The Apollo Moon Hoax

suggest that these inconsistencies were deliberately added
by “whistleblowers” wishing to expose the deceit.

The Lunar Module
The Apollo Lunar Module more properly called the Lunar
Excursion Module (LEM) but also mostly referred to simply
as the Lunar Module (LM) was NASA's design for the
spacecraft to land on the Moon. It needed to make the
powered descent to the Moon, to protect the astronauts
while they were on the Moon and finally to bring the
astronauts back to the Command and Service Module (CSM)
which had been patiently orbiting the Moon. It was the most
complicated and sophisticated spacecraft ever built for the
Apollo Missions. It was an entirely independent spacecraft
with its own rocket motors, fuel, batteries, life support
system and navigation equipment. Now there a few
elements to this spacecraft and warrant our attention. It was
the most improbable looking spacecraft that you could
imagine. You only have to look at it and wonder about the
design specification.

Source NASA:
Apollo 11
Lunar
Module
on the Moon

151

It was perhaps the most crucial element of the entire Apollo
Mission as it performed some of the most difficult
operations. It was built by Gruman Aircraft who
encountered great difficulties in its design so much so that it
missed its planned first flight on Apollo 4 and instead first
flew on the unmanned Apollo 5 flight.
The design of the LEM has attracted much criticism and
even hilarity as can be witnessed by these two hilarious
YouTube videos from Antonio Subirats (App 6.20 and 6.21).
We also have a similar critical video from Ted Aranda on the
Lunar Module (App 6.22). He concludes that the haphazard
nature of its construction looks like a bad high school
project. It has also been described as a homeless shelter
after a hurricane. Is it feasible that NASA, who could not
construct a Lunar Module that could successfully work on
Earth, would send the astronauts in a totally untested
spacecraft for them to try out on the Moon? No, it is not.
Take a look at this enlarged view of the USA decal on the
Lunar Module.

152

Amazingly the USA flag decal appears to have been attached
with some form of sticky tape.
At first, you must assume that this was attached by the
astronauts when they were on the Moon but no it flew like
this all the way from the Earth as can be seen in this
enlarged view of the Apollo 16 Lunar Module after
separation from the CSM already with the USA Flag decal
attached with sticky tape.

Source NASA: Apollo Photograph AS16-118-18897
153

It is beyond comprehension that the USA Flag decal would
be simply attached by sticky tape and flown all the way to
the Moon without coming loose or falling off.
The gold “Quality Street” type paper is claimed to be needed
to insulate the Lunar Module from the heat generated by the
Sun. The question is, why only a part of the descent stage is
so protected and there is no such protection for the ascent
stage. Both the descent stage and the ascent stage both
contained volatile fuel and batteries so one would expect
both to be covered with the gold Mylar but they are not. Also
if heat reflection was a goal then why are some parts of the
ascent stage covered with some dark “cardboard looking“
material. Take a look at this sophisticated spacecraft as it
comes back from the lunar surface to join the Command and
Service Module in orbit.

Source NASA: Lunar Module Returns from the Moon
154

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

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

Source NASA: Apollo 15 Lunar Module

155

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

Source NASA: Enlarged View of Rocket Skirt
The Lunar Module does not look as though it was in any way
capable of being landed on the Moon and the rocket on the
descent stage does not appear to have been used. However,
these facts in themselves do not prove that the Moon
Landings were faked but it may give you ample cause to
wonder.
Stage Lighting
As mentioned above the stage set would have required a
higher degree of lighting than normal as the videos were

156

filmed in slow-motion at 144 frames per second which
requires higher levels of lighting as the camera shutter is not
opened as long and therefore collects less light. This extra
bright lighting would tend to wash out some of the detail so
it is likely that additional spotlighting of certain areas was
required.

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

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

157

If we adjust the brightness and contrast of the photograph
then we see unmistakable pools of artificial infill lighting.
A similar aberration can be seen on NASA photograph
AS11-40-5902 which again shows Buzz Aldrin standing by
the Lunar Module on Apollo 11. Again we see clear evidence
of the infill lighting.

Source NASA: AS11-40-5902 Buzz Aldrin on the Moon
There many other strange things about the Apollo
photographs which give us cause for concern. After Apollo 11
landed astronaut Neil Armstrong took several photographs
of the Moon's surface to the horizon.
The Apollo 11 Lunar Module landed basically on a flat part
of the Moon in the Sea of Tranquillity. The horizon in such a
place given the curvature of the Moon and the height of the
camera should be about 2.5 kilometres away.
Now take a look at one of Neil Armstrong's photographs
NASA reference AS11-40-5857HR.

