According to DARK
SIDE OF THE MOON, the most important film of its kind since Oliver Stone's
JFK - or since Rob Reiner's This is Spinal Tap, at any rate - images of Neil
Armstrong's walk on the moon on July 20, 1969 were shown to the world
through the lens of master film-maker Stanley Kubrick and were staged on the
same Borehamwood, U.K., soundstage where Kubrick made his landmark film,
2001: A Space Odyssey. http://www.thelastoutpost.com/site/1362/default.aspx
Thursday, July 13, 2006: The original high-quality video
tapes of Apollo 11, which were apparently sent by NASA to the National
Archives and then were returned to the Goddard Space Flight Center, have
missing (see the
pdf by John M. Sarkissian). The quality of the video broadcast to the
world on television was of much, much lower quality than the video
originally received – or manufactured! - by NASA. Obviously, if you were
going to fake the moon landing, you might have a motive to ‘lose’ the
high-quality tapes, where artifacts of faking could be seen. This was by
far the biggest moment in the American space program. You’d think they
would care about hanging on to the evidence.
The cost of the entire Apollo program:
USD $25.4 billion -1969 Dollars ($135-billion in
2005 Dollars). See
NASA Budget. (Includes Mercury, Gemini, Ranger,
Surveyor, Lunar Orbitar, Apollo programs.) Apollo
spacecraft and Saturn rocket cost alone, was about $
83-billion 2005 Dollars (Apollo spacecraft cost $
28-billion (CS/M $ 17-billion; LM $ 11-billion), Saturn
I, IB, V costs about $ 46-billion 2005 dollars).
Several motives have been suggested for the
U.S. government to fake the moon landings -
some of the recurrent elements are:
Distraction - The U.S. government
benefited from a popular distraction to take
attention away from the
Vietnam war. Lunar activities did
abruptly stop, with planned missions
cancelled, around the same time that the US
ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.
Cold War Prestige - The U.S. government
considered it vital that the U.S. win the
space race with the
USSR. Going to the Moon, if it was
possible, would have been risky and
expensive. It would have been much easier to
fake the landing, thereby ensuring success.
Money - NASA raised approximately 30
billion dollars pretending to go to the
moon. This could have been used to pay off a
large number of people, providing
significant motivation for complicity. In
variations of this theory, the space
industry is characterized as a political
economy, much like the military industrial
complex, creating fertile ground for its own
Risk - The available technology at the
time was such that there was a good chance
that the landing might fail if genuinely
The Soviets, with their own competing moon
program and an intense economic and political
and military rivalry with the USA, could be
expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to
fake a Moon landing. Theorist
Ralph Rene responds that shortly after the
alleged Moon landings, the USA silently started
shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain
humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving
USSR. He views this as evidence of a cover-up,
the grain being the price of silence. (The
Soviet Union in fact had its own
Proponents of the Apollo hoax suggest that
the Soviet Union, and latterly Russia, and the
United States were allied in the exploration of
space, during the Cold war and after. The United
States and the former Soviet Union today
routinely engage in cooperative space ventures,
as do many other nations that are popularly
believed to be enemies. However, this suggestion
is challenged by the impression of intense
international competition that was under way
during the Cold War and is not supported by the
accounts of participants on either side of the
Iron Curtain. Many argue that the fact that the
Soviet Union and other Communist bloc countries,
eager to discredit the United States, have not
produced any contrary evidence to be the single
most significant argument against such a hoax.
Soviet involvement might also implausibly
multiply the scale of the conspiracy, to include
hundreds of thousands of conspirators of
Did man really set foot on the moon?
Shocking : See what NASA has done (Long but worth reading)
Did man really walk on the Moon or was it the ultimate camera trick, asks David
In the early hours of May 16, 1990, after a week spent watching old video
footage of man on the Moon, a thought was turning into an obsession in the mind of Ralph
"How can the flag be fluttering?" the 47 year old American kept
asking himself when there's no wind on the atmosphere free Moon? That moment was to be the
beginning of an incredible Space odyssey for the self- taught engineer from New Jersey.
He started investigating the Apollo Moon landings, scouring every NASA film,
photo and report with a growing sense of wonder, until finally reaching an awesome
conclusion: America had never put a man on the Moon. The giant leap for mankind was fake.
It is of course the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracy theories. But Rene
has now put all his findings into a startling book entitled NASA Mooned America.
Published by himself, it's being sold by mail order - and is a compelling read.
The story lifts off in 1961 with Russia firing Yuri Gagarin into space, leaving
a panicked America trailing in the space race. At an emergency meeting of Congress,
President Kennedy proposed the ultimate face saver, put a man on the Moon. With an
impassioned speech he secured the plan an unbelievable 40 billion dollars.
And so, says Rene (and a growing number of astro-physicists are beginning to
agree with him), the great Moon hoax was born. Between 1969 and 1972, seven Apollo ships
headed to the Moon. Six claim to have made it, with the ill fated Apollo 13 - whose oxygen
tanks apparently exploded halfway being the only casualties. But with the exception of the
known rocks, which could have been easily mocked up in a lab, the photographs and film
footage are the only proof that the Eagle ever landed. And Rene believes they're fake.
For a start, he says, the TV footage was hopeless. The world tuned in to watch
what looked like two blurred white ghosts throw rocks and dust. Part of the reason for the
low quality was that, strangely, NASA provided no direct link up. So networks
actually had to film man's greatest achievement from a TV screen in Houston - a deliberate
ploy, says Rene, so that nobody could properly examine it.
By contrast, the still photos were stunning. Yet that's just the problem. The
astronauts took thousands of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused. Not
one was badly composed or even blurred.
