The Apollo Moon Hoax

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

Apollo 8 was to be the first flight of humans beyond the
protective cocoon of the Earth's magnetosphere. NASA
knew from James Van Allen's research about the probable
effect of the dangerous radiation to the astronauts as they
pass through this region to reach the Moon. So you may
think Mission Control would be concerned about the health
of the astronauts on their journey. Well, it seems not.

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

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

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

101

The email allegedly from James Van Allen:

“Dear Mr Lambert,

In reply to your e-mail, I send you the following copy of a
response that I wrote to another inquiry about 2 months
ago.

Ø The radiation belts of the Earth do, indeed, pose
important constraints on the safety of human space flight.

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

Ø A person in the cabin of a space shuttle in a circular
equatorial orbit in the most intense region of the inner
radiation belt, at an altitude of about 1000 miles, would be
subjected to a fatal dosage of radiation in about one week.

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

102

flights. These estimates are still reliable.

Ø The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious
and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that
radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have
been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such
nonsense.
James A. Van Allen"

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

“that Dr Van Allen said 'this is nonsense' in an email,
possibly under duress or threats. We don't know if the
email was really from him, or NSA intercepting emails. He
discovered a fatal radiation belt, then says it is nonsense?
Nonsense. He never published any paper or article
discounting his previous experiments or results. The Van
Allen Belt is a major obstacle to Moon landings.
He would have to speak against NASA and most
Americans. He would need very strong intestinal
fortitude.”

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

We can see more of NASA's flagrant disregard for the
dangers of radiation on the astronauts from the Apollo 8
Final Flight Evaluation Report April 1969 (see App 5.10).
This report lists the 25 primary mission objectives and 12
secondary mission objectives. It is of interest to note that
none of these objectives are related to radiation exposure, or

103

the astronaut's survival. Everything is covered in the
smallest detail, but crucially nothing on radiation or the
health of the astronauts.

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

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

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

104

take, so his lack of knowledge on the Van Allan belts is
totally implausible.

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

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

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

This question of the pro-NASA supporters belatedly
suggesting a polar trajectory is interesting in that it may not
even be feasible.

105

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

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

We can also examine the NASA Technical Report TN D-
7080 “Apollo Experience Report Protection Against
Radiation” published in March 1973 (App 5.20). This report
discusses the radiation protection and specifically mentions
the Van Allen radiation belts, but makes no mention of any
polar route taken to minimise the radiation level
experienced by the astronauts. This is implausible as the
paper is primarily concerned with reducing the radiation
risk for the astronauts.

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

106

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

NASA Translunar Coast from Report MA68-7193
Finally, we have this diagram above taken from the NASA
Report HQ MA68-7193 dated 30 October 1968 on page 14d.
Note that Apollo 8 was launched just seven weeks later on

107

21 December 1968. This diagram is unequivocal in that it
shows the translunar burn has having taken place on the
equator.

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

It is totally implausible that the radiation hazard was not at
all documented in the press releases, or the technical
documents produced pre- and post-flight. Of particular
importance is the evidence from the voice transcripts of the
missions in that no mention is made of radiation, Van Allen
belts, or the astronaut's health. This is so improbable if the
Moon missions were real and just appears to be an oversight
by NASA-X in the construction of the fakery.

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

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

108

Apollo Missions were really going to the Moon and the
astronaut's lives were in danger.

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

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

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

Back then, it was no problem to send an astronaut to the
Moon in a thin aluminium box wearing a nylon suit and they
accomplished that in just 8 years starting from virtually

109

nothing. By 2024 the Orion Project will have been in
development for 20 years starting with much more
advanced technology so the Moon by 2024 should not be a
problem for NASA. I suspect it will be more difficult to fake
it this time as every sceptic will watching very closely. We
will see in 5 years time.

