The Apollo Moon Hoax

CHAPTER 10

DIMINISHED TECHNOLOGY

“My dull brain was wrought with things forgotten”
William Shakespeare, Macbeth

At the time when President Kennedy made his famous “Man
on the Moon” speech to Congress on 25 May 1961, only one
American had been briefly into space. Alan Shepard was
launched into space aboard “Mercury 3” on 5 May 1961 to
become the first American in space. His capsule did not
achieve orbit, but rose to a height of 116 miles and travelled
303 miles before safely parachuting into the Atlantic Ocean.
This was not on a rocket specifically designed for space
travel but on top of a hastily adapted Redstone ballistic
missile. So to say the timing of Kennedy's Moon speech was
totally surprising is an understatement.

Project Apollo
NASA was left with the almost impossible task of designing
and building all the hardware to get men a further 240,000
miles all the way to the Moon and hopefully home safely. As
it transpired, well at least accordingly to NASA, it turned out
to be relatively easy. In just seven and a half years NASA
had made everything needed to reach and orbit the Moon
with the Apollo 8 Mission on 21 December 1968 and the first
Moon landing with Apollo 11 on 20 July 1969.

Work did not start on the Saturn series of rockets until mid-
1960 but by 1963 the final version of the mighty Saturn V
rocket was designed. Worked started in November 1961 on
the Command and Service Module design by North

201

American Aviation. The first flight of the assembled
hardware was the unmanned Apollo 4 Mission on 9
November 1967. Remarkably just about one year later in
December 1968 followed the Apollo 8 manned mission to
orbit the Moon, quickly followed in July 1969 by the
“supposed” Apollo 11 Moon landing.

Source NASA: Project Apollo Logo
This timeline of development is nothing less than
remarkable. One needs to remember that all this was back
in the 1960s when technology and manufacturing methods
were primitive compared to what we have today. More than
60% of the population on the Earth today were born after
the 1960s so it must be difficult for those people to
appreciate what technology was available at that time.
There were virtually no useful computers to enable
computer-aided design, no robotic manufacturing
techniques to enable accurate speedy assembly and no
sophisticated circuitry to enable reliable command and

202

control systems. The engineers used slide rules for the
design calculations and draughtsmen sat at drawing boards
with pencil in hand. According to NASA, all this was
achieved in less than eight years.

You may be wondering what is a slide rule? Well, it isn't
much more than a wooden stick with logarithms inscribed
on several scales. I remember them well as I started
studying to be a Civil Engineer at university in 1961. In case
you never heard of the slide rule I found this interesting
video from MIT Alumni Association which describes the
mysteries of the gadget (App 10.01). Imagine that you didn't
have that little “App” on your smartphone and you needed
to get your head around this procedure just to calculate your
expenses.

1960s Slide Rule

Just another quick interjection here. It is widely reported
that NASA discovered that pens didn't work in the
weightlessness of space and it is rumoured that they spent
$165,000 on designing the “space pen” that worked in the
weightlessness environment of space. The Russians simply
used pencils. A nice story, I wish it were true.

Project Apollo was originally intended to include Missions
18, 19 and 20 but these missions were cancelled in
September 1970 just 18 months after the supposedly

203

successful Apollo 11 Moon landing and 6 months after the
“supposed” Apollo 13 near tragedy. According to Wikipedia:

“Several planned missions of the Apollo manned Moon
landing program of the 1960s and 1970s were cancelled for
a variety of reasons, including changes in technical
direction, the Apollo 1 fire, hardware delays, and budget
limitations. After the landing by Apollo 12, Apollo 20,
which would have been the final manned mission to the
Moon, was cancelled to allow Skylab to launch as a 'dry
workshop' which was assembled on the ground in an
unused S-IVB Saturn IB second stage.

The next two missions, Apollos 18 and 19, were later
cancelled after the Apollo 13 incident and further budget
cuts. Two Skylab missions also ended up being cancelled.
Two complete Saturn Vs ended up going unused and are
currently on display in multiple locations around the
United States.”

The original plan for the Apollo Missions envisaged that
Apollo 18, 19 and 20 would fly in 1972. The delay caused by
the Apollo 13 “near tragedy” meant that Apollo 17 was
rescheduled to December 1972 so 15 months later than
originally anticipated.

NASA put the cancellations down to budgetary problems but
more likely that they didn't feel they could carry on the
fakery for much longer and they had fulfilled President
Kennedy's “Man on the moon” declaration of 1961.

204

NASA OMSF Manned Space Flight Weekly Report 28 July 1969

The “budget limitations” reason is hardly plausible given
that all the main expenditure on the Saturn V rockets, the
spacecrafts and associated systems was already paid for via
contracts and the hardware was at that time well on the way
to being finished. The real reason is understandable, NASA
needed to distance itself from the Moon landings and
perhaps couldn't imagine continuing the deceit for years to
come with more fake Moon trips. NASA clearly needed a
new direction to divert attention from the Moon and a
laboratory in space was the answer.

It wasn't as though NASA had finished with the Moon as
previously they had many plans to colonise the Moon for
scientific research, minerals exploration and eventually a
Moon base. Imagine how much more sensible it would have
been to site a space telescope on the Moon where it could be
well maintained. Instead, NASA concentrated on low Earth
orbit projects like Skylab and later the International Space
Station (ISS).

