The Apollo Moon Hoax

THE APOLLO MOON HOAX:
HOW DID THEY DO IT?

A GENERATION DECEIVED BY NASA

Trevor Weaver

“The truth will out”
Wliiam Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice

1

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

The author retains all rights to this work.

First Published 20 July 2019
ISBN: 9781723964503

Imprint: Independently published
Typeset: Georgia 12 point

Cover Design: Germancreative

2

Personal Dedications

I would like to say a big thank you to all those who have
assisted in bringing this book to fruition. In particular my
unpaid proofreaders, who hopefully will not be back to
claim a slice of my vast book profits. My dedicated
proofreaders of this book were:

Jo Weaver, my helpful and loving daughter
Marcus Allen, UK Distributor of the bi-monthly alternative
news magazine NEXUS

I do not claim to have personally exposed any particular
anomalies in the Apollo record but have simply stood on the
shoulders of giants and brought together the work of others.

If you mention people by name then you will always be
guilty of omissions. However, I must give special thanks for
advice and guidance from many of the experts on the Apollo
story, in particular:

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

Also, I would like to thank all others who have contributed
directly, or indirectly, in some way, or another and have
added to this investigation. Especial thanks to my sources of
reference from both the pro-NASA believers and the Moon
landing sceptics, be it documents, videos, or photographs. I

3

recognise the sterling efforts of all these previous individual
researchers.

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

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

Although Kaysing was not the first to publically publish his
doubts about the Moon landings being a hoax, he was the
most dedicated and consistent in his desire to expose the
hoax*. In 1976 he self-published his book “We Never Went

*
The first book on the subject was

*A Moon Landing? What Moon Landing?” by John Noble
Wilford, New York Times, 18 December 1969

and there was also

"Did Man Land On The Moon?" by the Texas
mathematician James J. Cranny 1970

Both these book are listed on Amazon but currently shown
to be unavailable.

4

to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle”. The
book was republished in 2002 by Health Research Books.
Bill is now rightly regarded as the initiator of the Moon hoax
movement.

I have included a dedication to Bill Kaysing by his friend
Jarrah White as a fitting end to this book.

The late Bill Kaysing photo courtesy Wendy Kaysing

5

Dedication to the Astronauts and Cosmonauts

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

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

Imagine you were asked, even commanded, by your Head of
State to enter into some glorious risky pretence in the
interests of national security, and for the benefit of your
country, and perhaps even for the entire world.

Would you not stand, and serve the national good?

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

We must never forget the situation in the 1960s, a time
when the world was shaking with the possibility of world
annihilation any second. One wrong move by either side,
one mistaken interpretation of some intelligence message,

6

one Hitler-like imbecile hovering over that button, one final
push of a simple button, and life as we know it could have
been over. We survived this Cold war reasonably intact,
perhaps even because of these men.
We may never know the truth.
I think what I want to say was best summed up by the well
known sceptic Jet Wintzer.
“I want to take a moment to actually praise the astronauts
involved with the Apollo missions, and all astronauts. To
strap themselves to these rockets, during the Cold War, on
a mission to try and change the world, to try and inspire
the world, and to try to avoid a real war. This was an
attempt to project technological superiority, and if it could
be done without firing a shot, then great, more power to
them. The astronauts have my utmost respect, and it really
makes me mad, when I see some of the other hoax
researchers harassing the astronauts. These guys were
operating in a chain of command, during the Cold War,
and they deserve our respect and gratitude”.

Jet Wintzer 2015

7

About this Book

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

For 50 years people have argued, and debated almost
endlessly, about the pros and cons of the story. Surveys
show that the majority of people do believe what NASA say
they did between 1969 to 1972 to be true and one of man's
greatest technological triumphs. For men to travel such
great distances at unheard of speeds and return to tell the
spell binding tale is beyond comprehension. It must rank
either as the greatest historical achievement of mankind or
the biggest hoax ever perpetrated in human history.

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

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

The range of evidence is vast and it would take considerable
time, and effort, to search it out. I know because I just spent
the past three years of my wasteful life doing just that.

