed as the Lunar

Orbit Rendezvous Approach and was first suggested by an obscure
NASA scientist named Dr John C.Houbolt.  The concept was to build
a rocket composed of many pieces and discard the useless weight of
each piece when its function was completed (App 3.04).  Perhaps
not the most economical approach but at this stage money was not
seen as a serious constraint.

At first, Houbolt was ridiculed for his suggestion and bitterly

opposed by Werner von Braun himself. He actually instructed
Houbolt to forget the crazy idea. Von Braun was in favour of the big
rocket approach, in which the entire rocket would be sent to the
Moon and then brought back to Earth. This was an almost
impossible idea due to the massive weight needed to be lifted out of
Earth's gravity.
 Finally, Houbolt believing that his approach was the only feasible
method, went above von Braun and wrote to the NASA top
leadership outlining his case. Eventually, and sensibly, Houbolt's
logistical method was perceived by NASA, to not be just one of
several alternative ways to achieve the landings on the Moon, but
the only feasible way. Unfortunately, Houbolt is little known, but
without his imagination, his dogged determination and courage to put
his job on the line, then there would have been no Moon landings, or
as the sceptics will surely interject, no “Moon” fakery.

The idea of the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous Approach was to get a

smaller second rocket into Earth orbit using a very large rocket, then
using this second smaller rocket to travel to the Moon and back. A
third spacecraft would be carried to perform the actual Moon landing
and lift-off from the lunar surface. This third spacecraft was further
composed of two spacecraft coupled together, the first to perform the
Moon landing (descent stage) and the second to perform the lift-off
from the Moon (ascent stage). An interesting early video from 1963
describes the logistics of the operation to get men to the Moon (App
3.05).

The Saturn V Rocket

First NASA needed a large rocket with enough power to escape
Earth's gravity and carry the smaller second rocket into low Earth
orbit. Initial work on the Saturn series of rockets started in late 1960.
Apollo 4 was the first unmanned flight mission to use the Saturn V
rocket which launched on 9 November 1967 (Note the Roman “V” in
Saturn V simply indicates that it had 5 engines). So the development
of the Saturn V rocket took a good 6 years and NASA now had only
two years remaining to reach the Moon if they were to fulfil President
Kennedy's dream.

The Saturn V rocket was huge, being the tallest, heaviest, and
most powerful rocket ever brought into operational status and it still
holds records today for the heaviest payload launched and largest
payload capacity taken into low Earth orbit (310,000 pounds).  It
stood 365 feet high which would place it three-quarters of the way up
Blackpool Tower (518 feet), or for the benefit of our American
cousins, six stories higher than the Statue of Liberty (302 feet), so
quite a sizeable and totally impressive vehicle (App 3.06 and App
3.07). 

The Command Module

In 1960 at the same time that work had started on the Saturn V
rocket NASA were also designing the Apollo spacecraft to get the
astronauts from low Earth orbit onwards to the Moon. This rocket
consisted of 3 separate components closely coupled together as
shown in the diagram. Note that in this diagram the spacecraft is
shown in the configuration with the Lunar Module attached to the
front of the Command Module.
 

Source: orbiterchspacenews.blogspot.com

Note that the Service Module (SM) and the Command Module
(CM)  are coupled together for most of the flight and when together
are referred to as the CSM. They only separate in low Earth orbit on
the return journey just before the Command Module prepares to re-
enter Earth's atmosphere.

A good overview of the development of the Command Module is

given in this “Moon Machines” video (App 3.08). The Command
Module is the only part of the whole system that returns to Earth all
the other hardware is jettisoned in space. The ascent stage of the
Lunar Module is left to crash into the Moon or the Sun. The descent
stage of the Lunar Module is left on the Moon having been used as a
launch platform for the ascent stage. The Service Module is left to
burn-up on re-entry through the Earth's atmosphere. In fact, more
than 99.99% of the original Apollo system is destroyed during use.

In the initial design of the Crew Module it was realised that the
vehicle would be too heavy to re-enter the Earth's atmosphere. The
heavier the space craft when it hits the Earth's atmosphere the more
energy it has and the more heat it would need to dissipate. The initial
design was too heavy and would have simply burned up on re-entry. 
It was realised that all of the equipment did not have to return to
Earth so the decision was made to split the Crew Module into two
parts, the Command Module and the attached Service Module which
contained most of what was required for the Moon journey. Before
re-entry the Service Module could be jettisoned leaving just the light
Command Module to re-enter through the Earth's atmosphere.

The Lunar Module

The Lunar Module was perhaps the most difficult space vehicle to
design as there were so many unknowns particularly the little-known
landing conditions on the Moon. Also, once landed on the Moon how
to get off again?

It was designed, and built by Northrop Grumman, according to

detailed NASA specifications (App 3.09). It consisted of two separate
stages, closely coupled together, at the bottom is the descent stage
and above it the ascent stage. The combined weight of these two
spacecraft was 32,400 pounds. The “Moon Machines” video
provides an interesting overview of the Northrop Grumman
development of the Lunar Module (App 3.10)
 
 Source NASA: Apollo 11 Lunar Module on the Moon

The descent stage, weighing 21,900 pounds, with its maximum

10,500 lbs-force thrust throttleable engine on a gimbal, was the
method of providing a powered descent to slow the craft down to
accomplish a soft, safe landing on the Moon. The important new
developments with this rocket descent engine is that it had a throttle,
necessary to adjust the amount of thrust, similar to the accelerator in
your car, and a gimbal by which the rocket motor could be angled.
The throttle was indispensable to reduce the thrust as the Lunar
Module slowly approached the Moon's surface. It was the ability of
the astronaut pilot, assisted by the onboard computer, to skilfully
adjust the throttle, and the gimbal angle of the rocket, to ensure a
successful upright landing.

The ascent stage, weighing 10,500 pounds, was used for the
final take off from the Moon. It had a fixed direction 3,500 lbs-force
thrust engine, with an array of side-thrusters for latitudinal
movement. The system had a difficult birth and was plagued with
many problems during its design and development. So much so that
it over-ran its development programme and consequently missed its
inaugural test flight on Apollo 4, so that its first flight into space was
rescheduled, and if finally flew on Apollo 5.
 The total weight of the module was a major constraint for
Northrop Grumman. Every pound of Lunar Module weight would
require four pounds of fuel at Earth take-off. Therefore, every ounce
that could be saved was saved, including not providing seats for the
astronauts, who were obliged to stand. They also tipped the Lunar
Module upside down, and gave it a shake, to dislodge any stray nuts
and bolts inadvertently left during the construction. When you look at
the Lunar Module you have to wonder whether it was really designed
by an engineer at the forefront of precision technology, or simply
fashioned by a group of over-excited children just before the long
awaited school-play, as some sceptics have mockingly insinuated.

The truth is, say NASA, that it didn't need to be streamlined as

there is no atmosphere on the Moon and it didn't need to be fancy
looking as it was assumed there were no spectators on the Moon to
give mordacious comments as it landed. The sceptics have had
great fun mocking the flimsy looking design of the Lunar Module with
its gold “Quality Street” wrapping paper and the seemingly excessive
use of Gaffer tape, but more of that hilarity in Chapter 6.

Both the descent and ascent engines used hypergolic fuel, this
consists of two components, the fuel itself and an oxidiser.  When
these two components are brought into contact with each other in
the rocket engine they spontaneously ignite. The advantage of
hypergolic fuel is that no igniter is required. I could imagine the
astronauts using their last match trying in vain to ignite the rocket, in
fear of being marooned on the Moon.

The problem with the  hypergolic fuel is that it was found to be

exceedingly corrosive and after each test of the engines they had to
be completely rebuilt. Now think about that for a moment, none of
the engines used on the actual Apollo Lunar Module descent, or
ascent stages, could therefore have been tested prior to use,
imperfection was not an option, they had to be perfect. This could be
viewed as a major design flaw in an already dangerous endeavour.

Another, not to be overlooked property of hypergolic fuel, is its

total instability, it boils at 38C and freezes at -1C.  The climate on the
Moon can vary between 123C in the direct sunlight, and -153C in the
shade, so keeping the fuel safe was a major challenge requiring
some serious insulation, as did the whole Lunar Module. According
to NASA that is what that fetchingly gold coloured “Quality Street”
paper is all about. In fact, say NASA it is a sophisticated insulation
material called Mylar. 

The major issues in the design of the actual Lunar Module were
those of control for the landing and propulsion for the eventual take-
off. Naturally, nobody had ever piloted such a vehicle in space, so
some form of testing was of the essence. NASA contracted Bell
Aerosystems to create a bizarre looking vehicle, which was
affectionately, and quite accurately, referred to as the “flying
bedstead” (App 3.11).  In order to better simulate the one sixth
gravity that would be experienced on the Moon, it had a gimbal
mounted vertical jet engine to counter the 5/6 of its weight, and
therefore simulate the effect of the lesser gravity on the Moon.

Source NASA: Lunar Lander Simulator

The astronaut pilot controlled a separate throttleable rocket, with

a controllable gimbal which allowed the descent engine to be tilted
by up to 6%. In addition it had small side thrusters for attitudinal
control. It was a most ungainly and unstable vehicle which the test
pilots found extremely difficult to master. There is a famous video of
Neil Armstrong escaping almost certain death as he ejected seconds
before it crashed into the ground in a ball of flames (App 3.12). As
one may imagine, this video is often referenced by the Moon landing
sceptics as one good reason why it would not work on the Moon, but
more of that later.

In total five of these unusual aircraft were built, of which three

were destroyed in near fatal accidents, one on 6 May 1968 with Neil
Armstrong as pilot; one on 8 December 1968 with Joe S. Algranti as
pilot; and one on 29 January 1971 with Stuart M. Present as pilot.
Luckily, they had the luxury of an ejector seat, so they survived. An
ejector seat on the Moon would not help as there is no air for the
parachute and landing safely on the Moon with no ride home is in
any case rather pointless.

The “flying bedstead” proved exceedingly dangerous to fly as

witnessed by the crashes. Sensibly, it was equipped with a rocket-
powered ejection seat, so in each accident the pilot managed to
survive mercifully intact, although no doubt considerably shocked.
NASA soon considered it to be too dangerous for testing and all
subsequent testing was carried out in a safer purpose-built ground
based simulator.

We now know flight simulators quite well as very sophisticated

software controlled machines providing quite realistic environments,
very close to actuality.  But we are back in the 1960s when
computers were still in their infancy and not much more advanced
than simple calculators. NASA described the ground-based simulator
as being “high-tech”, which I suppose it was at the time.

NASA built several other simulators to cover most aspects of

Project Apollo. For example, the Lunar Module simulator was an
optimistic attempt to provide some experience of what it might be like
to control an unusual spacecraft as it approached the Moon's
surface in powered descent. It was not so much computerised, but
more mechanical, utilising extremely large models of the Moon's
surface, cameras and a rudimentary seating arrangement for the
pilot. 
 Even the Moon landing simulator proved to be a problem to
control and the pilots had great difficulty in learning to master this
unfamiliar method of flight. The astronaut pilot seated in the
simulator would have seen the cratered lunar surface track past him
on a revolving conveyor-belt which was supposed to accustom him
to the visual clues that a pilot would see upon arrival at the Moon.

The use of the simulator was, rather hastily, discontinued soon

after Neil Armstrong planted the American flag on the Moon.
According to NASA this was because landing on the Moon proved to
be surprisingly problem free. One would have thought that the
simulator could be credited as being of some assistance to Neil
Armstrong prior to the event and it would have likewise been of
similar assistance to the following astronaut pilots but NASA
mysteriously considered otherwise.

The Lunar Module used an altimeter radar to report its height

above the lunar surface as it descended towards the Moon. Below
each of the foot-pads hung 1.5 metre probes that illuminate a light in
the cabin when the probes touch the lunar surface and the
astronauts can then immediately stop the engine to avoid the engine
nozzle hitting the ground and the lander bouncing back up again, like
children on a bouncy castle.

Once the Lunar Module had landed the descent stage was of no
consequence, as it had been virtually exhausted of all its fuel.
However the batteries on the descent stage were the only ones used
for the stay on the Moon. The ascent stage was more of a problem
as it was full of fuel ready for the ascent and equally as important it
was the only safe refuge for the astronauts in the hostile
environment of the Moon.

It was therefore necessary to keep it cool using an active cooling

system, a coolant loop with heat exchanger, and an evaporator. It
also needed to be re-pressured, when the astronauts returned after
their “walkabouts” on the lunar surface. All of these systems were
powered by the descent stage batteries. Most astonishingly, NASA
state that due to the complexity, the development costs, and the time
constraints, off the shelf battery technology was used and this in a
$25 billion project. Having recently had a spate of flat battery
problems with my car, I found this rather surprising, luckily I was not
on the Moon. One has to bear in mind that these were batteries
using 1960s technology.

Now battery power, and all its associated terminology, is a

complex technical subject. The Moon hoax sceptics question
whether the lunar lander had sufficient power to keep all systems
running while it was on the Moon's surface. Unlike the Command
Module the lunar lander did not carry any fuel cells, so was totally
reliant on battery power. In brief, a fuel cell burns oxygen and
hydrogen in the presence of some form of catalyst to produce
electrical energy and useful water as a by-product.

Another relevant point discussed by several sceptics is the size

of the Lunar Module and the amount of space inside for two
astronauts, plus their associated clobber. NASA shows this to be a
total of 235 cubic feet, with dimensions approximately 7' 8”, by 3' 6”,
by 8' 9”, an exceeding small space for two astronauts, and their
bulky spacesuit change of clothes. In fact the habitual volume
according to NASA was only 160 cubic feet. Look around you and
imagine this size, it is rather diminishingly small.

In the confined area of the Lunar Module cabin, the two

astronauts descended to the Moon and spent two days there, either
standing, or at night sleeping in hammocks, yes I said sleeping in
hammocks.

The Spacesuit
Once the astronauts ventured outside the protective cocoon of
the Lunar Module then they were faced with a totally inhospitable
and alien environment. A virtual vacuum with no air to breath,
stepping onto a boiling hot surface, scorched by solar winds and
bombarded by micrometeorites. There are better places to plan your
next vacation.
 The design of the spacesuits is well described in this excellent
“Moon Machines” video (App 3.13). Each time they did an Extra-
Vehicular Activity (EVA) the astronauts needed to don their bulky
spacesuits and backpacks in this confined space.

You may have seen videos of astronauts being prepared in their

spacesuits here on Earth (App 3.14 to 3.17), which all demonstrate
that you need a great deal of assistance to get it on. This is one of
the areas of the Moon landing which many sceptics have been keen
to highlight. Given what we see in the above NASA videos, you may
ask, is it really feasible that the two astronauts could have put the
spacesuits on themselves in such a confined space without outside
help?

The spacesuits used on the Apollo missions weighed, together

with the backpack, 180 pounds, which for those of you paying proper
attention, is only equivalent to 30 pounds on the Moon due to the
one sixth gravity. Even so, needing to perform this difficult task in
such a confined space is not the easiest way to get dressed. Even
donning the helmet and the gloves and ensuring a proper seal
appears to require assistance as can be seen in the NASA videos.
One must conclude that each astronaut helped the other in some
way. I have been unable to find any NASA videos of the astronauts
performing this task in the environment of the lunar lander capsule.
Of course, this is not surprising as they never had any reason to do
it.

Lunar Rover
If you are bound for the Moon and you want to see some of the
sights, then what better than to take your own car. The first time a
Lunar Rover was included on a mission was on Apollo 15 in 1971
and then subsequently on Apollo's 16 and 17. A detailed description
of the Lunar Rover is given on the “Astronotes” website (App 3.18),
and also the “Moon Machines” video (App 3.19).

Naturally, the Lunar Rover needed to be transported all the way

to the Moon on board the Lunar Module. The vehicle could carry two
men but was too large to fit inside the Lunar Module so NASA
designed a fold-up version that could be unpacked when the Lunar
Module had safely landed on the Moon's surface.

The design of the folding Lunar Rover was ingenious as shown in

the NASA animation (App 3.20). NASA also produced a handbook
for the Lunar Rover (App 3.21). This fold-up version was carried in
one of the cargo bays between the legs of the lunar lander and was
unloaded by the Astronauts when on the lunar surface. You can
even watch the astronauts struggling to unpack the Lunar Rover  in
this video from Apollo 15  (App 3.22).  Seems it was not such an
easy task.

The Lunar Rover also carried two cameras, and both audio and
vision transmitters to send the television signals back to Mission
Control on Earth. The Lunar Rover cameras could even be
controlled by Mission Control from here on Earth, albeit with a delay
of about 3.2 seconds in the control loop, but nevertheless they
managed to video the blast-off of the lunar lander from the Moon.

Source NASA: Apollo 17 Lunar Lift-Off

 CHAPTER 4
WHEN DID IT GO WRONG

“I have more care to stay

than will to go.”
William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

At first sight, it would appear that at some point between

President Kennedy's “We go to the Moon” speech in 1961 and 1969
something went seriously wrong with Project Apollo. There is little
doubt that Project Apollo started in all seriousness in 1961 and
NASA did intend to try to take men to the Moon and bring them back
safely.  So what went wrong? One answer may intrigue you, as we
will discuss later perhaps nothing went wrong.

We will probably never fully know what the problem was that
caused NASA to embark on the most incredible act of deception, but
clearly, at some point, a decision was made that the Moon landings
needed to be simulated, in other words, faked. The question is, can
we infer from the available evidence when and why this decision was
made.

When
The precursor to the Apollo Missions were the Mercury and
Gemini Programmes. The first two manned Mercury launches were
those of Alan Shepard followed by Gus Grissom. At the time in 1961
the Americans had no rockets that could get men into low Earth
orbit. Instead they utilised the Redstone ballistic missile adapted to
carry the Gemini capsule. This was a far from ideal method to lift the
first American astronauts into space but the urgency of the situation
in regards to the competition to beat the Russians was politically
crucial.
 The major problem facing NASA was that the Redstone had not
proved to be entirely reliable. Out of thirty five launches twenty had
been failures so a better than average chance of a  failure (57
percent). This was a major concern for President Kennedy as he did
not want to add a dead astronaut to his presidency. He was so
worried that he suggested postponing the launch of Alan Sheppard
aboard a Redstone rocket. Then out of the blue we have this, as
quoted on page 77 in Gerhard Wisnewski's book “One Small Step”:

“But then, quite suddenly, all was sweetness and light. On 22

March 1961, at a White House meeting, Hugh L. Dryden, who was at
that time the grand old man of American rocket technology,
explained to the President that no unwarranted ricks would be
involved in the first manned Mercury flight. How interesting that even
the launch of such a man into space with a Redstone rocket was
supposed to be exactly that, an unwarranted risk. If no risk existed,
could it mean that there would not be a man on the Mercury-
Redstone combination at all”

There clearly was a very substantial risk given the history of

failures of the Redstone rocket so why suddenly is it that the
President is told to relax as there was no unwarranted risk involved?
Also, Edward C. Welsh the Manager of the National Aeronautics and
Space Council confidently asked President Kennedy “Why postpone
a success?” (App 4.01 page 6). This sudden confidence by
Kennedy's advisors leads one to imagine that the fakery may have
already been afoot as early as 1961.

Project Apollo was an immense undertaking further exacerbated

by the very limited time frame set by President Kennedy. Within two
years it was dogged with problems, development of the hardware
was falling behind schedule and the costs of the project were
spiralling out of control.

One of the most significant problems was with the company

North American Aviation (NAA) who were the contractors for the
manufacture of the Command and Service Module spacecraft and
the second stage of the Saturn V launch vehicle. A review was
conducted in November–December 1965 by a NASA team headed
by Lt Gen Samuel C. Phillips, director of the Apollo Manned Moon
Landing program, to investigate the schedule slippage and cost
overruns incurred by NAA. This became known as “The Phillips
Report” (App 4.02).

The Phillips Report was a scathing denunciation of NAA's

management of the Apollo Program. The report stated:

“Today, after 4 1/2 years and a little more than a year before first
flight, there are still significant technical problems and unknowns
affecting the stage. Manufacture is at least 5 months behind
schedule. NAA's continued inability to meet internal objectives, as
evidenced by 5 changes in the manufacturing plan in the last 3
months, clearly indicates that extraordinary effort will be required if
the contractor is to hold the current position, let alone better it”.

The report identified many problems in the performance of NAA

including deficiencies in logistics, systems engineering, cost
estimating, workforce efficiency and quality control. In summary,
almost all aspects of the contractors' work were inadequate. This
was leading to major delays in Project Apollo and significant cost
overruns. In a letter from George E. Mueller, Associate Administrator
for NASA Manned Space Flight, to the President of NAA he stated:

“I can see no way of improving future performance, and meeting

commitments which NAA must meet if we are to achieve the national
objectives of Apollo, except to improve the management and
technical competence of your Space and Information Systems
Division”

Project Apollo was falling seriously behind schedule and

haemorrhaging funds on an unprecedented scale.

Apollo 1
The first evidence we have that something may have been amiss
with Project Apollo comes from astronaut Virgil “Gus” Grissom who
had already been selected as the first man to step onto the Moon.
He had been into space before on 20 July 1961 when he rode the
Liberty Bell 7 space capsule as part of the Mercury Programme and
was the third American to fly in space. His flight was sub-orbital and
lasted just 15 mins and 37 seconds. Grissom is said to have
travelled 302 miles, reaching a maximum height of just over 118
miles. Given that one accepted definition of space is that it starts at
100 miles from the Earth's surface then Grissom only spent only
about one minute in actual space.

Gus Grissom was publicly critical of the poor safety specifications

of Project Apollo and even of its entire technical feasibility. He was
so concerned about Project Apollo that on 22 January 1967 he held
an “unauthorised” Press Conference in which he told reporters that
the United States is “at least a decade away” from even
contemplating a mission to land on the Moon. Not surprisingly, he
was severely reprimanded for giving the interview without the
permission of NASA, particularly giving his totally negative
comments about Project Apollo. The Associated Press reported,
”pretty slim” was the way he put the Apollo’s chances of meeting its
mission requirements.

Source NASA: 20 July 1961 Grissom and Liberty Bell 7

Following this reprimand, a few days later Gus Grissom came out
of a water tank for reduced gravity simulation of the supposed Lunar
Module and hung a lemon attached to a coat-hanger in front of a
NASA emblem to indicate to any cameras present, without speaking,
what he and his fellow crew members, Roger Chaffee and Edward
White, thought about the poor safety specifications and even of the
entire technical feasibility of Project Apollo.

Now, whether Grissom and his fellow astronauts were voicing

something unique to themselves, or something that was already
being discussed privately within the NASA hierarchy we cannot be
sure. Whatever the situation Grissom was a clear danger for NASA
and its credibility which leads some to suggest that NASA-X wanted
him “out of the way”.

Gus Grissom's Lemon on a Coat-hanger

On 27 January 1967, Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger

Chaffee, the Apollo 1 crew, died during testing when a flash fire
engulfed the oxygen-filled Command Module. They were the first
United States astronauts to die in the line of duty.

There has been intense speculation since that the fire was no
accident. The day after Grissom's death it was reported that the FBI
raided his home and seized all his manuscripts and documents.
These may have contained incriminating evidence of the disarray of
the Apollo programme and highlight its incompetence and disarray,
as was stated by others before Congress.
 Scott Grissom, Gus Grissom’s son, thinks it was not an accident
but a deliberate act to silence his father. He publicly stated in 1999
that he believes his father had been murdered. After examining the
remains of his father’s death capsule and the faulty switch blamed
for causing the fire, he discovered a small and functionless metal
plate which appeared to have been deliberately inserted into the
wiring. This almost certainly caused the spark and the resulting fire
in the sealed atmosphere in the capsule of pure oxygen. Certainty
the family of Gus Grissom believe that he was intentionally
eliminated by the DIA/CIA as this video from “frankmat” explains
(App 4.03).
 

Source NASA: The ill-fated Apollo 1 Crew

Poor Safety Procedures

Thomas Baron was a safety inspector during the construction of
Apollo 1. After the fire in the Apollo 1 capsule, he testified before
Congress on 21 April 1967 that the Apollo programme was in such
disarray that NASA would never make it to the Moon. Note, that this
was just 15 months before the launch of Apollo 8 which allegedly
took the first astronauts into orbit around the Moon.
 Baron had submitted a detailed 500-page report to Congress
detailing his findings (App 4.04). He believed that his opinions made
him a target and he reported that he and his family had been
harassed. One week after he had testified his car mysteriously
stalled on a level railway crossing and was struck by a train. He, his
wife, and step-daughter died in the accident. The accident was
officially judged to be suicide. Some Sceptics, the foremost being Bill
Kaysing (App 4.05), believe that Baron was murdered to silence him.
It is interesting to note that Baron's report on the failings of the NASA
Project Apollo disappeared and has never been found.

The Clavius website has a more critical assessment of Thomas

Baron and indicates that he was somewhat overzealous in his work
(App 4.06). Note, that we should not be so surprised that the Clavius
website portrays Thomas Baron in such a bad light given that the
Webmaster Jay Windley is one of the leading NASA Fanboys. 
However, it does make the point that if NASA were going to silence
him then why wait until after he had presented his evidence to
Congress. It would have been more logical to have him silenced
before, but then again the damming details of his investigation may
not have been fully known beforehand. Although his original report
has been lost, or purposefully disposed of, you can get some idea of
his claims in this excerpt posted on the Clavius website (App 4.07).
You can also read Baron's testimony to Congress on the Clavius
website (App 4.08).

The outcome of this tragedy was that Project Apollo was

suspended pending a thorough investigation which resulted in a
further delay of one year following a complete redesign of the
Command Module. In March 1967 the NASA Director James Webb
testified in front of the House Committee on Science and
Astronautics expressing doubts about the chances of fulfilling
Kennedy's goal. He was the very man who just six years previously
had confidently told President Kennedy that a man on the Moon
could be achieved within the decade. One year later on 7 October
1968,  James Webb suddenly left NASA just three months before the
Apollo 8 flight to the Moon. This followed the sudden resignation of
the NASA Assistant Director Robert Seamans in January that same
year. We also had Mercury astronaut Walter Schirra announcing his
departure from NASA just 4 days after James Webb had announced
his departure.

One has to wonder why, when the Apollo Moon landing was less
than a year away, did these people decide to leave NASA in such a
hurry. It is at this juncture in 1967, or perhaps 1966, that some
sceptics contend that the decision was made to fake the Moon
landings.

Apollo Moon Rocks?

In December 1966 Wernher Von Braun, the chief architect of the
Apollo Program, participated in a NASA geological field trip to
Antarctica together with other top NASA executives as described in
this Jarrah White (App 4.09).

The trip's supposed purpose was to look at Antarctica as a

learning experience for lunar bases and Mars colonisation and also
to collect Moon rocks for comparison with the rocks to be brought
back from the Moon. On this trip they collected several hundreds of
pounds of meteorites originally from the Moon (more properly called
lunaites). It is probable that the lunaites collected in Antarctica were
sufficiently altered to be later passed off as Moon rocks supposedly
brought back by the Apollo Missions.
 NASA: Von Braun with NASA executives in Antarctica

So the evidence points to the fact that before 1967 there

appeared to be serious problems with Project Apollo which
necessitated collecting lunaites to be used later as fake Moon rocks.
It can be safely assumed that the idea to fake the Moon landings had
certainly been taken by 1966. It is therefore extremely probably that
Gus Grissom, and his fellow astronauts on Apollo 1, knew of the
planned fakery and did all they could to avoid being party to it. This
may also explain why James Webb, Administrator of NASA, his
deputy and the astronaut Walter Schirra all decided to leave at the
same time in 1967.

Who?
It has always been assumed by the NASA sceptics that the
mastermind behind the fakery of the Apollo videos was the film
director Stanley Kubrick. During the period 1964 to the film's release
in 1968, Kubrick was working on the acclaimed sci-fi movie “2001: A
Space Odyssey” . In the making of that movie, Kubrick collaborated
closely with NASA and NASA Officials were frequent visitors to
Kubrick at the Shepperton Studios in the UK. 
 

Kubrick and NASA Officials at Shepperton UK 1965

 In the photograph, we have from left to right, Frederick Ordway
111 (NASA Official, dressed for cricket?). Donald Slayton (NASA
astronaut), Arthur C. Clarke (Sci-fi author), Stanley Kubrick, and
George Mueller (Senior Administrator Project Apollo). The man at
the back is unknown.

NASA provided Kubrick with detailed photographs of the Moon

and gave him access to the large detailed models of the Moon that
NASA was creating.  

Frederick I. Ordway III was an American space scientist and

author of visionary books on space flight. His expertise in science
fiction and real space exploration with NASA helped shape the
groundbreaking imagery and feel of the film “2001: A Space
Odyssey”. He was often seen at the Shepperton Studios in the UK
with Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick.
 

Frederick Ordway with Clarke and Kubrick

 Given the evidence of the close cooperation between NASA and
Kubrick, it is not at all surprising that the sceptics see Stanley
Kubrick as the man behind the NASA fake videos as suggested in
this YouTube posting from “Shaking My Head Productions” (App
4.10).

I believe it was more likely that the actual “hands-on” mastermind

was one of Kubrick's staff, a man named Douglas Trumbull.  Kubrick
himself was not a visual effects expert but relied on the expertise of
men like Trumbull, and possibly John Dykstra a young special effects
talent. Later, Douglas Trumbull and John Dykstra worked together on
the movie “Silent Running”.

This collaboration of NASA with Kubrick could well place the

NASA decision to fake the Apollo Missions even earlier than 1966
that I mentioned above, perhaps even as early as 1964. This would
be just three years after Project Apollo started.

Why?
The question is why did NASA need to fake the Apollo Missions.
There are several possibilities. The first and perhaps most obvious is
that they realised that there was a significant risk that NASA could
not achieve the Moon landing due to the failure of the technological
developments. 

However, I firmly believe that the decision to fake the Moon

landings was taken irrespective of any individual risk identified by
NASA. It is no secret that the DIA or some other clandestine
elements of the US Government (maybe also the Central Intelligence
Agency) had infiltrated NASA from its very inception, after all, NASA
was basically a military run establishment and probably still is to this
very day. Many of the people working at NASA would have been
infiltrated DIA/CIA operatives.

Project Apollo could not be allowed to fail. There were too many
factors of national security and prestige to allow any hint of failure.
President Kennedy had made his declaration that the USA had the
technological means to land men on the Moon by the end of the
decade. Come what may that must be shown to have been
achieved, anything less would have been unthinkable.

The risks to national defence and prestige for America were

immense, the fact is that the US had virtually nothing in 1961 when it
came to space exploration. Remember that at this time only one
American, Alan Shepard, had even been briefly into space and this
was only for a 15 minute 23 second suborbital flight on top of a
Redstone ballistic missile hastily adapted to accommodate the
astronaut capsule. It should be emphasised that at the time of
Kennedy's announcement NASA had not even developed a rocket
powerful enough to get astronauts into low Earth orbit, let alone a
rocket to get them to the Moon and back.

I believe that very early on, perhaps shortly after Kennedy's

announcement, the clandestine unit within NASA decided that the
mission would be faked. In this way the USA could definitely
demonstrate to the world and particularly to the Soviet Union that the
US had the capability to challenge them technologically. As Gene
Kranz remarked, albeit in a different context:

“Failure is not an option”

The danger of relying on the achievement of science and

technology was far too risky. That is not to say that NASA would not
have been capable to achieve success but faking it would make it a
certainty, only if they could achieve a convincing fake. I believe that
this is when they started contacts with Stanley Kubrick, possible as
early as 1963.

The success of the fakery was important for several compelling

reasons:

They needed to fulfil Kennedy's stated goals at all costs

The Moon landings would demonstrate that the USA
was the world leader in technology and space exploration
The success of the Moon landings would take the     
pressure off the US Government in relation to the ongoing
 and increasingly unpopular Vietnam War
Some of the enormous fiscal allowances approved with
public support for the Moon landings could be diverted for
military and other “Black Op” use which otherwise may not
have been approved

So the importance of demonstrating success was paramount and

any methods would be considered to achieve it, faked or not. In the
following chapters, we will examine in detail the irrefutable evidence
that the Apollo Missions were totally faked.
 CHAPTER 5
TOO MUCH RADIATION

“These violent delights have violent ends

And in their triumph die,

like fire and powder”

William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

Radiation is just about everywhere. We receive it continuously

from the sun and from the rocks beneath our feet. It emanates from
our television sets, radios and mobile phones. We even absorb it
from certain fruits, vegetables and nuts, so much for being a clean
living but radioactive vegetarian.

Radiation and its effects on humans is a very complex subject,

beyond the understanding of the majority of us, not to mention the
confusion amongst the scientists themselves. Of course, if the
radiation is severe enough, we know the result, you will die. The
question we need to answer is how much radiation is considered
safe for the human body?

Many of us will have been subjected to radiation in the form of X-

rays and CT scans, either at the dentist or in hospital. Any X-ray or
CT scan will damage tissue in your body, that is a fact. What is
important is the amount you receive and the duration over which you
receive it. Small doses of radiation can be tolerated by the body,
even though they do cause damage to tissue, but the body has the
ability to repair damaged tissue over time.

We are all exposed to radiation every second of our lives from

natural background radiation. As a guide, here are some estimates
of the level of radiation that we receive from common X-ray, and CT
scan procedures as compared to normal background radiation:
 
 Chest X-ray equivalent to 2.4 days of natural
background radiation
Skull X-ray equivalent to 12 days of natural background
radiation
Lumbar Spine X-ray equivalent to 182 days of natural
background radiation
CT Head X-ray equivalent to 243 days of natural
background radiation
CT Abdomen X-ray equivalent to 2.7 years of natural
background radiation

So X-rays and CT scans are dangerous but are judged by the

medical world to be worth the risk, in that they may provide early
detection of more harmful maladies.

You may at this point be thinking you are inadvertently reading

some medical journal, well not quite. We need to try to understand
radiation, as the Apollo astronauts needed to pass through what are
thought to be extremely dangerous areas of radiation on their
journey to the Moon. So understanding is important for what follows.

We measure radiation with an instrument called a Geiger counter,

named after its inventor, the German physicist Hans Geiger in the
1920s. Radiation is measured in units called roentgen, named after
another German, Wilhelm Roentgen who discovered x-rays in 1895,
for which he received the first-ever Nobel Prize in Physics in 1901.
There are several other units in which radiation is measured, at
which point it becomes quite complex so we will stick to just a few of
them.

For the purists, one roentgen is the amount of ionizing radiation

producing one electrostatic unit of positive or negative ionic charge
in one cubic centimetre of air under standard conditions. What did he
just say? Now don't worry too much if you don't understand that
definition, you are certainly not alone.

The Van Allen Belts

 Here on the Earth, we are surrounded by two, and sometimes
three, regions of intense ionizing radiation called the Van Allen
radiation belts, which are formed as a result of the Earth's molten
inner core, which mostly consists of iron. The spinning of the Earth
results in the molten iron creating a giant magnet with lines of
magnetic flux radiating far out into space. It is these belts of
magnetic flux that trap most of the harmful radiation from the Sun
and keep the Earth safe and protected. This is the Earth's
magnetosphere and this is what enables us mere mortals to live here
on Earth without dying due to an overdose of deadly radiation.
Unless of course, you are partial to many vegetables.

These belts were first detected by the American physicist, Dr

James Van Allen in 1958, hence the eponymous name. He used
balloons and rockets, carrying instruments to measure the levels of
radiation as they passed through this region. What he detected was
that the radiation measured by Geiger counters first increased then
dropped and then suddenly increased again. From this, he
concluded that there were two distinct belts of radiation. It has now
been established that there can sometimes be three, depending on
the level of solar flares occurring on the Sun. These radiation belts
are like massive doughnuts circling the Earth.
 

Source NASA: Schematic of Van Allen Radiation Belts

There is no agreement on the thickness of the Van Allen radiation

belts. Van Allen himself estimated that they extended 64 thousand
miles from Earth, whereas NASA claims that they only extend to 24
thousand miles. This may be academic, as even beyond the
radiation belts there is total exposure to solar radiation particles, with
no protection from the Earth's magnetosphere.