As Rene points out, that's not all: The cameras had no white meters or view
ponders. So the astronauts achieved this feet without being able to see what they were
doing. There film stock was unaffected by the intense peaks and powerful cosmic radiation
on the Moon, conditions that should have made it useless. They managed to adjust their
cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurized suits. It should have been almost
impossible with the gloves on their fingers.
Award winning British photographer David Persey is convinced the pictures are
fake. His astonishing findings are explained alongside the pictures on these pages, but
the basic points are as follows: The shadows could only have been created with
multiple light sources and,in particular, powerful spotlights. But the only light source
on the Moon was the sun.
The American flag and the words "United States" are always Brightly
lit, even when everything around is in shadow. Not one still picture matches the
film footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.
The pictures are so perfect, each one would have taken a slick advertising
agency hours to put them together. But the astronauts managed it repeatedly. David
Persey believes the mistakes were deliberate, left there by "whistle blowers"
who were keen for the truth to one day get out.
If Persey is right and the pictures are fake, then we've only NASA's word that
man ever went to the Moon. And, asks Rene, "Why would anyone fake pictures of an
event that actually happened?"
The questions don't stop there. Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that
emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in
near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the
earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe
band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than
1,485 such flares.
John Mauldin, a physicist who works for NASA, once said shielding at least two
meters thick would be needed. Yet the walls of the Lunar Landers which took astronauts
from the spaceship to the moons surface were, said NASA, about the thickness of heavy duty
How could that stop this deadly radiation? And if the astronauts were protected
by their space suits, why didn't rescue workers use such protective gear at the Chernobyl
meltdown, which released only a fraction of the dose astronauts would encounter? Not
one Apollo astronaut ever contracted cancer - not even the Apollo 16 crew who were on
their way to the Moon when a big flare started. "They should have been fried",
Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first to the Moon) was
plagued with around 20,000 defects a-piece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA
claims there wasn't one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions. Just one
effect could have blown the whole thing. "The odds against these are so
unlikely that God must have been the co-pilot," says Rene.
Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the
second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the
lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It
would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's suffering from trying to
live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life.
Virgil Grissom, a NASA astronaut who baited the Apollo program, was due to
pilot Apollo 1 as part of the landings build up. In January 1967, he hung a lemon on his
Apollo capsule (in the US, unroadworthy cars are called lemons) and told his wife Betty:
"If there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it's likely to be
Nobody knows what fuelled his fears, but by the end of the month he and his two
co-pilots were dead, burnt to death during a test run when their capsule, pumped full of
high pressure pure oxygen, exploded.
Scientists couldn't believe NASA's carelessness - even a chemistry students in
high school know high pressure oxygen is extremely explosive. In fact, before the first
manned Apollo fight even cleared the launch pad, a total of 11 would be astronauts were
dead. Apart from the three who were incinerated, seven died in plane crashes and one in a
car smash. Now this is
a spectacular accident rate.
"One wonders if these 'accidents' weren't NASA's way of correcting
mistakes," says Rene. "Of saying that some of these men didn't have the
sort of 'right stuff' they were looking."
NASA wont respond to any of these claims, their press office will only say that
the Moon landings happened and the pictures are real. But a NASA public affairs officer
called Julian Scheer once delighted 200 guests at a private party with footage of
astronauts apparently on a landscape. It had been made on a mission film set and was
identical to what NASA claimed was they real lunar landscape. "The purpose of
this film," Scheer told the enthralled group, "is to indicate that you
really can fake things on the ground, almost to the point of deception." He
then invited his audience to "Come to your own decision about whether or not man
actually did walk on the Moon."
A sudden attack of honesty? You bet, says Rene, who claims the only real thing
about the Apollo missions were the lift offs. "The astronauts simply have to be
on board," he says, "in case the rocket exploded. It was the easiest
way to ensure NASA wasn't left with three astronauts who ought to be dead." he
claims, adding that they came down a day or so later, out of the
public eye (global surveillance wasn't what it is now) and into the safe hands of NASA
officials, who whisked them off to prepare for the big day a week later.
And now NASA is planning another giant step - Project Outreach, a 1 trillion
dollar manned mission to Mars. "Think what they'll be able to mock up with today's
computer graphics," says Rene Chillingly. "Special effects was in its
infancy in the 60s. This time round will have no way of determining the truth."
9 SPACE ODDITIES:
1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front of
a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the ball to the right.
Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no
2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off
the Moon. Who did the filming?
3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong about
to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have been lying on the planet
surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who took the shot?
4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football.
The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were seen freely
bending their joints.
5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America
make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would have been phenomenal
and it could have been easily done with magnesium flares.
6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the
Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera.
Who took the shot?
7. The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line
in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the lower right of the
spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And why is the flag fluttering if there is
no air or wind on the moon?
8. How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And
where, in all of these shots, are the stars?
9. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made a
bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was
fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of blasting on the
dust underneath. It should have created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's
never been fired.