8

This book is somewhat unconventional in that it relies on a
website to show much of the evidence. This is in the form of
videos and documents from a wide range of sources.
In order to use this book fully you will need to sit by your
computer or tablet, and access the website:
https://tinyurl.com/theapollohoax
In each chapter you will be directed to appendices in the
form of (App 13.03). This refers to chapter thirteen
appendix number three. To view the appendix select the
chapter number from the main Home Screen of the website
and then click on the appropriate appendix number. The
resulting information will be opened on a new webpage
outside of the "TheApolloHoax" website, so after viewing
you will need to close down the new webpage by clicking on
the "X" in the top right corner.
Hope that is clear, now don your fake spacesuits, take one
extra breath and enjoy your adventure. I think we are off to
Arizona or some other place in the United States of America.

9

A Generation Deceived by NASA

10

THE APOLLO MOON HOAX:
HOW DID THEY DO IT?

A Generation Deceived by NASA

CONTENTS

Foreword Description Of The Issue...................................12
Chapter 1 The Cold War.....................................................35
Chapter 2 Kennedy's Dream..............................................43
Chapter 3 Building The Dream...........................................51
Chapter 4 When Did It Go Wrong.....................................67
Chapter 5 Too Much Radiation..........................................83
Chapter 6 Visions of a Moon.............................................115
Chapter 7 The Suns of Apollo............................................171
Chapter 8 Defying Gravity................................................179
Chapter 9 Silent Sounds...................................................193
Chapter 10 Diminished Technology.............................….201
Chapter 11 Keeping the Secret...........................................221
Chapter 12 Creating the Evidence.....................................241
Chapter 13 Lights, Camera, Action...................................285
Chapter 14 Conclusions.....................................................291

“Lord, what fools these mortals be!”
William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night's Dream

11

Hanging on your every word !

12

FOREWORD

DESCRIPTION OF THE ISSUE

“You told a lie, an odious damned lie;
Upon my soul, a lie, a wicked lie”
William Shakespeare, Othello

It just didn't look real enough
On 20 July 1969 NASA proudly claimed to have landed the
first two astronauts, Neil Armstrong and Edwin “Buzz”
Aldrin, on the surface of the Moon. The entire population of
the globe was captivated by this extraordinary technological
achievement as they watched the event unfold in ghostly
black and white on televisions around the world. It is
estimated that half a billion people across the globe watched
on television and this remember was in 1969.

It may surprise some of you to learn that it never actually
happened. No men set foot on the Moon, it was all an
elaborately designed plan to deceive us all. It was simply a
convincing hoax perpetrated by NASA, or perhaps more
accurately, by some small clandestine group working within
NASA. Most NASA employees were equally fooled as were
the rest of us.

The great majority of people in the world were utterly
deceived by this event, myself included. The majority still
believe the Moon landings to be true. It is now an accepted
historical fact, so much so that it is now taught as true
history on the curriculum in many schools, alongside the
likes of Christopher Columbus, Vasco da Gama, Captain
James Cook and many of the other great world explorers.

This is wrong in all respects, it is a deceit, a travesty of the
13

truth. As the well known Moon Hoax sceptic Bart Sibrel
would say, nothing less than a dark satanic lie.

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

Gerhard Wisnewski in his excellent book “One Small Step”
when discussing the effect of the supposed Moon landings
on the historical record states:

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

I firmly believe that it is time that the Apollo Missions were
exposed for what they were, an attempt by the USA to show

14

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

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

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

My daughter would ask me how I could be so certain that
men had actually been to the Moon. I recall that my stock
defence was that the astronauts placed several retro-
reflectors on the Moon and that scientific institutions and
universities around the world were using these reflectors to

15

study how fast the Moon was drifting away from the Earth.
So it must be true. As an aside, we are slowly losing the
Moon as it constantly drifts away from the Earth, but do not
panic just yet, it is only at the rate at which your fingernails
are growing. Did you just look down at your fingernails?, I
thought so.

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

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

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

16

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

Man on the Moon: Fact or Fiction?

The book is associated with a website which contains about
900 hours of video, and over 2,000 pages of documents.

www.man-on-the-moon.info

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

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

Parallel Shadows
Having said that, I do want to mention again the question of
the inconsistent shadows as this erroneous anomaly is still
being quoted by many well-known sceptics as undeniable

17

proof of fakery. It is not.