158

Source NASA: Apollo 11 Photo AS11-40-5857HR
Does that horizon look 2.5 km away? If we look closely we
can even identify what appear to be small rocks right on the
horizon.

Source NASA: Enlargement of area on AS11-40-5857HR
159

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

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

The LRO made a 3-Dimensional map of the Moon's surface
at 100-meter resolution with 98.2% coverage (excluding
polar areas in deep shadow), also supposedly including 0.5
m resolution images of the Apollo landing sites (App 6.23).

It has always been claimed, by both sides of the debate, that
the ultimate proof that the Apollo Missions were real would
be that the artefacts left on the Moon are still there and
could be photographed. NASA claims that they have done
this with the LRO photographs of the Apollo landings sites. I
covered this subject extensively in my previous book in
Chapter 20 “Looking Back” and will not repeat that
examination of the evidence here. Suffice it to say that there
are many problems with these photographs identified by the
sceptics. I will let Jarrah White sum up the reaction of the
Apollo sceptics (App 6.24).

160

What I want to concentrate on here are the trails left by the
astronaut's footsteps and the tracks left by the Lunar Rover
clearly displayed in this LRO photograph of the Apollo 17
landing site. I will deal only with Apollo 17 but similar
observations relate to all six landing sites.

Source NASA: LRO image of Apollo 17 landing site
Now, NASA had filmed this landing site as the ascent stage
of the Lunar Module blasted-off from the Moon back in 1972
(App 6.25). The actual film of the landing site taken by the
16mm DAC camera mounted on the ascent stage starts at
about 3 minutes into the video. Do you see any trails?
Now after the “doctored” photographs from the LRO were
released in 2009 then the above video was “enhanced” by
some magical process to produce a new version with a “re-
oriented perspective” in 2013 (App 6.26). In this video, you
can now clearly see the trails. An even clearer version was
incorporated into a new 2011 version of “The Shoulders of
Giants“ video first released in 1973 (App 6.27).
You can compare the original video of the blast-off with this
new “enhanced” version in this comparative screenshot.

161

Source NASA: Apoll0 17 comparison

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

I think the chronology of what happened can be
summarised as follows.

• NASA was under great pressure to try to prove the
Moon landings due to the many anomalies identified
by the sceptics

• This led to the LRO exercise in 2009 and the
intention to photograph the Apollo landing sites and
the artefacts left by the astronauts thus proving it was
real

• The LRO photographs were falsely “doctored” to
show the evidence then released in 2009

• NASA then needed to “rework” the original videos to
also show the trails in 2011-2013 and thus complete
the evidence

There can be no question that this was more fakery. Why
wait until after the LRO to “remaster” the original videos?

162

This could have been done at any time in the previous 40
years. The LRO evidence rather than proving Apollo was
real has only identified more fakery by NASA

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

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

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

The Lunar Rover, Models and Mannequins
Before we start on this subject, I invite you to watch the
NASA video from Apollo 16 showing the Lunar Rover
driving around on the Moon (App 6.31). Note that this is the

163

original “unstabilised” version, it was later stabilised to
eliminate the camera shake. There are two techniques being
used in this video, a distance shot of the Lunar Rover
driving around presumably taken by the other astronaut and
an onboard shot taken from a camera on the Lunar Rover.
Many sceptics have suggested that this looks like a model
remote control car with a dummy astronaut mannequin.

Leonid Konovalov who is an Associate Professor in the
Camera Department of the Russian State University of
Cinematography (VGIK) has posted a paper on the
Aulis.com website dealing with this topic (App 6.32). In
analysing the video he notes:

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

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

164

NASA: Note drivers arm is lowered in training video

He also notes the ubiquitous “Kubrick Horizontal” that we
have discussed earlier and indicates its location.

Konovalov : Indication of the “Kubrick Horizontal”

165

He has a video which shows how this sequence was filmed
and why they included the deliberate shaking of the camera
to help disguise the fact that it was a model with a
mannequin (App 6.33).
The second sequence in the LRV video is intended to
indicate that is was shot from the onboard camera on the
LRV but is likely to have been taken with a “motion control”
camera which was a technique developed by special effects
expert John Dykstra. Such a system was used in the making
of the sci-fi movie “2001: A Space Odyssey” which we
mentioned earlier.
Konovalov states that a model set was used to film this
sequence and he shows an indication of the likely set-up. He
goes on to explain why a scale model was probably preferred
to a full-scale set up using actual astronauts.