So we have a project which just took 8 years to get men on

205

the Moon. If modern technology in computer-aided design
and manufacturing had been available at the time then I
imagine this could have been achieved in just 5 years. We
can now compare all this with the subsequent NASA efforts
to get men back to the Moon, with the Constellation
Programme and now the ongoing Orion Project.

Constellation Programme
In 2004 President Bush announced they would revive Moon
missions with the Constellation Programme often referred
to as “Apollo on Steroids”. The Constellation Programme
was active between 2005 and 2009. It was subsequently
cancelled in 2009 by President Barack Obama on 1st
February 2010 reportedly for lack of funding. The logo of
the Constellation Programme reflected the ambitious three
aims of the programme to get men in low Earth Orbit
(International Space Station), the Moon and finally Mars.

Source NASA: Constellation Programme Logo

206

One stated goal of the Constellation Programme was to get
men back on the Moon no later than 2020. So this time
NASA allowed themselves a good sixteen years to achieve
what they had done back in the 1960s with Project Apollo in
just eight years, but even this proved to have been too
ambitious.

Orion
Orion was started in 2004 with the design of the Space
Launch System (SLS) for which Boeing was awarded the
contract. It was originally under the Constellation
Programme which we have seen was cancelled but the Orion
Project picked up the pieces of what was left. Already, the
Orion Project is suffering delays and cost overruns (App
10.02).

Not only is NASA experiencing problems with its own
design (App 10.03). it is likely that private companies will
produce the required hardware at a fraction of the cost (App
10.04). It is probable that NASA will have spent £18 billion
and the project which may well be abandoned. All I can say
at this point is that NASA does create some excellent logo
designs.

Source NASA: Orion Project Logo

207

How Far is The Moon?
The Moon is beginning to look farther away as each year
passes. It is unlikely that we will see any men on the Moon,
if we ever do, until the 2030s. Naturally, the question you
are dying to ask is why not use the tried and tested
“successful” Apollo technology. Well, it seems NASA just
threw away that successful technology, somehow,
somewhere. But we know the reason why they did it.

Why Not Use the Apollo Technology
NASA has shown lamentable custodianship of important
historic artefacts concerning the Apollo Missions and the
total disregard for managing technological value. No doubt
our sceptics would argue that this a not a question of good
custodianship, but more of a deliberate and concerted,
attempt to destroy evidence that may be judged to be
incriminating when examined with modern methods of
analysis. Without question, the losses of artefacts are almost
epic in scale and one has to question why NASA has been so
determinately careless.

The Apollo Moon landings have been heralded as one of the
greatest achievements of mankind and one would expect
that all the documentation and technological achievements
would be carefully preserved for posterity.

Regrettably, and quite surprisingly, this does not seem to
have been the case. It would appear that NASA has been less
than conscientious in preserving these important artefacts.
This is astonishing for two reasons, first and foremost, the
historic nature of the achievement, in this modern era we
tend to hold as precious everything that measures the
progress and achievements of mankind. Secondly, the
information was undoubtedly of considerable usefulness for

208

future space projects.

Now NASA plans to go back into outer space with the Orion
Project and appears to be struggling to build the technology
with which to do this. Sceptics would strongly argue, and
they do quite vociferously, that we supposedly had the
technology to leave low Earth orbit and survive in space fifty
years ago. They question how NASA could have been so
utterly careless, or were there other impelling reasons for
this perceived ineptitude. The suspicion is there for the
sceptics to add to their arguments that NASA faked the
Moon landings and is now trying to destroy anything that
could ultimately prove the fakery, particularly when
examined with modern methods of analysis.

Telemetry and Video Data
One of the important aspects of the journey to the Moon was
the telemetry data, this is an automated communications
process by which measurements and other data are
collected at remote, or inaccessible points, and transmitted
to receiving equipment for monitoring. It was an essential
part of the mission to the Moon and would be of significant
importance for future journeys into outer space.

You may think that telemetry is not something that concerns
you, but if you are using a computer running Microsoft or
Mac software, or using Google or some other search engine
for your searches, which you most probably are, then you
are daily involved in telemetry. These organisations collect
telemetry data on what you do every second of the day and
there is little you can do about it.

In the UK, and also in many other developed countries,
when you drive around town, or down a motorway,
information on your movements is collected via your car

209

registration number, this is telemetry and again there is
little you can do about it. Even when you walk along the
street or go shopping, your movements are being recorded
by a vast network of surveillance cameras. It is just a fact of
modern life that we need to accept. It may surprise you that
the average person in the UK is caught on camera more than
70 times per day and for someone living in London that can
be over 300 times per day. As well as cameras on the street,
the majority of shops also have several surveillance cameras.

Lost Information
On 15 August 2006, the Sydney Morning Herald reported
that NASA had lost the original telemetry tapes of the Apollo
11 Moon landing, which also included perhaps the most
legendary “small step for man, giant leap for mankind”
footage (App 10.05).

These original magnetic tapes which recorded the iconic
images of man’s first footsteps on the Moon are missing.
Scientists fear that there is a danger of the tapes
deteriorating into dust unless they are found quickly and
converted into digital format. The sceptics are quick to coin
the phrase “one small mistake by NASA, one giant loss for
mankind”.