As noted above, the Earth has a magnetic field with a north, and
a south pole, as we know from using an ordinary compass when a
youthful boy scout, or girl guide. It is estimated that this magnetic
field reaches out 36,000 miles into space, into a region we call the
magnetosphere. It is the magnetosphere that prevents most of the
harmful particles from the Sun, carried in the solar wind, from
reaching the Earth. Particles from the solar wind enter the
magnetosphere and are directed along the lines of magnetic flux
towards the poles, causing the impressive displays of the northern
lights (Aurora Borealis) and the southern lights (Aurora Australis).

It is relevant in our discussion to note that the radiation belts are

weakest near the Earth's poles and most intense around the equator.
The question then, is it possible for humans to traverse these
regions of radiation and remain unharmed, with the correct number
of fingers and toes? It is on this basis that the Moon landing sceptics
make their case. They claim that the Van Allen radiation belts are an
impenetrable barrier, deadly to any spacefarer who attempts to
traverse them. Therefore they conclude that the Apollo Missions to
the Moon could never have taken place. In consequence, they say
that man never walked on the face of the Moon.

We know that the astronauts on the Apollo Missions that

supposedly went to the Moon, never died from, or as far as we know
no astronaut ever suffered from any form of radiation illness. So if it
is impossible for humans to survive the Van Allen radiation belts,
then Apollo was, at least in part, hoaxed regardless of what all other
evidence suggests.

The level of radiation in the Van Allen belts is determined by,

mostly unpredictable, solar particle emissions, such as solar flares.
There is evidence to suggest that major flares occur at their most
savage according to an eleven-year cycle. The general
unpredictability of these solar flares implies that any space mission
through the Van Allen radiation belts does carry an inestimable
danger to the astronauts. Clearly, this would imply that NASA would
have carefully studied the Van Allen radiation belts and we must
assume they concluded that it was not dangerous to send astronauts
travelling through them. Paradoxically 1969 was the height of the
eleven-year solar flare cycle, so the danger would have been at its
greatest for Apollo 11, and it would not be possible to pick a worse
time to sojourn on the Moon.

It is interesting to note what James Van Allen himself said about

the dangers of the radiation belts, in a scientific paper published in
Scientific American in March 1959 (App 5.01), long before the Apollo
era, in which he states:

“Our measurements show that the maximum radiation level as of

1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour,
depending on the still undetermined proportion or protons to
electrons. Since a human being exposed for two days for even 10
roentgens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation
belts obviously present an obstacle to space flight. Unless some
practical way can be found to shield space travellers against the
effects of radiation, manned space rockets can best take off through
the radiation-free zone over the poles.”

Note, Van Allen's final sentence, “manned space rockets can best
take off through the radiation-free zone over the poles”. So Van Allen
is clearly suggesting a route which would minimise the astronaut's
exposure to this deadly radiation. Remember he said that the
radiation is equivalent to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour
and that even a dose of 10 roentgen over two days would give a 50-
50 chance of survival. 

The Apollo astronauts according to NASA would spend only

about 2 hours travelling through the Van Allen belts on the outward
journey and about 2 hours on the return journey. So based on James
Van Allen's findings without protection from the radiation the
astronauts would have received a significant dose of radiation of
between 40 and 400 roentgen. A more modern unit of radiation
exposure risk is the Sievert and one roentgen is basically equivalent
to 0.009 Sieverts. So the astronauts would be exposed to between
0.37 to 3.7 Sieverts after passing through the Van Allen radiation
belts. It is not easy to state categorically what this would do to the
astronauts, but the following is a rough guide:
 

A dose of 0.35 was the average exposure of Chernobyl

residents who were relocated after the blast in 1986. Some
died later from radiation-related illnesses.
A one Sievert accumulated dosage is estimated to
cause a fatal cancer many years later in 5% of people.
A five Sieverts single dose which would kill half of those
exposed to it within a month.

Unfortunately, the range of radiation given by Van Allen is so

wide, 40 to 400 roentgen, that it is difficult to decide conclusively
what the effects might be on the astronauts. Perhaps all we can
conclude is that at the lowest level the astronauts would survive into
old age, but at the highest level would probably not.

We do know that the Apollo spacecraft did not have any

significant radiation protection, except its construction from a thin
skin of aluminium, steel, and some plastic cladding. Similarly, the
Lunar Module for those missions that landed on the Moon, the
protection from radiation was minimal. The pro-NASA group would
maintain that this was adequate protection from the radiation but this
seems totally inadequate. On one occasion in 1990 the space shuttle
went to an altitude of 385 miles when it launched the Hubble
telescope. The astronauts reported seeing “shooting stars” as
cosmic rays hit the optic nerve and this was far below the Van Allen
belts.

So the sceptics have always contended that the Apollo Missions

were impossible, and consequently, man never set foot on the Moon.
However, NASA has published their official data on the average
radiation received by the Apollo astronauts which are surprisingly
orders of magnitude less than we calculated above.

Average Radiation Dose per Apollo Astronaut

Apollo Mission Average Skin Dose Rads
7 0.18
8 0.18
9 0.2
10 0.48
11 0.18
12 0.58
13 0.24
14 1.14
15 0.3
16 0.51
17 0.55

From the official NASA figures then the Apollo astronauts only
received an extremely low degree of radiation accumulation. The
minimum figure based on the Van Allen paper would have been 40
roentgen which is about 35 rad which is an order of magnitude more
than the NASA figures.

Do you notice anything rather strange in these figures? Let me

explain what the problem is.  Note for example, that the average
number of rads per crew member is the same for both Apollo 7 and
Apollo 8 which were completely different types of mission. Apollo 7
remained in low Earth orbit for 11 days whereas Apollo 8 spent six
days going to the Moon and back. This means that Apollo 8
traversed the Van Allen radiation belts twice and was outside the
Earth's protective magnetosphere for more than 5 days. In
comparison the radiation dose in low Earth orbit is about 0.016 rads
per crew member per day and the figure for Apollo 8 is about 0.03
rads per day. From this one may conclude that the radiation passing
through the Van Allen belts and beyond is only double that of low
Earth orbit. If these NASA figures are true then the research of
James Van Allen was completely wrong by several orders of
magnitude.

From this analysis, it is clear that it is not possible to definitively

conclude whether the astronauts would have been severely affected
by radiation or not. According to NASA, then the actual radiation was
minor, but according to the Van Allen paper, it would have been
considerably higher.

Radiation and Project Orion

So let us look at what NASA is now saying about this radiation
issue in the context of the new “slick” Orion Project (App 5.02). Note
that Kelly Smith, the narrator, draws a diagram showing the path the
spacecraft will take, which appears to be right through the Van Allen
radiation belts on an equator trajectory. 

This route he shows through the Van Allen radiation belts is

important as we shall see later. He also makes this categorical
statement concerning radiation:

“... we must solve these challenges before we send people

through this region of space ...”
 

Source NASA: Kelly Smith indicates route to the Moon

 As might be expected, the sceptics have jumped on this
statement as some form of admission by NASA that the Apollo
Missions never went to the Moon. The point being made is that the
Apollo Missions supposedly solved this challenge fifty years ago and
proved that radiation was not a problem, either going through the
Van Allen radiation belts or travelling to and walking on the Moon. So
we may ask, why is it suddenly seen as a problem for NASA and the
Orion Project?

However, it is clear from our brief analysis of the subject that we

cannot conclude whether it would be feasible for the astronauts to
have survived the passage through the Van Allen radiation belts, or
whether NASA faked the Moon landings. We need to look for other
evidence of any NASA fakery.

The Historical Records

At this point, I am obliged to give credit to Scott Henderson for
much of the insights that will now be discussed. Scott Henderson is
a fervent Apollo Moon Hoax investigator, who through numerous
hours of patient research has uncovered many previously
undetected anomalies in the Apollo story.  So my thanks to Scott for
providing me with some of the basis of which follows.

You will recall that Dr James Van Allen recommended that a safer
passage through the eponymous radiation belts would be to exit via
the poles.

In September 2014 Vintage Space, a website hosted by Amy

Teitel posted a video (App 5.03). In this video, she states that the
Apollo Mission flew right through the belts, but she does show a
diagram in which the path appears to miss the inner belt, thought to
be the most dangerous one.

Then in 2017, we have two new posts, one again from Amy Teitel
(App 5.04), and a second from Curious Droid (App 5.05). Curious
Droid is a website hosted by Paul Shillito, which is dedicated to
investigating matters relating to aerospace, space, robotics,
transportation technology, and other similar technical subjects. Now
both these latter videos suggest that the Apollo Missions took a
northerly route when leaving the Earth and a southerly route when
returning, so as to avoid the worst of the Van Allen radiation belts.  

I have searched in vain to find any NASA documentation of this

supposedly polar trajectory to the Moon taken by the Apollo
Missions. The first reference that I can find for the diagram shown by
Curious Droid is in a NASA Space Math Page 7 of unknown date but
first detected on the WayBack Machine on 20 August 2008 (App
5.06).

[Author's Note: For those who are unfamiliar with the WayBack
Machine. It is a digital archive of the World Wide Web and other
information on the Internet created by the Internet Archive, a non-
profit organisation, based in San Francisco, California, USA. It only
randomly samples internet sites, so it is not guaranteed to detect
every site].

The diagram that is shown in the Space Math paper (see App
5.06), was produced by scientists from the NASA Combined Release
and Radiation Effects Satellite (CRRES) which was launched in
1990.

This shows a schematic diagram of the Van Allen radiation belts,

to which has been added the supposed route of the Apollo Missions
as a thick black line which just about misses the inner radiation belt.
 


Source: NASA Space Math The Deadly Van Allen Belts?

The idea in the Space Math site was for students to calculate the
amount of radiation that the astronauts would have received if they
had taken the route shown by the thick black line. Radiation levels
were given for each of the colours.

It is clear that this Space Math paper was the source of Curious
Droid's diagram as can be seen by comparing this diagram to
snapshots taken from the Curious Droid video. He shows the
suggested routes for the Apollo Missions, outbound to the Moon, and
inbound back to Earth. He shows the routes taken as black lines
which completely miss the inner belt.

I can only assume that Curious Droid added these routes himself
as I was unable to find any other source.


Source Curious Droid: Suggested Apollo Outbound Path



Source Curious Droid: Suggested Apollo Inbound Path

We also have a snapshot of the supposed Apollo Missions path

through the Van Allen belts from Amy Teitel's video (see App 5.04).

We have a further pro-NASA believer providing us with

information on this trans-lunar trajectory in 2009 by Robert Braeunig
(App 5.07). The figure above from the Vintage Space website is
taken from this Braeunig paper. For some reason this paper has now
been deleted from the internet.

So according to the pro-NASA group, the Apollo Missions took

polar routes to avoid the worst of the Van Allen radiation belts, this is
exactly what Van Allen suggested, so what is the problem?

So what is the Problem?

Well, I will now explain the problem.

If we examine the original NASA documents from the 1960s, then

we see no mention of the Apollo Missions taking any polar route, in
fact, quite the opposite, they all made the trans-lunar burn, and left
for the Moon a few degrees north or south of the equator, which
would take them directly through the worst of the Van Allen radiation
belts.

Apollo 8 was the first manned mission to go to the Moon, and

therefore the astronauts were supposedly the first humans to
traverse the Van Allen radiation belts. It is therefore pertinent to
concentrate our investigation on this mission. Given that this was the
first time man had traversed this area of dangerous radiation, then
surely the concerns of NASA would be reflected in the
documentation produced at the time and the conversations they had
with the astronauts during the mission.

We can examine the NASA documents regarding the Apollo 8

Mission and see what was said about radiation risk, paths through
the Van Allen radiation belts, and their conversations with the
astronauts while, and after, they traversed this region of radiation.

We have the following documents from the NASA archive.

 

1. Apollo 8 Press Kit (App 5.08)

2. Apollo 8 Flight Plan Vol. 1 (App 5.09)
3. Apollo 8 Final Flight Evaluation Report (App 5.10)
4. Apollo 8 Flight Transcripts (App 5.11)
5. Apollo 8 Post Launch Report (App 5.12)
6. NASA Translunar Injection (App 5.13)

For each Apollo Mission NASA produced Press Kits to be

circulated to journalists prior to each mission. Let us first examine
the NASA Press Kit which was released 0n 15 December 1968, just
6 days before the Apollo 8 launch. You will see that this Press Kit
shows clear diagrams of the orbit profile and the route supposedly
taken to the Moon.

This document is unambiguous in that it shows the orbit profile as

being over the Pacific Ocean almost on the equatorial plane, for both
outbound and inbound routes. This is in stark contrast to the
diagrams shown above by Vintage Space, Curious Droid, and
Robert Braeunig which all show a northerly route just about missing
the inner radiation belt.

Similarly, the Apollo 8 path to the Moon is shown to be clearly

close to the equatorial plane. Note that in his deleted paper Robert
Braeunig says that this diagram should be disregarded as a “not to
scale” drawing. It is not just a matter of scale, but one of the Earth's
orientation as clearly shown.
 Source: NASA Apollo 8 Press Kit

There is no mention of radiation in the Flight Plan of any polar

route (see App 5.09). The Final Flight Evaluation Report contains a
list 0f 25 Primary Objectives and 12 Secondary Objectives (see App
5.10). None of these objectives mention radiation measurement or
any effect it may have on the astronauts. Similarly, there is nothing in
the Flight Transcripts about the Van Allen belts (see App 5.11), or in
the Post Launch Report (see App 5.12).

In addition, the NASA translunar injection figures show clearly

that Apollo 8 enacted the translunar burn at latitude 21.477,
longitude -143.9242 (see App 5.13). From this latitude, a polar
trajectory would be impossible. You will see similar latitudes and
longitudes in this table for all the Apollo Missions that traversed the
Van Allen radiation belts.

Jarrah White also discusses this question of the supposed polar

trajectory and also concludes that such a northerly path would be
impossible given the Saturn V launch from Florida (App 5.14).

The original NASA documentation is unequivocal. It was not until

the early 2000s that the idea of Apollo 8 taking a polar route was first
mooted by the pro-NASA group and one cannot help thinking that
this was only as a reaction to the sceptics doubting that a safe
passage was possible through the Van Allen radiation belts. As such
it appears to have been fabricated a long time after the event, in fact,
more than 30 years after.

These facts clearly demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt

that NASA faked the Apollo Moon landings and needed to amend
their story when their first version of events was cast into doubt. It
seems that suddenly, somewhere between 2005 and 2014, we have
a group of pro-NASA supporters spreading this story of special polar
routes. The NASA source of which I am unable to find.

But perhaps the most obvious proof of fakery and the lies NASA
have been telling comes from the voice transcripts recorded on the
mission. Let me first set the scenario again.

Apollo 8 was to be the first flight of humans beyond the protective

cocoon of the Earth's magnetosphere. NASA knew from James Van
Allen's research about the probable effect of the dangerous radiation
to the astronauts as they pass through this region to reach the Moon.
So you may think Mission Control would be concerned about the
health of the astronauts on their journey. Well, it seems not.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the voice transcripts

mentioning radiation, or the Van Allen belts. It is totally implausible
that Mission Control did not ask the astronauts how they were feeling
during and after they passed through the Van Allen radiation belts.
This should have been a crucial consideration, in that any medical or
biological effects could have seriously impaired the functioning of the
astronauts. The fact that there is absolutely nothing concerning their
“successful” transit through the Van Allen radiation belts in the voice
transcripts is clear proof positive that they did not venture to the
Moon.

It was only later, many years after the event, that NASA needed
to invent special “safe” paths through the radiation belts due to the
concerns being voiced by the sceptics relating to radiation exposure
for the astronauts.

It also appears that Dr James Van Allen himself had modified his
views on the radiation danger shortly before he died in 2006, as is
being suggested by the posting from Moontruth.org (App 5.15). The
email referenced in that page, which is reproduced in full below, was
as a response to an email from a pro-NASA enquirer.

The email allegedly from James Van Allen:

“Dear Mr Lambert,

In reply to your e-mail, I send you the following copy of a

response that I wrote to another inquiry about 2 months ago.

Ø The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose important

constraints on the safety of human space flight.

Ø The very energetic (tens to hundreds of MeV) protons in the

inner radiation belt are the most dangerous and most difficult to
shield against. Specifically, prolonged flights (i.e., ones of many
months' duration) of humans or other animals in orbits about the
Earth must be conducted at altitudes less than about 250 miles in
order to avoid significant radiation exposure.

Ø A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular equatorial

orbit in the most intense region of the inner radiation belt, at an
altitude of about 1000 miles, would be subjected to a fatal dosage of
radiation in about one week.
 Ø However, the outbound and inbound trajectories of the Apollo
spacecraft cut through the outer portions of the inner belt and
because of their high speed spent only about 15 minutes in
traversing the region and less than 2 hours in traversing the much
less penetrating radiation in the outer radiation belt. The resulting
radiation exposure for the round trip was less than 1% of a fatal
dosage - a very minor risk among the far greater other risks of such
flights. I made such estimates in the early 1960s and so informed
NASA engineers who were planning the Apollo flights. These
estimates are still reliable.

Ø The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and

entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation
exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the
astronauts is only one example of such nonsense.
James A. Van Allen"

The point being made by Moontruth.org is that Dr Van Allen

never recanted his original findings in a scientific paper, but only in
an alleged email, supposedly from him later in life. The fact is that
scientists publish findings in journals, not in emails. The page goes
on to suggest:

“that Dr Van Allen said 'this is nonsense' in an email, possibly

under duress or threats. We don't know if the email was really from
him, or NSA intercepting emails. He discovered a fatal radiation belt,
then says it is nonsense? Nonsense. He never published any paper
or article discounting his previous experiments or results. The Van
Allen Belt is a major obstacle to Moon landings.

He would have to speak against NASA and most Americans. He

would need very strong intestinal fortitude.”

The quote above are the words of Moontruth.org and not of the
author.

We can see more of NASA's flagrant disregard for the dangers of

radiation on the astronauts from the Apollo 8 Final Flight Evaluation
Report April 1969 (see App 5.10). This report lists the 25 primary
mission objectives and 12 secondary mission objectives. It is of
interest to note that none of these objectives are related to radiation
exposure, or the astronaut's survival. Everything is covered in the
smallest detail, but crucially nothing on radiation or the health of the
astronauts.

This is very revealing in that, as the first trip of the astronauts

through the Van Allen radiation belts, then the assessment of
radiation exposure would be one of the primary, or at least,
secondary objectives, but seemingly not. This a further proof that
NASA did not send astronauts through the Van Allen radiation belts,
otherwise it would surely have been mentioned. Particularly as they
belatedly now say that the Apollo missions took a polar route.

One more indication that the Apollo Missions did not venture to
the Moon as is revealed in a Bart Sibrel interview with Alan Bean
(App 5.16). This is an extract from a moonmovie.com video entitled
“No way out, the impassable Van Allen belt and NASA lies”. Just to
recap the role of astronaut Alan Bean. He was the Lunar Module
pilot on Apollo 12 which supposedly landed on the Moon on 19
November 1969.

This video interview by Bart Sibrel is very revealing. Alan Bean

initially stated that he was not sure Apollo 12 had gone far enough
out to encounter the Van Allen radiation belts on his way to the
Moon. Sibrel reminds him that the Van Allen belts start at about
1,000 miles out and extend to 25,000 miles. Bean then states that
they must have gone right through them with no ill effects. Alan Bean
further surprisingly states that he didn't think anyone knew about the
radiation belts. Given the fact that NASA is now at pains to tell us
that the Apollo Missions took a special polar route to avoid the Van
Allen belts then Alan Bean's answer is dumbfounding. As an
astronaut on an Apollo Mission he should have very well versed on
the journey they were to take, so his lack of knowledge on the Van
Allan belts is totally implausible.

Later in the interview, he comments on the “shooting stars” that

astronauts encountered on a shuttle mission when they went to 365
miles above the Earth to launch the Hubble telescope. He describes
that they also saw similar “shooting stars” on the Apollo 12 mission,
and states that they are cosmic rays hitting the back of the eye.
Bean then contradicts himself totally when he says that they didn't
see them on the Apollo 12 Mission because “they hadn't been
discovered then”, a totally unbelievable statement. He then goes on
to re-contradict himself again when he says that he saw these
“shooting stars” whilst on the Moon.

The fact that an astronaut presumably fully trained for the Apollo
12 Mission could be so ill-informed is totally implausible. It is just
another example that NASA did not at the time pay much attention to
the radiation hazards to the astronauts, as they did not, in reality, go
to the Moon. There can be no other plausible explanation.

Apollo Launch Windows

Before we end this chapter just a few more words on this
trajectory business. The determination of launch windows is a
complex task involving the motion of the Earth and the Moon around
the Sun. As shown in this NASA video from 1967 (App 5.17). It is not
as simple as taking off whenever you choose and flying in any
direction you may choose like we see with Flash Gordon.

This question of the pro-NASA supporters belatedly suggesting a

polar trajectory is interesting in that it may not even be feasible.

The main point to be made is that the trans-lunar injection can

only be made when it is line with the antipode so it cannot avoid the
Van Allen belts, nor could any other path be taken because it would
not connect to the Moon's path for the designated landing site
without the addition of substantially more fuel and time.

Similarly, this paper from the NASA Apollo Flight Journal on the
Apollo Lunar Landing Launch windows states that there are many
factors and constraints, involved as described by Robin Wheeler
(App 5.18). You can also view the discussion on the “collectSpace”
Forum which appears to state that the trans-lunar burn to take the
astronauts to the Moon would have taken place over the Pacific, or
Atlantic Oceans (App 5.19).

We can also examine the NASA Technical Report TN D-7080

“Apollo Experience Report Protection Against Radiation” published in
March 1973 (App 5.20).  This report discusses the radiation
protection and specifically mentions the Van Allen radiation belts, but
makes no mention of any polar route taken to minimise the radiation
level experienced by the astronauts. This is implausible as the paper
is primarily concerned with reducing the radiation risk for the
astronauts.

There is also a video by Jarrah White in which he states that the

Apollo Missions could not have taken any polar route (App 5.21). He
notes that as the Apollo Missions were all launched from Florida it
would not have been possible for them to reach the polar regions in
such a short amount of time and with the limited fuel available. It is
only possible to orbit the whole planet so they would need to slowly
adjust the orbital path to reach a northern trajectory. In fact, it would
take several days to attain a polar orbit and this we know that they
did not do.

It is really beyond any reasonable doubt that NASA never sent

any astronauts through the Van Allen radiation belts. It appears that
it was not a great consideration at the time as the public's knowledge
of such scientific matters was very limited and something that they
thought would never be a problem. Of course, NASA could not have
anticipated the internet or the rise of the public's awareness of such
matters. So they have needed after the event to fabricate cover
stories to explain this omission. The historical documentation
demonstrates this beyond any reasonable doubts.
 


NASA Translunar Coast from Report  MA68-7193

Finally, we have this diagram above taken from the NASA Report
HQ MA68-7193 dated 30 October 1968 on page 14d. Note that
Apollo 8 was launched just seven weeks later on 21 December
1968. This diagram is unequivocal in that it shows the translunar
burn has having taken place on the equator.

Summary
The evidence that we have seen in this chapter amounts to
convincing proof that NASA never sent any astronauts to the Moon.
In reality, it would appear that radiation was a detail in the fakery that
was not covered well enough to avoid later detection.

It is totally implausible that the radiation hazard was not at all

documented in the press releases, or the technical documents
produced pre- and post-flight. Of particular importance is the
evidence from the voice transcripts of the missions in that no
mention is made of radiation, Van Allen belts, or the astronaut's
health. This is so improbable if the Moon missions were real and just
appears to be an oversight by NASA-X in the construction of the
fakery.

The belated story that the Apollo Missions took a polar route to
avoid the worst of the Van Allen belts only appeared in the early
2000s, presumably after much speculation from sceptics that the
mission could not have passed through the Van Allen belts and the
astronauts survive.

The evidence indicates that this route was not even possible, due
to launch window constraints, not to mention the time and fuel
requirements. Such a route would have required considerable extra
fuel and more time, but this is something that was never allowed for.
Also, the almost total lack of knowledge about the Van Allen
radiation belts shown by the Apollo 12 astronaut Alan Bean clearly
shows that NASA never thoroughly briefed the astronauts on this
matter. Without a doubt, they would surely have done this if the
Apollo Missions were really going to the Moon and the astronaut's
lives were in danger.

You may be wondering why NASA would have needed to

fabricate such a story long after the events. After all, they had
published evidence to show that the radiation levels endured by the
Apollo astronauts were absolutely minimal and that no astronaut
suffered any radiation-related illnesses later in life.  So it may appear
that NASA-X had the situation under control and that the fakery had
been accepted.

It may appear strange that prior to the Apollo Missions the Van
Allen radiation belts were viewed as a potential hazardous danger
and NASA discussed protection against radiation although they
actually did very little in that respect. Then, during the Apollo
Missions it was shown that the astronauts suffered only minimal
radiation effects equivalent to a simple X-ray. Now in the Orion
Project radiation is again seen by NASA as a major issue. So what
happened, did the Van Allen radiation belts disappear during the
Apollo Missions and now suddenly reappear?

As NASA's next mission was to be to Mars the radiation may well

be a problem as an X-ray a week for a minimum of the 18 months
journey may not be so good for the astronauts. This has now all
changed with President Trump's declaration that NASA must return
to the Moon, not Mars, by 2024 (App 5.22). This may well reveal
NASA's deceit as going “back” to the Moon may not be as easy as
NASA made it look during the Apollo Missions.

Back then, it was no problem to send an astronaut to the Moon in

a thin aluminium box wearing a nylon suit and they accomplished
that in just 8 years starting from virtually nothing. By 2024 the Orion
Project will have been in development for 20 years starting with
much more advanced technology so the Moon by 2024 should not
be a problem for NASA. I suspect it will be more difficult to fake it this
time as every sceptic will watching very closely. We will see in 5
years time.

Certainly, NASA is doing a poor job of using green and blue

screen techniques with the International Space Station (ISS) if you
watch this interesting video (App 5.23).  What really made me laugh
about this video was Chris Hadfield on the ISS having a “live” singing
duet with an Earth-based group composed of the Barenaked Ladies
and the Wexford Gleeks. Seems they forgot about the time delay
between the ISS and Earth. Now either the producers are do not
understand physics or they think the audience must be rather dim.

It may well be that NASA already knows more than is published

about the radiation levels in the Van Allen belts that could possibly
demonstrate that it would have been impossible for humans to
traverse these belts in the Apollo craft and survive. Conversely, it
may be a pre-cover story just in case such an impossibility was
discovered in the future which would clearly expose the fakery. In
either case, NASA was not able to amend historical records which
clearly and unambiguously, show the near-equatorial trans-lunar
burn and trajectory for each of the  Apollo Missions. 

Instead, NASA cleverly devised the children's Space Math paper

showing a new northerly route through the Van Allen belts without
making any statement. The diagram shown was only produced after
1990 when the CRRES satellite was launched. This fake story was
embellished and subsequently propagated by the pro-NASA
devotees. It has now assumed the false attribute of established “fact”
and is repeated over and over by the pro-NASA lobby.
 It is often said that the first lie is the easiest, but subsequent lies
to cover that first lie become increasingly more challenging.

But let NASA have the last word on radiation outside low Earth
orbit. In a BBC Newsnight interview with NASA Chief Scientist Dr
Ellen Stofan, who is the principal advisor to the NASA Administrator,
aired in November 2014 she said:

“NASA’s focus now is on sending humans beyond low-Earth orbit

to Mars. We are trying to develop the technologies to get there, it is
actually a huge technological challenge. There are a couple of really
big issues. For one thing – Radiation. Once you get outside the
Earth’s magnetic field we are going to be exposing the astronauts to
not just radiation coming from the Sun, but also to cosmic
radiation.  That's a higher dose than we think humans right now
should really get”

This a very revealing statement in several ways. NASA is

undoubtedly the one organisation in the world who should have
extensive information on the radiation levels outside the Earth's
protective magnetosphere. Not only have they sent numerous
unmanned probes through this region which presumably had
radiation detection aboard but they also claim to have sent 27 Apollo
astronauts outside the Earth's protective magnetosphere. According
to the NASA data the radiation effects on these astronauts were
minimal, less than my annual CT Scan. So one needs to ponder why
it is now seen as such “a really big issue”.

It would appear that NASA have painted themselves into a corner

with this radiation business. There are now stuck with trying to
reconcile the published radiation dosages received by the astronauts
on the Apollo Missions with more recent data from the Orion Project.
This paper by Mary Bennett published on the Aulis,com website
examines the radiation data collected for the Orion Project and
compares that with the NASA published data for the Apollo Missions
(App 5.24). The paper states:
 “The BIRD Radiation Detector report seemingly confirms that the
dosimetry radiation data for the manned Apollo lunar flights was
collected while remaining in low-Earth orbit”

and concludes:

“The presentation of this Orion BIRD data, together with the

difficulties over its publication infers that some within the space
agency have noticed that the Apollo radiation data doesn’t fit the
template. Therefore it's become necessary for NASA staff to spend
hours writing statements full of obfuscations in a literary exercise of
'simple avoidance'. But no amount of careful massaging of
descriptions of the space environment through crafted vocabulary
and pretty pictures can hide the truth contained in the actual figures.

This BIRD Radiation Detector report seemingly confirms that the

dosimetry radiation data for the manned Apollo lunar flights was
collected while remaining in LEO. Whether deliberately or
unwittingly, NASA's own data has blown apart the notion that a
manned Apollo crew ever travelled to the Moon.”

This again further reveals that NASA faked the Moon landings.

NASA now tell us about the difficulties of providing radiation

protection for the astronauts but the obvious question is, didn't they
do this 50 years ago for the Apollo Missions and then the radiation
was not a problem?

I think the only conclusion that one could sensibly make is that
the Apollo astronauts never travelled outside the Earth's
magnetosphere. Now NASA is faced with the problem of supposedly
repeating the missions to the Moon without killing the astronauts. I
am doubtful that the new 2024 target date to get men “back” on the
Moon will slip again. I am also personally very doubtful that humans
could travel into space with the present technology.
 
 CHAPTER 6
VISIONS OF A MOON

“And nothing is, but what is not”

William Shakespeare,  Macbeth

In this chapter, I will present several irrefutable proofs that the

NASA Apollo Moon landings were faked. Although NASA did a
commendable job in the 1960s to produce such a convincing fake, it
just was not good enough to avoid detection under serious analysis.
Remember, that back in the 1960s there was no Computer
Generated Images (CGI) or much in the way of special effects
technology. It all had to be achieved using models and captured
directly into the camera. Given this, we can only admire the people
who worked on this project of deceit for their undoubted skill.

Looking at the Moon

We all know how the Moon looks when viewed from Earth, but
what would it look like if we were standing on its surface. This was
the first problem that NASA needed to solve if they were really going
to fake the Moon landings. Naturally, they had a certain amount of
leeway given that nobody else knew either. They did have some
grainy black and white photographs from the Surveyor Probes which
landed on the Moon (1966 to 1968) to guide them.

In 1966 NASA launched the Lunar Orbiter Programme, a series

of unmanned satellites in orbit around the Moon specifically to
photograph the lunar surface and identify suitable landing sites for
the Apollo missions. In all, a total of five lunar orbiters were launched
between 1966 and 1967 (App 6.01).

The cameras on these satellites used a dual-lens system and

photographed almost all of the nearside lunar surface with a claimed
resolution of 60 metres. NASA used these detailed photographs to
create large scale models of the total Moon, parts of the Moon and
“sophisticated” simulators with which the astronauts could
“realistically” practice the Moon landing. I can well imagine, that if
you are obsessed with a serious compelling intention to go land on
the Moon and go “walkabout”, then it may be wise to have a little
practice before setting off.

NASA even created an accurate full sized copy of the Apollo 11

Moon landing site (The Sea of Tranquillity) in Northern Arizona, by
blasting craters out of the volcanic rock. In total, they created forty-
seven craters of between five and forty feet in diameter designed to
duplicate a full-scale replica of the Apollo 11 landing site.

You can still see it on Google Earth if you search for “Cinder Lake
Arizona”. Ostensibly, this was to test out the Lunar Rover, but you
may wonder why did they need an exact replica of the Apollo 11
landing site when the Lunar Rover was only scheduled for missions
15, 16 and 17. The craters today have been very much reduced,
both in scale and in perceptibility, due to the site being used by
public thrill-seekers as a ready-made and excitingly unusual off-road
driving experience. You may think you are looking at the surface of
the Moon but this is entirely man-made here on Earth. In fact,
several crater fields were made in Arizona as described in this paper
from David A. Kring  (App 6.02).

If NASA were to create a complete faked stage set on which to

film the Apollo footage, then they needed to have realistic
topographical detail of the landing sites in order to be convincing.
These detailed stereoscopic photographs from the orbiter satellites
provided the detailed image data with which to create these training
sets here on Earth.
 


Source David A. Kring: Cinder Lake Arizona

They used this data to construct several large scale models of

the Moon and much more detailed models of particular areas of the
Moon, notably the planned Apollo landing sites in order to familiarise
and train the astronauts. The success of the hoax depended upon
the accuracy of these models.

The images on the following pages were obtained from the NASA
archives and show some of the extremely large scale models that
NASA constructed based on the Lunar Orbiter photographs (All
photos shown are Source NASA).
 Front Screen Projection
I now invite you to watch a short movie. It is the opening scene,
“The Dawn of Man”, from Stanley Kubrick's acclaimed movie “2001:
A Space Odyssey” (App 6.03).  Did you notice anything?

No, I do not mean did you spot that the apes were really humans
dressed in furry suits and just pretending to be apes. It is more about
the scenery not the actors, so watch it again.
 

Image 2001: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.

You will see that the picture appears to be in two separate

pieces, the foreground and the distant scenery beyond it. You will
see a horizontal line which separates the two, as indicated here in
this out-take by the black superimposed line.

Here we have another example taken from the same movie,

again with the dividing line between the real foreground and the
projected background image shown in white.
 


Image 2001: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.

The dividing line has been added to show the join more clearly.
Below this line is a real stage set, while above the line we have a
projected image. This line is often referred to as the “Kubrick
Horizontal” and is the indisputable fingerprint signature of the Front
Projection technique.

The technique of Front Screen Projection was invented by Philip

V. Palmquist who, while working at the 3M Corporation, received a
patent on the technology and also won an Academy Award for the
invention. It was first experimented with shortly after the invention of
Scotchlite in 1949 and had appeared in feature films by 1963 when
the Japanese horror film Matango used it for its yacht scenes. This
technique was used by Stanley Kubrick in the making of “2001: A
Space Odyssey” and as we shall soon discover it was later used
extensively by NASA to fake the Apollo lunar  surface footage.

The technique is shown and explained in the "making-of-

documentary" of the 1972 sci-fi film “Silent Running” which was
directed by Douglas Trumbull (App 6.04). At time 31:55 to 36.33
Trumbull describes how the Front Screen Projection system works.

Note that Douglas Trumbull was the special effects supervisor for
Stanley Kubrick on the “2001: A Space Odyssey” movie. We will
encounter Douglas Trumbull again later in our story.
 Another explanation of Front Screen Projection is shown in this
video from Shanks FX PBS Digital Studios (App 6.05).

An illustration of the Front Screen Projection set-up is shown in

the diagram. A two-way mirror is used angled at 45 degrees to the
screen. A camera is positioned to record the live action, and a
projector beams the pre-recorded image onto the mirror. The mirror
is used to bring the two images together to create the illusion that it
is one scene.

Hopefully, we now all understand the importance of the “Kubrick

Horizontal” and its relationship to the Front Screen Projection
technique. If the “Kubrick Horizontal” can be discerned in a
photograph or video, then it is almost always proof that the Front
Screen Projection technique has been used and the resulting scene
must have been faked.