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

It is simply a matter of whether you can ever see them as
being parallel in photographs given that you have a two-
dimensional image of a three-dimensional scene. Take as an
example a long straight parallel road here on Earth, like the
shadows created by the Sun the sides of the road are indeed
parallel. Now pick up your camera and take photographs
from whatever angle you wish, but you will never produce a
photograph showing parallel lines. In a photograph all
parallel lines will converge to a vanishing point. Even if you
stood in the middle of the road and look into the distance
the sides of the road will be seen to converge to a vanishing
point even though we know they are truly parallel. The
exception to this is if the shadows are cast precisely at right
angles to the camera.

It is all down to perspective, and in no way is it proof that
NASA faked the Apollo Moon landings. There are more
irrefutable proofs that it was all faked as we will see. I am
not suggesting that NASA did not use multiple light sources
to take photographs, but the erroneous conclusion that this
can be detected by non-parallel shadows is a fallacy. For a
better use of shadows then ray tracing may be the answer as
described in this article from Luis E Bilbao posted on
Aulis.com (F.01). The author examines the problem of the
supposed inconsistent shadows and concludes that:

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

18

grounds – based on shadow directions alone – to assert
whether or not more than one light source is present in any
given Apollo lunar surface picture.”
I believe that this one photograph reproduced from that
paper clearly illustrates the point I want to make. It shows
that shadows created by the parallel sides of the window do
not look to produce parallel shadows. Now, step inside the
building and measure the shadows and you will find that
they are truly parallel.

Source: Luis E Bilbao posted on Aulis.com
Now the sceptics would vehemently insist that they should
see parallel shadows as these shadows are caused by parallel
light rays from the Sun and are being cast by truly parallel
objects. As you can observe from the photograph this is
simply not true, the shadows must converge to a vanishing
point due to perspective. This is not evidence of a second

19

light source. Conversely, it does not prove that a second
light source was not used in some Apollo photographs.
Finally on this subject, take a look at this genuine
photograph taken in the French countryside, again we do
not see any parallel shadows.

Source: Pascal Xavier
I imagine that some sceptics may have a problem with the
shadows on this photograph and perhaps claim that there
must have a been a secondary light source as the shadows
are anything but parallel. I can assure you that the only light
source was from the parallel rays of the Sun. The simple fact
is that the shadows will always intersect at some distant
point, in this case somewhere in the far hedge. I trust that
this finalises the debate concerning parallel shadows.

20

The Evidence of Fakery
As I have already mentioned NASA does have a vast amount
of evidence that on the face of it undeniably proves the
Apollo Moon landings were true. However, it is only when
you examine this evidence in detail that you begin to notice
the inconsistencies, impossibilities, falsehoods, cover-ups
and the disingenuous science, that you realise something is
not quite right about the whole story. It is akin to looking at
an impressionist painting at a distance, it looks perfect, but
go examine it closely and you see it is not as perfect as you
first thought.

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

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

The pro-NASA devotees act as though they are members of
some cult whose doctrine should never be questioned and in
which alternative evidence has no meaning. It reminds me
of one of my favourite Shakespearian quotes:

21

“I would challenge you to a battle of wits,
but I see you are unarmed”

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

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

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

The reaction from the NASA believers whom I contacted to
ascertain evidence for my last book on the Moon saga was at
first quite shocking. Remember, I was a curious “believer” at

22

the time wishing to provide an impartial view of the
evidence, for and against, the Moon landings. A simple
enquiring question would have them jumping up and down
with delight, as though they had discovered some medieval
witch who should immediately be burnt at the stake. A
typical reaction would be:

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

so much for scientific debate, the case is now firmly closed.
As the late astronomer Carl Sagan once said;

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

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

A typical example of this is shown by a pro-NASA supporter
who goes under the title of Astrobrant2 but who is an
American NASA devotee named Brant Watson (App F.02).
After you have watched this video you are left wondering
what point he was trying to make. It is just a lobotomy of
self-indulgent verbiage directed at anyone who has ever
questioned any aspects of the Moon landings and to enforce
his point he uses a verbal scattergun. It does not address any
fundamental science or evidence, but it is merely an
opinionated rant devoid of any merit. I feel sure that

23

Copernicus, Galileo and Charles Darwin would be quite
familiar with the method. I should also point out that Brant
Watson has made several videos in which he delights in
being able to demonstrate that NASA were clever enough to
fake the gravity of the Moon, in order too fool people just
like him.

