In 1959 Bill Kaysing predicted that at that time, the chances of getting a man to the moon and back alive were 0.0014%, taking into account radiation and micro meteors.
Just 2 years later US president J. F. Kennedy made his famous speech.
“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.”
Eight years later in on the 16th of July 1969, Apollo 11 was launched on a mission to the moon and back, carrying three people. On the 20th of July Apollo 11 landed on the moon. Neil Armstrong stepped out of the Lunar Module (LM) in front of a watching world, climbed down the ladder and said those famous words.
“One small step for man one giant leap for mankind”
And in doing so, Neil Armstrong won the moon race against Russia for America, and proved to an entire world that the sky isn’t the only limit.
Or so NASA said!
Ever since 1969, a small but loud crowd of people have doubted that America did send a man to the moon, and the Apollo Hoax was born.
There are three basic kinds of arguments for this hoax: Photographic, video, and scientific. See the links below for moon landing hoax research and discussions.
See our Apollo Moon Landing Forum.
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Photographic Evidence
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Video Evidence
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Why Fake a Moon Landing?
105 responses to Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
I am surprised to see how many so called smart people believe the moon landings were faked. First and fore most I am not an U.S. Citizen and I think that you U.S. Citizens who believe the moon landings were faked are the more unfair with your country.
If you look any video sequence of Neil Armstrong and the U.S. flag you will see that efectifely the flag is NOT waving, I challenge any one to reproduce the ´waving´effect, you will not be able to do, so the landing in real
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
Hi, if it was a hoax can somebody explain how the sound and picture images of the moon landing came from the moon to earth via the radio telescope at Parkes NSW Australia, then relayed by land line to the Huston space centre. The time of day and lunar position meant that Huston was blind to the moon and all communication had to come and go through the radio telescope at Parkes.
Please, no claims “they were in on the hoax” or any other cop out. The signals came from the moon.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
Wow. I stumbled on this site through a google search and I must say that I am STUNNED by the sheer ignorance and lack of any authoritative knowledge posessed by those who claim this hoax. I was tempted to just pass this dungeon of ignorance by, and will do so, never to return, but not before saying:
As you conveniently put aside all of the physical artifacts, all of the toil of thousands of people (myself included) to build and operate the program; all of the environmental effects/evidence still present and visible on this earth, in its orbit, and on the surface of the moon; all of the life work and bravery of hundreds who have experienced near-space flight and space travel; all of the actual devices developed and still being used today; and all of the personal experiences of those who know and do; As you put aside and cling to your own half-truthes, distortions, and hearsays, and ask us to prove the negative – ask yourself this: WHAT IF YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORY? WHAT DOES THAT MAKE YOU? To start, it makes you an ignorant, pompous, silly fool. Buzz Aldrin reacted to one of you by punching him in the face, which was understandable. I prefer to just let you wallow in your ignorance.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
One point that nobody seems to discuss to is the 3 astronauts who made this mission. on balance, I believe they did go but equally acknowledge that each of them suffered afterwards and became partialrecluses. Guilty conscience according to sceptics or equally, naive experts who became too overwhelmed by it all? I recently met Armstrong who speaks quite convincingly about this experience at the age of 77. He does not appear delusional or to lack integrity. I believe that he believes he went, even if others dont.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
This blog is open to all comments, however if you-
CAPITALISE THE ENTIRE POST (4 or 5 comments like that) I’ll delete it. The odd sentence to emphasise is fine.
Swear excessively (could be kids reading this for a school project) I’ll delete it.
Call another poster a moron or something, guess what, I’ll delete it.
Yes we have different beliefs, but that does not mean we have to be disrespectful to others beliefs.
The Non Believer
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
1 (-1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
They certainly landed on moon or not but they cannot repeat that feat AGAIN
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
I agree with everything your saying and i want to discuss conspiricies with you. meet me at the Empire state Building at 11:00 on monday morning 12/12/2007
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
OK, I’m quite open minded about the whole affair. I tend to think they did go to the moon but I’m quite open to the idea that part of it was faked or at least something happened that we are not being told. Apart from Apollo 13 it was all too flawless and the astronauts are all too……well……weird!
Firstly, all the websites that advocate the hoax theory are run by very naive people. Nearly all the ‘evidence’ for the hoax is easily dismissed. I must say that I’m amazed that no one has worked out the real reason the flag was moving. It’s quite simple…it was a piece of fabric. The astronaut stretches out the flag and it naturally retracts itself slightly due to it’s elasticity and moves about as it does so. Almost any piece of fabric will do this. Very simple.