In 2006, NASA said the search is on to find the boxes of
original, high-quality slow-scan TV tapes. The tapes were
stored in 2,612 large boxes, each box holding about 50
tapes. These “lost” boxes apparently held the telemetry data
tapes and also contained the original TV footage of the other
five Moon landings. Estimates of the number of tapes vary
between 130,000 to 140,000, of which about 13,000 of
these tapes related to the Apollo missions. These were not
small tapes, as in the main they consisted of fourteen inch
diameter reels of mostly one, and some two inch, wide

210

magnetic tape. The tape recorder/reader consumed a
whopping 120 inches of tape every second, an astonishing
speed of almost 7 miles per hour.

So we are not talking about losing a bunch of keys, or the
odd book, we are talking about losing 2,612 large boxes. The
sceptics say that we are not simply looking for a few tapes,
but a whole building. In fact, it is a pile of about 11,000
cubic feet (cu ft), is that hard to visualise, well a modern
three bedroom house in the UK is about 7,500 cu ft. It was
quite a challenge to lose almost two three bedroom houses,
the sceptics would say, even by NASA standards.

The Flight Director for the Apollo missions, Gene Kranz,
acknowledges when interviewed by Aron Ranen that the
data tapes are indeed lost (App 10.06). Kranz further states
that even if the tapes could be found, there is no machine
that could read the tapes, as the only machine capable of
reading these tapes was destroyed many years ago. The
sceptics say that NASA is hellbent on destroying everything
relating to the Apollo Missions, except the glory.

Finally, NASA researchers concluded that the tapes
containing the raw unprocessed Apollo 11 SSTV signal were
erased and reused by NASA in the early 1980s, unbelievably
due to a shortage of magnetic tapes at the time in NASA
(App 10.07). It transpires that NASA's usage of one inch
magnetic tapes amounted to 60 per day in 1981. which far
outstripped the quantity available at the time. What does
NASA have to say about this? Well not much to be honest, if
you read their statement on the matter (App 10.08).

NASA initially stated that they do not consider the tapes to
be lost, just mislaid, and the search continued, but shortly
afterwards they admitted that the tapes were indeed lost,

211

well not so much lost but wiped clean and reused (App
10.09). This loss is confirmed in the “Final Report” from the
NASA searchers (App 10.10).

Is it any wonder that the sceptics find this story so utterly
unconvincing? These recordings were some of the most
significant documentation of man's greatest achievement to
explore the universe beyond our Earth and for them to be so
carelessly guarded is mystifying. The sceptic's reason that
NASA may have had something to hide and didn't want
these tapes to be scrutinised by modern methods of analysis.
We shall never know the answer, the evidence seemingly is
long gone. The situation is well summarized in this video
from “AnOnaly” (App 10.11).

NASA not only carelessly loses tapes, but also photographs.
In the period 1966-67 NASA had the Lunar Orbiter taking
many detailed photographs of the Moon in preparation for
the Apollo Missions, basically in order to identify suitable
landing sites. Most of these photographs were also assumed
lost. Luckily some of these original photographs were found
by a group of amateurs, who extracted about 2,000
photographs from 1,500 old analogue NASA data tapes (App
10.12).

Suffice it to say that NASA has not been the best custodian
of this historic material. It is hard to reason why, with such a
large budget, these important artefacts were not more
zealously guarded. After all these artefacts were similarly as
important to the American historical record as the American
Declaration of Independence, which thankfully they have
still managed to keep intact for 250 years.

Lost Technology
NASA was not only haphazard in the custodianship of its

212

data tapes and photographs, but also of its technical design
documents and manufacturing capabilities. The billions of
dollars that were invested in the NASA Apollo space project
did produce some useful technological value of benefit not
only for future space exploration projects but also for
industry in general.

The Apollo Missions were made possible by the creation of
the massive Saturn V rocket, which provided the heavy lift
necessary to get astronauts all the way to the Moon. You
might consider that this was something worth keeping given
NASA's sole “raison d'etre” is to explore space. It may
surprise you to learn that they didn't. The methodology and
plans required to build this rocket have been lost as
reported on the Vintage Space website (App 10.13).

It is not only the plans, and the design documents that have
gone missing, but also all the factory tooling was also
scrapped. NASA now again needs a heavy lift vehicle for its
Orion Programme and is once again having to re-engineer
what NASA already had fifty years ago. The new heavy-lift
rocket for the Orion Project has been named the Space
Launch System (SLS), I assume for the lack of a more
inspiring name. There are three remaining Saturn V rockets
in museums that could possibly be reverse engineered, but
how much easier would it have been just to follow the
original plans. If you are familiar with IKEA furniture
assembly plans then you may doubt this.