I was reading about the supposed moon hoaxs (I'm not yet sure that they
were faked) on your web site when I came across an excellent point in your
arguments. You said that during the videos of the lunar landings the astronauts
replied instantly to Mission Control in Houston. Yet light, radio waves, and
all energies of the electromagnetic spectrum travel at roughly 186,000 miles
per second, meaning the response time of the astronauts to comments made
by Mission Control should have been a little over two seconds since the
moon is over 200,000 miles from the Earth. Excellent point! I was stumped
here for a minute, until I considered this: we're only hearing the astronauts
transmission. Okay, that explanation obviously needs an explanation. First
off, like you said, NASA didn't establish a direct link with televison stations
for the broadcast. Instead, the video we saw was actually filmed as it
happened on the huge television screen in Mission Control, which accounts
for the poor quality of the film. What does this mean? It means that the
video and audio in the broadcasts of the Apollo missions were both time
delayed. You didn't hear people speaking inside Mission Control, you heard
their transmission to the astronauts. The audio we heard from Mission Control
was actually several seconds old. In other words, the landings transmitted
back to Earth video and audio feed of their landing, audio including messages
from Mission Control that the astronauts had just received. To make this
easier to picture, image it this way: Mission Control transmits a message to
Apollo 11 on the lunar surface saying Neil and Buzz can get out of the LM
and walk around (with suits on, of course.) This message travels just over a
second to the moon, where Neil and Buzz receive it and reply "Finally!"
message is transmitted all the way back to Earth, where it is received and
broadcast on the huge monitor in Mission Control. So you see, Mission
Control spoke first and then the astronauts replied, only the audio transmitted
to us contained both messages with no time lapse in between. Confused?
Don't worry, you'll get it soon. I've looked over the arguments used by
believers of a moon landing hoax and they are rather solid and rooted fairly
well in logic, so I can safely assume you're all pretty smart guys, so this
shouldn't be to hard for you to understand. I would appreciate it if you
would respond to this email with your thoughts on my explanation of this
lunar quandary that is now solved (hopefully.)
DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
Sunday November 16, 2003 at 10PM ET/PT
repeating Sunday July 24, 2005 at 10pm ET/PT
How could the
flag flutter when there's no wind on the moon? During an interview with
Stanley Kubrick's widow an extraordinary story came to light. She claims
Kubrick and other Hollywood producers were recruited to help the U.S.
win the high stakes race to the moon. In order to finance the space
program through public funds, the U.S. government needed huge popular
support, and that meant they couldn't afford any expensive public
relations failures. Fearing that no live pictures could be transmitted
from the first moon landing, President Nixon enlisted the creative
efforts of Kubrick, whose 2001: a Space Odyssey (1968) had provided much
inspiration, to ensure promotional opportunities wouldn't be missed. In
return, Kubrick got a special NASA lens to help him shoot Barry Lyndon
(1975). A subtle blend of facts, fiction and hypothesis around the first
landing on the moon, Dark Side Of The Moon illustrates how
the truth can be twisted by the manipulation of images.
use of 'hijacked' archival footage, false documents, real interviews
taken out of context or transformed through voice-over or dubbing,
staged interviews, as well as, interviews with astronauts like Buzz
Aldrin and others, Dark Side Of The Moon navigates the
viewer through lies and truth; fact and fiction. This is no ordinary
documentary. Its intent is to inform and entertain the viewer, but also
to shake him up - make him aware that one should always view television
with a critical eye.
Deaths of key people
involved with the Apollo program
In a television program about the hoax theory,
Fox Entertainment Group listed the deaths of 10
astronauts and of two civilians related to the manned
spaceflight program as having possibly been killings as part
of a coverup.
Thomas Baron Train crash, 1967 shortly after making
accusations before Congress about the cause of the
Apollo 1 fire, after which he was fired. Ruled as
Paul Jacobs, a private investigator from San
Francisco, interviewed the head of the US Department of
Geology in Washington about the 'moon rocks'. Did you
examine the Moon rocks, did they really come from the
Moon? Jacobs asked - the geologist did not respond,
only laughed. Paul Jacobs and his wife died from cancer
within 90 days.
Lee Gelvani claims to have almost convinced
James Irwin, an Apollo 15 astronaut whom Gelvani
referred to as an "informant", to confess about a
cover-up having occurred. Irwin was supposedly going to
contact Kaysing about it; however he died of a
heart attack in 1991, before any such telephone call
Spacecraft testing and flying high performance jet
aircraft can be dangerous, and all but one of the astronaut
deaths (Irwin's) were directly related to their rather
hazardous job. Two of the astronauts, Mike Adams and Robert
Lawrence, had no connection with the civilian manned space
James Irwin had suffered several heart attacks in the
years prior to his death. There is no independent
confirmation of Gelvani's claim that Irwin was about to come
forward. Moreover, if there was a coverup (that the Apollo
11 and subsequent landings were faked), the coverup would
logically have occurred in 1969 and subsequent years - yet
all of the deaths listed above occurred in 1967 or earlier.
Watcher's Opinion RE: Orion/Giza Correlation and Mars/Moon/Masonic Connection
Hoagland, West, Hancock and Bauval are on to something. What they collectively have
implied is nothing less than a PERFECT set up for the advent of the Antichrist. With the
idea that Isis was the Egyptian god of "returning" and resurrection, it is
uncanny that NASA has been engaged in a type of worship of this god from the beginning of
the space program. Even the name Apollo is the Greek derivative of Isis. The landing
sites, the dates for landing and the incredible connection with Giza concerning the moon
missions all fit together. There is even evidence that the US astronauts were closely
watched by the aliens while on luna firma.
We agree completely with Bauval that the Giza pyramids are an earthly analogue for Orion
and Sirius. I do not however agree with His conclusion that this analogue addresses the
Egyptian cult of Isis and Osiris. The Egyptians recorded a degraded form of the true
meaning of the Giza complex. The Cydonia region IS in complete correlation to Giza, but
again, its original meaning was not intended for reverence to "aliens" or the so
called proginators of the human race. This conclusion will be the driving force behind the
uniting of all nations under the Antichrist. Antichrist will appear as a bringer of peace
in Israel along with a worldwide manifestation of aliens claiming a Mars\Earth connection
(the fake savior will appear with his fake holy ones).