Now we definitely had the ability to fake certain portions of the moon landing. Stanley Kubrick and Douglas Trumble could easily have faked the space ships and the lunar surface but there are things even they couldn’t do. Such as the low gravity dynamics that is observable in the astronauts gait and the settling of dust. This would be extremely hard to fake. Also there is not one piece of so called anomalous photographic or video evidence used by the hoax theory advocates that is not explainable in simple terms and easy to verify as being genuine.
OK, having said that it is quite possible that we are not being given the full story about the moon missions. The idea that the mission/s experienced such a flawless execution is very suspicious indeed. Things probably went wrong that we don’t know about and there were most likely secret elements to the missions.
Maybe the radiation is quite dangerous. There are conflicting reports about this detail from experts in the field.. Maybe the astronauts were exposed to injurious levels of radiation. This is quite possible. There are many people who receive high levels of radiation who apart from initial effects on their health do not die from cancers or other damage. The astronauts were maybe slightly cooked and have remained silent on the fact to save face for Uncle Sam.
Maybe, apart from what we are told, the astronauts had a bad time of it in other ways during the mission. Maybe they were more traumatised by their experiences than they are aloud to say. They seem calm enough in the official communications but maybe they were panicky some of the time. Maybe conditions were a bit unbearable. Maybe it was extremely uncomfortable on the moon with the temperature variations. Maybe they spent time huddled in the lander sweltering and/or shivering and wondering if they might die, then putting on a brave face for the camera’s. Of course some will say no, they were all brave test pilots etc. but I say no, they were human beings in conditions few have ever encountered so any reaction would be understandable.
Now here’s an idea that isn’t brought up often. Maybe there was a secret program in which the landing was tested by unknowns before the public event could be attempted. Of course there are some obvious arguments against this idea but I don’t think it’s too implausible. Firstly some will say it is impossible to keep such a secret from coming to light. Too many people would have to be involved in the cover up. I say rubbish, if there is one thing that people will keep a secret for it is national security. Especially if the military is involved. The military are able to enforce secrecy in national security situations very effectively. And there doesn’t need to be an enormous number of people who know what is actually going on. Hundreds maybe, not the thousands as postulated by some skeptics. The only people who really need to know that there is a real moon landing going on and not some test/simulation would be the communications technicians at the Parks observatory in Australia, the ground control team at Houston, the astonauts and a hand full of politicians and military officials. Anyone else could be told they are part of a secret test/simulation. How many times was the Saturn vehicle tested? Were there any manned splash down simulations? Anyhow, This is all just speculation but I find it difficult to accept that the first mission was a perfect success as is reported with there having been no real world testing of all the main elements of the technology. Of course getting it right first time is not out of the question but it must be asked, would they really risk showing the first attempt to the public?
There is allot to think about with the moon landings as reported to the public and what might have gone on in secret behind the scene. We don’t hear much about the military’s involvement in the space race. Who knows what they’ve been up to on the moon or elsewhere since we’ve had the capability of traveling in outer space. Maybe they did test nuclear bombs on the dark side of the moon as they wanted to but wern’t allowed to. Who knows?
Alright, this is just my two cents worth of maybe worthless speculation. Though I definitely believe that we were not and are never told exactly what went on or goes on behind the scenes with the moon landings or any large scale governmental/military technological endeavour. And going to the moon over and over again just to stick a flag in the ground and pick up a few rocks makes no sense whatsoever but then again maybe that’s all they did. People often don’t make sense.
Dave.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
0 (+1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
Moonlanding-33 things that need to be answered!
Written by Dave Cosnette.
Updated September 12th, 2006
1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be “astonishingly brilliant”. See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show ‘stars’ in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple – Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.
2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad’s camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren’t the astronauts affected?
3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LM’s 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?
4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)
5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.
6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.
7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?
9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital “C” on it and a ‘C’ on the ground in front of it?
10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?
11) In Ron Howard’s 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun’s rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.
12) Who would dare risk using the LM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?
13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in “one sixth” gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.
14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.
15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.
16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn’t the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?
17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.
18) The astronauts in these “pressurized” suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer’s 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.
19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary ‘Paper Moon’ The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the ‘official’ measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM.
20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.
21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.
22) With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom, before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster A few minutes before he was burned to death in the Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, ‘Hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can’t even maintain telephonic communications over three miles.’ This statement says a lot about what Grissom thought about NASA’s progress in the great space race.
23) Why did NASA’s administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?
24) NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could “rehearse” the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.
25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to “see” the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!
26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man’s own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!