We can examine the Apollo photographs and videos, to look for

evidence of the Front Screen Projection technique being employed.
 Apollo and the Kubrick Horizontal
Now we will study some of the Apollo photographs and examine
them for the tell-tale fingerprint signature of the Front Screen
Projection process. First, we will examine a NASA photograph taken
from Apollo 17.

There is a clear “Kubrick Horizontal” in this photograph as

indicated by the white line in the following photograph.

Below this line, the foreground is the real stage set, while above
the line we are seeing a projected image most probably a painted
image which is extremely matte. There is no question that this is the
tell-tale fingerprint of Front Screen Projection. We can detect this
“Kubrick Horizontal” in the majority of the NASA Apollo images and
videos.

Above I did say that if the “Kubrick Horizontal” can be discerned

in a photograph or video, then it is “almost always” proof of the Front
Screen Projection technique. I say “almost always” because they are
some exceptions and some quite genuine photographs or videos can
sometimes show such a line between the foreground and the
background.

For example, if you stand on one side of the Grand Canyon, and
take a photograph of the view, but get your side of the Canyon at the
bottom of the picture, then it will look like there is a “Kubrick
Horizontal” in your genuine photograph. The following photograph is
a real photograph of the Grand Canyon which has the white line
added showing the separation between the front scenery and the
distant background.
 

View of Grand Canyon West Rim

This photograph could be mistakenly assumed to have a “Kubrick

Horizontal” but it is a genuine photograph. However, such
photographic compositions are very exceptional and usually only
occurs if you are situated on some plateau which was certainly not
the case on the Moon.
 Here we have another example on the opposite page from the
Apollo 15 Mission which purportedly landed in the Hadley-Apennine
Region of high mountains.

Again, we see the clear fingerprint of Front Screen Projection.

This quite unmistakable “Kubrick Horizontal” is clear indisputable
evidence of the NASA fakery.

On occasions, they used a false “Kubrick Horizontal” in the

projected image presumably to try and disguise the real “Kubrick
Horizontal” for example look at this moonscape taken by the camera
on the Lunar Rover on Apollo 17.

In the above screenshot, you can see the real foreground and the
actual “Kubrick Horizontal” then above what appears to be a second
“Kubrick Horizontal” which is in fact just part of the projected
background. I have placed short black marks at the edges to indicate
the lines. It is used on several missions but in my opinion rather than
disguise the real “Kubrick Horizontal” it just focuses your eye on it.

NASA did not use Front Screen Projection in all cases, for
example, it does not appear to have been used on Apollo 11, as can
be seen from this panorama shown on www.panoramas.dk (App
6.06 Use your cursor to pan). You can also see all the other Apollo
panoramas on this site. Of particular interest is the panorama shown
for Apollo 17  in which the “Kubrick Horizontal” is so patently obvious
across the complete panorama.

One thing to note is that the painted projected backgrounds did

slightly improve in later Apollo Missions as more detailed shading
was added to the painted backdrops but even so the backgrounds
are still quite plain and featureless.

I did mention above that the Apollo 11 panoramic photographs

did not appear to have involved the Front Screen Projection
technique. It could well be that as it was the first Apollo Mission
which was chosen to land in a relatively flat area of the Moon, the
Sea of Tranquillity, then perhaps they concluded that there were no
distant mountains to show.

However, an analysis of the Apollo 11 photography by Andreas

Märki posted on aulis.com (App 6.07) conclusively proves that the
photography cannot have been carried out on the Moon but must
have been taken on some studio set. The author concludes:

“In a real environment, this limited visibility would only be

possible from an 8,600 metre-high platform – with no visible
mountains in the neighbourhood for 170 km.  All this fits with neither
to the Moon in general nor to the Sea of Tranquillity in particular.

But it does correspond perfectly with these images having being

created in a studio environment where one can only see a limited
surface area – the equivalent of the illuminated foreground in the re-
creations.

Therefore this study concludes that these Apollo 11 still

photographic images and the ‘live’ TV coverage must have been
taken in a studio on Earth”

Again we have another undeniable proof that the Apollo 11

photography and supposedly “live” TV transmissions were not made
from the Moon.

There is also proof of the NASA fakery in the live TV transmission

made on 20 July 1969 (App 6.08). As it was the first Moon landing
and presumably NASA was not sure that the fake would be
undetectable they purposefully used a very low quality black and
white video. To disguise any errors further they did not supply the TV
companies with a direct feed but made them film from a large
projection screen. Watch the video from time 35:00 to time 36:50.
Notice that as the camera pans around the stage set a pool of light
follows the camera most likely indicating that a light was attached on
the top of the camera.

If you look closely you will see that this light also illuminates the
black background which is supposedly the blackness of space but is
in fact the black material of the projection screen.

The light source not only illuminates the surface of the Moon but
also the background screen and you can see a clear circular pool of
light. In a relatively flat area the surface of the Moon should be
evenly lit by the Sun but it is clearly not. There is no question that
this video has been faked in a studio.

Stage Set
There is no doubt that we are dealing with a sizeable stage set. I
estimate that the stage set was very large, circular in nature and with
a radius of about 250 to 300 metres, as can be roughly judged from
the location of the “Kubrick Horizontal” in many of the NASA videos.

The size of the stage has also been estimated using a method of
stereoscopic parallax by Oleg Oleynik posted on the aulis.com
website (App 6.09). The method is based on the fact that with
stereoscopic images the background should not show any parallax
movement but he demonstrates that it does, so the conclusion must
be that these cannot be real photographs taken on the Moon. He
estimates the distance on the Apollo 15 Mission to the mountain
range as being less than 300 metres and not the supposed 5 km if
the photograph was real.

This analysis by Oleynik is very revealing in several ways. First

using stereoscopic parallax on several Apollo panoramic
photographs he firmly concludes that the photographs must have
been taken on some stage set and could not have been taken on the
Moon. Secondly, he examines the horizontal stereoscopic effect and
again concludes that the photographs must have been taken on a
stage set. Finally, he examines the distortion grid of background
lunar landscape using a method of digital distortion to the sections of
the image of which he says:

“This method can determine the nature of simulation of any

background 'landscape i.e. build a distortion grid and inspect it.
Obviously, if the distortion grid has a curved surface, then it
corresponds to projection at the rear onto a circular panorama
screen, creating a simulation of a remote background scape on the
projection screen. Instead of taking pictures in a remote lunarscape
the ‘astronauts’ take pictures of a foreground with the background
projected onto a screen”

This method is rather complex but suffice it to say that from this
method he can roughly estimate the radius of the circular panorama
screen by a distortion grid. From this, he confirms the fact that the
‘lunar’ scape was projected onto a forward-tilted, slightly convex
panorama background screen. He concludes that the study of the
stereoscopic effect in the photographs that he analyses shows that
these images do not contain distant objects farther than a few
hundred metres away.  In particular, he states:

“The Apollo 15 photographic record contradicts the stereoscopic

parallax verification method. The apparent change in the relative
positions of objects by moving the camera when the camera angles
are separated by several tens of cm show that:
 

the distance to distant objects such as mountains is not

tens of kilometres but is no more

than a few hundred metres

the landscape is not continuous, but with clear lines of

separation

 
there is movement between nearby sections of the
panorama relative to other sections

Thus, based on the above examples, this study concludes that

the Apollo 15 photographic record does NOT depict real lunarscapes
with distant backgrounds located more than a kilometre away from
the camera.
 These pictures were, without doubt, taken in a studio set up to
300 metres in size. A complex panorama mimicking the lunarscape
shows degrees of movement, such as horizontal and vertical
changes to give an impression of imaginary distance to the objects
and perspective”

In conclusion, the detailed analysis of the Apollo Moon

photographs by Oleg Oleynik is just one more irrefutable proof that
the Apollo Moon Missions were totally faked.

Analysis of the Moonscapes

There has been much criticism of the Moonscapes shown in the
NASA photographs and videos. Basically, they do not look very real
but more like poorly painted images which are bland with no real
detail.  We have already seen the telltale evidence of the “Kubrick
Horizontal” in almost all of these videos and photographs but let us
look in more detail to confirm our suspicions.

First of all, we will examine a couple of the panoramas taken by

the TV camera mounted on the Lunar Module for Apollo 16 posted
on YouTube by pro-NASA “BertieSlack” (App 6.10). Again we see
the same nonsensical bland featureless scenery which NASA hopes
will convince us that we are actually seeing the Moon. I confess that
I have never visited the Moon but to my mind seeing the
photographs of the Moon it should look more like this fabricated
imagery produced by the “DevTon Studio Team” (App 6.11) as in the
following screen capture.
 


Source: DevTon Studio Team

Instead, NASA wants us to believe that this panorama as shown

by the TV camera on Apollo 16 was actually taken on the Moon. A
total featureless landscape which is devoid of any significant detail. It
shows an almost smooth surface almost empty of any rock debris
and craters.
 

Source: Extracted from NASA TV Panorama

If you think that I am being unfairly too selective in showing the

above image take a look at the full panorama.
 


Source: NASA Apollo 16 TV camera panoramas

We have further evidence, if it were indeed needed, in this

excellent video by Ted Aranda posted on the “ChemTrailsMN”
website (App 6.12). Unfortunately, the video is a full 4 hours 43
minutes long but thankfully I do not ask you to watch all of it as I
have extracted the relevant parts of the video into several separate
videos with the author's permission.  Having said that, if you have
the time then it is well worth watching the complete video.

The main video deals with the visions of the Moon that we are
shown by NASA. Ted Aranda shows us how fragmented the Moon's
surface should be based on the photographs taken by the lunar
orbiters. He then goes on to look at several of the individual Apollo
landing sites and examines what we are shown by NASA.

Apollo 14 Landing Site (App 6.13)

He first comments on the featureless landscapes devoid of any
significant craters or boulders that are claimed by NASA as being on
the Moon. He then goes on to look in detail at the Apollo 14 landing
site.

Apollo 14 landed in the Fra Mauro Formation which is a hilly area

with hills several hundreds of feet high. He explains that one stated
objective of this Apollo Mission was to visit a crater known as Cone
Crater. He provides evidence that there is no such crater and that
the image has been doctored with this non-existent crater.  By
examining pre-Apollo images of the Moon he finds that there is no
evidence of Cone Crater. I personally do not understand why NASA
should have needed to do this.
 He examines the EVA to Cone Crater and notes some strange
reasons given by the astronauts why they never found the “alleged”
Cone Crater. He also notes that the panorama taken close to the
supposed Cone Crater shows a distinct “Kubrick Horizontal” across
the whole of the panorama.

Source: Extract from App 6.12 panorama

Given the distinct “Kubrick Horizontal” in this Apollo 14

photograph and video, there is no question that it is fake and
definitely not taken on the Moon. There cannot be a “Kubrick
Horizontal” as they are not on a plateau but on the side of a
mountain.

Apollo 15 Landing Site (App 6.14)

Apollo 15 supposedly landed at the northern end of the Apennine
Mountains close to Hadley Rille. The Apennine region contains some
of the tallest mountains on the Moon. Ted Aranda show us
photographs of mountains here on Earth of similar size to those in
the Apollo 15 landing area on the Moon as a comparison of what we
should see.

He notes that Mount Hadley is 4.5 km tall so taller than Mount

Everest here on Earth which is 4.2 km high but what do we see in
the Apollo imagery is only a grey featureless rounded bump of a hill.
Ted Aranda is perhaps more accurate to call it a featureless “blob”.
Also, note again the distinct “Kubrick Horizontal” in the following
photograph.
 

Source NASA: Fake Mount Hadley 17 miles away

He goes on the examine the even worse photographs of Hadley

Rille and St George Crater which are verging on the comical. There
is absolutely no question that these videos and photographs were
not taken on the Moon.

What truly amazes me is that sensible people can be so

indoctrinated to view these photographs or videos and convince
themselves that they are really looking at the surface of the Moon. It
is beyond comprehension. There is no weathering due to wind rain
on the Moon to produce the rounded shapes of the mountains as
portrayed by NASA. The only weathering would possibly be by rock
fracture due to cycles of extreme heat and cold and this would only
produce very fragmented and “craggy” mountains as we clearly
observe on the orbiter satellite images.

The majority of the NASA moonscapes are devoid of any

significant features except a few round depressions and the
occasional odd rock, not much better than your local supermarket
car park. The NASA artist who painted these background scenes for
the Moon certainly got it wrong or maybe he just had a bad day at
the office. I suspect that the background scenes were painted from
the artist's view of the NASA Moon models.

Apollo 16 Landing Site (App 6.15)

This mission supposedly landed close to the Descartes
Mountains. Ted Aranda compares the NASA satellite photograph of
the area with a pre-Apollo satellite image and concludes that the
NASA released photograph has been doctored. He notes fourteen
discrepancies between the two photographs. I am not entirely
convinced by his argument as the pre-Apollo satellite photograph is
of an extremely low resolution.

On Apollo 16 the astronauts had the Lunar Rover so were able to

cover greater distances in their EVAs. The astronauts supposedly
drove right up to the edge of North Ray Crater which has a diameter
of 950 m and is 270 m deep but this is what NASA wants us to
believe is the crater together with a close-up of the crater.
 

 Source NASA: North Ray Crater Apollo 16

Source NASA: Close-Up of North Ray Crater Apollo 16

The far side of the crater is supposed to be one kilometre away

but you can still see tiny rocks on the far side.  There is no way that
the human eye could resolve the small or even relatively large rocks
at a one kilometre distance.

It is also supposed to be almost one kilometre wide. Clearly, the

NASA artist had a problem with scale. Ted Aranda makes a valid
comparison with Meteor Crater in Arizona, USA which has similar
dimensions although only 60% as deep as the North Ray Crater.
 

Source www.zmescience.com: Meteor Crater Arizona

There is no comparison between the pathetic NASA attempt to

depict North Ray Crater and a real crater. See in Meteor Crater how
it would be impossible to resolve individual rocks on the far side of
the crater.

He concludes that the evidence presented by NASA of the Apollo

16 Mission is pure and simple fakery. It is just one more proof that
the Apollo Missions were deviously faked by NASA.

Apollo 17 Landing Site (App 6.16)

This mission supposedly landed in the Taurus-Littrow valley area
adjacent to the Sea of Serenity. Again, Ted Aranda expresses his
doubts about the authenticity of the NASA photograph of the landing
site. It may well be that this is true but the pre-Apollo photograph he
uses for comparison has a very low resolution, so it is hard to
discern the detail.

The astronauts supposedly visited Camelot Crater which is about

half the size of Meteor Crater that we discussed in the Apollo 16
landing site examination above. This is the NASA photograph
showing the crater supposedly taken by the astronauts.
 

Source NASA: Apollo 17 Camelot Crater

Ted Aranda notes the same problems that he saw in Apollo 16,
the crater shown is far too small to be half a kilometre across. You
can judge the scale from the Lunar Rover parked on the left. Also,
note once again the “Kubrick Horizontal” in this panorama and the
fact that again you can see individual rocks on the far side of the
crater.

We also have an investigation by Colin Rourke in a paper posted

on the Aulis.com website (App 6.17). In this analysis, he looks at
three photographs from Apollo 15 showing Mons Hadley. The fact
that the outline of Mons Hadley is identical in all three photographs
even though they were taken from different angles leads him to
conclude that the photographs must have been faked against the
same backdrop.

There simply cannot be any dispute that the NASA videos and
photographs were not really made on the Moon.  The evidence
against this is overwhelming. I often wonder why I managed to
believe in the NASA story for almost fifty years. I think the simple
answer is that I blindly accepted whatever NASA published as being
true without any further research. The fact that NASA could make
such a momentous deceit was just too unthinkable and perhaps also
impossible to imagine. I believe that this must be the position of most
“genuine” believers. I used the word “genuine” as I can well imagine
that the hard-line pro-NASA devotees are somewhat disingenuous in
their support of NASA. It has even been suggested in many quarters
that some of these ardent NASA fans are in the purse of NASA but
that is pure speculation by others.

Problems Orbiting the Moon

If you need further proof that the Apollo Missions were a hoax
then read on. I am indebted to Pascal Xavier for much of the
painstaking analysis provided in this section. The Command Module,
with the Lunar Module still attached, enters Moon orbit in preparation
for the Moon landing. The two craft separate, the Lunar Module
descends to the Moon while the Command Module stays in orbit. It is
this orbit of the Command Module, which is well documented and
shown in the video by NASA, that further exposes the hoax. 
 First, we need to familiarise ourselves with a little science. When
a spacecraft is in orbit around the Moon the spacecraft is subject to
two competing forces. The first is the gravitational attraction between
the spacecraft and the Moon, which pulls the spacecraft downwards
towards the Moon's surface. The second is the centrifugal force
caused by the spacecraft travelling at speed in orbit around the
Moon. Let's have a quick look at these forces.

The first force gravity diminishes according to the square of the

distance as given by Newton's law on universal gravitation first
published on 5 July 1687.

m1m2
F = G ------
r2
where
F     is the gravitational force acting between two objects
m1   is the mass of object 1
m2   is the mass of object 2
r      is the distance between the centres of their masses
G     is the gravitational constant.

So the farther apart the two objects are the lesser the
gravitational pull.

The second force is the centrifugal force caused by the object

rotating around a centre. No doubt you are all familiar with swinging
a bucket of water over your head and thankfully the water does not
fall out as the bucket passes overhead. The water is being held in
the bucket by the centrifugal force. Unlike gravity which diminishes
according to the inverse square of the distance this force is linear
relative to distance but dependent on the speed of rotation. This
force pushes the spacecraft away from the Moon.

It is these two competing forces which affect the orbital dynamics.

Note that as the spacecraft's orbit gets closer to the Moon then the
gravity increases and therefore to maintain the balanced forces the
speed of orbit needs to be increased in order to increase the
centrifugal force.

The question is what would the Command Module look like when
orbiting the Moon? Like this?
 

Well no, that is the way you may have seen it in diagrams,
cartoons or in movies. It cannot orbit like this due to the gravitational
pull on the centre of mass which would cause it to adopt a vertical
position.

In the case of the Command Module it would orbit in a vertical

configuration either with the nose down or like this with its nose up
away from the Moon's surface;
 

Or like this with nose down towards Moon;

 

 It should be either nose down towards the Moon or nose up away

from the Moon but which one?

So let us look at the detailed masses of the three components of

the Command Module: the Crew Capsule, the Service Module and
the Rocket Skirt. The corresponding weights of each component are
as follows:
Crew Capsule         12,250 lbs
Service Module      35,000 lbs
Rocket skirt             220 lbs

We can clearly see that the centre of mass is such that the
spacecraft would orientate itself with its nose down towards the
Moon due to the pull of gravity on the centre of mass shown by the
centre of mass line. This is similar to what we saw with the Earth
tidally locking the Moon.

So what we know is that the Apollo Command Module would orbit

the Moon with its nose down, that is simple science. 

But look at this NASA photograph of the Apollo 11 CSM

supposedly orbiting the Moon, it is clearly shown orbiting with the
capsule nose upwards away from the Moon.
                   

Source NASA: Apollo 11 CSM in Orbit

You can view the official NASA video of the Apollo 11 spacecraft
orbiting the Moon with its nose upwards (App 6.18) at elapsed time
49 seconds.

However, it could be that NASA changed its mind since 1969 and
perhaps considers the Command Module should orbit with its nose
down as shown in this animation video (App 6.19 at 40 seconds)
from the NASA Scientific Visualization Studio published in 2018.

It had to be in this orientation to enable the astronauts to take the

now iconic photographs of the Earthrise over the Moon. Had they
been orbiting “nose up” as shown in 1969 they would have been
staring out into space and would have not seen the Earth rise over
the Moon. All we can surmise is that NASA was somehow confused
in 1967 about the dynamics of the situation but eager to correct it
later.

If we need further proof that NASA got the video of the Apollo 11
Command Module orbiting the Moon “nose up” as shown in the
video (see App 6.16) then we need to look at the photographs taken
by Michael Collins as he orbited the Moon in the CSM.

       

Source NASA: Earth Rise from Apollo 11 CSM

If Collins was orbiting the Moon in the Command Module with the
“nose up” then he would have been staring into deep space and not
down towards the Moon as shown in this now famous photograph of
the Earth majestically rising above the Moon “supposedly” taken by
Collins from the Command Module. More indisputable evidence of
the NASA confusion in the fakery.

Did you closely watch the video of Apollo 11 orbiting the Moon
(see App 6.16) and notice something else rather strange?

The first question you may have is what or who is taking the
video. Well, there can only be one answer to that question. The
Lunar Module is the only other spacecraft in the vicinity but why is it
so much higher than the Command Module? It has detached from
the Command Module for its descent towards the Moon so why did it
rise up higher than the Command Module? We know that the
Command Module did not descend as according to NASA it was in a
fixed orbit around the Moon.

Even stranger still, is the way in the video that the Lunar Module,
which we must assume is taking the video, manages to stay
precisely above the Command Module as they both orbit the Moon.
The Lunar Module is in a higher orbit so it cannot be travelling at the
same speed as the Command Module for such a long time as shown
in the video.

Once again we have conclusive proof that this video is a total

fake and was not taken on the Moon. Whoever devised this fake
video sequence certainly did not understand basic orbital mechanics.
Some Moon landing sceptics even suggest that these
inconsistencies were deliberately added by “whistleblowers” wishing
to expose the deceit.

The Lunar Module

Source NASA: Apollo 11 Lunar Module on the Moon

The Apollo Lunar Module more properly called the Lunar

Excursion Module (LEM) but also mostly referred to simply as the
Lunar Module (LM) was NASA's design for the spacecraft to land on
the Moon. It needed to make the powered descent to the Moon, to
protect the astronauts while they were on the Moon and finally to
bring the astronauts back to the Command and Service Module
(CSM) which had been patiently orbiting the Moon. It was the most
complicated and sophisticated spacecraft ever built for the Apollo
Missions. It was an entirely independent spacecraft with its own
rocket motors, fuel, batteries, life support system and navigation
equipment.  Now there a few elements to this spacecraft and warrant
our attention. It was the most improbable looking spacecraft that you
could imagine. You only have to look at it and wonder about the
design specification.It was perhaps the most crucial element of the
entire Apollo Mission as it performed some of the most difficult
operations. It was built by Gruman Aircraft who encountered great
difficulties in its design so much so that it missed its planned first
flight on Apollo 4 and instead first flew on the unmanned Apollo 5
flight.

The design of the LEM has attracted much criticism and even
hilarity as can be witnessed by these two hilarious YouTube videos
from Antonio Subirats (App 6.20 and 6.21).

We also have a similar critical video from Ted Aranda on the

Lunar Module (App 6.22). He concludes that the haphazard nature of
its construction looks like a bad high school project. It has also been
described as a homeless shelter after a hurricane. Is it feasible that
NASA, who could not construct a Lunar Module that could
successfully work on Earth, would send the astronauts in a totally
untested spacecraft for them to try out on the Moon? No, it is not.

Take a look at this enlarged view of the USA decal on the Lunar
Module.
 Amazingly the USA flag decal appears to have been attached
with some form of sticky tape.

At first, you must assume that this was attached by the

astronauts when they were on the Moon but no it flew like this all the
way from the Earth as can be seen in this enlarged view of the
Apollo 16 Lunar Module after separation from the CSM already with
the USA Flag decal attached with sticky tape.

   

Source NASA: Apollo Photograph  AS16-118-18897

It is beyond comprehension that the USA Flag decal would be

simply attached by sticky tape and flown all the way to the Moon
without coming loose or falling off.

The gold “Quality Street” type paper is claimed to be needed to

insulate the Lunar Module from the heat generated by the Sun. The
question is, why only a part of the descent stage is so protected and
there is no such protection for the ascent stage. Both the descent
stage and the ascent stage both contained volatile fuel and batteries
so one would expect both to be covered with the gold Mylar but they
are not. Also if heat reflection was a goal then why are some parts of
the ascent stage covered with some dark “cardboard looking“
material. Take a look at this sophisticated spacecraft as it comes
back from the lunar surface to join the Command and Service
Module in orbit.

   

Source NASA: Lunar Module Returns from the Moon

It is hard to know what to think. Would you be happy to travel to

your local supermarket in this thing? I can only assume that the
people who designed this fakery thought it would be more authentic
if it looked “used” after its blast-off from the lunar surface. Perhaps
they got a little over-enthusiastic in applying the “used” effect.

One final observation of the Lunar Module was brought to my

attention by Mark Lowe of Deep Thoughts Radio. It was something
that I had never seen mentioned before. Take a close look at this
photograph of the Lunar Module after it supposedly landed on the
Moon. Notice anything strange?


        

Source NASA: Apollo 15 Lunar Module

Notice the rocket skirt, the grey bell-shaped thing hanging down
below the Lunar Module. It looks pristine and new and does not look
as though it has been fired. Remember the rocket flame reaches a
temperature of 2,000C surely it would show some signs of burning
but the paintwork looks brand new. This is a close up of the skirt,
which looks to be totally unused to me.
      

Source NASA: Enlarged View of Rocket Skirt

The Lunar Module does not look as though it was in any way
capable of being landed on the Moon and the rocket on the descent
stage does not appear to have been used. However, these facts in
themselves do not prove that the Moon Landings were faked but it
may give you ample cause to wonder.

Stage Lighting
As mentioned above the stage set would have required a higher
degree of lighting than normal as the videos were  filmed in slow-
motion at 144 frames per second which requires higher levels of
lighting as the camera shutter is not opened as long and therefore
collects less light. This extra bright lighting would tend to wash out
some of the detail so it is likely that additional spotlighting of certain
areas was required.

In many of the Apollo photographs, it is possible to discern the

tell-tale signature of some of this additional spot lighting. The light
from the Sun should show roughly equal intensity on basically level
ground but we can detect instances in which this is not apparent.
Look at this well-known photograph AS11-40-5903 of Buzz Aldrin on
the Moon from Apollo 11.

Source NASA: AS11-40-5903 Buzz Aldrin on the Moon

If we adjust the brightness and contrast of the photograph then

we see unmistakable pools of artificial infill lighting.

Source NASA: AS11-40-5902
Buzz Aldrin on the Moon

A similar aberration can be seen on NASA photograph  AS11-40-

5902 which again shows Buzz Aldrin standing by the Lunar Module
on Apollo 11. Again we see clear evidence of the infill lighting.

There many other strange things about the Apollo photographs

which give us cause for concern. After Apollo 11 landed astronaut
Neil Armstrong took several photographs of the Moon's surface to
the horizon.

The Apollo 11 Lunar Module landed basically on a flat part of the

Moon in the Sea of Tranquillity. The horizon in such a place given the
curvature of the Moon and the height of the camera should be about
2.5 kilometres away.

Now take a look at one of Neil Armstrong's photographs NASA

reference AS11-40-5857HR.

     

Source NASA: Apollo 11 Photo AS11-40-5857HR

Does that horizon look 2.5 km away? If we look closely we can

even identify what appear to be small rocks right on the horizon.
   

Source NASA: Enlargement of area on AS11-40-5857HR

It would not be possible for the human eye or camera to resolve

individual rocks at a range of 2.5 km. Without doubt, this is a small
stage set perhaps only 250 metres to the horizon. One other thing to
notice about Apollo 11 is that they didn't appear to have used the
Front Screen Projection technique or have the astronauts suspended
on wires. Those enhancements were only used for the later missions
presumably after the techniques were developed.

Images of the Apollo Landing Sites

We will now examine the supposedly high-resolution photographs
of the Apollo landing sites taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance
Orbiter (LRO). The LRO and the Lunar CRater Observation and
Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) were launched on an Atlas V rocket on
18 June 2009 taking four days to reach the Moon.

The LRO made a 3-Dimensional map of the Moon's surface at

100-meter resolution with 98.2% coverage (excluding polar areas in
deep shadow), also supposedly including 0.5 m resolution images of
the Apollo landing sites (App 6.23).

It has always been claimed, by both sides of the debate,  that the
ultimate proof that the Apollo Missions were real would be that the
artefacts left on the Moon are still there and could be photographed.
NASA claims that they have done this with the LRO photographs of
the Apollo landings sites. I covered this subject extensively in my
previous book in Chapter 20 “Looking Back” and will not repeat that
examination of the evidence here. Suffice it to say that there are
many problems with these photographs identified by the sceptics. I
will let Jarrah White sum up the reaction of the Apollo sceptics (App
6.24).
 What I want to concentrate on here are the trails left by the
astronaut's footsteps and the tracks left by the Lunar Rover clearly
displayed in this LRO photograph of the Apollo 17 landing site. I will
deal only with Apollo 17 but similar observations relate to all six
landing sites.

  

Source NASA: LRO image of Apollo 17 landing site

Now, NASA had filmed this landing site as the ascent stage of the
Lunar Module blasted-off from the Moon back in 1972 (App 6.25).
The actual film of the landing site taken by the 16mm DAC camera
mounted on the ascent stage starts at about 3 minutes into the
video. Do you see any trails?

Now after the “doctored” photographs from the LRO were

released in 2009 then the above video was “enhanced” by some
magical process to produce a new version with a “re-oriented
perspective” in 2013 (App 6.26). In this video, you can now clearly
see the trails. An even clearer version was incorporated into a new
2011 version of “The Shoulders of Giants“ video first released in
1973 (App 6.27).

You can compare the original video of the blast-off with this new
“enhanced” version in this comparative screenshot.
  

Source NASA: Apoll0 17 comparison

NASA also released a video comparing the original raw video

with a “Contrast Enhanced” version (App 6.28). In this version even
the raw footage now miraculously has distinct evidence of trails.

I think the chronology of what happened can be summarised as

follows.
 
NASA was under great pressure to try to prove the
Moon landings due to the many anomalies identified by the
sceptics
This led to the LRO exercise in 2009 and the intention to
photograph the Apollo landing sites and the artefacts left by
the astronauts thus proving it was real
The LRO photographs were falsely “doctored” to show
the evidence then released in 2009
NASA then needed to “rework” the original videos to
also show the trails in 2011-2013 and thus complete the
evidence

There can be no question that this was more fakery. Why wait
until after the LRO to “remaster” the original videos? This could have
been done at any time in the previous 40 years. The LRO evidence
rather than proving Apollo was real has only identified more fakery
by NASA

Flags on the Moon

 Another interesting observation on the LRO photographs is the
evidence of the USA flags erected on the Moon by the astronauts.
According to NASA the LRO photographs “prove” that some of the
flags are still standing (App 6.29). NASA claim that the “outstanding
high-resolution images” from the LRO show that the flags from
Apollo 12, 16 and 17 are still casting shadows on the lunar surface.

When you examine the photographs then you need a gigantic

leap of faith to convince yourself you are looking at flags casting
shadows. We see nothing more than a few dark pixels the resolution
is that bad. To claim that these are the shadows of the US flags left
by the astronauts is really incredulous.

The flags have been exposed to the Moon's environment

enduring alternating cycles of 14 days of searing sunlight with 130°
C heat and 14 days of freezing cold -150° C in the darkness.
Perhaps the most damage would have come from the intense
ultraviolet (UV) radiation and the bombardment of micrometeorites
on the nylon from which the Apollo flags were made. Even on Earth,
a nylon flag flown in bright sunlight for considerably less than 40
years will quickly fade, become brittle and totally disintegrate. This
subject is treated very well by Jarrah White (App 6.30).

The Lunar Rover, Models and Mannequins

Before we start on this subject, I invite you to watch the NASA
video from Apollo 16 showing the Lunar Rover driving around on the
Moon (App 6.31). Note that this is the original “unstabilised” version,
it was later stabilised to eliminate the camera shake. There are two
techniques being used in this video, a distance shot of the Lunar
Rover driving around presumably taken by the other astronaut and
an onboard shot taken from a camera on the Lunar Rover. Many
sceptics have suggested that this looks like a model remote control
car with a dummy astronaut mannequin.

Leonid Konovalov who is an Associate Professor in the Camera

Department of the Russian State University of Cinematography
(VGIK) has posted a paper on the Aulis.com website dealing with
this topic (App 6.32). In analysing the video he notes:
 “The LRV travels a circular route. But despite the very uneven
surface, as the LRV moves away from the camera and returns again,
the driver never moves any part of his body – not a foot, not a hand.
The driver’s left arm, initially hovering ‘in the air’ and then held in a
horizontal position isn’t lowered until the very end of the run.
This raised arm is clearly not realistic in such a situation. Imagine
you are driving a car with your right hand in control, holding the
steering wheel. You then stretch your left hand forward so that the
forearm, wrist and hand are parallel to the ground. Could you drive
two laps in this position, back and forth, twice, making turns –
continually ensuring that your left arm never moves?
No, not in reality. A person would instinctively lower his/her hand
to the knee if it wasn’t holding the wheel.”

He goes on to compare the above LRV film sequence with the

Apollo 16 astronauts’ actions on the training ground at Cinder Lake
crater fields in Arizona. The left arm of the driver, sitting closer to the
camera, always rests near his hip or knee.

NASA: Note drivers arm is lowered in training video

He also notes the ubiquitous “Kubrick Horizontal” that we have

discussed earlier and indicates  its location.


Konovalov : Indication of the “Kubrick Horizontal”

He has a video which shows how this sequence was filmed and
why they included the deliberate shaking of the camera to help
disguise the fact that it was a model with a mannequin (App 6.33).

The second sequence in the LRV video is intended to indicate

that is was shot from the onboard camera on the LRV but is likely to
have been taken with a “motion control” camera which was a
technique developed by special effects expert John Dykstra. Such a
system was used in the making of the sci-fi movie “2001: A Space
Odyssey” which we mentioned earlier.

Konovalov states that a model set was used to film this sequence
and he shows an indication of the likely set-up. He goes on to
explain why a scale model was probably preferred to a full-scale set
up using actual astronauts.
 Konovalov: Studio layout for Apollo 16 scale model rover sequence

Konovalov provides a very interesting overview of special effects

cinematography and I encourage you to read the full article.

Finally, he concludes:

“It is abundantly clear after studying every aspect of the Apollo

investigation that the Apollo lunar surface images and the TV and
films were faked and generated in a studio. Moreover, in parallel with
the live action filming of the actor-astronauts in a full-sized studio,
many of the Hasselblad still images and some film sequences were
scenes with scale mannequins and models photographed on
miniature studio film sets. ”

He refers to a video which is an interview with specialist

cinematographer Vsevolod Yakubovich who is the Director of
Photography in the acclaimed Mosfilm Studios in Russia (App 6.34).
Yakubovich was also of the opinion that the sequence was in fact a
“miniature mannequin” seated on a “radio-controlled model lunar
rover” in this particular Apollo film footage. That seems to be the
consensus view of these experts in cinematography.

Summary
We have seen much conclusive evidence that distinctly
demonstrates that the Apollo Missions to the Moon were faked. So
what is our evidence?

We have clearly detected the telltale signature of the Front

Screen Projection technique in almost all of the Apollo photographs
and videos.

We have seen that the supposed Apollo Moonscapes shown by

NASA are not at all what we would expect given the evidence from
the satellite imagery. The mountains are always shown as rounded
“sand dunes” and not the fragmented craggy landscape we would
expect. Ted Aranda has shown us many inconsistencies in the
Apollo landing sites which reveal the fakery.  Colin Rourke also
showed us NASA fakery in the photographs.

We have shown the error made by NASA in its presentation of

the Apollo 11 orbital attitude of the CSM in the 1969 video. Further
evidence came from the photographs taken by Michael Collins of the
Earthrise. In order to take these photographs, the Command Module
must have been orbiting “nose down” and not “nose up” as shown in
the NASA orbit video. This orbital error was only corrected in 2018
as a NASA visualization.

We examined the haphazard design of the Lunar Module and its

contradictory attempts at shielding from the heat of the Sun.
Furthermore, NASA was unable to build a Lunar Module here on
Earth that worked reliably and successfully. It is not a matter of the
different gravitational forces on the Earth or the Moon. It is simply a
matter of the dynamic control of a vehicle balancing on a single
rocket. The technology at the time could not achieve the minute
control required. In fact, it is hard to even contemplate that the Apollo
Lunar Module is in any way a sophisticated engineered spacecraft.

We see no evidence that the descent rocket was ever fired.

There is no sign in any of the Apollo Missions that the rocket skirt
was even slightly burned with the 2,000C rocket exhaust.