Now, when we say that NASA lost the ability to recreate the
technology that they had for the Apollo missions it doesn't,
of course, mean that they could not recreate it again, but
that would be very much like reinventing the wheel. What it
does mean is that NASA is not capable of even getting
astronauts to the International Space Station without taking

213

a Russian taxi at around US$ 70 million per seat round trip.
The excuse by NASA for this lack of housekeeping is that
Project Apollo was spread out among thousands of
subcontractors and that it was impossible to keep track of
every document, but quite honestly this is a tantalisingly
feeble excuse. You can be sure that Airbus Industries, which
also has hundreds of contractors, keeps a very
comprehensive set of documents in some central location,
and certainly, at some point NASA must also have had a
complete set of documentation.
The Lunar Rover which was used on Apollo Missions 15, 16
and 17, was built by Boeing, and again, you guessed it, the
design plans have been destroyed. If taking care of
important artefacts is the object, then NASA fails miserably.
In 2015 a priceless prototype of the Lunar Rover was sold
for scrap to a metal dealer in Alabama (App 10.14 and
10.15). This was one of the early prototypes for the Lunar
Rover and therefore has great historical significance, but
somehow it wasn't cared for and ended up in an Alabaman
scrap metal yard. There is even a photograph of the NASA
Apollo Director Wernher Von Braun driving this very
vehicle.

214

We are not finished with the scrapyards just yet, we have
more. In 1976, ten years after the Apollo launch the rope
memory modules used were sold as scrap metal. Someone
with a keen eye spotted them in at a scrap metal auction and
saved them for posterity. This video shows how the
programs on these modules are now being deciphered (App
10.16). There is great interest in the computing industry to
see how these programs worked.

Some remnants of the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC)
still exist and are being reassembled by a group of
enthusiasts hopefully for the 50th anniversary of the first
Moon landing in July 2019. Jimmie Loocke, a private
collector, bought two tons of assorted Apollo hardware from
NASA, which included many parts of the AGC. Imagine that,
amazingly NASA was selling Apollo hardware by the ton
load.

NASA is not only careless with valuable technology and
historic artefacts but also it appears that they are lax in their
own security. Surprisingly for such an organisation, they did
not encrypt the data on their laptops, and recently they have
had two stolen (App 10.17), perhaps another sign that they
are not quite on the ball.

In October 2016, 47 years after the original Moon landing,
NASA finally produced a White Paper on science data
retention (App 10.18). This paper addresses which NASA
science data should be retained indefinitely, and the
conditions under which certain data may, and should be
released. Talk about closing the gate after the horse went
“walkabout”.

215

Back to the Moon?
The history of scientific advancement and exploration is well
documented and once a goal is achieved they is always a
continuous path of rapid onward development.

Archimedes is said to have designed a screw system in the
third century BC which was used to raise water from a lower
to a higher level. It wasn't then forgotten but was further
developed and is still in use today for irrigation projects and
hydro-electric turbines all over the world. Galileo is
accredited with producing the first practical telescope in
1609 but in fact, he merely improved on the device first
invented by a Dutchman Hans Lippershey the previous year.
The telescope wasn't then forgotten but was further
developed through the centuries and now we have the
Hubble space telescope.

The Wright brothers designed and constructed the first
airplane in 1903. This wasn't forgotten and within a year
many others were building better and more efficient models.
British aviators John Alcock and Arthur Brown made the
first non-stop transatlantic flight in June 1919, quickly
followed by others to complete the same feat. Now we fly the
Atlantic with the same excitement as we catch a local bus.
American Aviator Wiley Post was the first to fly around the
Earth in 1933 and he wore a patch over one eye. Now flying
around the Earth is commonplace with or without eye patch.

Christopher Columbus discovered a viable sailing route to
the Caribbean and opened up the discovery of the Americas.
Vasco da Garma discovered the route to India and China via
the Cape of Good Hope at the tip of Africa so bringing about
the demise of the Silk Road. Edmund Hilary and Tenzing
Norgay were the first to climb to the summit of Mount
Everest in May 1953. Now over 800 climbers each year

216

reach the summit of Everest.

I could go on and on about mentioning notable firsts but the
point I am making is that once something is achieved then
history tells us that it will be repeated until it is simplicity
itself. So what happened to the Moon? In 50 years nobody
from any nation has even attempted it again.

At the time of the Apollo Moon landings, the world believed
that this was just the first step in finally exploring our
universe. Humankind had reached the Moon and returned
safely so now the heavens were open. At least that was the
feeling in the late 1960s. NASA had proved that it was
feasible, in fact, relatively easy. You can start with nothing
and in just eight years you can be walking on the Moon.
Imagine what they could have done in the next 50 years with
technology improving on a daily basis?

Well, here we are half a century later and all those dreams
have come to nothing. Not only have we not achieved
anything further but we haven't even been back to the
Moon. Perhaps worst of all we are now told that going back
to the Moon has suddenly become rather difficult and
considerably more time consuming. Listen to Jarrah White
as he sums up what really happened in this three-part video
series about the developments since the supposed Apollo
Moon landings (App 10.19, 10.20 and 10.21).

We didn't go back to the Moon so what else did we do in the
past 50 years? Seems we just potted around in low Earth
orbit with Skylab, the Hubble Space Telescope and now the
International Space Station (ISS). It seems the Moon is
getting farther away than ever, well it literately is, but only
about 7 feet in an average lifetime.

217

Summary
It seems to be an undeniable fact that much of the Apollo
material, be it hardware, or design materials have been
purposefully shoddily destroyed, sold-off, carelessly
misplaced, or simply just lost. So why did NASA lose,
destroy, or sell such a large part of the artefacts from Project
Apollo?

One would have thought that the artefacts from one of the
greatest achievements of mankind would be sacrosanct, a
national pride, but clearly not. It was after all “supposedly”
one of man's greatest achievements to leave this Earth for
the first time and walk on another celestial body. For
humans to be able to fashion materials here on Earth that
would enable men to fly out into space “would” have been
man's greatest adventure and mankind's greatest
achievement but unfortunately it never happened.