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

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

Instead, NASA cleverly devised the children's Space Math
paper showing a new northerly route through the Van Allen
belts without making any statement. The diagram shown
was only produced after 1990 when the CRRES satellite was
launched. This fake story was embellished and subsequently
propagated by the pro-NASA devotees. It has now assumed
the false attribute of established “fact” and is repeated over

110

and over by the pro-NASA lobby.

It is often said that the first lie is the easiest, but subsequent
lies to cover that first lie become increasingly more
challenging.

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

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

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

It would appear that NASA have painted themselves into a
corner with this radiation business. There are now stuck

111

with trying to reconcile the published radiation dosages
received by the astronauts on the Apollo Missions with more
recent data from the Orion Project. This paper by Mary
Bennett published on the Aulis,com website examines the
radiation data collected for the Orion Project and compares
that with the NASA published data for the Apollo Missions
(App 5.24). The paper states:

“The BIRD Radiation Detector report seemingly confirms
that the dosimetry radiation data for the manned Apollo
lunar flights was collected while remaining in low-Earth
orbit”

and concludes:

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

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

112

This again further reveals that NASA faked the Moon
landings.
NASA now tell us about the difficulties of providing
radiation protection for the astronauts but the obvious
question is, didn't they do this 50 years ago for the Apollo
Missions and then the radiation was not a problem?
I think the only conclusion that one could sensibly make is
that the Apollo astronauts never travelled outside the
Earth's magnetosphere. Now NASA is faced with the
problem of supposedly repeating the missions to the Moon
without killing the astronauts. I am doubtful that the new
2024 target date to get men “back” on the Moon will slip
again. I am also personally very doubtful that humans could
travel into space with the present technology.

113

114

CHAPTER 6

VISIONS OF A MOON

“And nothing is, but what is not”
William Shakespeare, Macbeth

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

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

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

115

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

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

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

If NASA were to create a complete faked stage set on which
to film the Apollo footage, then they needed to have realistic
topographical detail of the landing sites in order to be
convincing. These detailed stereoscopic photographs from

116

the orbiter satellites provided the detailed image data with
which to create these training sets here on Earth.

Source David A. Kring: Cinder Lake Arizona
They used this data to construct several large scale models
of the Moon and much more detailed models of particular
areas of the Moon, notably the planned Apollo landing sites
in order to familiarise and train the astronauts. The success
of the hoax depended upon the accuracy of these models.
The images on the following pages were obtained from the
NASA archives and show some of the extremely large scale
models that NASA constructed based on the Lunar Orbiter
photographs (All photos shown are Source NASA).

117

Source: NASA Constructing Giant Moon Model
118

119

120

121

122

Front Screen Projection
I now invite you to watch a short movie. It is the opening
scene, “The Dawn of Man”, from Stanley Kubrick's
acclaimed movie “2001: A Space Odyssey” (App 6.03). Did
you notice anything?
No, I do not mean did you spot that the apes were really
humans dressed in furry suits and just pretending to be
apes. It is more about the scenery not the actors, so watch it
again.

Image 2001: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.
You will see that the picture appears to be in two separate
pieces, the foreground and the distant scenery beyond it.
You will see a horizontal line which separates the two, as
indicated here in this out-take by the black superimposed
line.
Here we have another example taken from the same movie,
again with the dividing line between the real foreground and

123

the projected background image shown in white.

Image 2001: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc.
The dividing line has been added to show the join more
clearly. Below this line is a real stage set, while above the
line we have a projected image. This line is often referred to
as the “Kubrick Horizontal” and is the indisputable
fingerprint signature of the Front Projection technique.
The technique of Front Screen Projection was invented by
Philip V. Palmquist who, while working at the 3M
Corporation, received a patent on the technology and also
won an Academy Award for the invention. It was first
experimented with shortly after the invention of Scotchlite
in 1949 and had appeared in feature films by 1963 when the
Japanese horror film Matango used it for its yacht scenes.
This technique was used by Stanley Kubrick in the making
of “2001: A Space Odyssey” and as we shall soon discover it
was later used extensively by NASA to fake the Apollo lunar
surface footage.