The reason that the King's chamber ventilation shaft is open to the star "Al
Naith" in Orion's belt is because that star, whose meaning is "The Wounded
One", describes the God who has come. This God manifested in human flesh, died and
rose again. The ventilation shaft in the Queen's chamber which points to Sirius is CLOSED.
This is symbolically accurate because Sirus represents the same God who died and lives,
but has not as of yet returned. Sirius is not the consort of Isis (the degraded meaning),
but the symbol of the God who remains to come as the King of Kings. Sirius means,
"THE EXALTED KING"--the ruler of the whole earth. When He returns He will set up
a kingdom that will never end.
If a man were to "force" this shaft open, he would in effect usher in the
sequence of events that surround the working of the counterfeit-messiah, the antichrist.
A close look at Orion reveals a warrior, holding the skin of a lion, treading his enemy.
His upheld club is poised to smash his enemy. The river of fire, Eridanus, which issues
from before him, flows out to consume Leviathan, or Cetus, the sea monster to whom the
cords of Pisces are fastened.
Sirius is properly the embellishment of Pullox, second of the twins, or correctly, the
sign of second advent of the Messiah. Procyon embellishes Castor, the first advent of the
Messiah as the redeemer, which is the actual translation of Procyon.
The Giza complex, as well as the Cydonia region, were designed to reveal Jesus Christ.
However, the Antichrist will of course try very hard to usurp the meaning for himself. The
forces behind antichrist's coming were builders of the monuments (pre-rebellion). They are
not presently alligned with the God which these structures describe.
I am writing to argue that NASA really did put men on the moon. Here
are my 9 responses to your nine "space oddities".
1. "Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front
of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing the
ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the
ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air."
The functional word here is "teased". Mission control was, as you said,
merely teasing him. There is no way for anyone to be able to tell
exactly which way the ball went. And even if you could, maybe he wasn't holding the club straight, so the head hit the ball on an angle.
2. "A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting off
the Moon. Who did the filming?" Mission Control. If you watched the miniseries "From the Earth to the
Moon", you would know that there was a guy in mission control,
controlling the pan/tilt functions on the tv camera tripod. If you want
to bring up the 7 second radio delay due to distance, he actually sent
the command to tilt up with the ascending lander 7 seconds before it
happened, and it all worked out.
3. "One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong
about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have
been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the
Moon, then who took the shot?"
You really ought to learn more about the missions before you start
attacking them like this. There was an arm attached to the lander that
was deployed just before Neil Armstrong opened the hatch. This arm had
a television and a still camera mounted to it.
4. "The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football.
The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but
were seen freely bending their joints."
Did you really think that they just sent them up there in an airtight
jumper? OK. I'm gonna make this real easy for you. Here is a quote from
the NASA KIDS website. so you should be able to understand it. "The
space suit is made of hard materials with jointed sections to allow
movement. The upper and lower torso sections are put on separately. The
two pieces are connected at the waist to allow the flow of water and gas lines. Gloves and helmet create a sealed protection against meteoroids
and radiation. On Earth, the space suit weighs about 100 pounds. In
space, the suit weighs much less. Under normal conditions, a space suit
should last about 8 years." So. assuming you can read. you have just
learnt about an American space suit. There is a hard layer of plastic,
among many other things, protecting the astronauts from the vacuum of
5. "The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't America
make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The PR would
have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with magnesium
That's like saying 'Why don't the ISS astronauts light up the sky with
millions and millions of flares?' CAUSE THERE'S NO POINT!!! What
you're saying is. because they didn't put a massive flare on the moon.
they never actually went. (Oh.. and by the way. have fun igniting a
magnesium flare without oxygen).
6. "Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on
the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in
the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?:
As you can see from this photo of Pete Conrad on Apollo 12, astronauts
didn't hold cameras like you do when you're taking a picture of your
grandmother, the camera was attached to their suit at the chest. Most
small tools used by astronauts were attached to their suits, so they
would not be lost.
7&8. "The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark
line in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to
the lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow?
And why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon? &
How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And
where, in all of these shots, are the stars?"
Do you honestly mean to tell me that you believe that this photo hasn't
been played with? Somebody (no.. NOT NASA) has doctored this photo
really badly to make people like YOU think that you have a stronger case
against NASA. That astronaut was copied and pasted into that photo.
And as for the flag.. that shadow goes to the side with the face clearly
lit because it's not exactly parallel to the sun's rays! It's on a bit
of an angle, which anybody will tell you, is enough to clearly light the
flag. And as for the fluttering.. less drugs for you, man. it's not
moving at all. Do you know what happens when a flag is stowed for
several weeks, all folded up? You guessed it.. It gets wrinkled! Look
at getting some better glasses. As for the stars. in photography, to
prevent an over-exposure (phonetically: Ovur-ekspojur) you must close
the iris a bit, or in this case, a lot. The sun is much brighter here
than the brightest day on earth. With the iris down far enough to
prevent over-exposure, there is no way you would ever, EVER see ANYTHING
in the sky other than the sun and the earth.
9. "The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made
a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of
the Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it
has left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have
created a small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been
A few things you're forgetting.. It's mass was 17 tons, yes, however
since weight is relative to gravity, and the moon has 1/6th the earth's
gravity, the WEIGHT of the lunar lander was only 17/6 tons (2.833
tonnes). Now I'm not saying that this is light, there was dust stirred
up when it landed, but no more that when a chopper lands here on earth.
Some of your points (which I'm sure you didn't come up with on your own)
were ALMOST valid. Please e-mail me back when you read this. I'd love
to read your defending points.
By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor
The US space agency (Nasa) has cancelled the book intended to challenge the conspiracy
theorists who claim the Moon landings were a hoax. Nasa declined to comment specifically on the reasons for dropping the publication, but it
is understood the decision resulted from the bad publicity that followed the announcement
of the project.