Konovalov: Studio layout for Apollo 16 scale model rover sequence

166

Konovalov provides a very interesting overview of special
effects cinematography and I encourage you to read the full
article.
Finally, he concludes:
“It is abundantly clear after studying every aspect of the
Apollo investigation that the Apollo lunar surface images
and the TV and films were faked and generated in a studio.
Moreover, in parallel with the live action filming of the
actor-astronauts in a full-sized studio, many of the
Hasselblad still images and some film sequences were
scenes with scale mannequins and models photographed
on miniature studio film sets. ”
He refers to a video which is an interview with specialist
cinematographer Vsevolod Yakubovich who is the Director
of Photography in the acclaimed Mosfilm Studios in Russia
(App 6.34). Yakubovich was also of the opinion that the
sequence was in fact a “miniature mannequin” seated on a
“radio-controlled model lunar rover” in this particular
Apollo film footage. That seems to be the consensus view of
these experts in cinematography.

167

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

We have clearly detected the telltale signature of the Front
Screen Projection technique in almost all of the Apollo
photographs and videos.

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

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

We examined the haphazard design of the Lunar Module
and its contradictory attempts at shielding from the heat of
the Sun. Furthermore, NASA was unable to build a Lunar
Module here on Earth that worked reliably and successfully.
It is not a matter of the different gravitational forces on the
Earth or the Moon. It is simply a matter of the dynamic
control of a vehicle balancing on a single rocket. The
technology at the time could not achieve the minute control

168

required. In fact, it is hard to even contemplate that the
Apollo Lunar Module is in any way a sophisticated
engineered spacecraft.

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

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

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

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

169

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

Apollo
Simulators

170

CHAPTER 7
THE SUNS OF APOLLO

"A great cause of the night is lack of the sun”
William Shakespeare, As You Like It

NASA state that they took no other sources of artificial
lighting with them to the Moon. So the only source of light
that the astronauts had on the Moon was the direct light
from the Sun.
The Apollo Sun
Hey, Houston now we have a problem with the Apollo Sun.
How would the Sun look from the Moon? Well, we can
assume basically the same as it does from the Earth. The
Sun is the same distance to both the Earth and the Sun,
within a fraction of a percent. So go outside, if it is sunny, if
not wait until it is, or take my word for the following.

Image Pascal Xavier: The Earth View of the Sun
171

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

Source NASA AS17-134-20411: Apollo 17 Sun
The Apollo “Sun” has a precise round outline with no
radiating spokes but surrounded by concentric rings of light.
This is not at all what we would expect to see.
I can hear the pro-NASA Fan Club protesting that the Sun
when viewed from the Earth is through our atmosphere and

172

there in no atmosphere on the Moon so we should expect it
to look different. Is that correct?
Let us look at some photographs taken of the Sun in space
where there is no atmosphere.

Source NASA: Two views of Sun from low Earth orbit
These two views of the Sun look very much like what we see

173

through our atmosphere, an imprecise outline and with very
distinct radiating spokes. If we compare the two images we
can clearly see the difference.

Left real Sun Right the Apollo “sun”

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

Of course, the simple answer is that the Apollo “sun” is not
photographed from the Moon. NASA-X needed to simulate
a “sun” on the Moon stage set.

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

The Reflection of the Apollo Sun
Take a spoon outside and view the Sun as a reflection on the
curved back of a spoon. Do you see how large the reflection
is in the convex back of the spoon? About a maximum of

174

half an inch in diameter depending on the actual curvature
of your spoon, with radiating spokes, like a star, after all the
Sun is a star. You can see it on any convex shiny surface, for
example, a motorcycle helmet. So we know roughly how the
Sun should look when reflected on the Moon.

You may be wondering why I ask you to do this. Well, as I
said the Sun is about the same distance from the Moon, so
we should expect a similar size of the reflection in a convex
surface on the Moon to be also about half an inch diameter
with the tell-tale radiating spokes. The convex surfaces we
have on the Moon are the face visors on the bubble helmets
worn by the astronauts.

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

It varies tremendously if you view the videos, and can be up
to 3 to 4 inches in diameter, not the half inch or so that we
would expect and it has no radiating spokes. He deduces,
from this, that it must be a studio light, possibly with a large
parabolic reflector.