124

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

Note that Douglas Trumbull was the special effects
supervisor for Stanley Kubrick on the “2001: A Space
Odyssey” movie. We will encounter Douglas Trumbull again
later in our story.

Another explanation of Front Screen Projection is shown in
this video from Shanks FX PBS Digital Studios (App 6.05).

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

Image: Front Screen
Projection Schematic

125

Hopefully, we now all understand the importance of the
“Kubrick Horizontal” and its relationship to the Front
Screen Projection technique. If the “Kubrick Horizontal” can
be discerned in a photograph or video, then it is almost
always proof that the Front Screen Projection technique has
been used and the resulting scene must have been faked.
We can examine the Apollo photographs and videos, to look
for evidence of the Front Screen Projection technique being
employed.
Apollo and the Kubrick Horizontal
Now we will study some of the Apollo photographs and
examine them for the tell-tale fingerprint signature of the
Front Screen Projection process. First, we will examine a
NASA photograph taken from Apollo 17.

There is a clear “Kubrick Horizontal” in this photograph as
indicated by the white line in the following photograph.

126

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

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

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

127

separation between the front scenery and the distant
background.

View of Grand Canyon West Rim
This photograph could be mistakenly assumed to have a
“Kubrick Horizontal” but it is a genuine photograph.
However, such photographic compositions are very
exceptional and usually only occurs if you are situated on
some plateau which was certainly not the case on the Moon.
Here we have another example on the opposite page from
the Apollo 15 Mission which purportedly landed in the
Hadley-Apennine Region of high mountains.
Again, we see the clear fingerprint of Front Screen
Projection. This quite unmistakable “Kubrick Horizontal” is
clear indisputable evidence of the NASA fakery.

128

On occasions, they used a false “Kubrick Horizontal” in the
projected image presumably to try and disguise the real
“Kubrick Horizontal” for example look at this moonscape
taken by the camera on the Lunar Rover on Apollo 17.

In the above screenshot, you can see the real foreground and
the actual “Kubrick Horizontal” then above what appears to
be a second “Kubrick Horizontal” which is in fact just part of

129

the projected background. I have placed short black marks
at the edges to indicate the lines. It is used on several
missions but in my opinion rather than disguise the real
“Kubrick Horizontal” it just focuses your eye on it.

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

One thing to note is that the painted projected backgrounds
did slightly improve in later Apollo Missions as more
detailed shading was added to the painted backdrops but
even so the backgrounds are still quite plain and featureless.

I did mention above that the Apollo 11 panoramic
photographs did not appear to have involved the Front
Screen Projection technique. It could well be that as it was
the first Apollo Mission which was chosen to land in a
relatively flat area of the Moon, the Sea of Tranquillity, then
perhaps they concluded that there were no distant
mountains to show.

However, an analysis of the Apollo 11 photography by
Andreas Märki posted on aulis.com (App 6.07) conclusively
proves that the photography cannot have been carried out
on the Moon but must have been taken on some studio set.
The author concludes:

“In a real environment, this limited visibility would only be
possible from an 8,600 metre-high platform – with no

130

visible mountains in the neighbourhood for 170 km. All
this fits with neither to the Moon in general nor to the Sea
of Tranquillity in particular.

But it does correspond perfectly with these images having
being created in a studio environment where one can only
see a limited surface area – the equivalent of the
illuminated foreground in the re-creations.

Therefore this study concludes that these Apollo 11 still
photographic images and the ‘live’ TV coverage must have
been taken in a studio on Earth”

Again we have another undeniable proof that the Apollo 11
photography and supposedly “live” TV transmissions were
not made from the Moon.