You may wish to be gullible like the rest of the pro-NASA fan
club and put these loses of artefacts down to some slight
carelessness on the part of NASA. But for me, the sheer epic
scale of the destruction of artefacts is clearly a manifestly
deliberate act. I can only imagine that NASA considered that
some of these artefacts may have served as possible
evidence to expose the deceit as time progressed and
analytic techniques improved.

I ask you to ponder whether it is imaginable that any
diligent organisation would lose, or destroy, so much of the
evidence for such a major technological achievement. It is
beyond reasonable comprehension and just adds more
credence to the fact that the NASA Apollo Missions were
faked. It may appear to some that NASA is attempting to
destroy as much of the original evidence that could be used
with modern analysis techniques to prove the fakery and

218

expose the deceit. Curiously it does not appear to cause our
pro-NASA devotees any undue concern, as they do not seem
to mention it or they simply avoid the debate.

There is no question that these loses of artefacts cannot be
accidental. They are too numerous and important for them
to have been merely the subject of perfunctory management.
The destruction of evidence was a planned objective for
NASA. There was an all too clear risk that some of this
evidence might be used to prove the fakery. For example,
the “fake” telemetry tapes that would have shown the
precise route taken by the Apollo Missions to minimise
exposure in the Van Allen radiation belts. You will recall this
debate in Chapter 5 when the pro-NASA group explained
that they had taken some polar route when all the original
NASA documentation shows otherwise. The telemetry data
would have answered this question so it had to be “lost”.

We have a direct comparison with what NASA achieved in
the 1960s with rudimentary technology and what NASA is
doing now. It took just over 8 years from President
Kennedy's Moon speech in May 1961 to the Apollo 11 crew
“supposedly” landing on the Moon in July 1969. Now we
have NASA struggling since 2004 a good 15 years, and they
do not expect to walk on the Moon again until the late
2020s (this deadline has recently been shortened to 2024 by
President Trump). So with modern technology, we are
supposed to believe that it takes a good 20 years to reach the
Moon, if they ever do. Whereas with the old technology,
slide rules and all, in took just eight years. This surely must
be absolute proof of the NASA fakery.

The evidence is there, NASA did fake all, or certainly a large
part of the Apollo Moon landings. In order to keep the
deceit, they needed to ensure that no evidence to the

219

contrary would be available. It is a solitary example in the
history of man that technology took an irretrievable
backward step.
The real reason that NASA has never returned to the Moon
in the past 50 years is simple, they never went in the first
place.

220

CHAPTER 11

KEEPING THE SECRET

“What a terrible era
in which idiots govern the blind”
William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

The NASA Believers argue that there are four self-evident
reasons which easily explain why the Apollo Missions could
not have been faked. They base their assertions on
paradigms which do not stand up to serious scrutiny as we
will now discuss.

Reasons why it Could Not have been Faked
The first reason is that too many people worked on Project
Apollo for the fakery not to have been revealed in the past
50 years. NASA state that about 400,000 people were
involved in Project Apollo and it would be unlikely that none
would have revealed the secret.

The second is that the Russians would surely have known
that is was faked and would, therefore, have broadcast that
fact to the whole world given that they were in a prestigious
space race with the Americans.

Thirdly, the astronauts brought back kilograms of Moon
rocks which are attested by the scientific community to be
genuinely from the Moon.

Fourthly, the astronauts left retro-reflectors on the Moon
and that these are being used by well-respected scientific
institutions for laser ranging to the Moon.

221

At first reading, these all appear to be extremely persuasive
arguments and for many appear to be very convincing. We
will examine these “self-evident” postulations in this
chapter.

What Secret?
It is a contention often made by the pro-NASA group that so
many individuals worked on Project Apollo that it would
have been impossible for the fakery not to have been
exposed by some whistle-blower in the past 50 years. You
will see this statement repeated over and over again on the
pro-NASA fan sites. Is a rather strange statement as it
implies that all of these people were informed about the
fakery and were presumably asked not to tell anybody.

This is a typical example selected randomly off an internet
chat group:

“That NASA faked the landing, and managed to keep the
secret until this day with literally thousands of people
remaining silent and not one single person among that
group coming out with a non-fiction, fact based tell-all
book that points to hard irrefutable facts that do not rely
on circumstance, imagination, or supposition”

They repeat this NASA well-known statement that about
400,000 people scattered across about 20,000 contracting
companies were involved in bringing Project Apollo to
fruition. In reality, the vast majority of these people were
employed by contractors designing and building the
components needed for the Apollo Missions and would have
had little understanding of the overall project.

But you would imagine that surely the operatives working
222

within Mission Control, sat facing those numerous screens
of information from the telemetry, would have known. Well
not necessarily so, it is entirely possible that they too were
deceived by the fakery. Their only evidence of the missions
that they had was the telemetry being received and feeding
the particular data stream for which they were responsible.
They would have no idea where the telemetry was coming
from, or whether is it was genuine or not. They had many
times previously practised this exercise using simulated
data. When you are viewing a screenful of numbers there is
no apparent difference between a simulation and the real
thing. The simple fact is that they had no reason to question
anything, let alone start thinking it was all a hoax. The idea
that the Moon landings could be hoaxed is still a staggering
thought to this day.