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

“It is easier to fool people
than to convince them that they have been fooled”

I think this is the nature of humankind, we do not like to be
fooled, and if we discover we have been, then we resist all
attempts to accept it.

One other thing I noted in my research was that the pro-
NASA group only provide a rebuttal of anomalies in cases in
which it is possible to provide something of a feasible
explanation, but there are many instances when they are
suspiciously silent. Having said that there are occasions
when they have quite rightly rebutted anomalies in which
the sceptics have clearly been mistaken.

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

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

24

deluded or delusional”

History is full of great scientists who were accused at the
time of being ignorant, deluded or delusional, for suggesting
some new evidence of discovery. Perhaps I may take great
comfort from that.

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

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

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

No, I am not talking about the Illuminati or David Icke’s
Lizard-people, nor about re-clothed Roswell aliens, but
about that strange subset of humanity known as the Apollo

25

Deniers or Lunar Hoaxers. I have long ceased to be
interested in what these people believe. Refuting their
simple-minded claims is so embarrassingly easy it is like
using dynamite to catch trout in a fish farm.

No, what interests me is why so many apparently bright
people persist in believing that 50 years ago the American
government, in cahoots with its allies in Europe, Australia
and elsewhere, and – and this is always the bit glossed
over by the hoaxers – with its sworn enemies in the USSR
– engaged in the mother of all cover-ups, a gargantuan
project to convince the world that humans had visited the
Moon when in fact they had not”.

Scathing commentary indeed, like David Icke, he clearly
sees alien beings among us. Even the supposed first man on
the Moon, astronaut Neil Armstrong, had a comment on
conspiracy theories when in 2012 he confidently stated;

“People love conspiracy theories, they are very attractive.
But it was never a concern to me because I know one day
somebody is going to go fly back up there and pick up that
camera I left”

No doubt Armstrong envisaged a bidding war on Ebay,
sometime in the distant future for his beloved camera.

The late Sir Patrick Moore, the celebrated British
astronomer, also aired his thoughts on the subject of being
sceptic about the Apollo Moon landings.

“If ignorance is bliss they must be very happy”

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

26

“their ignorance of science is so complete
it's pointless to try to argue with them”

I do sense a case of arrogance confronting ignorance, but
this characterises the feebleness of many Apollo believers to
confront scientific fact.

Lying was a powerful technique used by more famous
tyrants and distorters of the truth:

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

Even President Kennedy had his own view on lies:

“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie,
deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth,
persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
President John F. Kennedy”

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

This offering from the Smithsonian National Air and Space
Museum in their “Ask an Expert” series has Dr Roger
Launius, curator in the National Air and Space Museum's
Space History Division, explaining to us about the So-Called

27

Moon-Landing Hoax (App F.04). He gives a very incomplete
account of the Moon landing hoax and does not directly
address any real issues. This generalised dismissal of the
issue is typical of the pro-NASA group. The Fox News
documentary to which he refers to in his presentation can be
viewed here (App F.05).

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

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

28

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

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

So now we will venture forth and examine the evidence
presented by NASA and show that it is flawed to an extent
that we can easily see the telltale signs of the fakery.

How did they do it?
If you mistakenly bought this book thinking the sub-title
read “How they did it?” then you are to be greatly

29

disappointed. The simple fact is that I don't know how they
did it and there are probably very few people remaining
alive who do know. Before you start writing to Amazon for a
refund on the price you paid for this book, let me explain.

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

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

The pro-NASA supporters will often tell you that it would be
easier to go to the Moon than to fake it. I would
wholeheartedly agree with this. Faking it would have been
extremely difficult, but perhaps going to the Moon may not
even have been a viable option. The scenario is so complex
that the pro-NASA group tell us that fakery would have been
impossible. I would also agree with this statement because
as we shall see the fakery was not entirely successful, it was
imperfect, and that is why we have this book. I have to

30

admit that NASA-X, with the tools available at the time, did
produce at first glance a very convincing deceit, but there
are many aspects in which the fakery can be easily detected.