He also draws our attention to an Apollo 15 video clip, in
which you can see the size of the reflected “sun” decrease
with a decrease in the brightness of the scene. He concludes
that it is impossible for the reflection of the real Sun to
change size and that studio lighting must have been used,
which in his opinion firmly places the filming squarely in a
studio set here on Earth.

175

Sun size changes in 15 seconds

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

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

Next, one more observation from Marcus Allen, not just one

176

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

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

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

177

This next presentation from “Hunchbacked” examines
photographs of the Lunar Module at the start of the mission,
and at the end of the mission (App 7.09). One would
naturally expect the shadow of the module to have changed.
The evidence from the photographs indicates that the Sun
has not moved in the sky as it should have done, so we
appear to have one more anomaly regarding our Apollo
“sun”.
Well, I think we have had enough of the Apollo “suns” for
today. We have clear evidence of fakery in the Apollo “suns”
in that the reflected “suns” do not look at all like the real
Sun should be reflected. The instances of seeing two “suns”
can only be explained by additional spotlights or reflectors.

178

CHAPTER 8

DEFYING GRAVITY

“Wisely and slow;
they stumble that run fast”
William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

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

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

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

We have gravity here on Earth as you observe when you
179

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

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

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

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

180

under Earth's gravity.

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

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

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

Clearly, NASA was well aware that the gravity in the Apollo

181

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

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

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

This pendulum analysis is given by NASA and several pro-
NASA devotees as “irrefutable” proof that the astronauts
were on the Moon. It is only “irrefutable” proof if you

182

staunchly believe that Apollo went to the Moon and cannot
imagine how NASA could have faked it. Well, NASA did
fake it and I will explain how they did it in Chapter 12.

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

There is another pendulum in the NASA videos which I
suspect was unexpected and therefore not faked by NASA.
This occurs on the Apollo 15 Mission when astronaut David
Scott ran passed the flag and it started to swing. First, take a
look at the incident in this video posted by Joe Rogan (App
8.06). Also, we have Jarrah White with something to say
about these flapping flags in this two-part video series (App
8.07)

This moving flag instance has been the subject of much
discussion relating to whether there is an atmosphere and
the astronaut disturbed the air as he passed it thereby
showing that it was filmed in a studio on Earth. However,
that is another discussion which was covered in depth in my
previous book (you mean you didn't rush out and buy it?).
What we are interested here is not what caused the flag to
move but HOW the flag moved.

The disturbance of the flag irrespective of how it was caused,
starts the flag to sway back and forth. The leading edge of
the flag is acting like a quasi-pendulum in that it displays
simple harmonic motion so as with the other NASA
pendulums it is possible to analyse its movement. This is
done in the video from “Steve the Chemist” (App 8.08). In

183

this video “Steve” proves conclusively that the swaying flag
is definitely in the gravitational force of the Earth.

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

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

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

More Faked Gravity
NASA also included many jumping astronauts no doubt to
enable the gravity to be calculated by its faithful supporters.
In order to give the effect of being in lesser gravity, they had
the astronauts suspended on counter-balanced wires and

184

used various slow-motion techniques (more of this in
Chapter 12). There is one famous scene which shows
astronaut John Young being photographed by fellow
astronaut Charles Duke on the Apollo 16 Mission as John
Young makes a jump and gives a salute.

It is often referred to as “The Big Navy Salute” watch this
video posted by “davewatcher” (App 8.09). Pay particular
attention to the actual jump sequence and note how the
Moon dust falls from the astronaut's feet, it appears to
strangely accelerate towards the ground. It looks totally
unnatural.

This “Jump Salute” video has been analysed by “Steve the
Chemist” in this video posted on YouTube (App 8.10).
“Steve” observes that there is something rather strange
about this jump video and compares it with a similar jump
of a volleyball player. He maintains that physics dictates
that the astronaut would fall back to the ground together

with the dirt.
However, we do not
see this but what we
do see is the astronaut
still rising while the
dirt falls back to the
ground. Physics tell us
that all objects must
fall at the same rate
and at the same time
irrespective of what
gravitational force
they are both under.

Source NASA: The Big Navy Jump Salute Apollo 16

185

The astronaut is making a small jump perhaps of 9 to 10
inches, in fact, the jump is the same height as the dirt goes.
Then the astronaut is pulled up by the counter-balanced
wire to complete his “jump”. The giveaway to this is the fact
that if you watch closely the slow-downed version you see
that the backpack rises before the astronaut which is clear
evidence that he is being pulled up by a wire attached to his
backpack.