Source NASA: Apollo 11 Mission Control 1969

223

So, in essence, keeping the secret could simply mean that
there was no secret to keep. The only people that would have
know about the fakery would be the members of the
clandestine DIA (also maybe the CIA) group, the astronauts
including back-up crews and some DIA/CIA operatives
infiltrated and working for NASA. One imagines that the
DIA/CIA people could be trusted, perhaps on pain of death.
The astronauts could be expected to join the cover-up as
they were for the most part serving military officers under
orders from their commanding officer, the President of the
United States. There may have been a few exceptions,
perhaps like Gus Grissom who perhaps sadly died for
attempting to reveal the truth about Project Apollo.

In summary, the pro-NASA devotees are stretching naivety
to imagine that NASA informed the 400,000 that it was
committing fakery or that NASA was so inept in their
management of the fakery that the secret leaked out. It is no
longer a valid excuse as it purposefully misinterprets the
real situation. It has no merit or substance whatsoever and
is based solely on a mischievous and ill-conceived
misunderstanding of the facts. It has been used mainly by
the pro-NASA group as an excuse to avoid facing the real
issue of the actual fakery.

And the Russians?
The pro-NASA group will also tell you that if it was a fake
then the Russians would have known and would have
eagerly told the world. After all, they were the main
protagonists in this story and you would imagine that they
would have had much to gain by exposing the fakery.

Again I have selected a random quote from the same
internet chat group:

224

“Russia was our main rival and would love to embarrass
us if we tried to fool people. Remember, there were six
missions, so why would the United States risk getting
caught that many times? That makes no sense”
It is not at all obvious that the Russians did know. Even if
the Russians “suspected” that the Moon Landings were
faked then they would need to furnish some solid proof.
Announcing that it was a fake to the world without
incontestable proof would be seen as just a case of “sour
grapes”. Suspecting is one thing, but proving you are right
with hard evidence is an altogether different task.
There is also some evidence that the Russian's claims of
superiority in the space race were also in part faked, and
equally, it could be stated that the USA knew and could have
equally exposed the Russians. On 12 April 1961, it was
reported that the Vostok 3KA-3 spacecraft with cosmonaut
Yuri Gagarin onboard was launched from Baikonur
Cosmodrome. Yuri Gagarin thus supposedly became both
the first human to travel into space and the first to orbit the
Earth.

225

However, there are doubts about whether Gargarin was
actually the first man in space (App 11.01). There may be
more to the Russian fakery than we first imagined (App
11.02). It is only after 30 years of secrecy that these facts
have been revealed. It is interesting to note that Khrushchev
ordered the Soviet rocket design engineer Sergei Korolev to
get a man into space at all costs. The communist philosophy
was to hide its failures and only publicly celebrate its
successes. This contrasted sharply with the American way of
publicising everything in advance and mostly allowing real-
time coverage by the press and the public.

So perhaps both sides were mainly interested in convincing
their own populations rather than convincing each other. It
was after all an arms race thinly disguised as a space race.
The respective populations may not have warmed to an all-
out arms race but a space race carried with it all the
excitement and prestige of a nation.

Also, if the Russians did know it was a fake then why would
they now reportedly be investigating that very fact? (App
11.03). I think we can safely conclude that this Russian
“whistle-blower” argument has no merit in proving that the
Apollo Missions went to the Moon.

Moon Rocks
The Apollo astronauts supposedly brought back about 840
pounds (382 kilograms) of Moon rocks and dust. These
rocks have been distributed to scientific institutions around
the world who confirm that they are definitely rocks from
the Moon. Again, a typical response from the same internet
chat group:

“Two words. Moon rocks. They are rocks from the moon.

226

And scientists agree they are rocks from the moon. Explain
those away for us”

So we are faced with the opinions of many trained geologists
from all over the world, that the Apollo samples are
definitely Moon rocks. My first problem with this is that
how do they know they are from the Moon given that they
have not been to the Moon? I mean they have nothing for
comparison, or have they?

Well, it seems perhaps they have. The Earth is already
strewn with pieces of Moon rock which travelled here as
meteorites. Estimates for the mass of material that falls on
Earth each year range from 22,000-78,000 tons. Mostly in
the form of dust particles but a small proportion are rocks
from the Moon and elsewhere from the universe.

So many of the meteorites found here on Earth do come
from the Moon, in this case, they are more properly called
lunaites. They are broken pieces of the Moon dislodged by
other stray rocks from outer space impacting into the
Moon's surface. If they are flung high enough from the
impact they can be captured by Earth's gravity and slowly
pulled to Earth. When I say slowly pulled to Earth, well it
can take up to 10,000 years for them to get here as they
circle around and around the Earth slowly being pulled
closer by Earth's gravity. It is estimated that less than one
percent of meteorites found on Earth are from the Moon, so
they are a reasonably scarce commodity and not so easy to
find.

If we want to find lunar meteorites on Earth where should
we go hunting? Well, basically anywhere on the Earth, but
no lunar meteorite has yet been found in North America,
South America, or in Europe. They undoubtedly exist, but

227

the probability of finding a lunar meteorite in a temperate
environment is incredibly low. Many experienced meteorite
collectors have been looking, but none have yet succeeded.