We have observed “hot spots” in the lighting of the Moon's

surface. The luminance of the light from the Sun should be fairly
even on the Moon's surface but we see hot spots which suggests
that infill lighting was used on the stage set. In the Apollo 11 restored
video of the EVA we can even see the stage lighting illuminating the
black background screen which is supposed to be the blackness of
space.

We have examined the “high resolution” images from the LRO

with some disappointment. There is convincing evidence that these
photographs have been doctored by NASA to falsely claim that the
Apollo artefacts are still residing on the Moon. We also looked at the
question of the boot and tyre track trails so clearly shown on the
LRO photographs and compared these with what we can see on the
original videos of the blast-off from the Moon. There is no question
that the history of these remastered videos is clear evidence of
NASA continuing the fakery.

We looked at the evidence presented by NASA that some of the

flags erected by the astronauts are still “flying” and are casting
shadows. Although it cannot be stated categorically that the flags
would have disintegrated, it is highly probable that over 40 years of
exposure on the Moon the flags would have perished and vanished.

Finally, we saw Leonid Konovalov's excellent analysis of the

Lunar Rover footage which clearly indicated that this sequence was
shot using a model car and a small mannequin astronaut.
 All of these elements in the evidence are irrefutable proof that the
Apollo Missions were entirely faked somewhere here on planet
Earth.

 CHAPTER 7
THE SUNS OF APOLLO

"A great cause of the night is lack of the sun”

William Shakespeare, As You Like It

NASA state that they took no other sources of artificial lighting

with them to the Moon. So the only source of light that the astronauts
had on the Moon was the direct light from the Sun. 

The Apollo Sun

Hey, Houston now we have a problem with the Apollo Sun.

How would the Sun look from the Moon? Well, we can assume
basically the same as it does from the Earth. The Sun is the same
distance to both the Earth and the Sun, within a fraction of a percent.
So go outside, if it is sunny, if not wait until it is, or take my word for
the following.

    
Image Pascal Xavier: The Earth View of the Sun

You will observe something like the photograph above. The Sun
appears as a very bright source of light with an imprecise outline but
with radiating spokes. After all the Sun is nothing more than an
ongoing nuclear explosion. So what do we see n the Apollo
photographs?

Source NASA AS17-134-20411: Apollo 17 Sun

The Apollo “Sun” has a precise round outline with no radiating

spokes but surrounded by concentric rings of light. This is not at all
what we would expect to see.

I can hear the pro-NASA Fan Club protesting that the Sun when
viewed from the Earth is through our atmosphere and there in no
atmosphere on the Moon so we should expect it to look different. Is
that correct?

Let us look at some photographs taken of the Sun in space

where there is no atmosphere.
 
   

Source NASA: Two views  of Sun from low Earth orbit

These two views of the Sun look very much like what we see
through our atmosphere, an imprecise outline and with very distinct
radiating spokes. If we compare the two images we can clearly see
the difference.

           

Left real Sun                   Right the Apollo “sun”

 So why is the Apollo “sun” so much different from what we should
expect?

Of course, the simple answer is that the Apollo “sun” is not

photographed from the Moon. NASA-X needed to simulate a “sun”
on the Moon stage set.

You may suggest that they should have filmed outside on Earth
but the problem is that the sky from Earth is blue and on the Moon it
needed to be black. The only other feasible solution was to use a
very bright artificial light or parabolic reflector. This is why we see the
concentric rings of light in the fake Apollo “sun”. This comparison
analysis is from an excellent video by Pascal Xavier (App 7.01).

The Reflection of the Apollo Sun

Take a spoon outside and view the Sun as a reflection on the
curved back of a spoon. Do you see how large the reflection is in the
convex back of the spoon? About a maximum of half an inch in
diameter depending on the actual curvature of your spoon, with
radiating spokes, like a star, after all the Sun is a star. You can see it
on any convex shiny surface, for example, a motorcycle helmet. So
we know roughly how the Sun should look when reflected on the
Moon.

You may be wondering why I ask you to do this. Well, as I said

the Sun is about the same distance from the Moon, so we should
expect a similar size of the reflection in a convex surface on the
Moon to be also about half an inch diameter with the tell-tale
radiating spokes. The convex surfaces we have on the Moon are the
face visors on the bubble helmets worn by the astronauts.

I will let the sceptic “Steve the Chemist” explain all about convex
surfaces in his video (App 7.02). In his second video (App 7.03) he
shows that the reflection of the “sun” in the astronaut's visor is far too
large to be the real Sun.

It varies tremendously if you view the videos, and can be up to 3

to 4 inches in diameter, not the half inch or so that we would expect
and it has no radiating spokes. He deduces, from this, that it must be
a studio light, possibly with a large parabolic reflector.

He also draws our attention to an Apollo 15 video clip, in which

you can see the size of the reflected “sun” decrease with a decrease
in the brightness of the scene. He concludes that it is impossible for
the reflection of the real Sun to change size and that studio lighting
must have been used, which in his opinion firmly places the filming
squarely in a studio set here on Earth.

           

                          Sun size changes in 15 seconds

If you think we have finished seeing Apollo “suns”, then think

again. We have another Sceptic, masquerading under the
pseudonym “jmbbao”, who brings us back to the “sun” reflections in
the Apollo astronauts visors (App 7.04). Again he makes the same
point as “Steve the Chemist”, that there is something very strange
about the Apollo “suns”, they just don't look convincing.  We do not
see the small diameter reflection with radiating rays that the sceptics
say we should expect but instead we see large circular discs of light.

You may think that now you have had enough of the Apollo
“suns”, well there is more, how about two “suns”? Sceptic Marcus
Allen brought my attention to this video clip taken from the official
NASA video of Apollo 14 (App 7.05).  The original source for the clip
was the movie “For All Mankind”. At time 2:41 on the video, the
astronaut turns towards the camera and appears to have two equal
sized “suns” in his visor, clearly a difficult apparition to explain.

Next, one more observation from Marcus Allen, not just one more
“sun”, but another, albeit not the brightest in our galaxy of Apollo
“suns”. In the NASA 1971 Apollo 14 video, as astronaut Ed Mitchell
climbs down the ladder of the lunar module at time 6.43, he is clearly
in total shadow, but we can observe a small bright light in his visor
(App 7.05). Another revealing abnormality in the dark shade of the
Lunar Module.

You may ask what our pro-NASA group say about these “sun”
anomalies. Well, it seems that they are not too troubled by the two
“suns” anomaly as “LunarTuner” is happy to explain and
demonstrate (App 7.07). He explains that the astronaut's helmet
visor assembly consists of three layers of protection. The outer two
layers of the visor can both create their own reflection of the Sun, so
easily explained, we can have two “suns”.  The reflection from the
inner skin produces a much smaller and dimmer  reflection of the
“sun” but this is not what we see in the video (see App 7.05) in which
both “suns” are equal in size and brightness. But we do have an
alternative explanation from pro-NASA “occhamte”, who contends at
length that it is probably a reflection from various parts of the Lunar
Module, most probably from the highly reflective Mylar film, which
coats various parts of the Lunar Module (App 7.08). Although this in
no way explains the precise circular shaped reflections.

Our final attempt to get to grips with the Apollo “sun” concerns
the Lunar Module. The Lunar Module was always positioned on
landing with the exit door in the shade, to avoid the astronauts
exiting into full sunlight, and to keep that side of the lander cooler.
Once landed the Lunar Module was in a fixed position and could not
move. However, as the mission progresses the Sun will slowly move
its position in the sky.

This next presentation from “Hunchbacked” examines

photographs of the Lunar Module at the start of the mission, and at
the end of the mission (App 7.09). One would naturally expect the
shadow of the module to have changed. The evidence from the
photographs indicates that the Sun has not moved in the sky as it
should have done, so we appear to have one more anomaly
regarding our Apollo “sun”.

Well, I think we have had enough of the Apollo “suns” for today.
We have clear evidence of fakery in the Apollo “suns” in that the
reflected “suns” do not look at all like the real Sun should be
reflected. The instances of seeing two “suns” can only be explained
by additional spotlights or reflectors.
 CHAPTER 8
DEFYING GRAVITY

“Wisely and slow;

they stumble that run fast”

William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

Gravity is perhaps one of the most discussed elements of the

Apollo Missions and this is probably to be expected in that it is the
one element of the Apollo evidence that can be “accurately”
measured to determine where the filming was made, on Earth or on
the Moon. NASA ensured that there was ample opportunity to do this
so as to cover the fakery.

Gravity Primer
Just a quick primer on gravity before you go wandering off on the
Moon. I think quite a few of you may be confused about this whole
gravity thing. I raise this matter as I have been asked many times
about this from those who I had imagined were the most educated
people.

I will ignore Albert Einstein's concept of curved space for the

moment and treat it simply as a force as Isaac Newton did. Gravity is
simply the force by which a planet or other body draws objects
toward its centre. The force of gravity keeps all of the planets in orbit
around the Sun and it keeps the Moon closely coupled with the
Earth. It also keeps you firmly rooted to the floor. Isaac Newton
showed that it is a function of the product of two masses (weight)
and that the force diminishes by the square of the distance between
the two objects. So the farther apart the two objects are the less the
interactional force.

We have gravity here on Earth as you observe when you drop

something, or in my case often fall over. It is useful as it keeps you
and all the things around you firmly stuck to the Earth. Likewise, we
have gravity on the Moon albeit less than Earth's gravity due to the
Moon's smaller size. So you might just be wondering why the
astronauts in spacecraft are floating around in zero gravity. Does
gravity stop outside the Earth's atmosphere, then start again at the
Moon?

So why do the astronauts appear to be weightless? Well, it might

surprise you but they are not at all weightless. What I hear you say,
you see it all the time on TV, weightless astronauts performing crazy
tricks with weightless objects. Trust me they are just as much subject
to Earth's gravity as you are or I am. 

In fact, they are in constant free fall towards the Earth pulled in by
Earth's gravity. What you are witnessing is continuously falling men
not weightlessness. This happens because of the speed and orbit
trajectory of the spacecraft, it is constantly falling towards Earth, but
just missing as it continuously falls over the edge. There is an
excellent video by
Walid Shihabi in which he explains what is
happening to the astronauts and the spacecraft (App 8.01).

The Moon's gravity is only about one-sixth of that of the Earth.

The Earth has a diameter of 7,926 miles and weighs 5.972 sextillion
tons, that is 5,972 followed by eighteen zeroes. It may surprise you
that it gets heavier every minute. At the present rate, the Earth gains
about 40,000 metric tons each year from the space debris that
continuously bombard our planet, but loses only a minuscule amount
as some atmospheric gases escape our gravity. Some of this space
debris are rocks from the Moon, which it is estimated have taken
about 10,000 years to make the journey as they circled the Earth
gradually being pulled closer and closer under Earth's gravity.

The Moon is considerably smaller, only about one-quarter of the

diameter of the Earth, having a diameter of 2,159 miles and an
approximate weight of about 81 trillion tons.  The Earth could fit
about 50 Moons inside it and it would require about 81 Moons to
equal the weight of the Earth as the Earth is denser than the Moon.
The great difference in size between the Earth and the Moon is why
the gravity on the Moon is only about one-sixth of that on the Earth.

NASA and Faked Gravity

In my research, I have found many videos from the pro-NASA
devotees who appear to rejoice that, when they analyse Apollo
videos, they discover that they can clearly prove to you that the
gravity shown is that of the Moon. It leaves me dumbfounded as to
which aspect of fakery that they do not understand. Fakery means
creating a falsehood that resembles as close as possible the real
thing. Did they really expect that if NASA faked the Moon landings
they would have been so incompetent to have forgotten to adjust the
Earth gravity in the videos to that of the Moon's gravity?

In this vein, we have one typical contribution from NASA devotee

Astrobant2 who delights in the fact that he can demonstrate that a
thrown object falls at the speed as though it were in Moons gravity
(App 8.02). Exactly what NASA intended him to do. He goes on to
assume that he can speed the video up by a factor to show how it
would look in Earth's gravity. This idea of speeding up the video is
totally erroneous as we will discover later. Quite obviously,
Astrobant2 does not understand how NASA faked the videos as I will
explain in Chapter 12.

Clearly, NASA was well aware that the gravity in the Apollo
videos could be used to calculate the gravitational force to check
whether they were really on the Moon and they made use of this fact
to the extreme. It is surprising how many objects were purposefully
thrown or dropped by the astronauts and how many unnecessary
jumps the astronauts made. All this to invite you to calculate the
gravitational force and so “prove” to yourself that it was filmed in the
gravity of the Moon.

NASA even concocted several pendulum demonstrations, again

the swinging pendulum can be used to check the gravity of the place
that it is swinging. All you need is the length of the pendulum and the
time of swing and “hey presto” you can determine gravity at that
location. One such “demonstration” occurred on Apollo 14 as the
astronaut Ed Mitchell was the unpacking the second ALSEP
package (ALSEP = Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package). A
strap fell down and started to swing like a pendulum, serendipity at
its best (App 8.03).  NASA even produced a paper on the pendulum
to explain how it proves the pendulum was in Moon gravity (App
8.04).

You can find several more videos on YouTube rejoicing at this

irrefutable pendulum proof, for example, this one from
“BrianPopRobson” (App 8.05). Brian assumes that his calculations
categorically place the astronauts on the Moon.  It appears that we
have another case of somebody not fully understanding what fakery
would involve. If you want to fake the Moon landings then surely it
makes sense to fake the gravity but somehow this seems to escape
the thinking of the pro-NASA fan club.

This pendulum analysis is given by NASA and several pro-NASA

devotees as “irrefutable” proof that the astronauts were on the Moon.
It is only “irrefutable” proof if you staunchly believe that Apollo went
to the Moon and cannot imagine how NASA could have faked it. 
Well, NASA did fake it and I will explain how they did it in Chapter
12.

The Gravity That NASA Forgot

NASA did a commendable job in giving the pro-NASA group
enough evidence to “prove” to themselves that the astronauts were
on the Moon. The problem is that there were one or two gaps in this
evidence that fatefully slipped through.

There is another pendulum in the NASA videos which I suspect

was unexpected and therefore not faked by NASA. This occurs on
the Apollo 15 Mission when astronaut David Scott ran passed the
flag and it started to swing. First, take a look at the incident in this
video posted by Joe Rogan (App 8.06). Also, we have Jarrah White
with something to say about these flapping flags in this two-part
video series (App 8.07)
 This moving flag instance has been the subject of much
discussion relating to whether there is an atmosphere and the
astronaut disturbed the air as he passed it thereby showing that it
was filmed in a studio on Earth. However, that is another discussion
which was covered in depth in my previous book (you mean you
didn't rush out and buy it?). What we are interested here is not what
caused the flag to move but HOW the flag moved.

The disturbance of the flag irrespective of how it was caused,

starts the flag to sway back and forth. The leading edge of the flag is
acting like a quasi-pendulum in that it displays simple harmonic
motion so as with the other NASA pendulums it is possible to
analyse its movement. This is done in the video from “Steve the
Chemist” (App 8.08). In this video “Steve” proves conclusively that
the swaying flag is definitely in the gravitational force of the Earth.

The analysis by “Steve the Chemist” is excellent but he has

seemingly forgotten one important aspect. The Apollo videos almost
always contain a certain amount of slow-motion and by not taking
this into account Steve has by default assumed that he is viewing the
action in real time.

That scene will have some slow-motion added although perhaps

not a lot. As I will discuss in Chapter 12 the amount of slow motion
was reduced the nearer the astronauts were to the camera otherwise
their movements would look too glacial.  The inclusion of the slow
motion effect would improve Steve's analysis as the swing time for
the pendulum would be a little faster, less than the two seconds he
measured from the NASA video.

I cannot know exactly what the slow-motion factor would be for

this scene but it is likely to be small as the astronaut is close to the
camera. I would estimate between 10% to 20%. If I assume 20%
slow motion then the real period of swing would be 1.6 seconds
which matches almost perfectly that for the flag swinging in Earth's
gravity. There is absolutely no question that this was filmed on Earth.
The flag just moves far too quickly to be in the gravity of the Moon
and the calculations prove it. Clearly, NASA would not have been
aware of the discovery of this unexpected anomaly and therefore
oblivious to its relevance.

More Faked Gravity

NASA also included many jumping astronauts no doubt to enable
the gravity to be calculated by its faithful supporters. In order to give
the effect of being in lesser gravity, they had the astronauts
suspended on counter-balanced wires and used various slow-motion
techniques (more of this in Chapter 12). There is one famous scene
which shows astronaut John Young being photographed by fellow
astronaut Charles Duke on the Apollo 16 Mission as John Young
makes a jump and gives a salute.

It is often referred to as “The Big Navy Salute” watch this video

posted by “davewatcher” (App 8.09). Pay particular attention to the
actual jump sequence and note how the Moon dust falls from the
astronaut's feet, it appears to strangely accelerate towards the
ground. It looks totally unnatural.

This “Jump Salute” video has been analysed by “Steve the

Chemist” in this video posted on YouTube (App 8.10). “Steve”
observes that there is something rather strange about this jump
video and compares it with a similar jump of a volleyball player. He
maintains that physics dictates that the astronaut would fall back to
the ground together with the dirt. However, we do not see this but
what we do see is the astronaut still rising while the dirt falls back to
the ground. Physics tell us that all objects must fall at the same rate
and at the same time irrespective of what gravitational force they are
both under.

The astronaut is making a small jump perhaps of 9 to 10 inches,

in fact, the jump is the same height as the dirt goes. Then the
astronaut is pulled up by the counter-balanced wire to complete his
“jump”. The giveaway to this is the fact that if you watch closely the
slow-downed version you see that the backpack rises before the
astronaut which is clear evidence that he is being pulled up by a wire
attached to his backpack.

What you would expect to see is the astronaut rise first then his
body would pull the backpack up. Just look at the space between the
top of the backpack and the astronauts head. The backpack rises a
good 3 to 4 inches above the astronauts head showing clearly that
the backpack is being pulled up by the wire. This is clear
indisputable evidence and exposes the fakery.

Now, as we might imagine the pro-NASA group will not let it end
there. We have this rather charming posting on YouTube from the
pro-NASA devotee Shane Killian who manages to cram more insults
into his video than actual science (App 8.11). Unfortunately, this
video proves nothing as he rejoices that he can show that the
astronaut and the dirt fall at the same rate showing clearly that he
does not understand physics. It is not the rate at which they fall that
is the problem, it is that one event occurs before the other. They both
rise at the SAME time so they must fall at the SAME time. It is as
simple as that, in whatever gravity with no atmosphere all objects
rise and fall at the same time. His observational skills are also
somewhat lacking as he fails to notice, or perhaps doesn't want to
notice, that the backpack rises before the astronaut. This is fairly
typical of the pro-NASA group, what they apparently lack in their
knowledge of science is made up with completely unnecessary
insults to anyone who dares to disagree with their point of view.
 However, Shane Killian is not happy to leave it there but has a
propensity to embarrass himself further with this video (App 8.12) in
which he wants to prove that NASA were clever enough to fake the
lunar gravity for the astronaut falling.

It is totally unacceptable that Killian, who should be fully

conversant with the Apollo evidence, should resort to attempting to
distort science by pretending that he does not fully understand
gravity. After all NASA made the point of proving that all objects in a
vacuum fall at the same TIME with the “hammer and feather”
performance by David Scott on the Apollo 15, with which Killian must
be familiar. It is nothing more than a barefaced attempt to use
corrupted science to prove a falsehood that supports the pro-NASA
case. I cannot accept that he is really not conversant with the laws of
gravity and therefore I must conclude that he is being totally
disingenuous.

I could go on and on about this but far better that I just leave it.
The pseudo-science that the pro-NASA group need to use to defend
NASA is nothing less than Olympian. They put up some flawed
argument which appears to satisfy their fan base. The next time the
same subject arises they simply say, “I debunked that already”.

I think in response to Killian's videos, “Steve the Chemist” has

one final attempt to explain the science lying behind the concept of
gravity for those pro-NASA fanboys who seem to be confused on the
matter (App 8.13).

It is simple, if two bodies are propelled upwards at the same time

but one of them comes down later than the other then it can only be
that some external force has been applied, in this case, the wire
supporting the astronaut, that is simple indisputable physics.
           Screen shot from “Steve the Chemist”'s video

“Steve the Chemist” compares the jump of a beach volley ball

player with the astronaut. The above image shows the situation at
the height of the jump. It clearly shows that the sand beneath the
astronaut has already fallen whereas it should be right there with his
feet as shown by the beach volley ball player. This can only mean
that some additional upward force is being applied to the astronaut,
for example a counter-balanced wire support.

You can see what I consider to be the ultimate proof of NASA

faking gravity in this video (see App 12.37) which we will discuss in
Chapter 12.

Reduced Gravity, Reduced Jump Height?

If you have been paying attention then you know by now, that the
Moon's gravity is only one-sixth of that on the Earth. This is due to
the relative sizes of the Earth and the Moon, and therefore their
masses as I painfully described above.

I personally recall a magazine article sometime in the 1960s

about the Moon and its much lower gravity than here on Earth. The
article highlighted the fact that humans would be super-athletes on
the Moon due to this lesser gravitational force. On Earth an average
athlete can do a standing vertical jump of say 2 feet, so they
postulated that on the Moon man could do a standing vertical jump
at least 12 feet high, or maybe 6 feet high in a cumbersome
spacesuit.

Similarly, a man could do a standing long jump of 4 feet on Earth

so they expected him to long jump at least 12 feet on the Moon. I,
and I imagine many others, couldn't wait to see this display of super-
prowess, our comic book super-heroes finally brought to life.
Naturally the astronauts were not kitted out for athletics with Nike
trainers and shorts, but nonetheless, they would be able to amaze us
with their new powers. These athletic super-powers were even
confidently predicted in 1964 by NASA (App 8.14).

Well, we were to be bitterly disappointed, the astronauts did

nothing to amaze us, in fact, they looked rather pedestrian. When did
they did make the effort to jump it was only about a maximum 18
inches high, seemingly nothing different from being on Earth. Of
course, they were wearing their spacesuits and backpacks but their
weight was only one-sixth of their Earth weight and their terrestrial
muscles must have been adapted to Earth's greater gravity so that
they should be much stronger on the Moon.

The initial force the astronaut can exert just before he jumps is
the same on the Earth or on the Moon, it is not a function of gravity,
but purely of muscle strength. The Sceptics have laboured on this
point, that the astronauts did not appear to be in lesser gravity than
on Earth, which leads them to suggest that the astronauts never ever
left the Earth.

This lack of jump height on the Moon is discussed in this video by

sceptic Jarrah White (App 8.15). He comments on the fact that no
astronaut is observed to jump more than a couple of feet on the
Moon. You will notice at time 2:35 in this video Jarrah show an inset
video of the astronauts making some higher jumps. I repeat the full
version of this video as posted by “amontaiyagala” (App 8.16).
Notice at the beginning of the video the astronaut on the right. He
bends his legs, crouches and the makes four distinct jumps and then
remains stationary. Well, stationary until a second or so later he is
suddenly involuntary yanked up by the wire. Absolute proof that
wires were employed to simulate Moon gravity. The astronaut made
no attempt to perform that fifth jump.

Summary
So what did we learn in this chapter?

We examined the pendulum created by the flag which showed

clearly it was swinging in Earth's gravity and the mathematics
backed this up almost precisely. This was a totally unexpected
pendulum as far as NASA were concerned so they did not make any
attempts to fake it as they had done for the other pendulums that
they purposefully added.

We saw that the “Big Navy Salute” video was inconsistent with
physical laws and showed clear evidence of the astronaut being
pulled up by a wire. This was shown by the fact that the backpack
rose before the astronaut. We saw the dirt fall before the astronaut
which is impossible as all objects must fall at the same time. You
cannot have the dirt falling before the astronaut.

Finally, we observed that the astronauts were not capable of

producing any jumps higher than they could on Earth and when they
did attempt it we had absolute proof of them being yanked up by
wires.

All of these facts show clearly the videos were faked by NASA in
an attempt to convince us that the astronauts were on the Moon and
subject to the lesser Moon gravity. Unfortunately, for NASA and it's
dedicated fan base the deceit is clearly revealed.


 CHAPTER 9
SILENT SOUNDS

“Give every man thy ear,

but few thy voice"
William Shakespeare, Hamlet

No Sound in a Vacuum
We hopefully understand by now that there is virtually no
atmosphere on the Moon, in effect, it is to all intents and purposes a
total vacuum. No doubt we all remember that demonstration at
school in the physics lecture of the bell in the glass jar. The bell is
ringing loudly and can be heard through the glass jar, but as the air
is pumped out of the jar the sound diminishes, until finally as a near
vacuum is reached the sound stops. This experiment was to show
that sound travels in compressive airwaves and that with no air, as in
the vacuum, then there can be no sound. In case you missed this
demonstration at school, then take a look at what I am talking about
(App 9.01). Here is a short introduction to the science of sound
transmission if you need a recap on your school science (App 9.02).

I did wonder at the time how useful this knowledge would be to

me. I mean, how often was I likely to be trapped in a vacuum calling
for help? Now with my acquired knowledge, I am at the forefront of
science able to understand this whole sound in a vacuum business.
You may be wondering why I am talking about sound on the Moon.
Well, I don't hear any sound when I think I should and I hear sound
when I think I shouldn't. Clearly, there is no pleasing some people.

Not Enough Sound

First of all, no sound when I would expect to hear it, what does
this mean? This occurs when the astronauts are in their spacecraft
with the noise of the rocket engines blasting away, but they are still
able to talk crystal clearly and there is no audible sound from the
engine.

The best example of this given in the descent of the lunar lander
towards the Moon's surface. This is mentioned at time 1:36 by Bill
Kaysing in the video (App 9.03). If you listen to the astronauts talking
to Houston as the Lunar Module descends to the Moon's surface
then the conversations are crystal clear with no noise in the
background (App 9.04 and 9.05).

The two astronauts are virtually sat on top of the 10,500 lbs-force
thrust decent engine, which even working at 3,000 lbs-force thrust
must be extremely noisy, but we do not hear any sound from the
rocket. There would be no sound emanating from outside of the
lunar lander in the vacuum of the Moon, but inside in the capsule's
atmosphere, one would imagine it would be quite noisy.

NASA explains this by stating that the astronauts are wearing

their spacesuits, so the sound of the rocket engine is not heard
because the astronaut's microphone is well shielded from the
outside sound. The only thing you hear, in addition to the astronauts
and mission control, is a slight amount of static. Some Moon landing
sceptics say that it is not possible that they were wearing spacesuits.
The logic being that in order to handle the computer controls which
guide the descent, then the astronauts need to push buttons on a
small computer keypad. The keys on the Apollo computer keyboard
were about twice the size of those on a standard desktop computer
keyboard. I suggest that you try to type your next email wearing
gardening gloves to get the idea.

You may wonder how when your life depends on it, are you really
going to chance on hitting the wrong button and bringing your Moon
holiday to a sudden end. The sceptics are certain that the astronauts
were not wearing their spacesuits. They also say that, whenever
they see astronauts inside the lunar lander, they are not wearing
their spacesuits. So the debate seems to hinge on whether the
astronauts were wearing their spacesuits or not, the sceptics say no,
but I am not so sure.
 The Apollo Flight Plan did call for the astronauts to be suited up
in their spacesuits for the Lunar Module landing, so if they did follow
the flight plan, then they were wearing their spacesuits (App 9.06).
This was a standard procedure as a safety precaution in case the
Lunar Module's outer skin was damaged in the landing. This is also
stated in the video at 9:38 (App 9.07).

I have been unable to find any definitive video evidence that they
were wearing their spacesuits. The Discovery Channel programme
“When We Left Earth Landing the Eagle” does show at times 37:00,
and then again at 38:28, that the astronauts appear to be wearing
their spacesuits (App 9.08). I have no idea if these clips are true
NASA video. If you are interested to know how the landing was
achieved there is a dramatisation in this VOX video (App 9.09).

The sceptics also say that there is a very similar situation with the
take-off from the Moon. In this case, the astronauts are stood
immediately by the side of the 3,000 lbs-force thrust ascent engine
but in the transmissions, immediately on lift-off there is no sound of
the rocket and the astronauts can be heard clearly (App 9.10). I need
to add here that it must also have been quite hot standing by the
rocket as it burnt at 2000C but nobody seems to mention the
excessive heat so perhaps I am wrong. We have the same debate,
were they wearing their spacesuits or not? The Apollo Flight Plan did
call for them to be wearing their spacesuits, so if they followed the
plan then they did don their spacesuits.

I expect that you may be inclined to go with NASA on this one. If

the astronauts followed the flight plan and we have no evidence to
suggest that they didn't, then they were wearing their spacesuits,
and consequently, the rocket engine noise would probably not be
heard in the voice transmissions.

Too Much Sound

The important point here is that whatever actions are taking place
on the Moon, we should not be able to hear any sound. Imagine if
you were a Moon dweller and you saw this strange looking craft
descending towards the Moon with its rocket lit up, but it was all in
total silence. Well, at least that is what we expect according to the
science of the glass bell jar. We would imagine that any Moon
dwellers would have to use sign language or some clever alien
telepathy.

In some NASA videos, it is possible to identify actions by the

astronauts in which a distinct sound can be clearly heard, which
shouldn't be possible if they are really on the Moon. We will start with
a video by “Daniella'S” from the Apollo 16 mission (App 9.11). The
astronaut is shown lifting and closing a lid on a container on the
Lunar Rover and there is a distinct sound. Later in the video, you can
even hear the astronauts footsteps as he shuffles in the lunar dust.
Similarly, in the video from “Streetcap1” in which the hammer sound
is clearly audible (App 9.12). On the Moon with no medium to
transmit the sound then it should not be possible to hear any sound.

The question of sound is also covered exhaustively by Jet

Wintzer (App 9.13). He looks in detail at the question of sound being
heard in the Apollo mission videos and the acknowledgement of this
by NASA. The incident of the hammer blow is mentioned in the
transcript in the Apollo Surface Journal. The contorted answer from
NASA is that the sound was transmitted through the astronaut's
gloves, into his suit, through the oxygen atmosphere in his suit, and
picked up by his internal microphone.

  

Source NASA: Bean Hammers in Pole Apollo 12

 The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal states this;

“What seems likely is that, when Gene hits the rock, the hammer
rebounds against the palm of the pressurised glove creating a sound
wave in the suit loud enough to be picked up by the microphone at
Gene's lips. In brief, the suit acts like a drum”.

This explanation by NASA is challenged by Wintzer who draws

parallels with the International Space Station videos, in which this
transfer of sound through their spacesuits does not appear to
happen when astronauts work outside in space. He also states that
the sound heard is not what you would expect if the spacesuit was
acting like a drum, but is the clear distinct metallic sound of a metal
hammer striking the metal pole of the flagstaff.

He also identifies, what seems to be a tacit admission by NASA

that something was amiss. This relates to a webpage, shown at 5:53
(see App 9.13), in the section “Lunar Science for Kids”, which was
intended to educate children about the fact that there was no sound
possible in the vacuum on the Moon. It was placed on the NASA
website in 2009, and it states:

“Sound needs something to travel through to get from one place

to another. On the Moon, since there is no air, sound cannot travel
above the surface. So, there is no sound on the surface of the Moon.
When the Apollo astronauts were out on the Moon's surface, they
could only talk to each other, and to mission control, by using the
radios in their air-filled helmets. Even when the astronaut in the
photo on the right, hit a metal tube into the ground with a hammer,
no sound was made”.

Unfortunately for NASA, the photograph shown was of the very

act of hammering in the flagpole which Jet Wintzer had identified as
causing the sound. In August 2011, the page suddenly disappeared,
presumably removed by NASA, but with no explanation. One needs
to ponder why?
 Source NASA:  Lunar Science for Kids, Now Deleted

NASA's statement that the astronaut's spacesuits acted like a

sound drum, even if that is plausible, is absolutely disproved by
Wintzer. He identifies a significant incident in the Apollo 15 video
footage as astronaut James Irwin throws a metal band into the air,
which hits the Lunar Module, and makes a distinct sound (see App
9.13 at time 8:36).

This act totally negates the reasoning given by NASA for hearing
the hammer blows “because the spacesuit acted like a drum”, as in
this case there is no contact between the astronaut and the source
of the sound.

Summary
So let's recap on what we have discovered. The first suggested
anomaly of not hearing any sound of the rocket noise from the lunar
lander at descent or lift-off could be a misunderstanding on the part
of the sceptics, in that they assume that the astronauts were not
wearing their spacesuits. The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is clear
on this matter, the astronauts would be wearing spacesuits if they
followed the correct procedures. If they were wearing their
spacesuits, then the sound of the rocket may well be shielded from
their in-helmet microphones.
 The second suggested anomaly is more challenging to explain.
The video evidence is unambiguous in that distinct sounds can be
heard when they should not have been any sound. The explanation
provided by NASA that the spacesuits acted like a drum to transmit
the sound to the astronaut's internal microphone is proved false by
Jet Wintzer in the James Irwin metal band throwing incident. The
very fact that NASA removed the webpage for kids suggests that
NASA may have something to hide. Also, the paucity of the pro-
NASA believer's contributions on this subject is equally telling.

Sounds should not be possible on the surface of the Moon, but

you can hear them in the NASA videos, which is clear proof that the
video was not made on the Moon but here in Earth's atmosphere.

As Jet Wintzer comments, “this could be the smoking gun” and

he is certainly correct. The “James Irwin metal band throwing
incident” is clear irrefutable proof of the NASA fakery. There is no
other feasible explanation and significantly no comments from the
pro-NASA lobby.
 CHAPTER 10
DIMINISHED TECHNOLOGY

“My dull brain was wrought with things forgotten”

William Shakespeare, Macbeth

At the time when President Kennedy made his famous “Man on

the Moon” speech to Congress on 25 May 1961, only one American
had been briefly into space. Alan Shepard was launched into space
aboard “Mercury 3” on 5 May 1961 to become the first American in
space. His capsule did not achieve orbit, but rose to a height of 116
miles and travelled 303 miles before safely parachuting into the
Atlantic Ocean. This was not on a rocket specifically designed for
space travel but on top of a hastily adapted Redstone ballistic
missile. So to say the timing of Kennedy's Moon speech was totally
surprising is an understatement.

Project Apollo
NASA was left with the almost impossible task of designing and
building all the hardware to get men a further 240,000 miles all the
way to the Moon and hopefully home safely. As it transpired, well at
least accordingly to NASA, it turned out to be relatively easy. In just
seven and a half years NASA had made everything needed to reach
and orbit the Moon with the Apollo 8 Mission on 21 December 1968
and the first Moon landing with Apollo 11 on 20 July 1969.

Work did not start on the Saturn series of rockets until mid-1960
but by 1963 the final version of the mighty Saturn V rocket was
designed. Worked started in November 1961 on the Command and
Service Module design by North American Aviation. The first flight of
the assembled hardware was the unmanned Apollo 4 Mission on 9
November 1967. Remarkably just about one year later in December
1968 followed the Apollo 8 manned mission to orbit the Moon,
quickly followed in July 1969 by the “supposed” Apollo 11 Moon
landing.

          

This timeline of development is nothing less than remarkable.

One needs to remember that all this was back in the 1960s when
technology and manufacturing methods were primitive compared to
what we have today.  More than 60% of the population on the Earth
today were born after the 1960s so it must be difficult for those
people to appreciate what technology was available at that time.

There were virtually no useful computers to enable computer-

aided design, no robotic manufacturing techniques to enable
accurate speedy assembly and no sophisticated circuitry to enable
reliable command and control systems. The engineers used slide
rules for the design calculations and draughtsmen sat at drawing
boards with pencil in hand. According to NASA, all this was achieved
in less than eight years.

You may be wondering what is a slide rule? Well, it isn't much

more than a wooden stick with logarithms inscribed on several
scales. I remember them well as I started studying to be a Civil
Engineer at university in 1961. In case you never heard of the slide
rule I found this interesting video from MIT Alumni Association which
describes the mysteries of the gadget (App 10.01). Imagine that you
didn't have that little “App” on your smartphone and you needed to
get your head around this procedure just to calculate your expenses.
  