My biggest issue with the NASA-X fakery is that it
diminishes technological achievement. I believe the well-
known Moon landing sceptic Marcus Allen put it quite
succinctly in a talk he gave on “After Hours AM” radio in
2017 (App F.09):

“Until we find the truth about Apollo and find out how
limited it actually was, human space travel will be
constricted by the refusal of NASA to confront it's past and
that's all we ask them to do. To confront their past, admit
their position so that we can all now move forward
because there are many exciting things happening in
space. The Apollo legacy is holding us all back. It is a
tragedy so anybody who works for NASA and reads this,
please do your duty and confront the Apollo legacy because
until you do your function as a space scientist will be
severely restricted”

Advancement in science is always based on repeatable
experimentation. It offers proof that the findings are factual
and robust. NASA is distorting science by its refusal to
admit the truth. At this point the pro-NASA boys and girls
will raise their arms in protest and tell us that it was
repeatable, they went to the Moon nine times. What they
really mean is that it was faked nine times (three Apollo
Missions 8, 10 and 13 were not claimed to have landed on
the Moon). I believe that this reluctance to admit the fakery
simply denigrates the real contribution made by the Apollo
astronauts. Their contribution in the period of the Cold War
was not only one of outstanding bravery to volunteer to
venture off the Earth on top of an experimental exploding

31

rocket but also to serve their countrymen in a way that none
of us would ever wish to be so compromised.

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

Neil Armstrong, the first “supposed” man on the Moon, is
no longer with us, he passed away in 25 Aug 2012 aged 88.
Even though he was due a place in the Arlington National
cemetery his family insisted that he was to be buried at sea
which surprised many people. It could be that they were
aware of the hoax and did not want a permanent national
memorial, or simply that he was originally a naval aviator
and it is not uncommon for naval veterans to be buried at
sea. Neil Armstrong never walked on the Moon, but
nonetheless, he certainly served his country well as a true
patriot.

32

In Chapter 12 we will examine in detail how NASA-X
managed to create such a convincing fakery that basically
fooled the world. Perhaps equally importantly, they also
fooled the very NASA operatives who truly believed that
they were controlling a live “real” event.

Source NASA: Apollo 12 Lunar Module Intrepid
33

34

CHAPTER 1

THE COLD WAR

“I do believe,
induced by potent circumstances

That thou art mine enemy.”
William Shakespeare, Henry VIII

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

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

In an effort to avoid future wars the United Nations (UN)
was created on 2 October 1945. The first paragraph of

35

Article 1 of the UN charter states:
“To maintain international peace and security, and to that
end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention
and removal of threats to the peace, and for the
suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the
peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in
conformity with the principles of justice and international
law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or
situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;”

Source: Foreign and Domestic Policy Bruce Moody
This was a concerted effort by most nations in the world to
avoid future conflict. Unfortunately, that great hope didn't
last long as in 1950 war broke out on the Korean peninsula.
This involved North Korea supported by China and Russia
on one side and South Korea supported by the western UN
forces on the other. The war lasted three years and ended in
stalemate as Korea remained still divided into North and
South, as it so remains to this day.

36

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

Imperial War Museum: D-Day on Omaha Beach
After the war Germany itself was separated into East and
West Germany and the capital Berlin was divided into four
military sectors controlled respectively by Britain, the USA,
France and the Soviet Union. Germany was to remain so
divided in the west until 1955, when West Germany was
formed and in the east until 1989, when the Soviet Union

37

collapsed as a political entity, leading to the reunification of
Germany in 1990. Remember the jubilation at the fall of the
Berlin Wall. Perhaps you own a tiny souvenir piece of the
wall in some forgotten drawer. Nothing to do with the Moon
but his video from the German public broadcast service DW
provides a very interesting overview of the Berlin Wall and
the wall separating East and West Germany (App 1.01).