It seems the best places to find lunar meteorites are in arid
deserts which have little organic growth to hide them. One
such arid desert is the Antarctica and the best time is
summer as the ice melts the dark rocks become visible lying
on the surface. You may be surprised that Antarctica is
classed as an arid desert, but the truth is that it very rarely
rains, or snows in Antarctica. The average annual rainfall is
just 2 inches.

So what is the difference between Moon rocks on the Moon
and lunaites found here on Earth? First of all, any Moon
rocks passing through the Earth's atmosphere would have a
burnt crust. Secondly, the rock when on the Moon would
have been bombarded by micro-meteorites and will have the
tell-tale zap craters, tiny holes where the micro-meteorites
had penetrated. So, in theory, it would be possible to
artificially change the lunaites to remove evidence of the
entry through the Earth's atmosphere. So first we need to
find some lunaites.

In the Antarctic local summer from 1966 to 1967, Wernher
von Braun, the chief architect at NASA, participated in a US
Government expedition to Antarctica.

This expedition was one of the first to systematically search
the ice surface of Antarctica for meteorites, believed to have
originated from the Moon. The US Government claimed
that the samples were “for later use as a reference
material” to compare against the future Apollo specimens to
be brought back by the astronauts.

228

The lunaites collected on the NASA expedition to Antarctica
could have been faked to resemble Moon rocks on the Moon
by removing the rock's burnt crust and adding false zap
craters using lasers or high-powered guns. As the geologists
had never seen any Moon rocks and were unlikely to do so
in the future then these fake rocks would suffice to convince
geologists given that NASA state they found them on the
Moon. In conclusion this “Moon rocks” evidence is certainly
not convincing and it is more than likely that the Apollo
Moon rocks were faked from Earth lying lunaites.

I cover this “Moon rocks” subject more fully in Chapter 17
“Geological Wonders” in my previous book “Man on the
Moon: Fact or Fiction?” which I recommend that you read.
What, you didn't buy it yet? Don't you worry that it might
sell out and you will spend months searching on Ebay to
find a secondhand well-thumbed copy?

Retro-Reflectors
The laser reflectors that the astronauts “supposedly” placed
on the Moon are a piece of equipment with enables laser
light to be reflected and are technically referred to as retro-
reflectors. These retro-reflectors are made up of tiny
reflecting prisms, similar to those you often see on road
signs and on the rear of bicycles. These prism retro-
reflectors will always reflect an incoming light beam back in
the same direction that it originally came from.

It is said by NASA that the retro-reflectors can be used for
experiments to measure the distance of the Moon from the
Earth, by recording the length of time it takes for the laser
signal to be returned. Remember, it takes about 1.3 seconds
for light from the Earth to reach the Moon. The basics of
lunar ranging are described here (App 11.04).

229

It may surprise, and perhaps if you are of a nervous
disposition slightly worry you, that we are slowly losing the
Moon, as it constantly moves further from Earth by about
one and a half inches per year, about the same distance as
your fingernails grow each year. This just means that the
future Moon holiday you were planning may get marginally
more expensive than you had originally budgeted for.

How these retro-reflectors work and what they are used for,
is extremely well covered in this sceptic video from “Kris de
Bum” (App 11.05).

The retro-reflectors, placed on the Moon's surface by the
astronauts, are claimed by the NASA Apollo believers as the
absolute, explicit, conclusive proof that man did go to the
Moon and deposit the laser reflectors there. If it can be
shown that the only way a laser fired at the Moon could
return a signal would be that a laser retro-reflector must
have been placed on the Moon then this would be a very
important piece of evidence.

I mentioned in the Foreword to this book that my definitive
proof that I used to try to convince my children that man
had landed on the Moon was these retro-reflectors. It was
my stock answer that for me was irrefutable proof that the
Apollo 11, 14 and 15 astronauts must have been to the Moon
to place them there.

I seem to recall that several independent scientific
institutions and universities around the world were using
them to calculate the distance to the ever drifting Moon. In
fact, it was probably the worst “proof” that I could have
chosen as we will now discover.

230

Source NASA: Apollo 14 Laser Reflector on Moon

After further research, it appears that my original idea about
“several independent organisations” turned out to be just
two main ones both sited in the USA namely, The Apache
Point Observatory Lunar Laser-Ranging Operation
(APOLLO) located in southern New Mexico and the
McDonald Laser Ranging Station (MLRS). As soon as I saw
that acronym APOLLO I became suspicious. I was right to
be somewhat suspicious, the APOLLO facility was largely
funded by the Micro-gravity Division of NASA.

APOLLO is a collaboration between several universities, a
few scientific institutions and the NASA Jet Propulsion
Laboratory. What really surprised me was that the facility
did not become operational until 2005. I have no idea what
happened in the 36 years since the Apollo 11 astronauts
supposedly placed the retro-reflectors on the Moon.