1960s Slide Rule

Just another quick interjection here. It is widely reported that

NASA discovered that pens didn't work in the weightlessness of
space and it is rumoured that they spent $165,000 on designing the
“space pen” that worked in the weightlessness environment of
space. The Russians simply used pencils. A nice story, I wish it were
true.

Project Apollo was originally intended to include Missions 18, 19

and 20 but these missions were cancelled in September 1970 just 18
months after the supposedly successful Apollo 11 Moon landing and
6 months after the “supposed” Apollo 13 near tragedy. According to
Wikipedia:

“Several planned missions of the Apollo manned Moon landing

program of the 1960s and 1970s were cancelled for a variety of
reasons, including changes in technical direction, the Apollo 1 fire,
hardware delays, and budget limitations. After the landing by Apollo
12, Apollo 20, which would have been the final manned mission to
the Moon, was cancelled to allow Skylab to launch as a 'dry
workshop' which was assembled on the ground in an unused S-IVB
Saturn IB second stage.

The next two missions, Apollos 18 and 19, were later cancelled
after the Apollo 13 incident and further budget cuts. Two Skylab
missions also ended up being cancelled. Two complete Saturn Vs
ended up going unused and are currently on display in multiple
locations around the United States.”

The original plan for the Apollo Missions envisaged that Apollo
18, 19 and 20 would fly in 1972. The delay caused by the Apollo 13
“near tragedy” meant that Apollo 17 was rescheduled to December
1972 so 15 months later than originally anticipated.

NASA put the cancellations down to budgetary problems but

more likely that they didn't feel they could carry on the fakery for
much longer and they had fulfilled President Kennedy's “Man on the
moon” declaration of 1961.

  NASA OMSF Manned

Space Flight Weekly Report 28 July 1969

The “budget limitations” reason is hardly plausible given that all

the main expenditure on the Saturn V rockets, the spacecrafts and
associated systems was already paid for via contracts and the
hardware was at that time well on the way to being finished. The real
reason is understandable, NASA needed to distance itself from the
Moon landings and perhaps couldn't imagine continuing the deceit
for years to come with more fake Moon trips. NASA clearly needed a
new direction to divert attention from the Moon and a laboratory in
space was the answer.

It wasn't as though NASA had finished with the Moon as

previously they had many plans to colonise the Moon for scientific
research, minerals exploration and eventually a Moon base. Imagine
how much more sensible it would have been to site a space
telescope on the Moon where it could be well maintained. Instead,
NASA concentrated on low Earth orbit projects like Skylab and later
the International Space Station (ISS).
 So we have a project which just took 8 years to get men on the
Moon. If modern technology in computer-aided design and
manufacturing had been available at the time then I imagine this
could have been achieved in just 5 years. We can now compare all
this with the subsequent NASA efforts to get men back to the Moon,
with the Constellation Programme and now the ongoing Orion
Project.

Constellation Programme
In 2004 President Bush announced they would revive Moon
missions with the Constellation Programme often referred to as
“Apollo on Steroids”.  The Constellation Programme was active
between 2005 and 2009. It was subsequently cancelled in 2009 by
President Barack Obama on 1st February 2010 reportedly for lack of
funding. The logo of the Constellation Programme reflected the
ambitious three aims of the programme to get men in low Earth Orbit
(International Space Station), the Moon and finally Mars.

    
One stated goal of the Constellation Programme was to get men
back on the Moon no later than 2020. So this time NASA allowed
themselves a good sixteen years to achieve what they had done
back in the 1960s with Project Apollo in just eight years, but even
this proved to have been too ambitious.   

Orion
 Orion was started in 2004 with the design of the Space Launch
System (SLS) for which Boeing was awarded the contract. It was
originally under the Constellation Programme which we have seen
was cancelled but the Orion Project picked up the pieces of what
was left. Already, the Orion Project is suffering delays and cost
overruns (App 10.02).

Not only is NASA experiencing problems with its own design

(App 10.03). it is likely that private companies will produce the
required hardware at a fraction of the cost (App 10.04). It is probable
that NASA will have spent £18 billion and the project which may well
be abandoned. All I can say at this point is that NASA does create
some excellent logo designs.

How Far is The Moon?

The Moon is beginning to look farther away as each year passes.
It is unlikely that we will see any men on the Moon, if we ever do,
until the 2030s. Naturally, the question you are dying to ask is why
not use the tried and tested “successful” Apollo technology. Well, it
seems NASA just threw away that successful technology, somehow,
somewhere. But we know the reason why they did it.

Why Not Use the Apollo Technology

NASA has shown lamentable custodianship of important historic
artefacts concerning the Apollo Missions and the total disregard for
managing technological value. No doubt our sceptics would argue
that this a not a question of good custodianship, but more of a
deliberate and concerted, attempt to destroy evidence that may be
judged to be incriminating when examined with modern methods of
analysis. Without question, the losses of artefacts are almost epic in
scale and one has to question why NASA has been so determinately
careless.

The Apollo Moon landings have been heralded as one of the

greatest achievements of mankind and one would expect that all the
documentation and technological achievements would be carefully
preserved for posterity.

Regrettably, and quite surprisingly, this does not seem to have

been the case. It would appear that NASA has been less than
conscientious in preserving these important artefacts. This is
astonishing for two reasons, first and foremost, the historic nature of
the achievement, in this modern era we tend to hold as precious
everything that measures the progress and achievements of
mankind. Secondly, the information was undoubtedly of considerable
usefulness for future space projects.

Now NASA plans to go back into outer space with the Orion
Project and appears to be struggling to build the technology with
which to do this. Sceptics would strongly argue, and they do quite
vociferously, that we supposedly had the technology to leave low
Earth orbit and survive in space fifty years ago. They question how
NASA could have been so utterly careless, or were there other
impelling reasons for this perceived ineptitude. The suspicion is
there for the sceptics to add to their arguments that NASA faked the
Moon landings and is now trying to destroy anything that could
ultimately prove the fakery, particularly when examined with modern
methods of analysis.

Telemetry and Video Data

One of the important aspects of the journey to the Moon was the
telemetry data, this is an automated communications process by
which measurements and other data are collected at remote, or
inaccessible points, and transmitted to receiving equipment for
monitoring. It was an essential part of the mission to the Moon and
would be of significant importance for future journeys into outer
space.

You may think that telemetry is not something that concerns you,
but if you are using a computer running Microsoft or Mac software, or
using Google or some other search engine for your searches, which
you most probably are, then you are daily involved in telemetry.
These organisations collect telemetry data on what you do every
second of the day and there is little you can do about it.

In the UK, and also in many other developed countries, when you
drive around town, or down a motorway, information on your
movements is collected via your car registration number, this is
telemetry and again there is little you can do about it. Even when you
walk along the street or go shopping, your movements are being
recorded by a vast network of surveillance cameras. It is just a fact
of modern life that we need to accept. It may surprise you that the
average person in the UK is caught on camera more than 70 times
per day and for someone living in London that can be over 300 times
per day. As well as cameras on the street, the majority of shops also
have several surveillance cameras.

Lost Information
On 15 August 2006, the Sydney Morning Herald reported that
NASA had lost the original telemetry tapes of the Apollo 11 Moon
landing, which also included perhaps the most legendary “small step
for man, giant leap for mankind” footage (App 10.05).

These original magnetic tapes which recorded the iconic images

of man’s first footsteps on the Moon are missing. Scientists fear that
there is a danger of the tapes deteriorating into dust unless they are
found quickly and converted into digital format. The sceptics are
quick to coin the phrase “one small mistake by NASA, one giant loss
for mankind”.

In 2006, NASA said the search is on to find the boxes of original,

high-quality slow-scan TV tapes. The tapes were stored in 2,612
large boxes, each box holding about 50 tapes. These “lost” boxes
apparently held the telemetry data tapes and also contained the
original TV footage of the other five Moon landings. Estimates of the
number of tapes vary between 130,000 to 140,000, of which about
13,000 of these tapes related to the Apollo missions. These were not
small tapes, as in the main they consisted of fourteen inch diameter
reels of mostly one, and some two inch, wide magnetic tape. The
tape recorder/reader consumed a whopping 120 inches of tape
every second, an astonishing speed of almost 7 miles per hour.

So we are not talking about losing a bunch of keys, or the odd

book, we are talking about losing 2,612 large boxes. The sceptics
say that we are not simply looking for a few tapes, but a whole
building. In fact, it is a pile of about 11,000 cubic feet (cu ft), is that
hard to visualise, well a modern three bedroom house in the UK is
about 7,500 cu ft. It was quite a challenge to lose almost two three
bedroom houses, the sceptics would say, even by NASA standards.

The Flight Director for the Apollo missions, Gene Kranz,

acknowledges when interviewed by Aron Ranen that the data tapes
are indeed lost (App 10.06). Kranz further states that even if the
tapes could be found, there is no machine that could read the tapes,
as the only machine capable of reading these tapes was destroyed
many years ago. The sceptics say that NASA is hellbent on
destroying everything relating to the Apollo Missions, except the
glory.

Finally, NASA researchers concluded that the tapes containing

the raw unprocessed Apollo 11 SSTV signal were erased and reused
by NASA in the early 1980s, unbelievably due to a shortage of
magnetic tapes at the time in NASA (App 10.07). It transpires that
NASA's usage of one inch magnetic tapes amounted to 60 per day
in 1981. which far outstripped the quantity available at the time.
What does NASA have to say about this? Well not much to be
honest, if you read their statement on the matter (App 10.08).

NASA initially stated that they do not consider the tapes to be

lost, just mislaid, and the search continued, but shortly afterwards
they admitted that the tapes were indeed lost, well not so much lost
but wiped clean and reused (App 10.09). This loss is confirmed in
the “Final Report” from the NASA searchers (App 10.10).

Is it any wonder that the sceptics find this story so utterly

unconvincing? These recordings were some of the most significant
documentation of man's greatest achievement to explore the
universe beyond our Earth and for them to be so carelessly guarded
is mystifying. The sceptic's reason that NASA may have had
something to hide and didn't want these tapes to be scrutinised by
modern methods of analysis. We shall never know the answer, the
evidence seemingly is long gone. The situation is well summarized in
this video from “AnOnaly” (App 10.11).

NASA not only carelessly loses tapes, but also photographs. In

the period 1966-67 NASA had the Lunar Orbiter taking many
detailed photographs of the Moon in preparation for the Apollo
Missions, basically in order to identify suitable landing sites. Most of
these photographs were also assumed lost. Luckily some of these
original photographs were found by a group of amateurs, who
extracted about 2,000 photographs from 1,500 old analogue NASA
data tapes (App 10.12).

Suffice it to say that NASA has not been the best custodian of
this historic material. It is hard to reason why, with such a large
budget, these important artefacts were not more zealously guarded.
After all these artefacts were similarly as important to the American
historical record as the American Declaration of Independence,
which thankfully they have still managed to keep intact for 250 years.

Lost Technology
NASA was not only haphazard in the custodianship of its data
tapes and photographs, but also of its technical design documents
and manufacturing capabilities. The billions of dollars that were
invested in the NASA Apollo space project did produce some useful
technological value of benefit not only for future space exploration
projects but also for industry in general. 
 The Apollo Missions were made possible by the creation of the
massive Saturn V rocket, which provided the heavy lift necessary to
get astronauts all the way to the Moon. You might consider that this
was something worth keeping given NASA's sole “raison d'etre” is to
explore space. It may surprise you to learn that they didn't. The
methodology and plans required to build this rocket have been lost
as reported on the Vintage Space website (App 10.13).

It is not only the plans, and the design documents that have gone
missing, but also all the factory tooling was also scrapped. NASA
now again needs a heavy lift vehicle for its Orion Programme and is
once again having to re-engineer what NASA already had fifty years
ago. The new heavy-lift rocket for the Orion Project has been named
the Space Launch System (SLS), I assume for the lack of a more
inspiring name. There are three remaining Saturn V rockets in
museums that could possibly be reverse engineered, but how much
easier would it have been just to follow the original plans. If you are
familiar with IKEA furniture assembly plans then you may doubt this.

Now, when we say that NASA lost the ability to recreate the
technology that they had for the Apollo missions it doesn't, of course,
mean that they could not recreate it again, but that would be very
much like reinventing the wheel. What it does mean is that NASA is
not capable of even getting astronauts to the International Space
Station without taking a Russian taxi at around US$ 70 million per
seat round trip.

The excuse by NASA for this lack of housekeeping is that Project

Apollo was spread out among thousands of subcontractors and that
it was impossible to keep track of every document, but quite honestly
this is a tantalisingly feeble excuse. You can be sure that Airbus
Industries, which also has hundreds of contractors, keeps a very
comprehensive set of documents in some central location, and
certainly, at some point NASA must also have had a complete set of
documentation.
 The Lunar Rover which was used on Apollo Missions 15, 16 and
17, was built by Boeing, and again, you guessed it, the design plans
have been destroyed. If taking care of important artefacts is the
object, then NASA fails miserably. In 2015 a priceless prototype of
the Lunar Rover was sold for scrap to a metal dealer in Alabama
(App 10.14 and 10.15). This was one of the early prototypes for the
Lunar Rover and therefore has great historical significance, but
somehow it wasn't cared for and ended up in an Alabaman scrap
metal yard. There is even a photograph of the NASA Apollo Director
Wernher Von Braun driving this very vehicle.
We are not finished with the scrapyards just yet, we have more.
In 1976, ten years after the Apollo launch the rope memory modules
used were sold as scrap metal. Someone with a keen eye spotted
them in at a scrap metal auction and saved them for posterity. This
video shows how the programs on these modules are now being
deciphered (App 10.16). There is great interest in the computing
industry to see how these programs worked.

Some remnants of the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) still

exist and are being reassembled by a group of enthusiasts hopefully
for the 50th anniversary of the first Moon landing in July 2019.
Jimmie Loocke, a private collector, bought two tons of assorted
Apollo hardware from NASA, which included many parts of the AGC.
Imagine that, amazingly NASA was selling Apollo hardware by the
ton load.
 NASA is not only careless with valuable technology and historic
artefacts but also it appears that they are lax in their own security.
Surprisingly for such an organisation, they did not encrypt the data
on their laptops, and recently they have had two stolen (App 10.17),
perhaps another sign that they are not quite on the ball.

In October 2016, 47 years after the original Moon landing, NASA

finally produced a White Paper on science data retention (App
10.18). This paper addresses which NASA science data should be
retained indefinitely, and the conditions under which certain data
may, and should be released. Talk about closing the gate after the
horse went “walkabout”.

Back to the Moon?

The history of scientific advancement and exploration is well
documented and once a goal is achieved they is always a
continuous path of rapid onward development.

Archimedes is said to have designed a screw system in the third

century BC which was used to raise water from a lower to a higher
level. It wasn't then forgotten but was further developed and is still in
use today for irrigation projects and hydro-electric turbines all over
the world. Galileo is accredited with producing the first practical
telescope in 1609 but in fact, he merely improved on the device first
invented by a Dutchman Hans Lippershey the previous year. The
telescope wasn't then forgotten but was further developed through
the centuries and now we have the Hubble space telescope.

The Wright brothers designed and constructed the first airplane in

1903. This wasn't forgotten and within a year many others were
building better and more efficient models. British aviators John
Alcock and Arthur Brown made the first non-stop transatlantic flight
in June 1919, quickly followed by others to complete the same feat.
Now we fly the Atlantic with the same excitement as we catch a local
bus. American Aviator Wiley Post was the first to fly around the Earth
in 1933 and he wore a patch over one eye. Now flying around the
Earth is commonplace with or without eye patch.

Christopher Columbus discovered a viable sailing route to the

Caribbean and opened up the discovery of the Americas. Vasco da
Garma discovered the route to India and China via the Cape of Good
Hope at the tip of Africa so bringing about the demise of the Silk
Road. Edmund Hilary and Tenzing Norgay were the first to climb to
the summit of Mount Everest in May 1953. Now over 800 climbers
each year reach the summit of Everest.

I could go on and on about mentioning notable firsts but the point

I am making is that once something is achieved then history tells us
that it will be repeated until it is simplicity itself. So what happened to
the Moon? In 50 years nobody from any nation has even attempted it
again.

At the time of the Apollo Moon landings, the world believed that
this was just the first step in finally exploring our universe.
Humankind had reached the Moon and returned safely so now the
heavens were open. At least that was the feeling in the late 1960s.
NASA had proved that it was feasible, in fact, relatively easy. You
can start with nothing and in just eight years you can be walking on
the Moon. Imagine what they could have done in the next 50 years
with technology improving on a daily basis?

Well, here we are half a century later and all those dreams have
come to nothing. Not only have we not achieved anything further but
we haven't even been back to the Moon. Perhaps worst of all we are
now told that going back to the Moon has suddenly become rather
difficult and considerably more time consuming. Listen to Jarrah
White as he sums up what really happened in this three-part video
series about the developments since the supposed Apollo Moon
landings (App 10.19, 10.20 and 10.21).

We didn't go back to the Moon so what else did we do in the past

50 years? Seems we just potted around in low Earth orbit with
Skylab, the Hubble Space Telescope and now the International
Space Station (ISS). It seems the Moon is getting farther away than
ever, well it literately is, but only about 7 feet in an average lifetime.

Summary
It seems to be an undeniable fact that much of the Apollo
material, be it hardware, or design materials have been purposefully
shoddily destroyed, sold-off, carelessly misplaced, or simply just lost.
So why did NASA lose, destroy, or sell such a large part of the
artefacts from Project Apollo?

One would have thought that the artefacts from one of the
greatest achievements of mankind would be sacrosanct, a national
pride, but clearly not. It was after all “supposedly” one of man's
greatest achievements to leave this Earth for the first time and walk
on another celestial body. For humans to be able to fashion
materials here on Earth that would enable men to fly out into space
“would” have been man's greatest adventure and mankind's greatest
achievement but unfortunately it never happened.

You may wish to be gullible like the rest of the pro-NASA fan club
and put these loses of artefacts down to some slight carelessness on
the part of NASA. But for me, the sheer epic scale of the destruction
of artefacts is clearly a manifestly deliberate act. I can only imagine
that NASA considered that some of these artefacts may have served
as possible evidence to expose the deceit as time progressed and
analytic techniques improved.

I ask you to ponder whether it is imaginable that any diligent

organisation would lose, or destroy, so much of the evidence for
such a major technological achievement. It is beyond reasonable
comprehension and just adds more credence to the fact that the
NASA Apollo Missions were faked. It may appear to some that
NASA is attempting to destroy as much of the original evidence that
could be used with modern analysis techniques to prove the fakery
and expose the deceit. Curiously it does not appear to cause our
pro-NASA devotees any undue concern, as they do not seem to
mention it or they simply avoid the debate.
 There is no question that these loses of artefacts cannot be
accidental. They are too numerous and important for them to have
been merely the subject of perfunctory management. The
destruction of evidence was a planned objective for NASA. There
was an all too clear risk that some of this evidence might be used to
prove the fakery. For example, the “fake” telemetry tapes that would
have shown the precise route taken by the Apollo Missions to
minimise exposure in the Van Allen radiation belts. You will recall this
debate in Chapter 5 when the pro-NASA group explained that they
had taken some polar route when all the original NASA
documentation shows otherwise. The telemetry data would have
answered this question so it had to be “lost”.

We have a direct comparison with what NASA achieved in the

1960s with rudimentary technology and what NASA is doing now. It
took just over 8 years from President Kennedy's Moon speech in
May 1961 to the Apollo 11 crew “supposedly” landing on the Moon in
July 1969. Now we have NASA struggling since 2004 a good 15
years, and they do not expect to walk on the Moon again until the
late 2020s (this deadline has recently been shortened to 2024 by
President Trump). So with modern technology, we are supposed to
believe that it takes a good 20 years to reach the Moon, if they ever
do. Whereas with the old technology, slide rules and all, in took just
eight years. This surely must be absolute proof of the NASA fakery.

The evidence is there, NASA did fake all, or certainly a large part
of the Apollo Moon landings. In order to keep the deceit, they
needed to ensure that no evidence to the contrary would be
available. It is a solitary example in the history of man that
technology took an irretrievable backward step.

The real reason that NASA has never returned to the Moon in the
past 50 years is simple, they never went in the first place.
 

 CHAPTER 11
KEEPING THE SECRET

“What a terrible era

in which idiots govern the blind”
William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

The NASA Believers argue that there are four self-evident

reasons which easily explain why the Apollo Missions could not have
been faked. They base their assertions on paradigms which do not
stand up to serious scrutiny as we will now discuss.

Reasons why it Could Not have been Faked

The first reason is that too many people worked on Project Apollo
for the fakery not to have been revealed in the past 50 years. NASA
state that about 400,000 people were involved in Project Apollo and
it would be unlikely that none would have revealed the secret.

The second is that the Russians would surely have known that is
was faked and would, therefore, have broadcast that fact to the
whole world given that they were in a prestigious space race with the
Americans.

Thirdly, the astronauts brought back kilograms of Moon rocks

which are attested by the scientific community to be genuinely from
the Moon.

Fourthly, the astronauts left retro-reflectors on the Moon and that

these are being used by well-respected scientific institutions for laser
ranging to the Moon.

At first reading, these all appear to be extremely persuasive

arguments and for many appear to be very convincing. We will
examine these “self-evident” postulations in this chapter.
 What Secret?
It is a contention often made by the pro-NASA group that so
many individuals worked on Project Apollo that it would have been
impossible for the fakery not to have been exposed by some whistle-
blower in the past 50 years.  You will see this statement repeated
over and over again on the pro-NASA fan sites. Is a rather strange
statement as it implies that all of these people were informed about
the fakery and were presumably asked not to tell anybody.

This is a typical example selected randomly off an internet chat

group:

“That NASA faked the landing, and managed to keep the secret
until this day with literally thousands of people remaining silent and
not one single person among that group coming out with a non-
fiction, fact based tell-all book that points to hard irrefutable facts that
do not rely on circumstance, imagination, or supposition”

They repeat this NASA well-known statement that about 400,000

people scattered across about 20,000 contracting companies were
involved in bringing Project Apollo to fruition. In reality, the vast
majority of these people were employed by contractors designing
and building the components needed for the Apollo Missions and
would have had little understanding of the overall project. 

But you would imagine that surely the operatives working within
Mission Control, sat facing those numerous screens of information
from the telemetry, would have known.  Well not necessarily so, it is
entirely possible that they too were deceived by the fakery. Their
only evidence of the missions that they had was the telemetry being
received and feeding the particular data stream for which they were
responsible. They would have no idea where the telemetry was
coming from, or whether is it was genuine or not. They had many
times previously practised this exercise using simulated data. When
you are viewing a screenful of numbers there is no apparent
difference between a simulation and the real thing. The simple fact is
that they had no reason to question anything, let alone start thinking
it was all a hoax. The idea that the Moon landings could be hoaxed
is still a staggering thought to this day.

      

Source NASA: Apollo 11 Mission Control 1969

So, in essence, keeping the secret could simply mean that there
was no secret to keep. The only people that would have know about
the fakery would be the members of the clandestine DIA (also
maybe the CIA) group, the astronauts including back-up crews and
some DIA/CIA operatives infiltrated and working for NASA. One
imagines that the DIA/CIA people could be trusted, perhaps on pain
of death. The astronauts could be expected to join the cover-up as
they were for the most part serving military officers under orders
from their commanding officer, the President of the United States.
There may have been a few exceptions, perhaps like Gus Grissom
who perhaps sadly died for attempting to reveal the truth about
Project Apollo.

In summary, the pro-NASA devotees are stretching naivety to

imagine that NASA informed the 400,000 that it was committing
fakery or that NASA was so inept in their management of the fakery
that the secret leaked out. It is no longer a valid excuse as it
purposefully misinterprets the real situation. It has no merit or
substance whatsoever and is based solely on a mischievous and ill-
conceived misunderstanding of the facts. It has been used mainly by
the pro-NASA group as an excuse to avoid facing the real issue of
the actual fakery.

And the Russians?

The pro-NASA group will also tell you that if it was a fake then the
Russians would have known and would have eagerly told the world.
After all, they were the main protagonists in this story and you would
imagine that they would have had much to gain by exposing the
fakery. 

Again I have selected a random quote from the same internet

chat group:

“Russia was our main rival and would love to embarrass us if we

tried to fool people. Remember, there were six missions, so why
would the United States risk getting caught that many times? That
makes no sense”

It is not at all obvious that the Russians did know. Even if the
Russians “suspected” that the Moon Landings were faked then they
would need to furnish some solid proof. Announcing that it was a
fake to the world without incontestable proof would be seen as just a
case of “sour grapes”.  Suspecting is one thing, but proving you are
right with hard evidence is an altogether different task.
 There is also some evidence that the Russian's claims of
superiority in the space race were also in part faked, and equally, it
could be stated that the USA knew and could have equally exposed
the Russians. On 12 April 1961, it was reported that the Vostok 3KA-
3 spacecraft with cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin onboard was launched
from Baikonur Cosmodrome. Yuri Gagarin thus supposedly became
both the first human to travel into space and the first to orbit the
Earth.

However, there are doubts about whether Gargarin was actually

the first man in space (App 11.01). There may be more to the
Russian fakery than we first imagined (App 11.02). It is only after 30
years of secrecy that these facts have been revealed. It is interesting
to note that Khrushchev ordered the Soviet rocket design engineer
Sergei Korolev to get a man into space at all costs. The communist
philosophy was to hide its failures and only publicly celebrate its
successes. This contrasted sharply with the American way of
publicising everything in advance and mostly allowing real-time
coverage by the press and the public.

So perhaps both sides were mainly interested in convincing their

own populations rather than convincing each other. It was after all an
arms race thinly disguised as a space race. The respective
populations may not have warmed to an all-out arms race but a
space race carried with it all the excitement and prestige of a nation.

Also, if the Russians did know it was a fake then why would they
now reportedly be investigating that very fact? (App 11.03). I think
we can safely conclude that this Russian “whistle-blower” argument
has no merit in proving that the Apollo Missions went to the Moon.

Moon Rocks
The Apollo astronauts supposedly brought back about 840
pounds (382 kilograms) of Moon rocks and dust. These rocks have
been distributed to scientific institutions around the world who
confirm that they are definitely rocks from the Moon. Again, a typical
response from the same internet chat group:
 “Two words. Moon rocks. They are rocks from the moon. And
scientists agree they are rocks from the moon. Explain those away
for us”

So we are faced with the opinions of many trained geologists

from all over the world, that the Apollo samples are definitely Moon
rocks. My first problem with this is that how do they know they are
from the Moon given that they have not been to the Moon? I mean
they have nothing for comparison, or have they?

Well, it seems perhaps they have. The Earth is already strewn

with pieces of Moon rock which travelled here as meteorites.
Estimates for the mass of material that falls on Earth each year
range from 22,000-78,000 tons. Mostly in the form of dust particles
but a small proportion are rocks from the Moon and elsewhere from
the universe.

So many of the meteorites found here on Earth do come from the

Moon, in this case, they are more properly called lunaites. They are
broken pieces of the Moon dislodged by other stray rocks from outer
space impacting into the Moon's surface. If they are flung high
enough from the impact they can be captured by Earth's gravity and
slowly pulled to Earth. When I say slowly pulled to Earth, well it can
take up to 10,000 years for them to get here as they circle around
and around the Earth slowly being pulled closer by Earth's gravity. It
is estimated that less than one percent of meteorites found on Earth
are from the Moon, so they are a reasonably scarce commodity and
not so easy to find.

If we want to find lunar meteorites on Earth where should we go

hunting? Well, basically anywhere on the Earth, but no lunar
meteorite has yet been found in North America, South America, or in
Europe. They undoubtedly exist, but the probability of finding a lunar
meteorite in a temperate environment is incredibly low. Many
experienced meteorite collectors have been looking, but none have
yet succeeded.
 It seems the best places to find lunar meteorites are in arid
deserts which have little organic growth to hide them. One such arid
desert is the Antarctica and the best time is summer as the ice melts
the dark rocks become visible lying on the surface. You may be
surprised that Antarctica is classed as an arid desert, but the truth is
that it very rarely rains, or snows in Antarctica. The average annual
rainfall is just 2 inches.

So what is the difference between Moon rocks on the Moon and

lunaites found here on Earth? First of all, any Moon rocks passing
through the Earth's atmosphere would have a burnt crust. Secondly,
the rock when on the Moon would have been bombarded by micro-
meteorites and will have the tell-tale zap craters, tiny holes where
the micro-meteorites had penetrated. So, in theory, it would be
possible to artificially change the lunaites to remove evidence of the
entry through the Earth's atmosphere. So first we need to find some
lunaites.

In the Antarctic local summer from 1966 to 1967, Wernher von 

Braun, the chief architect at NASA, participated in a US Government
expedition to Antarctica. 

This expedition was one of the first to systematically search the

ice surface of Antarctica for meteorites, believed to have originated
from the Moon. The US Government claimed that the samples were
“for later use as a reference material” to compare against the future
Apollo specimens to be brought back by the astronauts.

The lunaites collected on the NASA expedition to Antarctica

could have been faked to resemble Moon rocks on the Moon by
removing the rock's burnt crust and adding false zap craters using
lasers or high-powered guns. As the geologists had never seen any
Moon rocks and were unlikely to do so in the future then these fake
rocks would suffice to convince geologists given that NASA state
they found them on the Moon. In conclusion this “Moon rocks”
evidence is certainly not convincing and it is more than likely that the
Apollo Moon rocks were faked from Earth lying lunaites.
 I cover this “Moon rocks” subject more fully in Chapter 17
“Geological Wonders” in my previous book “Man on the Moon: Fact
or Fiction?” which I recommend that you read. What, you didn't buy it
yet? Don't you worry that it might sell out and you will spend months
searching on Ebay to find a secondhand well-thumbed copy?

Retro-Reflectors
The laser reflectors that the astronauts “supposedly” placed on
the Moon are a piece of equipment with enables laser light to be
reflected and are technically referred to as retro-reflectors. These
retro-reflectors are made up of tiny reflecting prisms, similar to those
you often see on road signs and on the rear of bicycles. These prism
retro-reflectors will always reflect an incoming light beam back in the
same direction that it originally came from.

It is said by NASA that the retro-reflectors can be used for

experiments to measure the distance of the Moon from the Earth, by
recording the length of time it takes for the laser signal to be
returned. Remember, it takes about 1.3 seconds for light from the
Earth to reach the Moon. The basics of lunar ranging are described
here (App 11.04).

It may surprise, and perhaps if you are of a nervous disposition

slightly worry you, that we are slowly losing the Moon, as it
constantly moves further from Earth by about one and a half inches
per year, about the same distance as your fingernails grow each
year. This just means that the future Moon holiday you were planning
may get marginally more expensive than you had originally budgeted
for.

How these retro-reflectors work and what they are used for, is
extremely well covered in this sceptic video from “Kris de Bum” (App
11.05).

The retro-reflectors, placed on the Moon's surface by the

astronauts, are claimed by the NASA Apollo believers as the
absolute, explicit, conclusive proof that man did go to the Moon and
deposit the laser reflectors there. If it can be shown that the only way
a laser fired at the Moon could return a signal would be that a laser
retro-reflector must have been placed on the Moon then this would
be a very important piece of evidence. 

I mentioned in the Foreword to this book that my definitive proof

that I used to try to convince my children that man had landed on the
Moon was these retro-reflectors. It was my stock answer that for me
was irrefutable proof that the Apollo 11, 14 and 15 astronauts must
have been to the Moon to place them there.

I seem to recall that several independent scientific institutions

and universities around the world were using them to calculate the
distance to the ever drifting Moon. In fact, it was probably the worst
“proof” that I could have chosen as we will now discover.

Source NASA: Apollo 14 Laser Reflector on Moon

After further research, it appears that my original idea about

“several independent organisations” turned out to be just two main
ones both sited in the USA namely, The Apache Point Observatory
Lunar Laser-Ranging Operation (APOLLO) located in southern New
Mexico and the McDonald Laser Ranging Station (MLRS). As soon
as I saw that acronym APOLLO I became suspicious.  I was right to
be somewhat suspicious, the APOLLO facility was largely funded by
the Micro-gravity Division of NASA.
 APOLLO is a collaboration between several universities,  a few
scientific institutions and the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. What
really surprised me was that the facility did not become operational
until 2005. I have no idea what happened in the 36 years since the
Apollo 11 astronauts supposedly placed the retro-reflectors on the
Moon.

According to the International Laser Ranging Service (ILRS)

there are about 40 institutions throughout the world involved in laser
ranging but in 2015 only the two USA sites mentioned above and the
Observatoire de la Côte d’ Azur, France that were technically
equipped to carry out Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) to retro-reflector
arrays on the surface of the Moon. In

Credit: Tom Zagwodzki Goddard Space Flight Center

However, all of this may be immaterial. It transpires that you do

not need retro-reflectors to bounce signals off the Moon. The
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Crimean
Astrophysical University were both firing lasers at the Moon and
receiving a return signal in 1962, long before any reflectors were
supposedly installed on the Moon by the Apollo Missions (App
11.06).
 Also, both the American and British military were beaming radio
signals at the Moon and receiving return signals in the late 1940s.
So there is no apparent reason why signals, radio or laser, cannot be
bounced off the Moon with no special reflectors, provided that there
is a large enough collection dish on Earth to receive the greatly
diminished returned signals.

An interesting technical paper has been produced by Andreas

Märki of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Although the
contents of the paper are highly technical it does provide some
relevant conclusions (App 11.07). The paper examines the direct
reflected light from the Apollo retro-reflector as well as the scattered
light from the lunar surface. In summary, the paper finds minimal
evidence that the laser reflections obtained from the Moon's surface
are specifically from retro-reflectors. The author states:

“The only indication of a retro-reflector was the signature of the

return signal, i.e. its small variance. But a small variance would also
appear in a measurement onto a lunar surface which is
perpendicular to the measurement direction”

And, commenting on a statement made in a scientific paper by

J.O.Dickey from the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory:

“All this, together with the measurement results, may call the
following statement into question: 'these retro reflector arrays are still
operating normally after 25 years'”

His final conclusion is even more damning:

“According to the number of return photons I go even further and

conclude that in all lunar laser ranging experiments the
measurements were taken to the bare surface of the Moon”.

I am not a brilliant mathematician but let's do some simple maths.

Now, the laser beam when it reaches the Moon is not a pinpoint of
light but the laser light has diverged to have a large radius when it
hits the lunar surface.  The Lunar Planetary Institute (LPI) website
states:

“Laser beams are used because they remain tightly focused for
large distances. Nevertheless, there is enough dispersion of the
beam that it is about 7 kilometres in diameter when it reaches the
Moon and 20 kilometres in diameter when it returns to Earth”

Wikipedia state that the diameter when the beam reaches the
Moon is 6.5 km (see App 11.06). However for simplicity, we will use
the LPI figure of 7 km diameter which is 3.5 kilometres or 3,500
metres radius.

The area in square metres covered by the laser beam is лr² (that
is Pie times the radius squared):

3.14 x 3,500²
=  38,484,510 sq m

That is over 38 million square metres. The size of the retro-

reflector (Apollo 11 and 14) was 0.61 m by 0.61 m so the area is
0.372 sq m.

Now the real maths. In the area illuminated by the laser light, the
retro-reflector would represent a very small percentage of that area:

100 * 0.372/38,484,510 percent

= 0.000000967 percent

If the retro-reflector is present in the area illuminated by the laser,

it will only receive a minuscule part of the laser signal and cannot
send back any more than it received.

Now, it gets even worse as the returned laser beam has a

diameter of about 20 km when the signal is reflected back to the
Earth. That is a vast area of 314,159,265,358,979 sq metres. The
receiving telescope tube at the McDonald Observatory has a
diameter of 85.95 cm so a surface area of 2.32 sq metres. The
collection area is therefore just a small percentage of the area
covered by the returned laser beam

100 * 2.32/ 314,159,265 ,358,979 percent

= 0.000000000000738 percent

Combining our two percentage figures gives

0.000000967  x  0.000000000000738 percent

= 0.000000000000000000714 percent

that a photon aimed at the Moon would be received back on

Earth which is effectively “zero point nought”.