27) CNN issued the following report, “The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the ‘Van Allen Belts’ can spawn (newly discovered) ‘Killer Electrons’ that can dramatically affect the astronauts’ health.”
28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That’s the equivalent of a simple calculator.
29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LM go?
30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.
31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, showing the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!”. and appears above in the ‘Why Did Apollo 11 Astronauts Lie About Being In Deep Space?’ section.
32) Why did the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History’s greatest accomplishments?
33) Why did NASA need to airbrush out anomalies from lunar footage of the Moon if they have nothing to hide?
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
it is said that NASA killed some of it’s people who came to know about this hoax and was against this .was this true?
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
0 (+1)
Yes there is no wind on the moon and the flag should not have been waving on its on. But there is no wind on a sound stage either. The flag was waving because N Armstrong was twisting the pole.
I wrestled with the question of who is the dumbest person among these ignorant foolish people then I found …
Matthew Sean O’Gill said,
September 9, 2007at 12:50 am
all energy is vibrations.. our earth spins because the sunlight hits it and causes tides in the oceans, soil, atmosphere….everything..
Any arguments?
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
How does NASA explain how the small little capsule- minus all the rockets that were needed when launched from the earth’s atmosphere- left the Moon’s atmosphere- and- targeted itself so that it would know exactly where to land when it reentered the earth’s orbit? What fuel load took the capsule that we saw on the moon all the way back to earth- and be able to land exactly off the ocean of Cape Canaveral? What was used in the capsule to “steer” the space craft back to earth? How is it that they could land the craft right there so close to Cape Canaveral?
Also, wouldn’t then have needed satellites to send a photo all the way back to earth. Even today- without a satellite- you can’t send film across the ocean. Was there actually a direct link between the signal that the astronauts were sending out- video as well as voice- were actually travelling all the way back to earth- on their own? Without an satellite relay link? How is that possible?
Joel Bainerman
Jerusalem, Israel
www.joelbainerman.com
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
i think solidtruth makes a bunch of great points here
i doubt anyone could disprove all of those theories
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
If NASA could launch men into space, pilot them to the moon, deploy a lander, drop a rover from that lander, have the men explore the moon, then return to the lander, launch from the lunar surface, dock with an orbiting module, and then return to earth, re-enter the atmosphere and land in a specific recovery zone, all back in 1960′s, why is it that now in 2007 they are attempting to develop a craft that will be able to send a man to the moon and bring him back? why not just use the same tried and true model from the 60′s that has a higher success:failure ratio than our modern space shuttles?
We don’t have the technology to do it today… so what makes you think we had it then? How is it that currently other countries that today are far more technologically advanced than we were back then are trying but can not repeated this feat? China is our closest competitor and plans on having a round trip mission capable vehicle and human crew ready by 2024. Nasa predicts it will have a working vehicle and equipment ready for a mission no later than 2020…. yet in the 60′s we pulled something together from litterally nothing in under a decade.
Anyone who watched apollo 13 and believed that you can manually pilot and steer a rocket from halfway to the moon back to the earth on a booster rocket with nothing but radio guidance telemetry that carries a several minute delay from target is either completely uninformed or blindly optimistic.
The Clementine Lunar Probe is the most damning piece of evidence to date… its not speculation, conjecture or theory… the landing sites are not there. There is no LM or Buggie at any of the alleged landing sites.
The man on the moon missions didn’t happen. May happen someday, but it didn’t hapen then.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
apparently the resolution on the clementine probe was unable to shoot the locations and give us a close enough picture. The recent chinese orbitor was equally a wash. Though as it decended to low orbit, it should have been able to show us something.
We will get there though… maybe not untill the late 2020′s now. There’s a lot of stink about discontinuing the shuttle program due to a loss of jobs. (aparently a manned lunar mission won’t create enough jobs to offset it) And a lot of money earmarked for the shuttle program would be re-directed
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
Baratacus makes a strong argument. Why the sudden loss of ability to make this happen today when it was so easy and faultless back then. I know mankind can literally move mountains when it wants to, but it takes many attempts with loss of life before success is achieved on the grand ideas.
We our only just plumbing the deepest oceans with crewed submarines where pressure is the biggest danger and the distance is measured in meters. Yet we are expected to believe that we have been to the moon through the vacuum of space a journey of thousands of miles, beyond the earths protection from the violence of the sun, to a cold lifeless rock, where we jump about, drive cars that we brought with us and then head home with large payloads of rock. Making sure we just hit the atmosphere at the correct speed, angle etc so as not to ruin the day in a fiery ball. I really don’t think so….