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

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

186

anyone who dares to disagree with their point of view.

However, Shane Killian is not happy to leave it there but has
a propensity to embarrass himself further with this video
(App 8.12) in which he wants to prove that NASA were
clever enough to fake the lunar gravity for the astronaut
falling.

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

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

I think in response to Killian's videos, “Steve the Chemist”
has one final attempt to explain the science lying behind the
concept of gravity for those pro-NASA fanboys who seem to
be confused on the matter (App 8.13).

It is simple, if two bodies are propelled upwards at the same
time but one of them comes down later than the other then

187

it can only be that some external force has been applied, in
this case, the wire supporting the astronaut, that is simple
indisputable physics.

Screen shot from “Steve the Chemist”'s video
“Steve the Chemist” compares the jump of a beach volley
ball player with the astronaut. The above image shows the
situation at the height of the jump. It clearly shows that the
sand beneath the astronaut has already fallen whereas it
should be right there with his feet as shown by the beach
volley ball player. This can only mean that some additional
upward force is being applied to the astronaut, for example
a counter-balanced wire support.
You can see what I consider to be the ultimate proof of
NASA faking gravity in this video (see App 12.37) which we
will discuss in Chapter 12.

188

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

I personally recall a magazine article sometime in the 1960s
about the Moon and its much lower gravity than here on
Earth. The article highlighted the fact that humans would be
super-athletes on the Moon due to this lesser gravitational
force. On Earth an average athlete can do a standing vertical
jump of say 2 feet, so they postulated that on the Moon man
could do a standing vertical jump at least 12 feet high, or
maybe 6 feet high in a cumbersome spacesuit.

Similarly, a man could do a standing long jump of 4 feet on
Earth so they expected him to long jump at least 12 feet on
the Moon. I, and I imagine many others, couldn't wait to see
this display of super-prowess, our comic book super-heroes
finally brought to life. Naturally the astronauts were not
kitted out for athletics with Nike trainers and shorts, but
nonetheless, they would be able to amaze us with their new
powers. These athletic super-powers were even confidently
predicted in 1964 by NASA (App 8.14).

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

189

they should be much stronger on the Moon.

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

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

Summary
So what did we learn in this chapter?

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

190

We saw that the “Big Navy Salute” video was inconsistent
with physical laws and showed clear evidence of the
astronaut being pulled up by a wire. This was shown by the
fact that the backpack rose before the astronaut. We saw the
dirt fall before the astronaut which is impossible as all
objects must fall at the same time. You cannot have the dirt
falling before the astronaut.
Finally, we observed that the astronauts were not capable of
producing any jumps higher than they could on Earth and
when they did attempt it we had absolute proof of them
being yanked up by wires.
All of these facts show clearly the videos were faked by
NASA in an attempt to convince us that the astronauts were
on the Moon and subject to the lesser Moon gravity.
Unfortunately, for NASA and it's dedicated fan base the
deceit is clearly revealed.

191

I hear you knocking !

192

CHAPTER 9

SILENT SOUNDS

“Give every man thy ear,
but few thy voice"

William Shakespeare, Hamlet

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

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

193

people.

Not Enough Sound
First of all, no sound when I would expect to hear it, what
does this mean? This occurs when the astronauts are in their
spacecraft with the noise of the rocket engines blasting
away, but they are still able to talk crystal clearly and there
is no audible sound from the engine.

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

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

NASA explains this by stating that the astronauts are
wearing their spacesuits, so the sound of the rocket engine is
not heard because the astronaut's microphone is well
shielded from the outside sound. The only thing you hear, in
addition to the astronauts and mission control, is a slight
amount of static. Some Moon landing sceptics say that it is
not possible that they were wearing spacesuits. The logic
being that in order to handle the computer controls which
guide the descent, then the astronauts need to push buttons
on a small computer keypad. The keys on the Apollo

194

computer keyboard were about twice the size of those on a
standard desktop computer keyboard. I suggest that you try
to type your next email wearing gardening gloves to get the
idea.

You may wonder how when your life depends on it, are you
really going to chance on hitting the wrong button and
bringing your Moon holiday to a sudden end. The sceptics
are certain that the astronauts were not wearing their
spacesuits. They also say that, whenever they see astronauts
inside the lunar lander, they are not wearing their
spacesuits. So the debate seems to hinge on whether the
astronauts were wearing their spacesuits or not, the sceptics
say no, but I am not so sure.