They fire 1017 photons on each test which would on average give
a return of less than one photon using the percentage figures
calculated above. Apparently, they usually receive no photons
returned but sometimes one photon is returned. So they need to
make many observations over a period of time to finally get the
3,000 photons they need to make an “accurate” measurement.

The LPI also states that:

“Because of this very weak signal, observations are made for

several hours at a time. By averaging the signal for this period, the
distance to the Moon can be measured to an accuracy of about 3
centimetres (the average distance from the Earth to the Moon is
about 385,000 kilometres)”

Now, I may not be a great scientist but I thought the Moon

relative to the Earth was in constant motion so what exactly are they
measuring over a period of several hours to an accuracy of 3 cm?
Also, they have no idea where the returned photon has come from. It
could be from the retro-reflector but more probably from the surface
of the Moon.
 The retro-reflector on Apollo 15 was three times larger than the
ones on Apollo 11 and 14 but quite honestly it does really affect the
maths. It is more than likely than any light returned from the Moon as
a result of the laser is just a reflection from the lunar surface either
from a mountain top or a deep valley so how can this measure the
distance to the constantly moving Moon.

A further relevant point is that NASA appears not to know exactly

where the Apollo landing sites are, which I find quite surprising. I
would have thought that NASA would know exactly where their
spacecraft had landed on their historic landings on the Moon but it
seems not. NASA gives several different coordinates for each of the
Apollo Missions the worst being for Apollo 11 which has two
locations differing by 20 kilometres.

The details are given in the paper by Michael Stennecken “Lost

Lunar Landing Sites: The CLLC Initiative” (App 11.08). The data on
the following two pages is extracted from that paper. Note that eight
of the ten sources quoted for the Apollo landing coordinates are from
NASA themselves.
 COORDINATES OF APOLLO LUNAR LANDING SITES

latitude                longitude    Source

Apollo 11
0 d 41' 15" ( 0.6875) N   23 d 26'     (23.43  ) E   S#01
0 d 04' 05" ( 0.0681) N   23 d 42' 28" (23.7078) E   S#02
0.67    N                 23.49    E   S#03
0 d 43' 56" ( 0.7322) N   23 d 38' 51" (23.6475) E   S#10
0.71    N                 23.63    E   S#05
0.647   N                 23.505   E   S#06

Apollo 12
3 d 11' 51" ( 3.1975) S   23 d 23' 08" (23.3856) W   S#01
3.20    S                 23.38    W   S#03
2.94    S                 23.45    W   S#04
3.04    S                 23.42    W   S#05
3.036   S                 23.418   W   S#06
3 d 12'     ( 3.20  ) S   23 d 49'     (23.82  ) W   S#08
2 d 56' 33" ( 2.9425) S   23 d 26' 36" (23.4433) W   S#09
(center of target ellipse)

Apollo 14
3 d 40' 24" ( 3.6733) S   17 d 27' 55" (17.4653) W   S#01
3.67    S                 17.47    W   S#03
3.67    S                 17.46    W   S#04
3.65    S                 17.48    W   S#05
3.66    S                 17.48    W   S#06
3 d 40' 19" ( 3.6719) S   17 d 27' 46" (17.4628) W   S#07
3 d 40'     ( 3.67  ) S   17 d 28'     (17.47  ) W   S#08

Apollo 15
26 d 06' 03" (26.1008) N    3 d 39' 10" ( 3.6528) E   S#01
26.1     N                  3.7     E   S#02
26.10    N                  3.65    E   S#03
26.11    N                  3.66    E   S#04
26.08    N                  3.66    E   S#05
26 d 05'     (26.08  ) N    3 d 39'     ( 3.65  ) E   S#06
 26 d 04' 54" (26.0817) N    3 d 39' 30" ( 3.6583) E   S#07
26 d 06'     (26.10  ) N    3 d 39'     ( 3.65  ) E   S#08

Apollo 16
8 d 59' 29" ( 8.9914) S   15 d 30' 52" (15.5144) E   S#01
8.99    S                 15.51    E   S#03
8.60    S                 15.31    E   S#04
8.97    S                 15.51    E   S#05
8 d 59' 29" ( 8.9914) S   15 d 30' 52" (15.5144) E   S#06
8 d 60'     ( 9.00  ) S   15 d 31'     (15.52  ) E   S#08

Apollo 17
20 d 09' 55" (20.1653) N   30 d 45' 57" (30.7658) E   S#01
20.16    N                 30.76    E   S#03
20.17    N                 30.80    E   S#04
20.16    N                 30.77    E   S#05
20 d 10'     (20.17  ) N   30 d 46'     (30.77  ) E   S#06
20 d 09' 50.5(20.16403)N   30 d 44' 58.3(30.74953)E   S#07
20 d 10'     (20.17  ) N   30 d 46'     (30.77  ) E   S#08
20 d 09' 50" (20.1639) N   30 d 44' 58" (30.7494) E   S#09
 
SOURCES OF THE COORDINATES
S#01:

http://cass.jsc.nasa.gov/pub/expmoon/apollo_landings.html
S#02:

http://cass.jsc.nasa.gov/pub/expmoon/Apollo_LandingSites.html
S#03:

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apolloland.html

http://lunar-apps.arc.nasa.gov/history/timeline_items/
S#04:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/averearthview/lunarform/landing.html
S#05:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj

http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo.html
S#06:

http://www.nasm.edu/APOLLO/LandingSites.html
 S#07:

http://www.nasm.edu/APOLLO/AS14/Apollo14_LandingSite.html
till

http://www.nasm.edu/APOLLO/AS17/Apollo17_LandingSite.html
S#08:

http://people.aero.und.edu/~vaughn/english/explore/manned/apollo/apollo.htm
S#09:

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS12/10075360.TXT
and

http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS17/10075898.TXT
S#10:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/ch14-1.html
 Now, how do these seemingly lost Apollo sites affect the lunar
ranging exercise? Well, the retro-reflectors were left on Apollo
Missions 11, 14 and 17 and you can see in the table above that the
exact location of these sites is somewhat dubious. If this is the case,
you are left wondering at what heavenly point they are aiming the
laser beam.

I firmly believe that the laser ranging idea of placing retro-

reflectors on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts was just another
ploy by NASA to try to “prove” that the fake Apollo Missions were
real.

The logic behind accurately measuring the distance between the

constantly moving Earth and the Moon to a few centimetres is
completely ridiculous as the measurements need to be carried out
for a period of several hours in order to collect enough returned
photons “to get an accurate measurement”. There is no way it can
be known where these returned photons are coming from, a
mountain on the surface of the Moon, a deep valley on the surface of
the Moon, or actually from the retro-reflector placed on the Moon's
surface.

The laser retro-reflector argument is absolutely no proof that man

landed on the Moon. Likewise, the fact that laser beams can be
bounced off the Moon without any laser retro-reflectors does not in
any way disprove the Apollo Moon landings. However, the fact that
NASA continues to defend the laser retro-reflectors as proof that the
Apollo astronauts went to the Moon for me is indicative of manifest
deceit. The very idea of being able to produce extremely accurate
measurements of the distance between the Earth and the Moon over
a period of several hours while the Earth and Moon are in constant
relative motion is just totally ludicrous.
Summary
It appears that none of these four “self-evident” assertions by the
pro-NASA group can be taken as conclusive evidence that the
Apollo Missions were real. No doubt, they will be repeated over and
over again by the NASA devotees, I guess eagerly encouraged by
NASA. The simple fact is that they have no solid basis when
examined in detail.
 CHAPTER 12
CREATING THE EVIDENCE

“The best is yet to come”

William Shakespeare, Twelfth Night

As we reach the 50th Anniversary of the faked Apollo 11 Moon

landing, it is time to expose the deceit for what it really is. No doubt,
there will be grand celebrations around the globe to honour this
seemingly great achievement.  In this vein, I have just read that there
will be a “Moon Celebration Week” in London and no doubt there will
be many others around the globe. We also have UK television
stations allocating hours of coverage to the Apollo Missions and I
would suspect the same in other countries. I am guilty too, as I will
also appear in a TV documentary on the subject.

Unfortunately, it never happened in the way in which NASA

claims. It was faked as we have shown conclusively in the
proceeding chapters of this book. It is now beyond any reasonable
doubts and only the pro-NASA diehards can desperately cling onto
the illusion that it actually happened. In this chapter, we will examine
the methods used by the clandestine group within NASA (NASA-X)
to cleverly construct the deceit which has fooled the world for half a
century and probably will still fool half of the world for another 50
years.

How to Approach the Problem

Imagine that you were tasked to design, plan and produce the
hoax. What would you need and how could you do it? That was the
crucial question that NASA-X must have faced back in the early to
mid-1960s. Would it be possible to completely fake the Moon
landings? How can you fool the whole world live on television? And
how could you hope to keep such a monumental secret?
 The Apollo Missions must be successful, there was too much at
stake for it to fail. It was a matter of national prestige, not to mention
its importance in the Cold War and the alleged competition with the
Soviet Union. The risks of relying on the science and technology to
achieve a successful outcome were too immense and the possibility
of failure could not be countenanced. Fakery could be used to
ensure success.

What you also need to bear in mind is that the real Apollo
Missions were being designed, planned and programmed by
dedicated scientists on the assumption that NASA would be able to
get men to the Moon. We, therefore, have two programmes running
in parallel, the real scientific NASA working hard to actually achieve
the Moon landings and the NASA-X clandestine group working
parallel to NASA to ensure that it was achieved by fakery. This
second project has been referred to as the Apollo Simulation Project
(ASP) by the well known late sceptic Bill Kaysing (see App 12.01).

The problems involved in the faking of the Apollo Missions were

immense. It was to be a hoax on a grand scale perpetrated in front of
the entire world. When I first looked in detail at the NASA archive I
was totally disbelieving that it would have been possible to produce
so much “factual” evidence. An assertion continuously echoed by the
pro-NASA group.

There appeared to be far too much detailed information in the

form of mission transcripts, second by second dialogue between the
astronauts and Mission Control, hours of video footage and
thousands of photographs. How could this have been fabricated and
stitched together in so much minute detail?

This is one of the main arguments in defence of NASA by the

pro-NASA devotees who claim it would have been easier to actually
go to the Moon than attempt to fake it. This assumes that actually
going to the Moon was a realistic and viable option and this is
extremely doubtful. One of the strongest arguments for this is the
fact that after the Apollo Missions no nation has ever attempted to go
to the Moon during the intervening 50 years. There is no question
that if the Apollo Missions had been real then there would have been
many like missions to the Moon and the exploration of the Moon
would now be a commonplace event but it is not. Now, as we
observe the current efforts of NASA then we see that getting to the
Moon is no longer such an easy task.

Beginning the Fakery

NASA-X clearly infiltrated NASA from the very beginning. They
would have had operatives employed by NASA at all levels, even to
the highest echelons of the organisation. This is common practice for
the DIA/CIA in all theatres of operation.

If you are to convince the world that you have landed men on the
Moon then you need to have some solid evidence with which to
“prove” it. So what evidence would you need and how could you
fabricate it?

At a minimum you would need to have the following:

 
Video of the Saturn V rocket launch and successfully
leaving Earth
TV shots of astronauts in the space capsule to
demonstrate weightlessness in low Earth orbit and trans-
lunar coast
Audio of astronauts talking to Mission Control with the
appropriate time delays relative to the distance from the
Earth
Video of the Earth seen from deep space through the
capsule window
Video of the Lunar Module landing on the Moon through
the capsule window
The most conclusive piece of evidence would be “live”
TV pictures from the Moon showing the astronauts walking
in lunar gravity. It would be essential to provide some
calculable proof of Moon's gravity, say by astronauts
 dropping lots of things, jumping up and down, and the odd
pendulum demonstration
Some “lunar” rocks and dust brought back by the
astronauts  from the Moon
Photographs of astronauts on the Moon but best not get
carried away and produce too many
Some conclusive proof that you have been there such
as leaving some retro-reflectors and other equipment that
could continue to be used after the astronauts left
Videos of the Lunar Module ascent stage blasting-off
from the Moon
Videos showing the re-docking of the ascent stage of
the Lunar Module with the Command Module
Video of the capsule landing in the sea on its return to
Earth
Finally, a Press Conference to hear the astronauts story
of adventure

So there you have it, lots to do but if you could accomplish these
aspects then you are well on your way to faking it. We will now
examine what NASA-X did and how well they did it.

Saturn V rocket leaving Earth

The development of the Saturn V rocket was not without its
problems but finally, it launched on 9 November 1967. It surprised
everyone who was present at the Cape Canaveral launch site with
its tremendous force. It shook whole buildings and smashed nearby
windows with the force of a small earthquake.

Wernher von Braun, the chief NASA rocket scientist, took a

conservative approach to his rockets and wanted to cautiously test
each of the three parts of the rocket separately. His way was to over-
design and build rockets that were more sturdy than was perhaps
necessary. This philosophy took its toll on NASA's early efforts and
they did not have the luxury of time with the end of decade lunar
landing deadline was fast approaching. The Saturn V rocket was the
only machine to get them there.
 George Mueller who headed the Office of Manned Space Flight
realised that NASA would never make it to the Moon by the end of
the decade without a new more forceful approach to its rocket
development program. He called for NASA to adopt an "all-up"
approach to its rocket tests. Rather than testing components
separately, the standard approach in NASA's early days, he wanted
von Braun to test the full rocket all in one go. It was a risky approach.
He also insisted that the first flight of Saturn V was to carry a fully
functioning Apollo Command and Service Module as payload so
their systems could be tested in orbit. The mission would follow a
trajectory that would have the Command Module re-enter the
atmosphere as though it were returning from the Moon, adding a
heat shield test to the program.

It is said that Mueller's decision ultimately saved the Saturn V

program. Designated Apollo 4, the first Saturn V launch was a
stunning success. Only Apollo 6 saw another unmanned Saturn V
launch. Quite amazingly the third Saturn rocket NASA ever launched
supposedly took the Apollo 8 crew to orbit the Moon in December
1968.

We have more discussion on the capabilities of the Saturn V

rocket in the next section when we discuss how far the astronauts
actually went.

Videos of Weightlessness in Space

Perhaps one of the most convincing images of space is to see
astronauts in the weightlessness environment of the spacecraft. We
have mentioned before that they are not actually “weightless” but
simply in constant free fall under the force of gravity.

If you watch the videos of the astronauts in the space capsule

then on some occasions they are empathising the weightless aspect
by doing pointless tricks with various floating objects such as food
morsels, pens or notebooks. This concentration on showing
weightlessness was an important aspect of the NASA-X  fakery. On
other occasions, you see nothing of weightlessness, just two or three
men residing in odd positions about the capsule presumably to give
the impression of them being weightless.

I had always assumed that the Apollo astronauts on all missions

at least had reached low Earth orbit but there appears to be some
evidence that on some missions they didn't even leave the Earth.

In his book “We Never Went to the Moon”, Bill Kaysing suggests
that no Apollo Mission went into low Earth orbit and that all the
Saturn V rockets reached on untimely end in the deep Atlantic
Ocean (see App 12.01). I understand that he later revised his view
on this but he was certainly of the opinion that the Apollo 15
astronauts never left the ground. It must be remembered that at the
time Bill Kaysing was writing there was no internet and no wealth of
information available on the Apollo Missions.

Bill Kaysing's book is revealing for many other reasons. It was

first penned in 1974 and first self-published in 1976. It was later
republished by Health Research Books in 2002. It is a fascinating
and quite detailed exposé of the Apollo fakery which Kaysing refers
to as the Apollo Simulation Project (ASP).

Sceptic Jarrah White takes up this story about how far the Apollo
astronauts went. He has examined the videos of the astronauts
shown in weightless conditions in the capsule in his two-part series
(App 12.02 and 12.03). He points out that on the Apollo 10 and 11
missions blue light is noticeable through the capsule windows which
he suggests indicates that the capsule was actually in low Earth orbit
even though it was claimed by NASA to be halfway to the Moon in
the blackness of space. In Apollo 15 he shows that none of the in-
capsule video sequences lasts more than 30 seconds which he
maintains could have been filmed in the KC135 aircraft,
affectionately known as the “Vomit Comet” (App 12.04). 

So, Jarrah's conclusion seems to be that after Apollo 11 there

were no astronauts in the capsule with the possible exception of
Apollo 14. His reasoning is that after Apollo 11 NASA had fulfilled
Kennedy''s goal to get men to the Moon so it was no longer
necessary to risk the possibility of some rocket or other equipment
malfunction.

I have just read an interesting article in the Nexus Magazine

(April-May 2019 Issue) by Randy Walsh entitled “Moon Missions:
Hiding a Hoax in Plain Sight”. Randy looks at the evidence
surrounding the power of the Saturn V rocket. He shows amateur
footage of the Saturn V lift-off from Cape Canaveral for Apollo 11.
His interpretation of the evidence indicates that the Saturn V rocket
could not have achieved sufficient thrust to reach the optimal orbit for
the trans-lunar blast-off to the Moon and consequently, none of the
Apollo Missions could have gone to the Moon. This is the paper
referred to in that article and is by Popov PhD and Andrei Bulatov
which is posted on the Aulis website (App 12.5). According to this
analysis, the Apollo 11 Saturn V rocket didn't even make it into low
Earth orbit but most probably crashed into the Atlantic Ocean.

Photo Hunter Freeman: Stay Home Astronaut

This is in conflict with the “blue light” showing through the capsule
which Jarrah White pointed out in his video (See App 12.02). If
NASA-X had staged that video on Earth why would they purposefully
used “blue” light through the windows when it should have been the
blackness of deep space? I think it must have been in low Earth orbit
and that NASA-X simply overlooked the finer details of what space
should look like through the capsule window.
 So we seem to have very conflicting information about how far
the Apollo astronauts actually went and how many of them reached
low Earth orbit. It is perhaps academic as it does not in any way
detract from the main essence of the deception. What we do know
for certain is that they never went to the Moon.

Audio of astronauts talking to Mission Control

Communication between Mission Control is to be expected
throughout the Apollo Mission. NASA had simulated all aspects of
the mission many times as part of the astronaut training regime.
They would, therefore, have had ample audio tapes to use to make
up the transmitted audio. What they did not have they could easily
fabricate.

There was however one aspect of the audio transmission that

NASA originally overlooked. The transmission signal used for the
audio conversation was radio waves which travel at the speed of
light, an astonishing 186,000 miles every second. So light would
travel 7.5 times around the Earth in one second.

The Moon is about 240,000 miles from the Earth so any signal
would take about 1.3 seconds to reach Earth.
240,000/186,000 = 1.29 seconds

So when an astronaut on the Moon speaks it takes 1.3 seconds

before Mission Control in Houston will hear him. Likewise, when
Mission Control asks the astronaut a question then it must be at a
minimum 2.6 seconds before he gets a reply, that is 1.3 seconds for
the signal to reach the astronaut on the Moon and 1.3 seconds for
the return signal to be received back on Earth assuming the
astronaut replies instantly. Normally, there should be a slightly longer
delay as the astronaut absorbs the question and formulates his
response.

In some of the original NASA audio, this necessary time gap

according to the Laws of Physics was not there. For example, watch
this first TV transmission from the Moon on Apollo 11 (App 12.06). At
26 seconds you hear Mission Control comment:
 “I think you are the only person around who does not have TV
coverage of the scene”

That comment ends at 30 seconds. At 31 seconds we hear the

astronaut on the Moon reply but that is after only one second.

“That's alright I don't mind a bit”

This is physically impossible, the astronaut is answering before

he could have even received the message. There is no confusion
here as we can definitely see that the astronaut is replying to that
specific question. When NASA had this problem pointed out by the
sceptics they produced an edited version on 17 July 2014 with the
correct time delays added (App 12.07). This new version is referred
to as being a “restored” video whatever that means but it is also an
edited version as you can hear if you listen from time 47.13 to 49:00
when you will hear that repeated “echoes” are used to add extra time
in the delay. You can hear this obvious correction clearly at the very
beginning of this video from NBC News (App 12.08). This editing of
the original video is described by “Hunchbacked” (App 12.09). This
fact alone is undeniable proof of NASA fakery in that they are
attempting to correct the oversights in the 1969 deceit.

Video of the Earth Seen from Space

A necessary shot we would all expect was that iconic view of our
distant Earth as the spacecraft was well on its way to the Moon. This
would be the absolute proof that the mission was real. So it was
essential that NASA provided this view of the Earth but its efforts
were not all that successful as we will see.

This renowned view of Earth from the space capsule as it was

allegedly about halfway to the Moon is covered in the famous Bart
Sibrel film “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon” first
released in April 2000
(App 12.10). The video lasts 47 minutes and
is well worth watching it completely but you can skip to time 32
minutes to see that portion of the video which discusses the Earth
view from the capsule.
 In the video, it is claimed that NASA sent Bart Sibrel an old film
reel by mistake which shows an unscheduled TV transmission in
which the astronauts are filming the Earth through the space capsule
window. According to Bart Sibrel this video shows the astronauts
falsely staging the view of a distant Earth through the capsule
window when there are in fact only in low Earth orbit and not half to
the Moon as NASA disingenuously claimed.

The real importance of this video lies in the discovery of a third

voice in the communications loop. According to NASA, only two
parties were involved in the communication, the astronauts and the
Capsule Communicator in Mission Control in Houston, but we hear a
third voice distinctly different from the other two. It is just one word
“talk” given in the form of a command to Neil Armstrong. This is clear
proof that a third clandestine party was involved in controlling the
sequence of events. It is important that you see this video without
any narration, just the conversation between Houston and the Apollo
astronauts (App 12.11). From this, you can better form your own
opinion on what is going on. Bart Sibrel's explanation of what is
going on is just one interpretation but Jarrah White has another. I
present Jarrah's explanation in full below.

“Over the past few months I have received many emails from
people asking me to comment on various videos uploaded by the
pro-NASA side. Specifically; they ask me how can the Apollo 11
views of Earth be a transparency over the window (as stated by Bart
Sibrel and David Percy) when one shot shows the Earth vanishing
behind the window. I explained this way back in 2007, but
unfortunately it seems that the propagandists' misrepresentation of
the footage continues to this day.

I am also asked how NASA got the cloud formations right if these
videos were faked. Apparently the clouds formations seen in these
telecasts are similar to those seen by weather satellites. Firstly: the
Apollo 11 crew made not one, but FOUR television broadcasts
during the coast phase of their alleged voyage to the moon.
According to the Spacecraft
Films DVD, the first one was filmed at
10:32GET (Ground Elapsed Time, 10 hours 32 minutes after the
start of the mission); the second was filmed at 30:28GET; the third at
33:59GET; and the fourth was filmed at 55:08GET.

The first, third and forth broadcasts were all a continuous video
with no edits. But the second video (the one where the earth clearly
disappears behind the window), is just a jumble of random interior
and exterior shots. The astronauts don't even appear in the same
shot as the earth vanishing behind the window.

In fact, if you actually watch these in-flight television

transmissions closely, you'll notice that the astronauts are never in
the same shot as the earth. The camera always blacks out or cuts
away between interior and exterior shots. In the film industry, this is
called 'smoke and mirrors'. Anyways, long story short, Bart Sibrel
and also David Percy discussed the 10:32GET and 33:59GET
telecasts in their respective documentaries. These are the two
broadcasts that they say where filmed with a transparency.

In response to the transparency claim, the 30:28GET telecast

has been flogged by members of the pro-NASA side over and over
again as though all four videos were the same telecast! And not
once do they reveal that it is in fact an edited video. For the record, I
believe that these videos in which the 'earth' disappears behind the
window were filmed in a CSM mockup with an accurate globe on the
outside. At the request of a certain Youtube user who has been
confused by the pro-NASA side's representation of these videos, I
am uploading all four from start to finish. Secondly: As stated above,
these videos have been compared with photos of earth taken by
weather satellites in orbit at the time. Naturally, the pro-NASA side
has been quick to call this 'evidence'.

This trait is typical among propagandists: they present a piece of

data or video that they don't know how to fake, and they assume that
anything they don't know how to fake must be evidence that Apollo
was real. Considering that NASA had many weather satellites in orbit
long before and during Apollo, and that meteorologists had been
using such satellite photographs to predict cloud formations and thus
make forecasts for the week's weather, I'd say that's how NASA was
able to get the cloud positions right in these videos.

Thirdly: I have also been asked why Sibrel says the telecasts that
NASA sent him were 'classified' when they are available on the
Spacecraft Films DVD set. The footage that Sibrel received carried
this title card: 'This film of the Apollo 11 Mission was produced as a
report film by THE MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER and is not for
general public distribution'. Furthermore, NASA sent Sibrel this
footage in 2000. Spacecraft Films published their copy of it in 2002.
It seems to me that NASA decided to declassify this footage after
Sibrel leaked it! “

Jarrah White has posted a video showing his opinion of the TV

transmissions in which he also comments on the Bart Sibrel video
(App 12.12) and he subsequently posted an addendum to this video
(App 12.13). Now I need to admit that all this is quite complex and
not that simple to comprehend. In the first video, Jarrah expresses
doubts about the dating of the video as shown on the title slate.
These doubts appear to be based on the date a newspaper article
was published in Australia showing an image of the distant Earth
from the Apollo 11 capsule which Jarrah claims was published
before the actual TV transmission.

In Jarrah's second video which is titled “MoonFaker: Exhibit B,

Corrections & Revisions” he attempts to simplify his point about the
dating of the video It appears to depend on how NASA count the first
day of the mission as either day zero or day one. I am not entirely
sure what relevance all this has but I believe he is perhaps trying to
suggest that the video may have been made some time before the
Apollo mission and therefore must be fake.

What may be an important point made by Jarrah White was that

whenever they change the view between the Earth and the interior of
the capsule, it always blacks-out during the change-over. You never
see a direct camera pan from the interior capsule view to the Earth
view or vice versa. This could be because they needed to turn off the
interior lights while they stage the Earth view or simply to adjust the
focus of the camera.

Jarrah also notes that while the audio is continuous the video is
not. It appears as though the video is edited and portions omitted
even though the Spacecraft Films DVD is supposedly the full mission
obtained from NASA. The implication of this is that the astronauts
are in low Earth orbit and a pre-recorded video is being broadcast by
NASA.

There seems to be no question that whichever version of events

you choose to accept these transmissions were clearly faked.

Video of the Lunar Module Landing on the Moon

A 16mm Maurer Data Acquisition Camera (DAC) was fitted in the
capsule so that it had a view out of the Lunar Module Pilot's window
perfect for capturing the landing action. The landing video for Apollo
14 is shown in this annotated NASA video from the Apollo Lunar
Journal (App 12.14). Watch this first and then I will explain what is
happening.

The approach part of the landing video used a camera tracking

over a model similar to that used in the astronauts training simulator.
If you look closely at time 14:36 you can just about make out the
striation lines of the model. I took this screenshot from the video and
added two black lines to show the direction of the striations.
 


The model maker made up accurate scale models from

photographs taken of the lunar surface by the lunar orbiter which
flew parallel paths across the lunar surface on each orbit. The only
reference the model maker had was these photographs on parallel
paths and clearly he followed them exactly to ensure accuracy. This
resulted in discernable parallel lines across the model surface.

Following the model sequence, a revolving matte was applied to

give the impression of sand being blown out by the rocket engine.
This was useful as it allowed the model sequence to be dissolved
into the actual stage set on which the astronauts performed.

Note one interesting point that the object at the centre top of the
image changes shape from round to square after the dissolve from
the model to the full-size stage set (see App 12.14). This aberration
was clearly a simple oversight by NASA-X and it is the only Mission
on which this happened.

  Apollo 14 Shape Change After Dissolve Transition

If you think about what they were doing then it is quite

remarkable that they were able to make this transition from a model
to a full-size stage set with such convincing accuracy. It clearly
proved very difficult to always match up persuasively the detail
between the model and the full-size set.

However, the transition from model to stage set was not always
perfect and often contains some anomaly. Here we see another one
from the same Apollo 14 video. The crater shadows in the model
prior to the dissolve are much deeper than the final stage set version
presumably because they got the “sun” angle not quite the same.
You need to watch very closely to see this subtle difference. I have
taken two screenshots which perhaps shows the difference slightly
better.

Shadows before transition.      Shadows after transition

One important thing to note is that for the first Moon landing
Apollo 11 they did not use this transition from a model to a full scale
set technique. It is only with Apollo 14 that they employed this
technique with any degree of success but even then as we have
seen it was not perfect the first time they tried it. For all later Apollo
Missions, they used a longer time sequence of the “sand” matte so
any transition was not so clearly discernable. Perhaps this was a
conscious decision to eliminate this transition problem.

TV pictures from the Moon

The best evidence to convince people that man had really landed
on the Moon would be “live” TV transmissions from the lunar surface
to capture the full glory of the action and this is what NASA-X set
about to produce.

NASA-X faced one big problem, how to produce “live” television

footage of men on the Moon operating in the much-reduced Moon
gravity? Clearly, the video needed to be recorded and broadcast
“live” to convince the world that what they were witnessing as it
happened was really true. Of course, nobody would detect whether
the TV signals coming into Mission Control were “live” or even were
actually coming from the Moon. One needs to realise that one of the
most crucial parts of the hoax was to fool the operatives in Mission
Control. So how did they do this?

We can now introduce our main characters in the story and see
how they solved this problem.

Frederick Ordway who was an American space scientist and

author of visionary books on space flight (App 12.15).  In 1965 he
was a top official at the NASA, working closely with the rocket
scientist Wernher von Braun.

Arthur C. Clarke who was a well-known British science fiction

writer and was also an adviser to NASA and as such was well
connected with Ordway (App 12.16) .

At the time Stanley Kubrick was an up and coming film producer

and had achieved industry recognition with his direction of the Kirk
Douglas movie “Spartacus” (App 12.17)

The problem to be solved was how they could produce

convincing footage of men walking in the much reduced gravity on
the Moon. The idea emerged of making a movie as a trial run for the
NASA-X fakery. I believe that in about 1962 Arthur C. Clarke
contacted Stanley Kubrick a well-known film director to discuss the
possibility of making a sci-fi movie which would enable them to test
out the feasibility of producing convincing film footage of men
walking on the Moon.

The movie was to be “2001: A Space Odyssey” supposedly

financed by the American studio Metro Goldwyn Mayer (MGM) to the
tune of US$10 million. I find this rather strange that a major studio
would bankroll a movie for which there was yet no script. Clarke and
Kubrick would write the script as the film developed although it was
loosely based on Clarke's book “The Sentinel”. 

I suggest that the financing of movie was most probably greatly

influenced by NASA-X as it is doubtful that a major studio would be
willing to put up US$10 million for a movie that had no established
storyline. For NASA-X US$10 million would be a drop in the ocean
given the extremely large NASA budget.

The advantage of “The Sentinel” as the basis of the movie was

that it involved the Moon and offered the perfect test bed for
simulating Moon scenes that NASA-X needed to test. As it transpired
the movie was a great box office success and grossed about
US$180 million at the box office.

Arthur C. Clarke and Frederick Ordway were frequent visitors to

the Shepperton Studios where the movie was to be made.  In
January 1966 production moved to the MGM-British Studios  at
Borehamwood.

NASA gave Kubrick access to all their available data of the

Moon's topography which included the satellite photography and
later the large scale models that NASA had created for astronaut
training and the selection of suitable landing sites for the Apollo
Missions. These models were later used as part of the fakery using
small camera technology which had been developed by John
Dykstra who at the time was a little known American special effects
artist who achieved fame much later for his work on the movie “Star
Wars”.

The resultant movie “2001: A Space Odyssey“ was started in

1963 and completed in 1968. It used the Front Screen Projection
technique to create the illusion of a large Moon landscape which is
exactly what NASA-X required. It was a tremendous success being
acclaimed as the best Sci-fi movie of all time. Perhaps more
importantly, it convinced NASA-X that they could fabricate the Moon
landings. A very interesting discussion is shown on this video from
www.richplanet.tv in which the presenter Richard Hall interviews Carl
James (App 12.18). Carl James reveals many pieces of
circumstantial evidence which seem to point to Kubrick's possible
involvement.

It is abundantly clear that the Apollo Moon videos were taken on

a stage set as witnessed by the telltale evidence of Front Screen
Projection that we discussed in Chapter 6.  The fakery is this respect
is rather poor as the “Kubrick Horizontal” is so clearly visible in
almost every Apollo Moon video or photograph.

It always surprises me how anybody can view these videos of the

lunar-scape and be convinced that they were taken on the Moon. I
think the only explanation is that they do not study the images in
detail and overlook the very obvious “Kubrick Horizontal”. This is
acceptable for the average person who may not look too closely at
the videos or photographs or even contemplate that elements within
NASA would have concocted such a massive hoax. I would count
myself in this group for 48 years in which I accepted what NASA told
us. However, the pro-NASA fan boys and girls are in the main well-
educated scientists who have supposedly studied the subject in
considerable detail. How could they be so easily conned into
accepting the NASA evidence or are there other factors involved?

Some Rocks Brought Back from the Moon?

Proving that rocks come from the Moon is something of a
paradox. If the rocks are totally unique and therefore unknown then it
is not possible to state with any confidence that they came from the
Moon. The best that the geologists can do is to infer that they seem
likely to be from the Moon but this is not proof.  No doubt their
judgement is somewhat influenced by the fact that NASA told them
that the rocks were brought back from the Moon by the Apollo
astronauts.

Rocks from the Moon do exist lying around on all parts of the
Earth. So one has only to search them out.  We already discussed in
Chapter 4 the NASA field trip to Antarctica to collect Moon rocks. So
it doesn't take much imagination to assume that the rocks collected
were subsequently altered to  fake rocks supposedly brought back
from the Moon. They just needed to remove the traces of the burnt
crust caused by the fiery entry through the Earth's atmosphere and
then use lasers to add the micrometeorite zap craters that would
have been created on the Moon. This would be sufficient to fool the
geologists. Who really would be any wiser?

Photographs of Astronauts on the Moon

Producing photographs of astronauts on the Moon is a relatively
simple task and NASA did it to perfection, almost too perfect to be
convincing. Many of the photographs of the Apollo astronauts on the
Moon are so perfectly focused, so perfectly framed and are of a
standard that would be envied by many semi-professional
photographers. I consider these photographs to be one of the
weaknesses in the NASA evidence. 

Firstly, we need to consider the cameras “supposedly” used by

the astronauts on the Moon to understand why perhaps the NASA
photographs are considered to be too perfect to be believable.

The cameras supplied were made by the company of Victor

Hasselblad AB, which is a Swedish manufacturer, and were
constructed to NASA specifications. Several different types of
camera were taken to the Moon to suit the type of still photography
and video tasks. I will not go into detail concerning the technical
aspects of these cameras, as I am not a photographer and I
probably would not understand what I am saying. For any budding or
even expert photographers, you can see the full details in the NASA
documentation (App 12.19 and 12.20).

There are one or two aspects of the cameras, that are claimed to
have been used on the surface of the Moon which differ from what
you might expect and need to be highlighted so that you can fully
understand some of what follows. The astronauts needed to wear
special spacesuits to be able to survive in the hostile climate while
bobbing around on the surface of the Moon. They also needed to
have both hands free to carry out specific tasks related to planned
scientific experiments. The camera was therefore fixed “hands-free”
into a special retainer attached on the astronaut's chest although it
could be unclipped and hand-held if necessary.

These factors had three major consequences for photography on

the Moon in the way the cameras could be operated.

Firstly, the astronaut's fishbowl helmets made it impossible for

them to look down into the viewfinder to frame the shot and adjust
the focus, so NASA did away with the viewfinder as it would only
have added weight and would not have served any useful purpose.
Secondly, and another consequence of not being able to look
down at the camera, meant that the astronauts could not see any
buttons on the camera so that the buttons to operate the camera
were placed underneath at the front of the camera.