Criticism that Nasa was displaying poor judgment and a lack of confidence in
commissioning the book caused it to abort the project, agency spokesman Bob Jacobs said.
Oberg will still write the book
Nasa had hired aerospace writer Jim Oberg for the job on a fee of $15,000.
He says he will still do the work, although it will now be an unofficial publication with
The book will deliver a point-by-point rebuttal of the theory that the Apollo landings
were faked in a movie studio, to convince the world that the US had beaten the Soviets to
It will explain why in still and video footage of the landings, no stars can be seen in
the Moon sky, why a flag appears to ripple on the atmosphere-free satellite and why
shadows fall in strange directions - all "facts", conspiracy theorists say,
point to a hoax.
Some commentators had said that in making the Oberg book an official Nasa publication, the
agency was actually giving a certain credibility to the hoax theory.
======================================================= Why the Americans NEVER landed on the moon.
A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon.
Why they would fake it The Soviet Union had been making all the early advances and the greatest
progress in the great Moon race. The Soviet Union launched the first man and the first women in space in 1961 &
1963 and were also the first to orbit the Earth.
With the above happening the US Government had to make some kind of success with
President Kennedy promising that the US would put a man on the moon by the end
of the 1960's.
Many people believe that NASA had released that it was not possible to go to the
moon with the technology available (Computer chips being as powerful then as a modern washing machines chip) so
they resorted to faking the landing to ensure a victory of the Soviet Union and keep the dollars coming in for real space
The Pictures NASA have never offered any explanation whatsoever for the numerous
errors in the photographs, despite repeated questioning. These errors include:
The Apollo 11 pictures show the ground in the distance being much darker
than the ground in the foreground, as if the Astronauts were standing in
a pool of light.
Several photos show evidence of extra lighting (as a professional photographer
would use fill-in lights) but no such lights were supposed to have been
Some photos clearly show the light coming from "impossible"
angles. In one instance, Aldrin's boot is lit from below as he descends
Some photos contradict the TV camera pictures of the same events.
Some photos of one astronaut taken by the other are clearly taken from
slightly above the eye level of the subject, but in his visor, the reflection
of the astronaut with the camera shows it being held at chest level.
The length of the shadows in the Apollo 12 pictures don't agree with
the angle which the Sun should have been at.
Some wide area photos show shadows pointing in different directions.
In the sound recording of the lunar landing, you cannot hear the sound
of the engines. As the astronaut calls out the remaining distance to the
surface, he is only a few feet away from a rocket engine which should have been producing 10000 lb of thrust.
The sounds The major point which has helped convince me that the moon landing was faked was
the fact that when the control room asked a question to the Astronauts the
replies were instant with no delays. This seems strange as even with technology
in the 1990's there is a delay from satellite links from the UK to the US. There
is about a 0.7 second delay from London to California so how is it possible for
instant replies from the Moon ? There is also evidence that when people go into space that there voice goes
tense although the Astronauts voices have been analyzed and found to be
normal, and 7/10 people said it sounded like someone reading from a script.
When Houston are talking to the module you should not be able to hear the
responses at least when the module is landing and the infamous "eagle has
landed" quote, this is due to the noise that should have been created by the
rocket motor which generates several hundred thousand pounds of thrust 20 ft
below the astronauts. The noise would have completely drowned the vocals out.
The Radiation An American author has researched and found out that he believes the Apollo
Spacecraft would have needed to be two meters thick to prevent cosmic radiation
from cooking the Astronauts inside. Also in addition to the radiation protection for the astronauts similar
protection would be required for the films + cameras, NASA's official
explanation of how the films were protected was that the cameras were painted
with a coat of aluminum paint, yeah right. http://web.archive.org/web/20010407065641/http://thepeoplesrevolution.tripod.com/moonlanding.htm ==========================================================
TIME & MOTION STUDY:
with even elemental math skills and common sense can look at the facts, do
the calculations, and come to their own conclusions about the alleged
MASSIVE VOLUME of lunar surface photography in such a LIMITED TIME.
Here is my
conclusion: IT COULD NOT BE DONE. http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
It boils down not to just studying the photographs for signs of fakery,
though I have examined every available Apollo photo for more than three
years (and discovered many fakes). Very simply, it amounts to a study known
to many businesses...A TIME AND MOTION STUDY. The elementary question is:
was it possible to take the known number of photos (from NASA records) in
the amount of time available (from NASA records)? But before you read my
study, to understand it you need to know some basic information about the
1. Of seven Apollo missions to put "men on the Moon", six were claimed to be
"successful". (Apollo 13 was "aborted".)
2. Each of the six successful missions landed two astronauts "on the Moon"
in a flimsy craft NASA originally had called the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM,
later shortened to LM), an unproven craft which never had an opportunity for
a lunar landing test flight. But it landed and then took off six times with
spectacular "success" on Apollo missions 11 and 12, and 14 through 17...once
even landing within 200 feet of a pre-selected target.
3. Two astronauts rode each LEM to the Moon surface while one remained in
the orbiting Command and Service Module (CSM) awaiting their return.
4. During their Extra-Vehicular Activity (lunar surface exploration) each of
the two wore a bulky inflated spacesuit with clumsy gloves, greatly limiting
mobility. On their backs they wore a huge and heavy Life Support System (PLSS)
backpack containing an oxygen tank and circulating water air conditioning
system which pumped refrigerated water throughout the suit to counteract the
200+/- degree heat (and cold) of lunar conditions. Pumps circulated both
refrigerated air and water to the liquid cooling undergarment, as well as
dehumidifying, removing carbon dioxide, and providing all other functions
needed to survive harsh conditions in the confining suits.