The Apollo Flight Plan did call for the astronauts to be
suited up in their spacesuits for the Lunar Module landing,
so if they did follow the flight plan, then they were wearing
their spacesuits (App 9.06). This was a standard procedure
as a safety precaution in case the Lunar Module's outer skin
was damaged in the landing. This is also stated in the video
at 9:38 (App 9.07).

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

The sceptics also say that there is a very similar situation
with the take-off from the Moon. In this case, the astronauts
are stood immediately by the side of the 3,000 lbs-force

195

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

I expect that you may be inclined to go with NASA on this
one. If the astronauts followed the flight plan and we have
no evidence to suggest that they didn't, then they were
wearing their spacesuits, and consequently, the rocket
engine noise would probably not be heard in the voice
transmissions.

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

In some NASA videos, it is possible to identify actions by the
astronauts in which a distinct sound can be clearly heard,
which shouldn't be possible if they are really on the Moon.
We will start with a video by “Daniella'S” from the Apollo 16
mission (App 9.11). The astronaut is shown lifting and
closing a lid on a container on the Lunar Rover and there is
a distinct sound. Later in the video, you can even hear the
astronauts footsteps as he shuffles in the lunar dust.

196

Similarly, in the video from “Streetcap1” in which the
hammer sound is clearly audible (App 9.12). On the Moon
with no medium to transmit the sound then it should not be
possible to hear any sound.
The question of sound is also covered exhaustively by Jet
Wintzer (App 9.13). He looks in detail at the question of
sound being heard in the Apollo mission videos and the
acknowledgement of this by NASA. The incident of the
hammer blow is mentioned in the transcript in the Apollo
Surface Journal. The contorted answer from NASA is that
the sound was transmitted through the astronaut's gloves,
into his suit, through the oxygen atmosphere in his suit, and
picked up by his internal microphone.

Source NASA: Bean Hammers in Pole Apollo 12
The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal states this;
“What seems likely is that, when Gene hits the rock, the
hammer rebounds against the palm of the pressurised

197

glove creating a sound wave in the suit loud enough to be
picked up by the microphone at Gene's lips. In brief, the
suit acts like a drum”.

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

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

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

Unfortunately for NASA, the photograph shown was of the
very act of hammering in the flagpole which Jet Wintzer had
identified as causing the sound. In August 2011, the page
suddenly disappeared, presumably removed by NASA, but

198

with no explanation. One needs to ponder why?

Source NASA: Lunar Science for Kids, Now Deleted
NASA's statement that the astronaut's spacesuits acted like
a sound drum, even if that is plausible, is absolutely
disproved by Wintzer. He identifies a significant incident in
the Apollo 15 video footage as astronaut James Irwin throws
a metal band into the air, which hits the Lunar Module, and
makes a distinct sound (see App 9.13 at time 8:36).
This act totally negates the reasoning given by NASA for
hearing the hammer blows “because the spacesuit acted like
a drum”, as in this case there is no contact between the
astronaut and the source of the sound.
Summary
So let's recap on what we have discovered. The first
suggested anomaly of not hearing any sound of the rocket
noise from the lunar lander at descent or lift-off could be a
misunderstanding on the part of the sceptics, in that they
assume that the astronauts were not wearing their

199

spacesuits. The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal is clear on this
matter, the astronauts would be wearing spacesuits if they
followed the correct procedures. If they were wearing their
spacesuits, then the sound of the rocket may well be
shielded from their in-helmet microphones.

The second suggested anomaly is more challenging to
explain. The video evidence is unambiguous in that distinct
sounds can be heard when they should not have been any
sound. The explanation provided by NASA that the
spacesuits acted like a drum to transmit the sound to the
astronaut's internal microphone is proved false by Jet
Wintzer in the James Irwin metal band throwing incident.
The very fact that NASA removed the webpage for kids
suggests that NASA may have something to hide. Also, the
paucity of the pro-NASA believer's contributions on this
subject is equally telling.

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

As Jet Wintzer comments, “this could be the smoking gun”
and he is certainly correct. The “James Irwin metal band
throwing incident” is clear irrefutable proof of the NASA
fakery. There is no other feasible explanation and
significantly no comments from the pro-NASA lobby.

200