Research.archives.gov: Berlin Wall August 1961
These competing ideologies were so entrenched that the
other side was seen as a menace to the other and brought
fears of world domination by one side or the other.
It was in this state of fear, and trepidation, that we lived
through the late 1940s right up to the 1980s. Both sides
possessed massive arsenals of nuclear weapons capable of
eliminating the other within a few short minutes. I
remember the relief in the UK when we were told we would
have an “early” warning of five minutes before being totally

38

annihilated, barely enough time to say goodbye.

The first sign of trouble occurred in June 1948 when the
Russians denied access to the corridor from West Germany
to Berlin (App 1.02). This corridor was established at the
end of WW2 to provide the three western nations, the
British, Americans and French, access through East
Germany to Berlin. The blockade ended in May 1949 after
the Western powers had used aeroplanes to airlift food and
everything else that the people in Berlin needed to survive.
Luckily they had enough surplus aeroplanes left over from
the war.

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

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

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

39

peace for the coming decades.

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

The Cuban Missile Crisis, as it is now known, lasted just 13
days, from 16 to 28 October 1962. The Americans were
resolute and imposed a naval blockade around Cuba with
the threat to stop and search any vessels heading for Cuba
and to turn back any carrying weaponry. In the light of this
tough response from President Kennedy, the Russians
finally agreed to dismantle the Cuban bases and turn around
the ships carrying nuclear missiles on board which where
already heading for Cuba.

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

40

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

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

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

41

Source NASA: Saturn V Rocket at Cape Canaveral

42

CHAPTER 2
KENNEDY'S DREAM

“Dreams are a sign of ambition, since ambition is nothing
more than the shadow of a dream”
William Shakespeare, Hamlet

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

Source Unknown: German V2 Rocket
At the end of the war, there was a race by the victorious

43

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

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

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

Both the USA and Russia instigated programmes of rocket
development, with varying amounts of success. The research
also concentrated on complex guidance systems, thus
increasing the threat to the opposing side as specific targets
could then be hit. The Russians were first to fill the
headlines when they launched “Sputnik 1” on 4 October
1957. This was the first artificial Earth satellite to orbit the

44

Earth. “Sputnik 1” weighed 100 kilograms and was launched
into an elliptical low Earth orbit, with a maximum height of
583 miles above the Earth's surface.

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

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

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

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

America at this time was also involved in an increasingly
unpopular war in Vietnam and the popular movement
against US involvement in some far away place was gaining
increased momentum among the American public. Peace

45

activists and left-wing intellectuals on college campuses
were organising protests against the US Government.

Vietnam Protestors in Washington
Most probably as a result of these factors, President
J.F.Kennedy, during the American Congress on 25 May
1961, surprised almost everybody, maybe even himself,
when he announced a new national objective of "landing a
man on the Moon, and returning him safely back to the
Earth within this decade", that is by the end of the 1960s.
President Kennedy's objective was clear, unambiguous,
irrevocable, and somewhat shocking:
“I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving
the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the
moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single
space project in this period will be more impressive to
mankind, or more important for the long-range

46

exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or
expensive to accomplish. We propose to accelerate the
development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We
propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters,
much larger than any now being developed, until certain
which is superior.”

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

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

The full text of President Kennedy's speech at Rice
University speech is given here (App 2.04).

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

47

America.

As we have seen Russia had all the notable firsts in space
technology, which led to Kennedy's surprise “Man on the
Moon” speech, and the subsequent Project Apollo. For those
of you who are not familiar with Project Apollo, either
because you are too young, or spent the 1960s and 70s high
on magic mushrooms and free love, there is an interesting
mini-series “From the Earth to the Moon” (App 2.05). It is a
twelve-part HBO television mini-series, telling the story of
Project Apollo during the 1960s and early 1970s. It is
available on CD (1998 co-produced by Ron Howard, Brian
Grazer, Tom Hanks, and Michael Bostick).
The goal was now set, Man on the Moon, by the end of the
decade. The objective was clear but the problem now was
how to construct the rockets and spacecraft to get men to

48

the Moon and how to ensure that man can survive his stay
on the Moon and then safely return to Earth. This was the
challenge laid at NASA's feet with just eight short years to
achieve it. It is a remarkable story of struggle, failure,
innovation, technological achievement on the one hand and
clever fakery on the other.

49

50