5. The principal objective of all six missions was SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
projects to be carried out by the two astronauts. Most of the projects,
which numbered about a half dozen each mission, were remarkably similar on
all six missions. All of these science experiments involved unpacking
equipment from stowage bays, assembling it, transporting it to its location,
setting it up, and then doing the experiments. As you might imagine, each of
these research projects would require a major portion of the TIME of the two
men for each experiment.
6. Another major project besides operation of the packaged experiments was
the Geological Study, which involved searching for different specimens of
rocks and soils in various locations, documenting and collecting samples to
return to earth. This obviously occupied much of their TIME.
7. Considerable TIME was needed for "housekeeping chores". After landing,
the LEM had to be inspected to make sure it had not been damaged.
Communications equipment to put them in contact with Earth had to be set up
and operated, including radio and television antennas and TV cameras. The US
flag was planted in the moondust on each mission. All of this was done
before any experiments were initiated. Oh, and don't forget the "ceremonial"
chat with President Nixon during Apollo 11.
8. The first three missions required the astronauts to walk to each
experiment location. The last three missions were supplied with a Lunar
Roving Vehicle (LRV) to travel to distant locations miles away from the LEM.
The partially pre-assembled LRV was attached to the outside of the LEM. The
rover floor served as a pallet which was hinged to the outside of the LRV.
The wheels were folded under. The "pallet" was lowered by hand to the lunar
surface, and the wheels rotated into position. After the wheels were down,
the vehicle had to be outfitted with all of its considerable equipment from
various storage bins of the LEM. Oddly, not a single photo exists in the
public domain (at least that I could find to date) of the astronauts
assembling and equipping the LRVs. The battery-powered rovers had a top
speed of about 8 mph, only slightly faster than walking...much like a golf
cart. During the LRV travels ("traverses"), both men rode, and when moving,
had no opportunity for photography. Also, the time taken in assembling the
rover was not used for any photography. Though I could find no time given by
NASA, surely it is reasonable to guess that it took at least an hour to
unload, assemble and equip and test a rover?
9. Almost incidental to the main astronaut tasks was PHOTOGRAPHY. Each
astronaut had his own camera. (Apart from the Apollo 11 EVA.) It was a
square-format specially-built Hasselblad. It was mounted on a chest-plate
for the astronaut to operate. The astronaut had to manually set the shutter
speed and apertures while wearing bulky, pressurized gloves and without
being able to see the controls. The cameras had NO VIEWFINDER, so the
astronaut could only guess at what was being photographed. Each camera had a
bulk film magazine holding more than a hundred exposures. The film (mainly
Ektachrome color film) had a very narrow exposure range, which required
PERFECT aperture and shutter settings, because according to NASA, the
cameras did not have automatic exposure capability.
10. It is important to know that although each man had his own camera, they
ALMOST NEVER USED THEM AT THE SAME TIME. Usually one of them was
photographing the other doing some task. Therefore having two cameras DID
NOT TRANSLATE TO TWICE AS MUCH TIME FOR PHOTOGRAPHY, as one might surmise.
Now that you understand the missions, here is my discovery of NASA
overzealousness, which has been successfully hidden till now.
A TIME AND MOTION STUDY
For more than three years I have been collecting and analyzing nearly all
the significant photos from the Apollo missions. These official photos are
readily available on multiple NASA websites for downloading. Recently I
noticed they were taking up many gigabytes of memory on my computer's
external hard drive, so I began organizing them and deleting duplications. I
did a rough estimate of the number of Apollo photos, and was amazed that I
I visited several official NASA websites to find HOW MANY PHOTOS WERE TAKEN
on the surface of the Moon. Amazingly, NASA AVOIDS THIS SUBJECT almost
entirely. Two days of searching documents and text were fruitless. But Lunar
Surface Journal, one of the sites, lists every photo with its file number.
So I undertook to make an actual count of every photo taken by astronauts
DURING EXTRA-VEHICULAR ACTIVITY (EVA), the time spent on the surface out of
Here is my actual count of EVA photos of the six missions:
Apollo 11........... 121
Apollo 12........... 504
Apollo 14........... 374
So 12 astronauts while on the Moon's surface took a TOTAL of 5771 exposures.
That seemed excessively large to me, considering that their TIME on the
lunar surface was limited, and the astronauts had MANY OTHER TASKS OTHER
THAN PHOTOGRAPHY. So I returned to the Lunar Surface Journal to find how
much TIME was available to do all the scientific tasks AS WELL AS
PHOTOGRAPHY. Unlike the number of photos, this information is readily
Apollo 11........1 EVA .....2 hours, 31 minutes......(151 minutes)
Apollo 12........2 EVAs.....7 hours, 50 minutes......(470 minutes)
Apollo 14........2 EVAs.....9 hours, 25 minutes......(565 minutes)
Apollo 15........3 EVAs...18 hours, 30 minutes....(1110 minutes)
Apollo 16........3 EVAs...20 hours, 14 minutes....(1214 minutes)
Apollo 17........3 EVAs...22 hours, 04 minutes....(1324 minutes)
Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.
Hmmmmm. That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon,
REGARDLESS OF OTHER ACTIVITIES. (That requires the taking of ONE PHOTO EVERY
50 SECONDS!) Let's look at those other activities to see how much time
should be deducted from available photo time:
Apollo 11..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy
radio and television equipment, operate the TV camera (360 degree pan),
establish contact with Earth (including ceremonial talk with President
Nixon), unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages,
find/document/collect 47.7 pounds of lunar rock samples, walk to various
locations, conclude experiments, return to LEM.