Forget the pictures and evidance and look at it logically. We just couldn’t do it then, we still can’t do it now.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
To those who believe that man never landed on the moon, you are either ignorant or deluded. Every single piece of supposed “proof” of a hoax is easily dismissed by either common sense or a simple knowledge of science and physics. The biggest piece of proof that it did actually happen is the Russians. It was the height of the cold war, and the race was on with the Russians to get to the moon first. If the USA faked it, the Russians would have SCREAMED to the world that it was fake. To those who say the burden of proof lies with those who believe that we did actually land on the moon, you are wrong. The proof is there. What more do you need? Prove that it didn’t happen. Guess what? You can’t. You should be ashamed of yourselves for for so easily discounting the single greatest technological event in the history of the world. I will offer a one million dollar prize to anyone who can prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that it was a hoax.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
I believe that we landed on the moon. Why? Because I have respect for the integrity of the men who went there. If one of the moon-landing astronauts could come out and deny this-and survive, unlike Gus Grissom who supposedly was set to do the same thing-I would say that there should be many many more people that would have had to be involved with a hoax to come forward.
If the government has so successfully “landed” on the moon, then why haven’t they tried to “land” on Mars yet? Could it possibly be that we’re actually planning on going?
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
Also, solidtruth? If you have ever gone to Cape, as I have, or been lucky enough to speak with an astronaut, as I have, you might know that people in the shuttle or a space station are able to see that radiation, and yet they survive, months even, in space.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
I totally believe that men went to the moon. A big flaw in the hoax theory, that no one ever seems to mention, is this. Assuming they did fake the first landing why did they keep doing it? Surely the risk of being discoverd once was massive so why multiply it so many times? Theorists? Answers please?
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
i dont understand why there are so many non believers out there it really makes me sad i look up to the brave astronauts who risked their lives to fufill their dreams of going into outerspace. in the future i hope to be one of them. i came on this site to help me with my 8th grade project but seeing all the doubters out there just i dont know, really got my spirts down anyway i just wanted to let you know how awful you are to have such a closed mind and to come on here just to argue about something you really dont seem to know much about.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
0 (+1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
below is a perswasive speach that i am doing…some of it is i got it from variouse websites, i dindnt have a opinion over this stuff before, but now i am thoroughly convinced that man didnt land on the moon
Moon Landing Was A Hoax!
*How can the flag be fluttering when there’s no wind
on the atmosphere free Moon?
*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, and now I do too
For a start, he says,
*the TV footage was
hopeless. The world tuned in to watch what looked
like two blurred white ghosts jump about threw 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 so that nobody could properly
examine it. But yet 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 clubs. It should have been
almost impossible to end their, fingers.
Award winning British photographer David passer is convinced
the pictures are fake:
* 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.
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 Allenbelt.
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 aluminum foil”.
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,” says Rene.
Furthermore, every Apollo mission before number 11 (the first
to the Moon) was plagued with around 20,000 defects.
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 me.”
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’ carelessness – even a
chemistry students in high school knows 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 crash.
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 for.”
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 “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
the 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 their 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 around will have no way of determining the truth.”
Space oddities
*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.
*A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16′s Lunar
Lander lifting off the Moon. Who did the filming?
*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.
*Text from pictures in the article 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?
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.
*Why is the flag fluttering?
*How can the flag be brightly lit when its side on to the light?
Where, in all of these shots, are the stars?
*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.
1. *If NASA could launch men into space, pilot them to the moon, deploy a lander, drop a rover from that lander, have the men explore the moon, then return to the lander, launch from the lunar surface, dock with an orbiting module, and then return to earth, re-enter the atmosphere and land in a specific recovery zone, all back in 1960’s, why is it that now in 2007 they are attempting to develop a craft that will be able to send a man to the moon and bring him back? why not just use the same tried and true model from the 60’s that has a higher success:failure ratio than our modern space shuttles?
We don’t have the technology to do it today… so what makes you think we had it then? How is it that currently other countries that today are far more technologically advanced than we were back then are trying but can not repeated this feat? China is our closest competitor and plans on having a round trip mission capable vehicle and human crew ready by 2024. NASA predicts it will have a working vehicle and equipment ready for a mission no later than 2020…. yet in the 60’s we pulled something together from litterally nothing in under a decade.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
Boy, we sure do have some ignorant people in the US of A. Ask ANYBODY who was there, watching Neil and Buzz bounce about the Sea of Tranquillity, on their televisions and everyone of them would say it is true. Ask some ignorant *&%-holes in their 30′s and 20′s and they will give you information that should make you laugh your balls off. Common sense and a little reading (yes, it is hard to actually read a book by yourself when your mommy reads it to you) will debunk any so called “theory” these scum bring up.