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

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

131

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

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

The size of the stage has also been estimated using a method
of stereoscopic parallax by Oleg Oleynik posted on the
aulis.com website (App 6.09). The method is based on the
fact that with stereoscopic images the background should
not show any parallax movement but he demonstrates that
it does, so the conclusion must be that these cannot be real
photographs taken on the Moon. He estimates the distance

132

on the Apollo 15 Mission to the mountain range as being less
than 300 metres and not the supposed 5 km if the
photograph was real.

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

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

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

133

“The Apollo 15 photographic record contradicts the
stereoscopic parallax verification method. The apparent
change in the relative positions of objects by moving the
camera when the camera angles are separated by several
tens of cm show that:

• the distance to distant objects such as mountains is
not tens of kilometres but is no more
than a few hundred metres

• the landscape is not continuous, but with clear lines
of separation

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

Thus, based on the above examples, this study concludes
that the Apollo 15 photographic record does NOT depict
real lunarscapes with distant backgrounds located more
than a kilometre away from the camera.

These pictures were, without doubt, taken in a studio set up
to 300 metres in size. A complex panorama mimicking the
lunarscape shows degrees of movement, such as horizontal
and vertical changes to give an impression of imaginary
distance to the objects and perspective”

In conclusion, the detailed analysis of the Apollo Moon
photographs by Oleg Oleynik is just one more irrefutable
proof that the Apollo Moon Missions were totally faked.

Analysis of the Moonscapes
There has been much criticism of the Moonscapes shown in
the NASA photographs and videos. Basically, they do not
look very real but more like poorly painted images which are

134

bland with no real detail. We have already seen the telltale
evidence of the “Kubrick Horizontal” in almost all of these
videos and photographs but let us look in more detail to
confirm our suspicions.
First of all, we will examine a couple of the panoramas taken
by the TV camera mounted on the Lunar Module for Apollo
16 posted on YouTube by pro-NASA “BertieSlack” (App
6.10). Again we see the same nonsensical bland featureless
scenery which NASA hopes will convince us that we are
actually seeing the Moon. I confess that I have never visited
the Moon but to my mind seeing the photographs of the
Moon it should look more like this fabricated imagery
produced by the “DevTon Studio Team” (App 6.11) as in the
following screen capture.

Source: DevTon Studio Team
Instead, NASA wants us to believe that this panorama as
shown by the TV camera on Apollo 16 was actually taken on
the Moon. A total featureless landscape which is devoid of

135

any significant detail. It shows an almost smooth surface
almost empty of any rock debris and craters.

Source: Extracted from NASA TV Panorama
If you think that I am being unfairly too selective in showing
the above image take a look at the full panorama.

Source: NASA Apollo 16 TV camera panoramas
We have further evidence, if it were indeed needed, in this
excellent video by Ted Aranda posted on the
“ChemTrailsMN” website (App 6.12). Unfortunately, the
video is a full 4 hours 43 minutes long but thankfully I do
not ask you to watch all of it as I have extracted the relevant

136

parts of the video into several separate videos with the
author's permission. Having said that, if you have the time
then it is well worth watching the complete video.

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

Apollo 14 Landing Site (App 6.13)
He first comments on the featureless landscapes devoid of
any significant craters or boulders that are claimed by NASA
as being on the Moon. He then goes on to look in detail at
the Apollo 14 landing site.

Apollo 14 landed in the Fra Mauro Formation which is a
hilly area with hills several hundreds of feet high. He
explains that one stated objective of this Apollo Mission was
to visit a crater known as Cone Crater. He provides evidence
that there is no such crater and that the image has been
doctored with this non-existent crater. By examining pre-
Apollo images of the Moon he finds that there is no evidence
of Cone Crater. I personally do not understand why NASA
should have needed to do this.

He examines the EVA to Cone Crater and notes some
strange reasons given by the astronauts why they never
found the “alleged” Cone Crater. He also notes that the
panorama taken close to the supposed Cone Crater shows a
distinct “Kubrick Horizontal” across the whole of the
panorama.