Apollo 12..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy
radio and television equipment (spend time trying to fix faulty TV camera),
establish contact with Earth, unpack and deploy numerous experiment
packages, walk to various locations, inspect the unmanned Surveyor 3 which
had landed on the Moon in April 1967 and retrieve Surveyor parts. Deploy
ALSEP package. Find/document/collect 75.7 pounds of rocks, conclude
experiments, return to LEM.
Apollo 14..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy
radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack and
assemble hand cart to transport rocks, unpack and deploy numerous experiment
packages, walk to various locations. Find/document/collect 94.4 pounds of
rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM.
Apollo 15..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy
radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth,
unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car
and drive it 17 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages
(double the scientific payload of first three missions).
Find/document/collect 169 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to
LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph*.)
Apollo 16..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy
radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth,
unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car
and drive it 16 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages
(double the scientific payload of first three missions, including new
ultraviolet camera, operate the UV camera). Find/document/collect 208.3
pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only
Apollo 17..........Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy
radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth,
unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car
and drive it 30.5 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages.
Find/document/collect 243.1 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to
LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph*.)
Let's arbitrarily calculate a MINIMUM time for these tasks and subtract from
available photo time:
Apollo 11....subtract 2 hours (120 minutes), leaving 031 minutes for taking
Apollo 12....subtract 4 hours (240 minutes), leaving 230 minutes for taking
Apollo 14....subtract 3 hours (180 minutes), leaving 385 minutes for taking
Apollo 15....subtract 6 hours (360 minutes), leaving 750 minutes for taking
Apollo 16....subtract 6 hours (360 minutes), leaving 854 minutes for taking
Apollo 17....subtract 8 hours (480 minutes), leaving 844 minutes for taking
So do the math:
Apollo 11.......121 photos in 031 minutes............3.90 photos per minute
Apollo 12.......504 photos in 230 minutes............2.19 photos per minute
Apollo 14.......374 photos in 385 minutes............0.97 photos per minute
Apollo 15.....1021 photos in 750 minutes............1.36 photos per minute
Apollo 16.....1765 photos in 854 minutes ...........2.06 photos per minute
Apollo 17.....1986 photos in 844 minutes ...........2.35 photos per minute
Or, to put it more simply:
Apollo 11........one photo every 15 seconds
Apollo 12........one photo every 27 seconds
Apollo 14........one photo every 62 seconds
Apollo 15........one photo every 44 seconds
Apollo 16........one photo every 29 seconds
Apollo 17........one photo every 26 seconds
So you decide. Given all the facts, was it possible to take that many photos
in so short a time?
Any professional photographer will tell you it cannot be done. Virtually
every photo was a different scene or in a different place, requiring travel.
As much as 30 miles travel was required to reach some of the photo sites.
Extra care had to be taken shooting some stereo pairs and panoramas. Each
picture was taken without a viewfinder, using manual camera settings, with
no automatic metering, while wearing a bulky spacesuit and stiff clumsy
The agency wants the world to believe that 5771 photographs were taken in
4834 minutes! IF NOTHING BUT PHOTOGRAPHY HAD BEEN DONE, such a feat is
clearly impossible...made even more so by all the documented activities of
the astronauts. Imagine...1.19 photos every minute that men were on the Moon
–- that's one picture every 50 SECONDS!
The secret NASA tried to hide has been discovered: The quantity of photos
purporting to record the Apollo lunar EVAs could not have been taken on the
Moon in such an impossible time frame. So why do these photos exist? How did
these photos get made? Did ANY men go to the Moon? Or was it truly the
greatest hoax ever?
Editor's Notes: *According to Andrew Chaikin, author of A Man on the Moon
the LRV averaged only 5 to 7 miles per hour, which would reduce even further
the time available for photography. http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
In July 1969, more than 600 million people watched in awe,
as Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the surface of the moon. The
last men to set foot on the moon were the astronauts of Apollo 17, in December
1972. But even before this, a set of conspiracy theories were spreading, the
most radical of which claimed that NASA had faked all the lunar landings-that
man in fact never landed on the moon. Look at the evidence and decide for
click on picture to enlarge
This shot of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planting the US
flag on the moon's surface was taken by a 16 mm camera mounted on the lunar
module. Aldrin's shadow (A) is far longer than Armstrong's. Yet the
only light on the moon - and the only light source used by NASA - comes from
the sun, and should not create such unequal shadows.
Buzz Aldrin stands with the sun shining down across his
left shoulder. Although his right side is in shadow, there is too much detail
shown on that side of his space suit (B). It should be much darker and
less visible because the contrast between light and dark is much greater on
the moon. With no atmosphere to pollute the light on the moon, all the
photographs should look bright and crisp. But the landscape behind Aldrin
(C) gradually fades to darkness. This 'fall-off' effect, hoax theorists
say, should not occur on the moon. But the fading effect could have happened
because film is less adaptive than the human eye and makes objects seem darker
the further they are from the camera. There is a curious
object reflected in Aldrin's visor (D).
Some theorists think that it is a helicopter, others say that it is a 12-metre
glass structure. NASA claims that it is a piece of equipment on the lunar
claims the strange shape (E) - in this shot taken from the Lunar Module
while it was 95 km above the moon's surface - is a shadow cast by the Command
Module's rocket. But when larger aircraft fly at lower altitudes over the
Earth, they do not cast such huge and defined shadows.