Thirdly, the spacesuits had to be pressurised with about 5 psi

otherwise the astronaut's blood would boil and they would turn into
jelly and quickly die. The pressurised gloves meant that it was very
difficult to have a fine touch so the buttons on the camera were
made extra large. Imagine typing your next email while wearing
heavy-duty gardening gloves and you get the idea. Hasselblad made
all these design adjustments to their standard 500EL design camera.

The Hasselblad cameras had an electric motor which largely

automated the picture taking process. The astronauts needed only to
set the distance, lens aperture, focus, and shutter speed. I say, only,
but wearing gardening gloves and with your head in a fishbowl it is
not such an easy task. Once the release button was pressed, the
camera exposed the film wound-on to the next frame and tensioned
the shutter.

The final design adjustment to the Hasselblad camera was the

fitting of a Reseau plate. The Reseau Plate was made of glass and
was fitted to the back of the camera body extremely close to the film
plane. The plate was engraved with a number of crosses to form a
grid. The intersections were 10 mm apart and accurately calibrated
to a tolerance of 0.002 mm. Except for the larger central cross, each
of the four arms on each cross was 1 mm long and 0.02 mm wide.
The crosses are recorded on every exposed frame, supposedly
providing a means of determining angular distances between objects
in the field-of-view. The importance of the  Reseau Plate in our
discussions is that it enables us to judge how well the photograph
was centred due to the larger cross centred on the Reseau plate.

The sceptic Marcus Allen has often commented on the extremely

high quality of some of the first photographs taken by Neil Armstrong
just minutes after arriving on the Moon. In a presentation he made at
the 5th British Exopolitics Expo held at the University of Huddersfield
on September 28th 2013 he discussed this photography (App
12.21). It may be well worthwhile to watch the complete video but I
have extracted that part of the presentation which covers these
photographs (App 12.22)

Over the six Apollo Moon missions NASA state that the
astronauts took a total of about 6,000 photographs on the Moon.
Perhaps it is the mathematician creeping out of me, but I do have a
tendency when I see numbers to have an urge to want to add,
subtract, multiply and divide. So I got to thinking, 6,000 photographs,
now this is a very large number. How long were they walking about
taking photographs while they were on the Moon? Well, it turns out
to be a total of just over 80 hours over the six missions. No doubt
you can see where this is going.

So calculator in hand I get 75 photos per hour (6,000/80). So it

seems that they took one photo every 48 seconds while on EVAs
that is a rather astonishing act of photography. I must say that I am
quite surprised at these numbers given that many of these
photographs were taken at different locations, distances apart, so
some walking or driving was involved which limited the time to take
photographs. I realise in later missions Apollo 15, 16 and 17 that
some photographs were obtained from the camera on the Lunar
Rover but still the mind boggles at the number of photographs
allegedly taken on the Moon.

For example, for Apollo 15 NASA states that:

 “The 67-hour stay time of the lunar module on the lunar surface
accommodated three EVA periods for a total of almost 38 man hours
of lunar surface activity. While on the surface, the crew took 1,151
photographs with the Hasselblad cameras. Major photographic tasks
were to record surface activities and document sample retrieval”

So we have 1,151 photographs taken by the “two crew” in EVA's

lasting 19 hours hours. That was 61 photographs every hour or one
photograph every 59 seconds. Note that these 1,151 photographs
were, according to the NASA statement above, were taken only with
the Hasselblad cameras so does not include any photos taken by the
Lunar Rover camera. If you are at all inclined, take a look at this
video which shows the complete first EVA of Apollo 15 (App 12.23).
Did you see any astronaut take a photograph? No, you didn't, so
when were they supposedly taking a photograph every minute?

Something is seriously wrong here and simply highlights the

fakery once again. When I view all the videos of the Apollo
astronauts walking about on the Moon, I see very few photographs
being taken. I cannot explain why NASA has produced such a large
number of photographs but I will leave it with you to ponder. Was
NASA just over-excited about producing Moon photographs and did
not realise the issue they were creating?

Evidence of Leaving Retro-reflectors

The retro-reflector saga was a ploy by NASA to act as a “proof”
that the Apollo astronauts did in fact land on the Moon. They show
clear video of the retro-reflectors being “accurately” placed by the
astronauts. We have already discussed the retro-reflector story in
Chapter 11 and concluded that it is based on flawed science. The
retro-reflector only accounts for 0.000000967 percent of the area
covered by the diverged laser beam when it reaches the Moon and
only 0.000000000000000000714 percent by the time it gets back to
the receiving telescope on Earth. Talk about finding the proverbial
needle in a haystack.

If the retro-reflector is present in the area illuminated by the laser

it will only receive a minuscule part of the laser signal and it cannot
send back more than it received. This means that the retro-reflectors
of Apollo are much too small to be really effective at such a large
distance.  The fact that the system does not give an instantaneous
result from one firing of the laser but has to be repeated over many
hours while both the Earth and Moon are in constant relative motion
is just nonsense. What they think there are measuring to an
accuracy of 3 mm is puzzling.

NASA had intended that the subsequent use of the retro-

reflectors to bounce signals off the Moon would be incontestable
evidence of man stepping on the Moon and placing the retro-
reflectors there. Unfortunately, on closer examination, this story is
imperfect and doesn't stand the scrutiny of the scientific evidence.
Signals were being successfully bounced off the Moon many years
before Project Apollo. Perhaps NASA didn't know about the work of
MIT in 1962 or simply hoped that it would not be revealed.

Videos of Ascent Stage Blasting-off the Moon

If you have not seen the video of the Ascent Stage of the Lunar
Module lifting off from the Moon then take a look now at the Apollo
17 leaving the Moon (App 12.24). It is a surprisingly poor attempt at
fakery. It looks like a model being pulled up by a string and even
worse it does not exhibit the proper acceleration profile for a rocket
taking off when the first phase should be slow as the rocket initially
overcomes Moon gravity. The NASA-X model Lunar Lander just
pops up like magic.

You can view the other Apollo Mission blast-offs in these videos
Apollo 15 (App 12.25) and Apollo 16 (App 12.26). If you are feeling
concerned that they left a cameraman on the Moon, then I can tell
you that these videos were taken by the camera on the Lunar Rover
which was left discarded on the Moon. The Lunar Rover camera was
controlled from NASA on Earth albeit with a signal delay so the
camera operator needed to act ahead of time. For both Apollo 16
and 17 the camera on the Lunar Rover was panned to follow the
rising spacecraft. On Apollo 15 the camera does not pan upwards to
follow the spacecraft. NASA state that this was due to a technical
problem.

Now, what did we see in these supposed departures from the

Moon? Well, we certainly see a lot of flying debris in the form of
coloured fragments shooting out when the explosive bolts are blown
and guillotine knives are used to sever the umbilical cables. These
bolts are used to hold together the descent and ascent stages. In all
three videos, there is a small triangular plume positioned on the
descent stage which stays visible for less than half a second but
does not follow the spacecraft upwards. There appears to be no
plume extending below the spacecraft as it rises. Finally, we see that
the rocket blast-off looks rather unnatural. I am no rocket scientist,
but it does appear as though the ascent stage just pops up without
any sign of that first pause one would expect as it initially struggles
to overcome lunar gravity.

We will let Jarrah White outline the problem as he sees it (App

12.27).  In Jarrah's view, the claim by the pro-NASA believers that
the propellants used in the ascent stage rocket would not give rise to
a visible plume is not true and he compares this to video footage
from the Apollo 9 Mission.

I think you need to be a staunch pro-NASA believer to watch

these lift-offs from the Moon and be convinced that you are watching
some real event rather than some clumsily made model attempt to
fake it.

Video Capsule Landing on its Return to Earth

In some NASA videos of the capsule retrieval at sea, we may
have been looking at a real event or a capsule that had just been
unceremoniously dropped out of an aircraft. Either way that part of
the fakery was relatively easy.

If you can convincingly devise all these elements then you may
be able to fake the Moon landings. Unfortunately, NASA was not
able to do that without leaving many clues that expose the fakery.
 Simulation of Gravity
When you think about what is the difference between the Earth
and the Moon, you come up with two main elements. Firstly, the
Moon has a hostile climate with extremes of fluctuating
temperatures, high levels of radiation and no atmosphere to sustain
life. Secondly, it has a much lower gravitation force compared to the
Earth. The simulation of the astronauts coping with no atmosphere is
easily solved with a fancy looking spacesuit supposedly with
adequate radiation protection but actually made of sewn together
layers of nylon unbelievably with zips.

Gravity is a much greater challenge. In theory, you could train the

astronauts in French mime like the famous Marcel Marceau so they
could pretend lower gravity in their movements. This may have been
less comical than what NASA actually did. The best solution and the
one adopted by NASA was actually to simulate the Moon's lesser
gravitational force using slow-motion photography and harness
supports for the astronauts to relieve them of up to 83% of their
Earth weight.

Astronauts were trained on Earth using special harnesses which

simulated the lesser gravitational force on the Moon. There are
several videos of these training exercises produced by NASA in
1968. Here you can see some of the ingeniously complicated
contraptions devised in order to simulate Moon gravity (App 12.28).
Note that somehow they state that they had managed to develop
simulated lunar soil. How I don't know given that they had nothing to
compare it with.

The training videos also showed astronauts using both

pressurised and unpressurised suits. The differences between the
unpressurised suit and the pressurised suit are vast as the
pressurised suit clearly inhibits the astronaut's movements
particularly at the joints. It is also clear in the simulated lunar gravity
condition that the astronauts had problems in obtaining friction at
their feet due to the fact that up to 83.3% of their weight was taken
up by the counter-balanced wire. This aspect of friction at the
astronaut's feet will be discussed later.

The extraordinary ability of the astronauts shown in the training

videos to perform quite athletic movements, jumping very high and
even performing high somersaults with little apparent effort. These
athletic performances were never seen in the actual Apollo Moon
footage.

Astronauts on Wires
In the end, NASA opted for a single wire attached between the
backpack and the astronaut's body probably in some harness
around the astronaut's waist and chest. The wire used was probably
a braided black metal monofilament less than 5 mm diameter, so it
was not normally visible to the Apollo cameras but on some rare
occasions it could be detected (App 12.29 and 12.30). In addition to
the wire support, NASA also used various slow-motion techniques to
simulate the gravity of falling objects.

The single suspension wire also had a negative effect in that the
astronauts exhibit some strange movements due to their reliance on
the wire support. In many cases, the astronauts appear to stumble
and then regain their balance. Some of these sequences appear
quite odd but this is simply because the astronaut is partially
suspended by the single wire (App 12.31). The single wire support
also gave the astronauts a tendency to spin then correct themselves.

The presence of the wire caused the astronauts to “lean” on it for

support and then to have sudden spasms induced by the wire going
slack causing a full body jerk to regain balance. Their attempts to
regain control of their balance is affected by the pull of the wires and
so many times they appear to undergo “spasms” in their movement
which looks quite unnatural. However, this is a natural reaction of the
human balance system and we all exhibit these strange spasms if
we feel we are about to lose our balance. Try now to lean over
backwards and you will see what I mean.
 Many unnatural physical movements of the astronauts are often
seen in the Apollo footage. The backpack can often be seen being
pulled back as the astronaut bends forward. Also when the astronaut
jumps, it appears that the backpack rises first which is not what you
would expect to see.  You would expect to see the head of the
astronaut rise first and then the backpack would get pulled up
afterwards by the astronaut's body. These instances are common if
you watch very carefully the footage of the astronauts moving.

For example, take a look at these sequences in the video posted

on YouTube  (App 12.32). In this video, you see more clips of the
astronauts training with wire harnesses. Note also, the
“unnecessary” throwing of all manner of objects by the astronauts. I
say “unnecessary” but this was an important part of the NASA ploy
to present ample opportunity for you to calculate the gravitational
force and hence “prove” it was really filmed on the Moon. You can
also see many examples of how the suspension wire was used to
“jerk” up an astronaut who had fallen.

The original video was filmed in slow-motion at 144 frames per

second (frps). An optical printer was then used to select the frames
required to build the slow-motion effect taking into account the type
of action on the set. This BBC Horizon video from 1985 shows how
the optical printer is used in film making (App 12.33). Although this
video shows the more advanced Green Screen method and not the
Front Screen Projection method for the super-imposed back screen
image the techniques using the Optical Printer are very similar. Note
that VFX is just shorthand for Visual (V) Effects (FX).

The suspension wire had counter-balance for the specific

astronaut's weight but the amount of weight taken off the astronaut
also depended on the final video frame rate per second  to be used
as follows:

83.3% simulated lunar gravity  requires 24 frps 

44.6% simulated lunar gravity  requires 44 frps 
39.0% simulated lunar gravity  requires 48 frps 
0 %      simulated lunar gravity  requires 59 frps
 This was a quite clever device of the fakers to cover the deceit.
Most sceptics have suggested that the video was simply slowed
down by some factor to create the simulated Moon gravity. This
would have led to the fakery being easily discovered by simply
speeding up the video by some factor. Several sceptics have tried
this but the results are never totally convincing. The reason is that
the frame rate is constantly changing. so instead of you watching
one clip at a specific frame rate you are in effect watching several
shorter clips all at different frame rates but cleverly stitched together. 
The frame rate changes are quite subtle usually occurring as an
astronaut jumps or performs some other distracting activity.

The use of different frame rates (i.e. levels of slow-motion) was

quite ingenious. It was used extensively to falsely add depth to the
scene by tricking the eye that the stage set was larger than it was.
They did this by changing the amount of slow-motion used
depending upon what was happening on the set. The closer the
astronaut was to the camera then the amount of slow-motion was
much reduced. Particularly when astronauts were manipulating
objects very close to the camera then the slow-motion was perhaps
only 10%. As the astronaut moves further away from the camera
then the amount of slow motion is increased in stages. This gave the
illusion that the stage set was much deeper than it actually was as
the time it takes the astronaut to move away is falsely increased.

A good example of this is shown in this short clip extracted from

the anonymous “Make Believe: Smoke and Mirrors” video [#](App
12.34). Watch carefully and at elapsed time 5 seconds you can
clearly see the speed change as the astronaut slows down
unnaturally. This is a good example of the frame speed changing as
more slow motion is added the farther away that the astronaut
moves from the camera. Note that this revealing video
a14v.1152334.mp4 has been removed from the NASA archive and is
no longer available. It has been replaced by a new version
a14v.1152334.rm in Real Player format (App 12.35). Interestingly,
the clear evidence of the frame speed change has been eliminated. 
This is just another example of NASA editing the evidence that
clearly reveals the techniques of the fakery.

In total at least seven different frame extraction sequences can

be detected which were used by NASA-X. These can be used to
calculate different frame adjustment factors needed to remove the
slow-motion from the NASA footage. The basic equation is:

24 frps / slow-motion frps =  frame length adjustment factor

For completeness, I will list all seven factor changes as shown in

the anonymous “Make Believe: Smoke and Mirrors” video. Each
factor change is used in specific applications.

59 frps Used to simulate Moon gravity of some                              

           falling objects
24 / 59 = 0.4067 (Actual factor used 0.41)

44 frps Main film speed

24 / 44 = 0.5454 (Actual factor used 0.5454 )

42 frps Level one adjustment for detailed                                      

                           action in distance
24 / 42 = 0.5714 (Actual factor used 0.57)

39 frps Level two adjustment for more detailed                              

           action in mid-range
24 / 39 = 0.6153 (Actual factor used 0.615)

33.4 frps              Level four adjustment for more detailed              

                           action when astronaut is close to the                       
                                camera
24 / 33.4 = 0.7185 (Actual factor used 0.718)

26.67 frps Only used oddly on occasions when the                        

                  astronaut is extremely close to the                                    
                    camera
24 / 26.67 = 0.8998 (Actual factor used 0.9)
 24 frps Used for normal speed
24 / 24 = 1.0 (Actual factor used 1.0)

There may well be other speed change factors used that have
not been identified.

Gravity of Falling Objects

The one way to determine whether the astronauts are really on
the Moon is to measure the gravity by observing the time it takes for
objects to fall. NASA-X made sure that there were many such
possibilities to determine the gravity by having the astronauts
needlessly throwing all manner of objects at every opportunity. Here
are a few examples of objects being thrown taken from Apollo 16 on
the first EVA (App 12.36).

In all other missions, we also see the same unnecessary

throwing of all manner of objects. I say unnecessary but for NASA-X
it was an important aspect of the hoax in order to falsely “prove” that
the astronauts were really on the Moon. The exception is Apollo 11
in which we do not see anything being thrown. Perhaps it was a later
idea of NASA-X.

The pro-NASA fan club has been eager to use these instances
as absolute proof that the astronauts were really on the Moon. I find
this quite bizarre, do they really imagine that NASA-X would have
been so dumb as to forget that we could calculate the gravity from
the videos? Or do they fail to properly understand what a hoax is all
about? Of course, NASA-X took this into account and used counter-
balanced wires on the astronauts and slow-motion photography as
we have already discussed. As we have seen they provided ample
opportunity to calculate the gravity from the numerous instances of
objects being purposefully thrown around on the Moon. They also
introduced pendulums to provide more opportunity for us to make
the gravity calculation.

Although NASA-X were quite clever in this gravity deception, it

was far from perfect and they made several glaring errors. There
were other instances that NASA-X seemingly forgot or failed to
imagine. For example, the swinging flag that we discussed in
Chapter 8 “Defying Gravity” (see App 8.08).

Gravity of Falling Sand

Although, NASA-X were able to manipulate the videos to respect
the lesser gravity on the Moon for objects thrown and the jumps of
astronauts. They were unable to accomplish this simultaneously for
the falling sand. In Chapter 8 “Defying Gravity” we also examined the
“Big Navy Salute” made by astronaut John Young on the Apollo 16
mission (see App 8.10) in which the astronaut falls according to the
gravity of the Moon but the sand falls according to Earth's gravity. It
was not possible with the techniques used to fake both these events
at the same time.

Here we have a close look at some of the astronaut jumps all

taken from Apollo 16 but you can observe numerous such instances
in all the other Apollo Missions (App 12.37). In all cases, the sand
clearly falls faster than the astronaut which according to the laws of
physics is impossible. In manipulating the “observable” gravity of the
astronaut they were unable to simultaneously do the same for the
falling sand. So what we observe is the astronaut behaving as
though he is on the Moon and the sand behaving as though it is on
Earth. This is incontestable evidence of the NASA-X fakery. When
the evidence is so clear and indisputable how can the pro-NASA fan
club members be so blind? It is this blindness to the evidence shown
by the pro-NASA group that leads one to consider whether they are
simply NASA shills and are simply acting disingenuously.

Moon Stage Set

It is beyond doubt that the Apollo Moon scenes were recorded in
some studio here on Earth. There have been various suggestions
made by the sceptics as to the location of the set. Sceptic Bill
Kaysing suggested that the base for the Apollo Simulation Project
was a closely guarded secret base just outside the small town of
Mercury in Nevada, USA.
 Wherever the Moon sequences were filmed it would need a large
circular set of up to 300 metres or possibly more in diameter. The
one exception that stands out is Apollo 11 the supposed first Moon
landing. The set for Apollo 11 looks very limited in size and does not
show any background features as the later missions do. Apollo 11
did supposedly touch down in a flat area but there should have been
mountain ranges clearly visible in the distance as discussed in
Chapter 6 “Visions of a Moon”.  I have no evidence for this
suggestion as it is merely a hunch but it may be possible that that
Apollo 11 video was shot at Pinewood Studios in England.
Remember that “2001: A Space Odyssey” did have a moonscape
scene based on NASA detailed data. It could have been a test for
NASA-X to judge whether the hoax would look acceptable on video.
In all Apollo videos supposedly taken on the Moon we have no idea
whether the astronauts shown are the real astronauts or merely
actors. We can never see their faces as the gold covered visor is
always down.
There is just one exception to this. In Apollo 17, the claimed last
man on the Moon Eugene Cernan, for one brief moment he has his
visor up and you can just about make out a face which could be him.

Source NASA:
Eugene Cernan
with visor up
 We do not even know whether the voices in the videos were
recorded at the time of the video or added later. Certainly some of
the commentary made by the astronauts in the videos is somewhat
benign and perhaps not what we would expect from trained
astronauts on a scientific mission.

The remaining Apollo Missions were clearly filmed on a much

larger specially constructed set which had gantry cranes above for
the suspension of the astronauts on wires.

As I have stated previously Apollo 11 did not appear to use the

wire suspension technique or as far as I can discern the Front
Screen Projection technique. A revealing insight into the Apollo
Moon stage set is given in the “Make Believe: Smoke and Mirrors”
video which I mentioned above as shown in this extract from the
video (App 12.38).

Friction
The “simulated” lower gravity on the Moon caused other
problems for the astronauts and is one reason for their rather
strange “bunny hopping” locomotion in that they had insufficient
friction at their feet. So what is Friction? So let's start with some
physics on the friction of walking on ice and how to cope with it (App
12.39).

Friction when walking is simply the force created between your

shoes and the ground and is the force that stops you falling over. But
as the slipperiness of the surface increases then you need to take
smaller more cautious steps in order to maintain your balance.

Go try walking on some ice or some other very slippery surface

and you will see what I mean.

The formula for friction is

F = μG

where
 μ is the coefficient of friction between your feet (or
shoes) and the surface that you are walking on
G is the force you exhibit on the ground, your weight

Note that the coefficient μ depends on the two surfaces that are
in contact, the material of your shoe soles and the nature of the
ground. Typically, for synthetic material shoe soles on concrete or
asphalt, the coefficient is in the range 0.6 to 0.75. Did you ever try to
walk on ice? Well, the coefficient of ice is between 0.1 and 0.15
depending upon the roughness of the ice. So when you walk on ice
you tend to slip as shown in this YouTube video (App 12.40).

This would have had significant problems for the astronauts on

the Moon as described by “Steve the Chemist” in this YouTube video
(App 12.41). The simulation of the lesser gravity of the Moon by the
use of suspension wires resulted in the astronauts having less
frictional support at their feet. This video is interesting as it also
explains why we would expect to see the astronauts bent over due to
their backpacks. It is also the reason why toddlers take smaller steps
when they first start to walk. We never see the astronauts bent over
to keep their balance as would be expected when you are carrying a
backpack equal to your own weight. Note that this static balance
effect is the same irrespective of the actual weight as it is a function
of dynamics not weight so any argument that everything weighed six
times less on the Moon is completely missing the point.

The limited friction that the astronauts had when the counter-
balance weight was large resulted in them tending to bounce rather
than walk. You see this unusual “bunny-hopping” locomotion very
often in the Apollo Moon videos.

The Problems with Moon Dust

The topic of Moon dust has been debated continuously ever
since NASA published the now iconic photograph of the distinctive
boot print made by Buzz Aldrin from the Apollo 11 Mission. The
sceptics argued that it would not be possible to leave such a distinct
boot print in the dry dust on the Moon. Therefore, they suggest that
the “Moon dust” must have been damp which we know would be
impossible on the Moon which has no atmosphere as any moisture
would instantly evaporate.

The scientific word for Moon dust is regolith which simply means
the loose material covering the solid base rock on a planet, on Earth
we call it organic soil or sand. The word “regolith” is derived from the
combination of two Greek words, rhegos (which means “blanket”)
and lithos (which means “rock”). You never know, this might be
useful information on your next holiday to Greece if you run out of
meaningful conversation.

The pro-NASA group will explain to you that the regolith on the
Moon is totally unlike that here on Earth. On the Moon, there is no
weathering by wind, rain or ice so the regolith particles are not
rounded but are sharp and jagged. According, this “jagged” theory is
offered as the reason why the grains of sand appear to “stick”
together whereas round grains would just collapse and slide away.

The pro-NASA Mythbusters produced a TV show in which they

engineered an experiment conducted in a vacuum chamber in an
attempt to prove that the photograph of the boot print made by Buzz
Aldrin on the Moon was genuine (App 12.42). For the experiment,
they obtained an Apollo Moon boot from NASA and some simulated
Moon regolith.

The Mythbusters appear to have convinced themselves that they

had managed to replicate a similar boot print in simulated Moon
regolith. The Mythbusters constructed a rig in a vacuum chamber
and made a boot print which they claimed reproduced the Apollo
Moon boot print exactly but you can judge for yourself how
successful they were from the following comparative photograph. 
 
 In this photograph, we have above the actual boot print made by
Buzz Aldrin on the Moon and below the Mythbusters attempt. Notice
in the real Apollo boot print how sharp the edges of the imprint are.
The Mythbusters boot print has no sharp edges mainly because the
sand is dry and therefore cannot leave a sharp edge so in effect the
Mythbusters may have proved the opposite of what they intended.

Oily Sand
NASA-X would have had concerns that sand on Earth would form
dust clouds as the particles are suspended in the air. The solution
was to add a small amount of light oil to the sand. This had the effect
of eliminating the dust clouds but still giving the sand the appearance
of separate grains. You can try it for yourself, buy a bag of sand and
add a very small amount of thin oil to it, say vegetable cooking oil.
Experiment with the amount of oil to achieve your “Moon dust”
consistency. You will have produced your own “Moon regolith”.
Notice that it is quite sticky and adheres to almost everything.

The addition of a small quantity of oil solved the problem of the

dust clouds but also caused a severe problem for the astronauts in
that the sand stuck to everything. You see it all the time in the NASA
videos, covering the astronaut's suits and even adhering to the side
of metal equipment.

 
This would have not happened if the sand was only “jagged”. The
astronauts complained of the dust problem getting into the Lunar
Module capsule. They could not brush it off as the oil caused it to be
very sticky and would have required detergent to remove it. NASA-X
needed to mention this problem with the Moon dust as it was
glaringly apparent from the videos that it stuck to almost everything.

The Evidence
In creating the evidence to support the fake Apollo Moon landings
NASA-X could be commended on achieving such a good job
considering the extremely limited resources available back in 1969.
Certainly, it has fooled the majority of people for 50 years and still
fools a large gullible proportion of the population. However, it was not
at all perfect as we have seen in this book. There are so many
weaknesses in the evidence which totally expose the deceit.

There are still those, who no matter what the evidence shows us,
will steadfastly cling to the belief that the Apollo astronauts did reach
and walk on the Moon. One needs to question this mentality adopted
by seemingly intelligent people who are supposed “experts” in the
Apollo evidence. How can this group of pro-NASA experts watch the
Apollo videos and not see the glaring inconsistencies and the tell-
tale evidence of the fakery?
 CHAPTER 13
LIGHTS, CAMERA, ACTION

“All the world’s a stage,

And all the men and women merely players”
William Shakespeare,
As You Like It

The Apollo Missions were controlled predominantly at the Mission

Control Center in Houston. You can see the complexities of this set-
up in the NASA video covering the Apollo 13 Mission (App 13.01). All
telemetry data came into this centre where it was viewed and acted
on by the data feed controllers. Any fakery would have had to
penetrate the scrutiny of these operatives.

We have patiently examined this piece, or that piece, of the

evidence which shows conclusively that the Apollo Moon landings
were faked by NASA-X. We have examined photographs, studiously
watched videos, read documents, listened to opinions and
interpretations from experts and laymen alike. None of this answers
the question how did they make this into an apparently seamless
presentation broadcast “live” to the world.

In the proceeding chapters, we have shown that there are too

many inconsistencies in the NASA evidence for the Apollo Missions
to have been real but it still remains to consider how the final fakery
was produced. It is certain that the many hours of “fake” mission
video, the faked photographs, the fake Moon rocks and even some
of the missions transcripts were produced before the Apollo missions
were even started. The problem is that we have not yet explained
totally how all these faked elements could have been used in
practice to produce the seamless viewing of the Apollo Missions.

The Production
 Let us examine this in detail. We are dealing with an event that
was shown live all around the world and each mission was
continuous for several days. For Apollo 11, the event lasted over
eight days, while for Apollo 17, it lasted over twelve days. 

We witnessed the launch of the Saturn V rocket from Cape

Kennedy,  with or perhaps sometimes without astronauts. We
observed the astronauts floating weightless in the spacecraft, we
saw them walking on the Moon, and we saw them return to Earth to
the final splashdown. All of this time they were supposedly in
constant contact, via both voice and video, with Mission Control in
Huston. All this activity was seen by hundreds of people in NASA
and millions of others throughout the world.

If only a handful of people were involved in the fakery, then in

addition to the whole world being fooled, the very people who were
supposedly controlling the event minute by minute at Mission Control
in Houston, and elsewhere, were also totally fooled. This appears, at
first sight, to be highly improbable.

It is abundantly clear that all these scientists and engineers in

mission control did not know that what they were watching was not
true. If that is the case then what telemetry data feeds were they
seeing and what TV transmissions were they watching.

Simulated Telemetry
We do know that when they designed the control room at mission
control in Houston it was necessary to test the complete system
using simulated telemetry. There is nothing wrong with this, it is
normal practice to test equipment using simulated data. I have done
it many times myself in my career. The question must then be, where
was this “fake” data coming from?

NASA launched the TETR-A satellite (TEst and TRaining

satellite) on 13 December 1967. The purpose of this satellite was to
simulate transmissions coming from space and the Moon so that the
controllers at Mission Control in Houston could rehearse the Apollo
Missions. These simulated transmissions would also appear to be a
perfect source for the fake transmissions later to be used on the
“real” Apollo Missions.

The satellite was used to provide simulated data feeds of all the
telemetry that would later come from the actual Apollo Missions. It is
reported by NASA that the TETR-A satellite fell to Earth on 28 April
1968, so it could not have been used during any of the actual Apollo
Missions. This is actually disputed by several sources who maintain
that it was still operational after April 1968 so it could have
overlapped the  initial Apollo Missions. You can see the basis of the
discussion here on the Clavius website (App 13.02).

However, the simple fact is that once this simulated telemetry

data had been collected a satellite would no longer be necessary so
whether the TETR-A satellite was still operational after April 1968 is
of no material consequence. The simulated telemetry, possibly with
amendments, was subsequently used during the Apollo Missions
disguised as real telemetry coming from the Apollo spacecraft. The
NASA operatives would have no idea where this telemetry was
coming from, numbers on a screen are simply numbers on a screen
whatever the source was. There would probably still be actual
telemetry coming from the real spacecraft in low Earth orbit but this
could simply be ignored and not broadcast to the NASA operatives in
Mission Control.

So let us summarise what we have:

 

1. A large collection of fake photographs taken on some

Moon set here on Earth
2. Hours of fake Moon video filmed on some Moon set
here on Earth
3. A collection of fake Moon rocks, meteorites probably
collected from Antarctica subsequently modified to hide the
evidence of the entry through the Earth's atmosphere and
then add the telltale zaps pits
 4. A simulated series of telemetry data obtained from
TETR-A and perhaps modified to suit each Apollo Mission

The question to be answered is how all this could be fashioned

into some seamless presentation that could fool the world for 50
years and not just once but nine times when you include Apollo 8, 10
and the supposedly ill-fated Apollo 13.

Several of our Sceptics, Bill Kaysing, Jarrah White, Bart Sibrel,

have hinted in their various videos and books on the subject how, in
their opinion, NASA achieved the pretence.

The final clue they needed was the discovery by Bart Sibrel in the
video “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon”. This was
the evidence of the existence of an additional communication
channel directly to the astronauts bypassing and therefore
unbeknown to the mission control operatives. This was revealed in
the “Talk” interruption at elapsed time 34:34 (see App 3.03).
Supposedly the only communications channel was between the
Houston Capsule Communicator and the astronauts. However, this
voice is clearly neither of them and is uttered in the tone of an
impatient “direct order” to Neil Armstrong.

The finding is significant, but what is perhaps more significant still

is the fact that this previously unpublished video was then released
by NASA to Spacecraft Films but with the “Talk” interruption
removed. Why would NASA have needed to have done this, if it
wasn't in some way incriminating? Quite often we see that the
deliberate actions of NASA to edit evidence is more revealing than
the actual original anomaly.

For the sceptics, this was the final piece of evidence they needed
to expose the enigma. They could now complete the whole story of
how NASA could have deceived not only its own operatives but most
of the entire world.

They had the fake videos of the activities on the Moon filmed in
some stage set on Earth as we described in Chapter 12. These
videos could be scripted down to the second. This script could then
be controlled by the clandestine team who could instruct the Capsule
Communicator who was the only one allowed to communicate with
the astronauts. He could then appear to be communicating with the
astronauts in the “fake” video being played and broadcast to the
world. The reality of this direct communication was further cleverly
enhanced by NASA, in that they often had the Capsule
Communicator give instructions to the astronauts which they
seemingly obeyed, for example, “pick up that rock near your left
foot”. The existence of a correctly timed script made the impossible,
eminently possible.

The only issue was that the Capsule Communicator had to be in

the clandestine loop. This was solved by NASA only allowing
another astronaut to communicate directly with the astronauts on the
Moon, therefore the Capsule Communicator was always also an
astronaut and surely to be in the know. This NASA said was for
safety reasons as only another astronaut could properly interpret
what the astronauts were saying or doing.

So there we have it, a complete understanding of how NASA

deceived the entire world, and most of its own employees. The
improbable turned into the possible.
               
     

It really was all faked                            

 CHAPTER 14
CONCLUSIONS

“But this denoted a foregone conclusion”

William Shakespeare, Othello

I would imagine that back in 1972 NASA-X must have been

feeling reasonably confident that they had successfully achieved the
greatest hoax in history as they had seemingly convinced the whole
world of the great achievement of advanced American technology.
There were a few voices in the wilderness that cast doubts on the
truth of the matter. People like Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene, but they
could be ignored as attention seeking cranks. After all, there have
been conspiracy theories since time began. What NASA-X could not
have imagined was the rapid development of the internet and the
power that this gave to the ordinary individual to carry out their own
investigative research into the Apollo Missions.

It is often said that it is easier to prove that something didn't

happen than to prove that it did. This is the case with the Apollo
Moon Missions. At the first cursory glance, the evidence is all there
to prove that the Apollo Missions actually reached the Moon, not
once but nine times, although they only claim to have landed on the
lunar surface six times. However, it is the errors in this imperfect
fakery that enable us to be confident in our conclusions that these
missions were in fact faked. In this book, we have examined the
evidence for the fakery and shown conclusively that the Apollo
astronauts never reached the Moon. It is now certain that the Apollo
astronauts never travelled any farther into space than low Earth orbit
and some not even that far.

In this book we have highlighted several instances which

indisputably reveal the fakery. Now we can summarise our findings
of those aspects in which the fakery can be clearly detected.
 Chapter 5 Too Much Radiation
The question of radiation and the dangers of passing through the
Van Allen radiation belts was examined in Chapter 5. We have the
detailed information from NASA that the astronauts only received
extremely minimal radiation dosages on the way to the Moon and
back again. The error NASA made in first presenting this story is that
initially, they claimed that the astronauts passed straight through the
Van Allen radiation belts.

As more questions were raised about the dangerous radiation in

the Van Allen belts, NASA needed a story that the Apollo Missions
avoided the worst of the Van Allen belts by taking a northerly route to
avoid the most dangerous inner belt. This assertion is in complete
conflict with all the original NASA documentation produced at the
time of the missions.  In all the published documentation released at
the time, the routes were clearly described and shown on diagrams
as the trans-lunar burn taking place around the equator. On the so-
called northerly route this would not have been possible without
much additional fuel and time.