137

Source: Extract from App 6.12 panorama

Given the distinct “Kubrick Horizontal” in this Apollo 14
photograph and video, there is no question that it is fake
and definitely not taken on the Moon. There cannot be a
“Kubrick Horizontal” as they are not on a plateau but on the
side of a mountain.

Apollo 15 Landing Site (App 6.14)
Apollo 15 supposedly landed at the northern end of the
Apennine Mountains close to Hadley Rille. The Apennine
region contains some of the tallest mountains on the Moon.
Ted Aranda show us photographs of mountains here on
Earth of similar size to those in the Apollo 15 landing area
on the Moon as a comparison of what we should see.

He notes that Mount Hadley is 4.5 km tall so taller than
Mount Everest here on Earth which is 4.2 km high but what
do we see in the Apollo imagery is only a grey featureless
rounded bump of a hill. Ted Aranda is perhaps more
accurate to call it a featureless “blob”. Also, note again the

138

distinct “Kubrick Horizontal” in the following photograph.

Source NASA: Fake Mount Hadley 17 miles away
He goes on the examine the even worse photographs of
Hadley Rille and St George Crater which are verging on the
comical. There is absolutely no question that these videos
and photographs were not taken on the Moon.
What truly amazes me is that sensible people can be so
indoctrinated to view these photographs or videos and

139

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

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

Apollo 16 Landing Site (App 6.15)
This mission supposedly landed close to the Descartes
Mountains. Ted Aranda compares the NASA satellite
photograph of the area with a pre-Apollo satellite image and
concludes that the NASA released photograph has been
doctored. He notes fourteen discrepancies between the two
photographs. I am not entirely convinced by his argument
as the pre-Apollo satellite photograph is of an extremely low
resolution.

On Apollo 16 the astronauts had the Lunar Rover so were
able to cover greater distances in their EVAs. The astronauts
supposedly drove right up to the edge of North Ray Crater
which has a diameter of 950 m and is 270 m deep but this is
what NASA wants us to believe is the crater together with a
close-up of the crater.

140

Source NASA: North Ray Crater Apollo 16

Source NASA: Close-Up of North Ray Crater Apollo 16
The far side of the crater is supposed to be one kilometre
away but you can still see tiny rocks on the far side. There is
no way that the human eye could resolve the small or even
relatively large rocks at a one kilometre distance.

141

It is also supposed to be almost one kilometre wide. Clearly,
the NASA artist had a problem with scale. Ted Aranda
makes a valid comparison with Meteor Crater in Arizona,
USA which has similar dimensions although only 60% as
deep as the North Ray Crater.

Source www.zmescience.com: Meteor Crater Arizona
There is no comparison between the pathetic NASA attempt
to depict North Ray Crater and a real crater. See in Meteor
Crater how it would be impossible to resolve individual
rocks on the far side of the crater.
He concludes that the evidence presented by NASA of the
Apollo 16 Mission is pure and simple fakery. It is just one
more proof that the Apollo Missions were deviously faked by
NASA.
Apollo 17 Landing Site (App 6.16)
This mission supposedly landed in the Taurus-Littrow valley
area adjacent to the Sea of Serenity. Again, Ted Aranda
expresses his doubts about the authenticity of the NASA
photograph of the landing site. It may well be that this is
true but the pre-Apollo photograph he uses for comparison

142

has a very low resolution, so it is hard to discern the detail.
The astronauts supposedly visited Camelot Crater which is
about half the size of Meteor Crater that we discussed in the
Apollo 16 landing site examination above. This is the NASA
photograph showing the crater supposedly taken by the
astronauts.

Source NASA: Apollo 17 Camelot Crater
Ted Aranda notes the same problems that he saw in Apollo
16, the crater shown is far too small to be half a kilometre
across. You can judge the scale from the Lunar Rover parked
on the left. Also, note once again the “Kubrick Horizontal” in
this panorama and the fact that again you can see individual
rocks on the far side of the crater.
We also have an investigation by Colin Rourke in a paper
posted on the Aulis.com website (App 6.17). In this analysis,
he looks at three photographs from Apollo 15 showing Mons
Hadley. The fact that the outline of Mons Hadley is identical
in all three photographs even though they were taken from

143

different angles leads him to conclude that the photographs
must have been faked against the same backdrop.