Absolutely stunning.
If anything, years of experience and F’s on research papers has taught me to never trust anything you see on the internet without background checks.
After Casey redo’s some horrible spelling mistakes in his post perhaps he can make some checks over some material he got from websites admined by 40 year olds who jerk off to shemale videos.
I’ll do my part for my side and disprove his idea of the LEM’s descent engine not making a crater on the surface. It would, IF IT WAS AT FULL THROTTLE! Gotcha! The engine only needed to support slightly less than the weight of the craft as it approached the ground, only at about 10-20% of maximum power. Constantly running the engine at full power for a long time would deplete the engine’s precious fuel.
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
now go out of your basement, take a deep breath of fresh air and look at the Moon sometime. Hard to fathom, but yes, we were there. In a time when the USA was at its finest, when we could achieve anything. But those days are over and nowadays Paris Hilton going to prison is considered news.
BC
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
To all you conspiracy nuts..So what would you constitute as proof then.
Answering all of the points made above? – been there, done that. Science to prove it. There are credible answers for all the so called “evidence against” points, but you choose not to believe them.
A photo from Hubble? – couldnt that be faked. No doubt that would be the claim
Going back there? – if we can fake it once then we can fake it again.
Face it. You just dont want to accept the truth. There is not one unchallengable argument against you can come up with. But for all the evidence that we did go to the moon you still cant believe.
The most telling bit about the validity of the landing is this. Three men went into space. Thousands of people saw the launch. If they didnt go to the moon, where did they go?
Its not very easy to hide when there is nothing to hide behind. There must have been hundreds of tracking stations on earth watching them. Soviets, Chinese, etc. So why didnt they say, “hold on, we followed you and you just did a couple of spins round the earth and came back.”
Any answers?
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
Don’t be discouraged that people don’t believe we went to the moon. Don’t be discouraged that our government may have lied to us with our “best interests” in mind. The do it all the time.
Radiation on this side of the van-allen belt is surviveable and you won’t die from it in a shuttle (400km-500km out from earth) The van-allen belt is an anomaly where by radiation is trapped by earths electromagnetic field in 2 concentric rings around our planet. In high orbit, at a distance of over 2,000km from the first belt, shuttle pilots are far from the belts. The first ring is 3,000 km up and is 5,000km across. The second ring is 15,000km-20,000km up and is 6,000-10,000km across. Today we have Polyethaline shielding which is far more effective for shielding against partical radiation that is found in the van allen belts. We didn’t have this shielding technology in the 60′s and used a thin metal foil to insulate the astronauts from radiation. Metal is a poor insulator against partical radiation and needs to be very dense. We didn’t even use lead foil, we used a lightweight foil that would have been completely inadequate to protect the astronauts from the partical radiation of the van allen belts.
Even getting safely through the radiation, we didn’t have a lander that could land. It failed every single landing test and simulation. It was too top heavy and would tumble every time. The lunar landing was it’s first sucsessfull touchdown. In fact, every single simulation of the lunar mission at mission control ended in an abort or mission failure. The eagle touching down was the first time that the controlers had actually experienced a successfull touchdown.
Why would we fake it? why would we do it more than once? Do you have any Idea how much money in civil engineering investors was tied up in this? If this program failed, It would be a death sentance to anyone involved. Not just NASA, but IBM, General Dynamics, Gruman, Hydrodine… and about a thousand other companies were revitalized or born out of this program. It was a billion dollar industry. The U.S. public had no interest in orbiters… Russia already beat the pants off of us in that market and was owning us in the space race. Someone that could do what Russia couldn’t do was golden in the eyes of the American Public.
Why did we stop going? You can only keep up a lie for so long. It was only a matter of time before NASA got busted. Why do you think the president of the U.S. said that the lunar missions were finished and we would not be sending any more manned flights to the moon in the forseeable future. Why do you think all of the prototypes and plans were “Lost”
Don’t let this discourage you from becoming an astronaut. Astronauts do exist, we have traveled to outerspace. But don’t idolize and make a hero out of any man. Columbus was a genocidal oportunist and a poor navigator. Yet we have a national holiday for him. All men are falable and thats part of being human. If you saw 10 of your buddies drop off like flies for protesting how things were being done, you’d shut your mouth too.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
0 (+1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
6 Trackbacks / Pingbacks to
Leave a reply to Apollo Moon Landing Hoax