However, the biggest tell-tale of the deceit is in the voice

recordings of Apollo 8, the first mission to go outside the Earth's
protective magnetosphere and to traverse the Van Allen radiation
belts. Given the known dangers of the radiation in the Van Allen
belts, it is completely implausible that no mention was made of the
Van Allen radiation belts in the voice transcripts of Apollo 8. Mission
Control would have been asking for Geiger counter and dosimeter
readings all the way as the spacecraft passed through the Van Allen
radiation belts as an essential precaution for the safety of the
astronauts. If the radiation being suffered by the astronauts was
severe it may have been possible to terminate the mission and
return the astronauts to the protective safety of the Earth's
magnetosphere. None of this happened which is an affirmative
indication that Apollo 8 did not leave low Earth orbit and
consequently did not pass through the Van Allen radiation belts or go
to the Moon.
 Perhaps, the final word should come from NASA themselves. In
Chapter 5  we mentioned the BBC Newsnight interview with NASA
Chief Scientist Dr Ellen Stofan, who is the principal advisor to the
NASA Administrator, aired in November 2014 she said:

“NASA’s focus now is on sending humans beyond low-Earth orbit

to Mars. We are trying to develop the technologies to get there, it is
actually a huge technological challenge. There are a couple of really
big issues. For one thing – Radiation. Once you get outside the
Earth’s magnetic field we are going to be exposing the astronauts to
not just radiation coming from the Sun, but also to cosmic
radiation.  That's a higher dose than we think humans right now
should really get”

This a very revealing statement given that NASA claim to have

sent Apollo astronauts 27 times outside the Earth's protective
magnetosphere and according to NASA's own data the radiation
effect on these astronauts was minimal. So one needs to ponder
why it is now seen as such “a really big issue”. NASA now tell us
about the difficulties of providing radiation protection for the
astronauts but the obvious question is, didn't they already solve this
problem for the Apollo Missions half a century ago?

I think the only conclusion one could make is that the Apollo
astronauts never travelled outside the Earth's magnetosphere and
now NASA are faced with the problem of supposedly repeating the
missions to the Moon without killing the astronauts. I am personally
very doubtful that humans can travel into space with the present
technology.

Chapter 6 “Visions of a Moon”

In Chapter 6 we examined the evidence of the photographs and
videos supposedly taken on the Moon. For me, this is one of the
most revealing evidence of fakery. The use of the front screen
projection technique to create the moonscape was the real
weakness of the fakery. The tell-tale fingerprint of the discernable
“Kubrick Horizontal” in almost all photographs and videos is all the
evidence one needs to show the fakery. There is no way that these
could be natural features unless all Apollo Mission landed on a sort
of a plateau which we are told was not the case.

Not only do we see the overwhelming evidence of the “Kubrick

Horizontal” but we also see compelling evidence of the use of
artificial lights being used to light the set and actors. This is most
apparent in the infill lighting around and on the astronauts but also in
the unevenly lit Moon surface. In Apollo 11 we also see that this
extra lighting even illuminates the rear black screen which is
supposed to be the blackness of deep space.

It is nothing less than miraculous that sane, presumably sensible,

scientists can look closely at these supposed moonscapes and be
convinced that is what the Moon really looks like.

Chapter 7 “The Suns of Apollo”

In Chapter 7 we examined the lighting on the Moon and the
strange reflections of the “sun” in the visors of the astronauts. The
images we saw were not at all what we expected. In several cases,
we even observed the reflection of two “suns” in the astronaut's
visor.

Perhaps, the biggest evidence of the deceit was the change in

the size of the “sun” reflection in the astronauts visor and the
simultaneous change in the lighting of the scene as described by
“Steve the Chemist” (see App 7.02).. This was clearly the reflection
of some lighting source other than the real Sun which would always
show a constant size.

Attempting to fake the real Sun was always going to be a

challenge for NASA-X. Whatever lighting source they used on the
stage set could never realistically produce the same illumination that
one would get from the real Sun such as an evenly lit lunar surface. 
Attempting to convincingly mimic the light from a burning star 93
million miles was always bound to failure.

Chapter 8   “Defying Gravity”

 In Chapter 8 we examined the question of gravity. It was one of
the main pieces of evidence that NASA hoped would demonstrate
that the Moon landings actually occurred and NASA invited you to
measure the gravitational force from the videos of astronauts
jumping, needlessly throwing objects or from swinging pendulums.
Instead it just proved to be the most convincing piece of evidence
that demonstrated the fakery beyond doubt.

The pro-NASA devotees have rejoiced at this evidence and have

used it many times in an attempt to prove that the Apollo Missions
were real. They do not appear to understand what fakery is all about.
What did they expect NASA to do if they did fake it, show Earth
gravity? NASA were able to ensure that the timings on the video did
match what you would expect to see on the Moon. As we saw in
Chapter 8 they used a combination of slow-motion photography and
counter-balanced wires to support the astronauts.

The problem that NASA-X could never solve was the

simultaneous fakery of the movements of the astronauts and the
behaviour of the Moon dust. 

In Chapter 8 we saw clearly videos which showed two distinct

levels of the gravitational force occurring at the same location and at
the same time (see also App 12.37). The laws of physics and
common sense tell us that this cannot happen in the real world so
what we are witnessing is the fake world of NASA-X. This is a world
in which the laws of physics are being manipulated by trickery in an
attempt to falsely convince us that the Apollo astronauts actually
walked on the Moon.

The result was the most convincing evidence of the fakery and
proof that the videos were shot in Earth gravity.

Chapter 9   “Silent Sounds”

Sound is transmitted by vibrations that travel through the air or
some another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's
ear.  The important thing here is that sound requires some medium
to cause the vibrations to be transmitted. On the Moon there is no
atmosphere so there cannot be any sound.

However, we have seen videos in which sound can be heard

when the astronauts have used hammers as part of the setting up of
equipment. It has been argued by the pro-NASA believers that this
sound was transmitted through the astronaut's hand, arms and body
so as to reach the microphone in the astronaut's helmet. Such an
explanation is eminently plausible, although one would have
expected the sound to be somewhat more muted and not “ringing”
as we heard in the video. We have also even heard the faintly
muffled sound as astronaut's walk. In effect the pro-NASA believers
are suggesting that we hear these sounds  “because the spacesuit
acted like a drum”.

Fortunately, we do not need to rely on such debatable evidence

as we have an instance in which sound is heard when no astronaut
is in contact with the objects making the sound. This was revealed in
the video clip identified by Jet Wintzer (see App 9.13 at time 8:36). It
occurs when Apollo 15 astronaut James Irwin discards a metal band
by throwing it into the air. Fortunately for us, it hits the Lunar Module
and makes a distinct sound thereby providing all the evidence we
need. The “James Irwin metal band throwing incident” is clear
irrefutable proof of the NASA fakery. There are no other feasible
explanations.

Chapter 10  “Diminished Technology”

In Chapter 10 we discussed the loss of interest after Apollo for
NASA to target the Moon for future missions. It is indeed strange that
after Project Apollo ended prematurely in 1972, going back to the
Moon was forgotten and for decades NASA concentrated on other
goals.

President Kennedy's Moon speech was in May 1961 and just

less than 8 years later the Apollo 11 crew “supposedly” landed on
the Moon in July 1969. It all seemed so easy back then but it is
clearly more difficult now. Now, we have NASA struggling since 2004
to leave low Earth orbit and they do not expect to walk on the Moon
again until 2024, if we are to believe the latest deadline. That is the
best part of 20 years of development and that with far more
sophisticated technology in terms of computer-aided design
software, automated manufacturing techniques, and the experience
of having done it before.

It now seems that it will take twice as long to do what they did so
easily before. There is something rather strange about this story. The
only conclusion that one can draw from this is that the Apollo
Missions never actually went to the Moon. This surely must be
absolute proof of the NASA fakery. The real reason that NASA has
not returned to the Moon in the past 50 years is obvious, the simple
fact is that they never went there in the first place.

Chapter 11   “Keeping the Secret”

In Chapter 11 we discussed the main reasons that the pro-NASA
believers often use to prove, to themselves mostly, that the Apollo
Missions could not have been faked.

These are:

1. Too many people worked on the project so any fakery

would have been disclosed by at least one of them in the
past 50 years
2. The Russians surely would have known it was faked
and would have certainly revealed it to the world
3. The astronauts brought back Moon rocks which have
been attested by geologists as definitely being from the
Moon
4. The astronauts left retro-reflectors on the Moon and
these are still being used to measure how fast the
Moon is drifting from the Earth

Although at first sight, these reasons offer compelling evidence

that the Apollo astronauts must have been to the Moon, we found in
Chapter 11 that none of these reasons had any basis when
examined in detail.
 Does Anyone Believe the Astronauts?
The one group of people who should know the answer to the
question “did man walk on the lunar surface?” are the astronauts
themselves. The astronauts have made many public appearances
and told us their story of great adventure but can it shown that they
are telling the truth.

In the both the pre- and post-Press Conferences of Apollo 11, the
astronauts demeanour caused some observers to suspect that they
were extremely uncomfortable which gave rise to many suspecting
that they may have been lying. Judge for yourselves (Pre-flight App
14.01 and post-flight App 14.02). So what is the truth?

Apparently, there is one method called Statement Analysis which

some people claim can be up to 90% effective in determining
whether a person is lying or not.

I personally had not heard about “Statement Analysis” before. I

suppose I did know, for example,  that enforcement agencies take
statements from witnesses to a crime and analyse them for
inconsistencies. Statement Analysis is one step further in that they
examine the language used and make inferences from the words
and structure of the language used.

If, like me, you have never heard of “Statement Analysis”, then
this is what Wikipedia tells us :

“Statement analysis, also called scientific content analysis, is a

technique for analyzing the words people use to try to determine if
what they said is accurate. Proponents claim this technique can be
used to detect concealed information, missing information, and
whether the information that person has provided is true or false.”

The website “SkepDic.com” also says this:

“Statement analysis (aka content analysis) analyzes the content

of statements to detect whether information provided by a suspect is
truthful or intentionally incomplete. Supposedly, there are linguistic
cues a person gives that can reveal concealed, missing, or false
information. Those who defend this technique of interrogation
believe that they have a reliable method to detect deception in ways
that go beyond the obvious technique of making logical inferences
from what is stated and identifying implausible claims based on
general or specific knowledge. Anyone can detect a lie, for example,
when a suspect is caught in a contradiction or makes statements
that are inconsistent with one another. To someone with substantial
background knowledge relevant to the issue being investigated, it is
often obvious when a person making a statement has omitted
important information”.

So it is a method of detecting deception and is used extensively

by many law enforcement agencies, and also companies, throughout
the world. So how useful and accurate is it?

Statement Analysis is a science in its own right, and is claimed by

adherents to be very accurate in detecting deception (App 14.03).
They claim that Statement Analysis techniques are very accurate
because they are based on the English language, which has tight
word definitions, and formal rules of grammar. They state:

“The majority of the Statement Analysis techniques are based on

word definitions. Every word has a meaning. When you combine this
with the fact that people mean exactly what they say, it then
becomes possible to determine if people are telling the truth“

They claim in tests that a success rate of 90% and above can be
achieved using trained investigators. I was interested to see above
that it refers to the English language, I am not entirely sure if it is a
method only used for the English language, or whether it is used for
other languages.

You may wonder why we are discussing this in a book about the
Moon? Perhaps you should watch this absorbing video from
Richplanet in three parts (App 14.04, 14.05 and 14.06). Richplanet
presenter Richard Hall describes how he engaged Peter Hyatt to
analyse the video of Neil Armstrong being interviewed by Patrick
Moore for the BBC “Sky at Night” programme in 1970. For
completeness I also include the original uncut video which you may
want to see (14.07).

Who is Peter Hyatt? Well in his field, he

is a well known
“Statement Analyst” who has worked for numerous companies and
law enforcement agencies in the USA. He examines Neil
Armstrong's reply to each question and provides a summary of his
analysis commenting on the words used by Armstrong. He is
searching for “red flags” in the way in which Armstrong associates
himself with the Apollo Moon landing.

And what do we find in this analysis by Peter Hyatt? His findings

are interesting. His summary statement is:

“Neil Armstrong does not linguistically connect himself to the

lunar landing. This is evident is his consistent 'distancing language'
including intuitive pronouns and passivity. What may have caused
this?”

He goes on to offer four possible reasons for Neil Armstrong's

dissociation with the Moon landings.
 
1. Security Mandate  

Armstrong may have been told not to tell anyone            what he

saw, this is very doubtful as the Moon landings are certainly no
secret.

2. Baseline Language

Normal behaviour for a person, meaning Armstrong always talks

in the third person in everyday life.

3. Deception

The lack of commitment mimics deceptive language and the lack

of personal commitment.
 4. Unknown Reason

Possibly Peter Hyatt is just covering himself with this one.

Well, rather than me make any comment, I will just direct you the
notes attached to the video in RichPlanet as follows:

“It’s one small step for man, one giant lie for mankind. If you cling
to the notion that humans went anywhere near the Moon in 1969
then pay attention to today’s show. New analysis of the words of the
most famous astronauts will leave most people in no doubt they are
both liars.

Attempts have been made to sideline moon hoax evidence. Moon

landing mythologists will (rightly) argue that if photographs were
filmed on Earth, that does not prove they never went. But it’s far less
reasonable to use this argument about the astronauts own words,
which reveal that neither of the Apollo 11 'moonwalkers' make any
linguistic connection with having been on the lunar surface.

Once this new analysis is realised with other well established

evidence, only those with severe delusional psychosis will now
believe that Armstrong went anywhere near the Moon”.

The expert analysis indicates that Neil Armstrong was most

probably lying, which would infer that he never went to the Moon.
This is stark, and revealing information, and no doubt welcomed by
many of the Moon landing sceptics. Equally, I can imagine that the
pro-NASA group would not accept this analysis, particularly as the
study was instigated by Richard Hall, himself a well known sceptic.

What For The Future

On 13 May 2019, NASA declared “We are going to the Moon to
stay” by 2024 (App 14.08 and 14.09). The US Vice President Mike
Pence and NASA's new Administrator Jim Bridenstine state that
NASA's intention is to “return” to the Moon using a Moon Gateway.
This is essentially a space platform in lunar orbit from which
astronauts would descend to the lunar surface.
 The Moon Gateway will be constructed in space from
components brought separately from Earth using a series of
launches. The project will utilise most of the components developed
for the previous Constellation and Orion projects but will have the
assistance of nine private sector companies to help bring the
necessary components for the Gateway. The first mission is
scheduled to launch this year (2019).

Now, the problem with any announcement from NASA is that the
goal keeps changing year on year. We have seen announcements in
the past which have declared the next goal is back to the Moon, then
that changed to Mars, then we had landing astronauts on an asteroid
or building a new space station. It seems we are now eventually
back to the Moon a full 50 years since they supposedly first landed
there. Apparently, the difference this time is that they are going to
stay and presumably do something useful this time. The target date
prior to this announcement was 2028 but this was brought forward
for political reasons for fear that a new Whitehouse Administration
may change the goal once again.

However, NASA have recently been seriously criticised by the US

Government Accountability Office (GAO) for persistent delays and
cost overruns (App 14.10). Their report states:

“In November 2018, within one year of announcing an up to 19-

month delay for the three programs, the Space Launch System
(SLS) vehicle, the Orion spacecraft, and supporting ground systems,
NASA senior leaders acknowledged the revised date of June 2020 is
unlikely. Any issues uncovered during planned integration and
testing may push the launch date as late as June 2021. Moreover,
while NASA acknowledges about $1 billion in cost growth for the
SLS program, it is understated. This is because NASA shifted some
planned SLS scope to future missions but did not reduce the
program's cost baseline accordingly. When GAO reduced the
baseline to account for the reduced scope, the cost growth is about
$1.8 billion”
 The GAO have also classified NASA Projects as High Risk
Issues:

“Many of NASA's major projects have cost more or taken longer

to develop than planned. As stated in GAO’s 2017 High Risk Update,
NASA has made progress since 2012 in a number of key acquisition
management areas, but it faces significant challenges in some of its
major projects. These challenges are largely driven by the need to
improve the completeness and reliability of cost and schedule
estimating, estimating risks associated with the development of
major systems, and managing to aggressive schedules. GAO
designated NASA’s acquisition management as High Risk in 1990 in
view of NASA’s history of persistent cost growth and schedule delays
in the majority of its major projects. Because NASA expects to begin
other large, complex projects in the next few years, such as the
Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway, it is essential that the agency
effectively manage its acquisition risk.”

It would appear that all is not well within NASA so perhaps we

should take any new announcements of goals with a pinch of salt.
We may know the answer in 2024, if astronauts  finally reach the
lunar surface for the “first” time.

Final Words
The anomalies in the Apollo record are there for all to see
providing you take the trouble to examine the evidence. We have
clearly shown in our examination of that evidence that the Apollo
Missions were faked and that the Apollo astronauts never reached
the Moon, nor did they ever leave the Earth's magnetosphere.

No doubt the pro-NASA supporters will fervently continue to

defend the NASA story despite all the available evidence to the
contrary.

How they can view the unrealistic lunar landscapes as presented

by NASA with the ubiquitous “Kubrick Horizontals” in almost every
view and be satisfied that those images were videoed or
photographed on the Moon?
 How they can view the clips of the astronauts jumping and the
sand falling faster completely against the laws of gravity and
convince themselves that they are viewing reality is mind boggling
(see App 12.37)? We are asked to accept that it is possible to
simultaneously have Earth and Moon gravity at the same place and
at the same time.

NASA: Apollo 16 Big Navy Jump Salute

How can the pro-NASA group look at the above photograph in

which the sand has already settled but the astronaut is still
suspended in air and not realise that they are being fooled? I
assume they must understand the laws of gravity so they must know
that the above is not possible. This is basic schoolboy physics so
there can be no excuse for the pro-NASA fanboys and girls being
blind to the deceit, other than some vested interest in perpetuating
the hoax.

How can they explain the fact that the Van Allen radiation belts
are not mentioned by Houston Control or the astronauts on the
Apollo 8 Mission which were the first humans to leave Earth's
protective magnetosphere?  Now, as we have seen the radiation
danger appears to be NASA's biggest problem in the Orion Project.

How can they listen to the sounds on the Apollo videos taken on
the atmosphere-less Moon and not question why there are clear
sounds being made in a vacuum?

It must also be hard to reconcile the fact that NASA suddenly

abandoned the Moon in 1972 and have not ventured back in the
intervening 50 years. NASA cited reasons of cost but they have been
happily spending billions on other manned projects in low Earth orbit
and other unmanned projects into the solar system. Even so, they
appear to be as confused as ever concerning the danger of radiation
outside the Earth's magnetosphere.

The wilful loss of some of the most important data regarding the
Apollo Missions is troubling and gives one cause to imagine that this
was no accident but a determined attempt to dispose of some crucial
evidence which may have exposed the deceit when under more
scrupulous analysis. The loss of the Apollo telemetry tapes in one
outstanding example. The telemetry tapes would have shown us the
actual path through the Van Allen radiation belts that the Apollo
Missions “supposedly” took to the Moon. The only telemetry tapes
NASA would have had were the simulated versions which may have
exposed the fakery so they had to be “lost”.

The tragedy of this whole sad story is the indoctrination of our

children with blatant falsehoods. The Apollo Moon Landings are now
part of the curriculum in many countries and a whole generation of
our children have been deceived into believing that we had the
technology to go to the Moon 50 years ago. We didn't, and we still do
not have it today.

It is our responsibility to raise our children to learn to recognise

the true worth of technological achievement and not to corrupt them
with false claims of bogus accomplishments, which as we have seen
clearly never happened.
 If we think about the people who still believe that the Apollo
Missions actually landed on the Moon then we can visualise two
groups. The first group, in which I resided for almost 48 years, who
simply believed what they saw on TV or read in the newspapers but
did not investigate the matter any further. The second group
comprise the pro-NASA devotees who are for the most part
individuals who are very conversant with the evidence concerning
the Apollo Missions but for some reason chose to ignore the obvious
flaws in that evidence. One cannot rule out some involvement of
NASA in their disingenuous attitude, but one day the truth will out.

It is so utterly frustrating for me that humanity finds itself in this

unenviable position. We are now faced with an uncertain future in
manned space exploration and to a lesser extent in unmanned
space exploration all because of the Apollo fakery in 1960s by
NASA-X.  NASA now have the new goal announced by President
Trump of landing astronauts on the Moon by 2024. The question we
may have to answer, is such a Moon landing technologically feasible
with our present technology?

It is evident that the Apollo fakery was probably a step beyond

what was technically feasible in the 1960s but the real problem may
be that it was also a step beyond what is feasible now in 2019,
particularly in regard to protection against radiation beyond the
Earth's paternal magnetosphere. If this is indeed the case then there
are two possible outcomes to this dilemma for NASA to take. Either
they decide to go the honest route and the Moon landing goals are
further delayed until they can technologically catch up, or for reasons
again of national prestige they decide to go ahead and fake it again.

Modern methods of Visual Effects (VXS) using Computer

Generated Images (CGI) and advances in camera technology may
prove too irresistible for any future fakers. Whereas the Apollo fakery
was weak in many places and could be discerned by the determined
researcher, it may well be that modern film technology may produce
an almost undetectable “fake” reality. This report by the BBC on the
film “Gravity” gives some idea what is possible using modern
techniques of film production (App 14.11).

Could this mean that as far as space exploration is concerned we

are doomed to living in a future virtual reality world in which real
technological achievement is no longer relevant?

Worryingly, we already have some signs that this may be

happening already. I mentioned the issues of fakery with the
International Space Station broadcasts in Chapter 5 (see App 5.23)
but there may well be more afoot with the NASA Mars Rovers as
explained in this report on Richplanet.TV (App 14.12). There is also
a downloadable paper on this subject (App 14.13).

We already have a generation who have been deceived by the

Apollo Missions to the Moon, are we to live in a world in which we
falsely educate our children with these claims of space exploration?
This is a serious matter as we already have the Apollo Moon
Landings story firmly written into the school curriculum in many
countries.

I, for one, want my children to learn to investigate and seek out

the truth in all that they see and not have their minds sullied by these
false stories of mankind's great achievements which are sadly
mankind's greatest deceits. NASA need to have the courage to
stand up and admit what happened back in the 1960s was a deceit
undertaken at a time of world tension for quite laudable reasons. If
not, then advancement in space exploration will be held back for
decades.

“Truth is truth to the end of reckoning”

William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure
 Dedication to William Charles Kaysing
31 July 1922 – 21 April 2005

Children of my grandmother’s generation laughed at the idea that

typewriters would be obsolete in the future. Children of my mother’s
generation watched the Apollo 11 Moon landing on television and
read news articles and textbooks forecasting missions to Mars by the
1980s; space shuttles replacing international aeroplanes; and
computers that once took up entire rooms would one day fit in a
pocket. Likewise, children of my generation had a computer in every
classroom and were of the mindset that come the late 1990s or early
2000s we’d see a manned return to the Moon. Bases on the Moon
and missions to Mars would soon follow. Those 80s kids would grow
up into a world where everyone has a portable computer in their
pocket. Everybody today has centuries worth of information and
research, and modern social interaction is literally at their fingertips.
And yet, there is still no “return” to the Moon.

With only one exception, I do not believe anyone from any

generation could have foreseen when Neil Armstrong allegedly
walked on the Moon in 1969 or even when Eugene Cernan
supposedly stepped off it for the last time in 1972 that nearly fifty
years would go by without another manned mission. Indeed, Eugene
Cernan died still bearing the dubious title of “Last Man on the Moon”
and never lived to see anyone take that title from him. We live in a
world where technology and human progress is flourishing at an
exponential rate. For every new electronic appliance, motorcar, or
new-fangled gizmo on the market, you be assured that it will be
superseded in less than a year. With every new vehicle intended
either sea, land or air, there will soon be a new one to replace it and
enter a new generation of transportation. We live in a world where
we have permanent bases in Antarctica, where even tourists could
stay at a price. We’ve even had tourists live the dream and spend
time on the International Space Station. And with Michael Melvil’s
two flights aboard SpaceShipOne, a non-governmental private
mission flown by a man who did not even graduate high school,
space exploration is no longer only reserved for government
employees with college degrees. Somehow, in nearly 50 years, a
manned return mission to the Moon has always remained an
unobtainable holy grail in the space industry. Who could possibly
have foreseen this? Nobody, except perhaps for one man. The
founding father of the Apollo moon landing conspiracy theory.

No book on the Apollo Moon Hoax would be complete without a

reference to Bill Kaysing. As we approach the 50th Anniversary of the
supposed Apollo 11 Moon landing it is fitting to recognise the great
contribution that Bill made to expose the deceit of NASA and Project
Apollo. Whereas the rest of the world gathered around their old tube
televisions to watch the grainy, black and white video feed from
Apollo 11 trickle in, or rather flicker in, Bill Kaysing was not among
them. Despite working seven years as a service engineer, analyst
and technical writer at Rocketdyne, the company that built the
engines of the Saturn rockets, Bill Kaysing simply could not generate
the enthusiasm to watch the fruits of his labour. He didn’t want to
watch what he considered “a phony performance”.

As an employee of Rocketdyne, Bill held Top Secret security

clearance and atomic energy commission clearance. Thus he
essentially held a VIP pass that allowed him access to the
company’s classified files and gave him an open door to secret
memos and documents. It was through this clearance that Bill
learned the dark secrets of the America’s space industry: the U.S.
Government was generally less than truthful about their accidents
and disasters. He witnessed the testing and developments of
engines, many of which literally went up in smoke. Rather than be
open and transparent about these screw-ups, the higher ups would
directly instruct Kaysing’s technical publications department to soften
the seriousness of these disasters. Downplay the problems the
company was experiencing and essentially exaggerate their
technical capabilities. When Kennedy made his promise to put man
on the Moon by the end of the decade, it was clear that NASA did
not have the technology to pull it off. As Bill’s daughter Wendy later
recalled him saying: “we had the technology to get to the Moon, but
not get back.” And as best NASA and their contractors tried to make
things sound rosy, the inability for astronauts to survive the trip was
further exemplified in scientific papers that were appearing at the
time. James Van Allen published several papers warning of the
dangers of flying into the radiation belts surrounding the Earth. That
the shielding astronauts needed was beyond the engineering
practicability of the available technology, and without which humans
should instead take off through the radiation free zones over the
poles. The Soviets were also aware of the dangers. As the President
Keldysh of the Soviet Academy of Sciences would later tell Sir
Bernard Lovell in 1963, they were postponing manned moon
missions indefinitely due to the dangers of solar flares that would
quickly kill their cosmonauts.

Beginning in 1961, Kaysing learned that NASA and the Defence

Intelligence Agency had assembled a program called A.S.P. (Apollo
Simulation Project). He became privy to various proposals that these
agencies had considered to simulate flights to the Moon and purport
them to be the real thing. Ultimately not wanting any part of it, and no
longer wishing to continue a career of publishing company
propaganda, Bill Kaysing retired from Rocketdyne. Rather than
coming out of the closet then and there of NASA’s shady past, he
instead buried this knowledge in the back of his mind and used his
skills as a writer to pursue a non-space related projects. He wrote
books about motorcycle safety, eating well for cheap, and
purchasing land on a budget. Over the years, Bill and his family had
turned their house boat into a sanctuary for the homeless. In fact, he
was known to find complete strangers living on the streets and bring
them home! There he offered them food and accommodation until
they could get back on their feet.

One of these homeless men whom Kaysing had found was a

veteran of the Vietnam War by the name of John Grant. Troubled by
his conscience, Grant had turned to heroin to ease his pain and
suppress his inner demons. One night on the houseboat, he and Bill
were having a conversation. He said, “Bill, I was duped into believing
that what I did in Vietnam was patriotic and heroic. But that’s bullshit!
I was sent to Vietnam and killed innocent people for no good reason.
Why don’t you blow the whistle on this rotten and corrupt
government? Say something outrageous like, We Never Went to the
Moon!”

Grant of course was suggesting that Kaysing do a satirical project

out of spite. But Kaysing ultimately decided to do a serious project.
He had been sitting on his inside knowledge concerning the Apollo
Simulation Project for years. And shortly after this little exchange
with Grant, Kaysing learned of the sad story of Thomas Ronald
Baron. The safety inspector from North American Aviation who was
extremely critical of NASA and NAA during the construction of Apollo
1. How he had prepared a 500 page document detailing safety
violations and malpractice that went unchecked and unfixed. How
Baron testified before congress after the fire and then was found
dead at a railroad crossing a few days later and his report went
missing. Learning of Baron and the  motivation by Grant, together,
ultimately became the catalyst that led Bill on his journey to find the
truth.

Bill penned the first writings in 1974 and pondered over whether
he should publish his expose of what he believed was one of the
greatest acts of deceit in modern times. Finally, in 1976 he self-
published his book “We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty
Billion Dollar Swindle”. This original publication mostly consisted of a
detailed exposé of what was planned with the Apollo Simulation
Project. Some of which he had learned himself during his time at
Rocketdyne, others he had gathered here and there from various
witnesses or sources he had managed to track down. The book was
rather light on photographic and technical evidence concerning the
Apollo record itself. Such concerns focused mainly on the lack of a
blast crater under the LM, lack of star photography and objects
illuminated on the shaded side. That original book was even
undecided on whether the Apollo 1 fire was accidental, instead
focusing more on Baron and his lost report. At the time of his writing,
Kaysing wondered how NASA could possibly have got to the Moon
when they couldn’t even properly manage relatively simple problems
on the ground. For many readers it opened their eyes to something
being wrong with the Apollo record and got a lot of people thinking.

Later in 1981, Kaysing greatly expanded upon this original work

with the Desert Publication edition. By this stage a lot of
developments had happened and Kaysing had learned of various
methods to pull off the Apollo hoax. He had learned NASA could
simulate micro-meteoroid impacts on Moon rocks with two-stage
projectile systems. He proposed using geological data from Surveyor
to figure out how to go about faking Moon rocks. By this stage he
had become very privy all the various techniques film-makers use in
motion pictures and how they could be used to fake the Apollo
footage. His new book had even republished transcripts of Baron’s
testimony and pages from his surviving 51 page report. Kaysing had
also learned of Gus Grissom’s lemon, his disenchantment with the
Apollo program, and witnesses who claimed minutes – not seconds
– went by from the first mention of fire to when the flames filled the
window. In light of these new findings, by now Kaysing was
convinced the deaths of the Apollo 1 crew were not an accident
either. And of course, in the time between the two editions’
publishing, Kaysing had managed to find a lot more anomalies in
photographs.

The original edition has been republished by many sources

before and since the Desert Publications issue was released. This
expanded edition has surprisingly become harder to find. To his
original books that started it all, Bill is now rightly regarded as the
initiator of the Moon hoax movement. His work has inspired several
generations of Apollo hoax investigators. Ralph René, a former
member of Mensa and consultant to NASA, read Kaysing’s book and
ultimately filled in many of the blanks with his much more
comprehensive book, NASA Mooned America! Primarily concerning
the lack of radiation protection, problems with protecting astronauts
from the temperatures on the Moon, and established a lot of foul play
concerning Apollo 1. British photographer David Percy found many
anomalies in the Apollo program’s photographic record and
published the book Dark Moon, these discoveries he shared with
Kaysing which he then used to fine tune his thesis. Journalists and
filmmakers Jim Collier, Aron Ranen and Bart Sibrel all respectively
and independently produced their own documentaries after learning
of Kaysing and or René’s books. And of course, there was I, who
learned of Bill Kaysing during my teenage years. Like many children
of my generation, I grew up of the mindset that we’d be returning to
the Moon and establishing bases there by the beginning of the new
millennium. That didn’t happen. And the reason why it didn’t happen
became clear after learning of the Apollo hoax movement. The
reason why there has not been a ‘return’ to the Moon in nearly fifty
years and why the ‘return’ date perpetually gets pushed back into the
future is because the technology to shield astronauts from the
radiation encountered on a flight to the Moon wasn’t solved in 1969
and still has not been solved today.

Bill Kaysing died in 2005. His death was mercilessly trolled by

defenders of the Apollo program. It was never any surprise that any
controversial stance would be met with backlash. But the
webmasters of these pro-Apollo sites and blogs were not simply
writing “Kaysing was wrong because of this and that.” Instead their
online content was propaganda and defamation in the first degree.
The internet had essentially given birth to a whole slew of websites
attempting to discredit Kaysing by any means necessary, even if it
meant making it up. The false claims these propagandists pulled out
of the air ranged from: insinuating that Kaysing left Rocketdyne
before they worked on Apollo; to falsely alleging that he thought ‘all
space travel was impossible!’ Such claims were both disputed by
Kaysing’s daughter and disproven by anyone who has taken the time
to read his book. I was so angered by these propagandists trolling
Kaysing’s death and clouding his legacy with unsubstantiated
character assassination that I took it upon myself to take a stand
against them. In doing so I ultimately followed in his footsteps as The
Grandson of the Apollo Hoax Theory.

In more recent years, a new type of propaganda has emerged.

Propaganda that doesn’t create the appearance of refuting a claim,
but rather making said claim appear more extreme by associating it
with indisputable nonsense. I am of course talking about the
proponents who erroneously claim the Earth is flat and that all space
travel and space itself is fake! God only knows where this nonsense
came from, but the internet in recent years has become infested with
ridiculous videos and websites promoting Flat Earth nonsense. Such
proponents have often leached off the work of Bill Kaysing and
attempted to twist it into something to support their nonsense. I’ve
lost count of how many times I’ve gone onto YouTube and found
stolen interviews clips of Kaysing uploaded with “FLAT EARTH”
misleadingly added to the title or description. If this was just one or
two idiots on the internet, we could easily dismiss them as a mere
tolerable annoyance. But this Flat Earth nonsense has spread so far
that it has got to the point that even the webmaster of the Bill
Kaysing Tribute Website has fallen for it. The webmaster (who shall
remain nameless) who created a digital shrine we once relied on to
honour Bill Kaysing’s legacy, now defecates on that legacy by
posting articles falsely insinuating Kaysing claimed “no rocket can go
faster than 5km/s, therefore no rocket can reach orbital speed of
8km/s.” Of course, there is no such claim by Bill Kaysing. This traitor
has put so many words in Kaysing’s mouth I’ve found myself
wondering if the man ever genuinely mourned Bill Kaysing or created
his website with the intention of dropping this Flat Earth propaganda
on Kaysing’s legacy after significant web traffic had come to it.

As we approach fifty years since the alleged landing on the

Moon, it is important to shed Kaysing’s legacy from the propaganda
that has been flung in his direction. We need to remember the real
Bill Kaysing. He was somebody who went out of his way to help his
fellow man. A loving father and husband who preached healthy
eating and living well on a budget. And perhaps most memorably, he
was a former Rocketdyne employee who ultimately made the bold
and thankless task to challenge the mighty and well regarded
organisation that NASA was perceived to be at the time. One solitary
voice of disbelief at a time when the world was captivated by this
‘greatest achievement of mankind’.
 He had the evidence and he went where it led him. He wanted to
share with the world what he knew, ridicule be damned. It was an act
of courage from which he would have little to gain personally except
knowing he had exposed the truth. This was at a time when there
was no internet, no vast compendium of documents nor wealth of
photographs or videos that could be used as evidence of fakery.
Back when evidence was not so easily obtainable for the average
citizen. But from that one publication Kaysing made, he had started a
revolution. Pointed generations of investigators in the direction of
where to look and what to look for. Libraries, newspaper archives,
any place where they could analyse photos and documentation
concerning the Apollo program.

For forty-five years Kaysing’s work and writings have inspired

generations of Apollo investigators and set the wheels in motion. As
we pass the baton onto the next generation of researchers who will
doubtlessly scrutinize the official Apollo record over the next fifty
years, it is important to take the time to remember Bill Kaysing for all
his work and contribution into enlightening his readers on this fraud.
For his preaching of motorcycle safety and healthy eating on a
budget. For his sheltering of homeless cats and people. And
ultimately, for trying to make the world a better place.

To Bill Kaysing.
Love. Joy. Action!

Jarrah White
The Grandson of the Apollo Hoax Theory
 

 
[*]

The first book on the subject was

*A Moon Landing? What Moon Landing?” by John Noble Wilford,

New York Times, 18 December 1969
 and there was also

"Did Man Land On The Moon?" by the Texas mathematician

James J. Cranny 1970

Both these book are listed on Amazon but currently shown to be

unavailable.
[#] The “Make Believe: Smoke and Mirrors” main video and an
appendix were posted on YouTube by an anonymous person who
heavily disguised his voice to avoid being recognised. It was later
added to by an additional 20 annotated videos to assist
understanding also by an anonymous “Enhanced Team”. All of these
videos have since disappeared from YouTube with no explanation.
You can view all of these videos on the website for my previous book
www.man-on-the-moon.info in Chapter 19.