Lunar Module Antares, from Apollo 14, rests on the moon's surface there is no
crater beneath its feet (F), despite the considerable amount of dust
that would have been thrown up during its descent. There also appears to be a
footprint (G) directly under the module, yet no one walked on this part
of the moon before the craft landed. On the left side of the craft, the words,
'United States' (H) are clearly visible, whereas they should be in
shadow. Buzz Aldrin himself said that there is no refracted light on the moon,
which points to the fact that another source of light was used to take this
shots of John Young and James Irwin - like many Apollo photos - show a lunar
sky without stars (J). Yet with no atmosphere on the moon, stars should
be visible - a fact confirmed by Maria Blyzinsky, Curator of Astronomy at the
Greenwich Observatory, London. If NASA could not hope to recreate the lunar
sky, they may have opted for simple black backdrops. NASA claim that the
sunlight was so strong it overpowered the light from the stars. On the shadow
side of the landing modules, there are plaques (K) with the American
flag and the words 'United States' quite bright and clearly visible, but the
gold foil around the plaques is in near darkness. Studio spotlights
highlighting these areas, or technicians retouching the prints, could have
caused this effect.
Alan Bean holds up a Special Environmental Sample Container, the top of his
head is clearly in view. But the camera taking the shot was fixed on Charles
Conrad's chest, and the ground here seems to be level, so the top of the
helmet (L) should not be in the photo. Shadows visible in Al Bean's
visor should not be in the photo. Shadows visible in Al Bean's visor (M)
go off in various directions, not in straight parallel lines, as expected,
suggesting that there is more than one light source. The container Bean is
holding (N) is brightly lit at the bottom, yet it is facing away from
the light. This may be due to the light reflected from Bean's suit on to the
container, but the rest of the container is not so brightly lit.
this photograph of John Young readjusting an antenna next to the Lunar Rover
Vehicle (LRV), there is a marker, known as a cross-hair (inset) (P),
that goes behind the LRV's equipment. These cross-hairs (Q), which
appear on all the lunar photographs, are made by a screen of cross-hairs
placed between the shutter and the film. The bright, reflected light may have
obliterated the fine line of this one, or it could have happened if the image
was retouched. The foreground shows what looks like the letter 'C' on a
boulder (R). Is this perhaps an identification letter left on a studio
prop? The letter C on the original photo is actually quite well defined and it
is hard to imagine what can cause such a well-laid inscription on a boulder in
a desolate place such as the moon. The tracks made by the LRV's wheel turn
rather oddly at right-angles (S). These tracks could have been caused
by studio technicians pushing the buggy into place. Such clear tracks and
footprints require moisture to form and should not appear on the dry lunar
THE CONSPIRACY THEORISTS
The two leading supporters of
the faked moon photograph theory come from either side of the Atlantic.
Ralph René, an author from New Jersey, argues that Man never flew to the
moon. He believes the radiation from the sun is so deadly that astronauts
would fry as soon as they got into deep space. In his book 'NASA Mooned
America!' René claims that the Apollo pictures were shot in a
government studio near the town of Mercury in Nevada.
Englishmen David Percy, on the other hand,
uses his experience as a professional photographer to put forward the
argument that the lighting in the Apollo photographs could only have been
achieved in a studio on earth. He also claims to have an informant in
NASA, whom he calls Whistleblower, who has leaked information about the
Aldrin was the second man to walk on the moon. Here's what he had to say
about the claims that the Apollo photographs were faked.
"There has always been an
undercurrent of queries about the conspiracy. But they are sensational
fabrications and I don't put much into any of it. I appreciate he
attention they draw - it's helpful in keeping the space promises on
people's minds - but it's very erroneous and misleading and selfishly
irresponsible. by the people concerned."
do you feel when people say you and Neil Armstrong never went to the moon?
"Well it's a waste of my time. I
don't have much respect for the people who entertain that thinking and
generally am not interested in engaging in any discourse with them. All
that does is encourage them and it's not going to change their thinking at
interesting speech reversal can be found on Neil Armstrong's legendary
'One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind' statement. When
Neil seems to say 'Man never space walk.' Listen to it for
yourself. (not in archive)
Certain aspects of the shots - the highlighted
flags, the Lunar Modules without craters, the camera's cross-hair disappearing
behind the image, the abnormally distinct tyre tracks and the footprints - are
difficult to explain away completely. But perhaps the most intriguing question
is why the photographs may have been faked, regardless of whether or not Man
actually did land on the moon.
would NASA fake the Apollo moon-landing shots?
debates are usually dominated by physics arguments which can be confusing for
Jack White's new analysis is breath-taking in its simplicity: now anyone can
understand the evidence and come to their own conclusion."
John P. Costella PhD
Dr. Costella is a physicist living in Australia http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
Why would the US military ignore 9-11
and other crimes?
These excerpts from 8 hours of interview of Kay Griggs (available at
888-820-2126) show one reason.
Kay is another woman who wants a better world.
NASA's $104-billion plan to
revive manned lunar missions is seen as a step toward Mars trip.
By Peter Pae
NASA unveiled a 13-year, $104-billion blueprint Monday for sending
humans back to the moon as early as 2018,
using a modified space shuttle rocket to propel an Apollo-like capsule
[They had flying saucers just after the war
(UFO, Man made) so NASA was/is just a
propaganda exercise. The Moon is 'man made'.]
Subscribe to the APFN.org RSS feed
You can subscribe to this RSS feed in a
number of ways, including the following:
Drag the orange RSS button into your
Drag the URL of the RSS feed into
your News Reader
Cut and paste the URL of the RSS feed
into your News Reader
If you use one of the following web-based
News Readers, click on the appropriate button to subscribe
to the RSS feed.
American Patriot Friends Network
"...a network of net
APFN IS NOT A BUSINESS
APFN IS SUPPORTED BY "FREE WILL" GIFT/DONATIONS
Without Justice, there is JUST_US! http://www.apfn.org