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

Problems Orbiting the Moon
If you need further proof that the Apollo Missions were a
hoax then read on. I am indebted to Pascal Xavier for much
of the painstaking analysis provided in this section. The
Command Module, with the Lunar Module still attached,
enters Moon orbit in preparation for the Moon landing. The
two craft separate, the Lunar Module descends to the Moon
while the Command Module stays in orbit. It is this orbit of
the Command Module, which is well documented and
shown in the video by NASA, that further exposes the hoax.

First, we need to familiarise ourselves with a little science.
When a spacecraft is in orbit around the Moon the
spacecraft is subject to two competing forces. The first is the
gravitational attraction between the spacecraft and the
Moon, which pulls the spacecraft downwards towards the

144

Moon's surface. The second is the centrifugal force caused
by the spacecraft travelling at speed in orbit around the
Moon. Let's have a quick look at these forces.

The first force gravity diminishes according to the square of
the distance as given by Newton's law on universal
gravitation first published on 5 July 1687.

m1m2
F = G ------

r2

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

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

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

It is these two competing forces which affect the orbital
dynamics. Note that as the spacecraft's orbit gets closer to

145

the Moon then the gravity increases and therefore to
maintain the balanced forces the speed of orbit needs to be
increased in order to increase the centrifugal force.
The question is what would the Command Module look like
when orbiting the Moon? Like this?

Well no, that is the way you may have seen it in diagrams,
cartoons or in movies. It cannot orbit like this due to the
gravitational pull on the centre of mass which would cause it
to adopt a vertical position.
In the case of the Command Module it would orbit in a
vertical configuration either with the nose down or like this
with its nose up away from the Moon's surface;

Or like this with nose down towards Moon;

146

It should be either nose down towards the Moon or nose up
away from the Moon but which one?

So let us look at the detailed masses of the three
components of the Command Module: the Crew Capsule,

the Service Module and the Rocket Skirt. The corresponding
weights of each component are as follows:

Crew Capsule 12,250 lbs
Service Module 35,000 lbs

Rocket skirt 220 lbs

147

We can clearly see that the centre of mass is such that the
spacecraft would orientate itself with its nose down towards
the Moon due to the pull of gravity on the centre of mass
shown by the centre of mass line. This is similar to what we
saw with the Earth tidally locking the Moon.
So what we know is that the Apollo Command Module
would orbit the Moon with its nose down, that is simple
science.
But look at this NASA photograph of the Apollo 11 CSM
supposedly orbiting the Moon, it is clearly shown orbiting
with the capsule nose upwards away from the Moon.

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

148

However, it could be that NASA changed its mind since 1969
and perhaps considers the Command Module should orbit
with its nose down as shown in this animation video (App
6.19 at 40 seconds) from the NASA Scientific Visualization
Studio published in 2018.
It had to be in this orientation to enable the astronauts to
take the now iconic photographs of the Earthrise over the
Moon. Had they been orbiting “nose up” as shown in 1969
they would have been staring out into space and would have
not seen the Earth rise over the Moon. All we can surmise is
that NASA was somehow confused in 1967 about the
dynamics of the situation but eager to correct it later.
If we need further proof that NASA got the video of the
Apollo 11 Command Module orbiting the Moon “nose up” as
shown in the video (see App 6.16) then we need to look at
the photographs taken by Michael Collins as he orbited the
Moon in the CSM.

Source NASA: Earth Rise from Apollo 11 CSM
149

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

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

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

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

Once again we have conclusive proof that this video is a total
fake and was not taken on the Moon. Whoever devised this
fake video sequence certainly did not understand basic
orbital mechanics. Some Moon landing sceptics even

150