According to the International Laser Ranging Service (ILRS)
there are about 40 institutions throughout the world
involved in laser ranging but in 2015 only the two USA sites

231

mentioned above and the Observatoire de la Côte d’ Azur,
France that were technically equipped to carry out Lunar
Laser Ranging (LLR) to retro-reflector arrays on the surface
of the Moon. In

Credit: Tom Zagwodzki Goddard Space Flight Center
However, all of this may be immaterial. It transpires that
you do not need retro-reflectors to bounce signals off the
Moon. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the
Crimean Astrophysical University were both firing lasers at
the Moon and receiving a return signal in 1962, long before
any reflectors were supposedly installed on the Moon by the
Apollo Missions (App 11.06).
Also, both the American and British military were beaming
radio signals at the Moon and receiving return signals in the
late 1940s. So there is no apparent reason why signals, radio
or laser, cannot be bounced off the Moon with no special
reflectors, provided that there is a large enough collection

232

dish on Earth to receive the greatly diminished returned
signals.

An interesting technical paper has been produced by
Andreas Märki of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
Although the contents of the paper are highly technical it
does provide some relevant conclusions (App 11.07). The
paper examines the direct reflected light from the Apollo
retro-reflector as well as the scattered light from the lunar
surface. In summary, the paper finds minimal evidence that
the laser reflections obtained from the Moon's surface are
specifically from retro-reflectors. The author states:

“The only indication of a retro-reflector was the signature
of the return signal, i.e. its small variance. But a small
variance would also appear in a measurement onto a
lunar surface which is perpendicular to the measurement
direction”

And, commenting on a statement made in a scientific paper
by J.O.Dickey from the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory:

“All this, together with the measurement results, may call
the following statement into question: 'these retro reflector
arrays are still operating normally after 25 years'”

His final conclusion is even more damning:

“According to the number of return photons I go even
further and conclude that in all lunar laser ranging
experiments the measurements were taken to the bare
surface of the Moon”.

I am not a brilliant mathematician but let's do some simple
maths. Now, the laser beam when it reaches the Moon is not

233

a pinpoint of light but the laser light has diverged to have a
large radius when it hits the lunar surface. The Lunar
Planetary Institute (LPI) website states:

“Laser beams are used because they remain tightly focused
for large distances. Nevertheless, there is enough
dispersion of the beam that it is about 7 kilometres in
diameter when it reaches the Moon and 20 kilometres in
diameter when it returns to Earth”

Wikipedia state that the diameter when the beam reaches
the Moon is 6.5 km (see App 11.06). However for simplicity,
we will use the LPI figure of 7 km diameter which is 3.5
kilometres or 3,500 metres radius.

The area in square metres covered by the laser beam is лr²
(that is Pie times the radius squared):

3.14 x 3,500²
= 38,484,510 sq m

That is over 38 million square metres. The size of the retro-
reflector (Apollo 11 and 14) was 0.61 m by 0.61 m so the area
is 0.372 sq m.

Now the real maths. In the area illuminated by the laser
light, the retro-reflector would represent a very small
percentage of that area:

100 * 0.372/38,484,510 percent

= 0.000000967 percent

If the retro-reflector is present in the area illuminated by the
laser, it will only receive a minuscule part of the laser signal

234

and cannot send back any more than it received.

Now, it gets even worse as the returned laser beam has a
diameter of about 20 km when the signal is reflected back to
the Earth. That is a vast area of 314,159,265,358,979 sq
metres. The receiving telescope tube at the McDonald
Observatory has a diameter of 85.95 cm so a surface area of
2.32 sq metres. The collection area is therefore just a small
percentage of the area covered by the returned laser beam

100 * 2.32/ 314,159,265 ,358,979 percent

= 0.000000000000738 percent

Combining our two percentage figures gives

0.000000967 x 0.000000000000738 percent

= 0.000000000000000000714 percent

that a photon aimed at the Moon would be received back on
Earth which is effectively “zero point nought”.

They fire 1017 photons on each test which would on average
give a return of less than one photon using the percentage
figures calculated above. Apparently, they usually receive no
photons returned but sometimes one photon is returned. So
they need to make many observations over a period of time
to finally get the 3,000 photons they need to make an
“accurate” measurement.

The LPI also states that:

“Because of this very weak signal, observations are made
for several hours at a time. By averaging the signal for this

235

period, the distance to the Moon can be measured to an
accuracy of about 3 centimetres (the average distance
from the Earth to the Moon is about 385,000 kilometres)”

Now, I may not be a great scientist but I thought the Moon
relative to the Earth was in constant motion so what exactly
are they measuring over a period of several hours to an
accuracy of 3 cm? Also, they have no idea where the
returned photon has come from. It could be from the retro-
reflector but more probably from the surface of the Moon.

The retro-reflector on Apollo 15 was three times larger than
the ones on Apollo 11 and 14 but quite honestly it does really
affect the maths. It is more than likely than any light
returned from the Moon as a result of the laser is just a
reflection from the lunar surface either from a mountain top
or a deep valley so how can this measure the distance to the
constantly moving Moon.

A further relevant point is that NASA appears not to know
exactly where the Apollo landing sites are, which I find quite
surprising. I would have thought that NASA would know
exactly where their spacecraft had landed on their historic
landings on the Moon but it seems not. NASA gives several
different coordinates for each of the Apollo Missions the
worst being for Apollo 11 which has two locations differing
by 20 kilometres.

The details are given in the paper by Michael Stennecken
“Lost Lunar Landing Sites: The CLLC Initiative” (App
11.08). The data on the following two pages is extracted
from that paper. Note that eight of the ten sources quoted
for the Apollo landing coordinates are from NASA
themselves.

236

COORDINATES OF APOLLO LUNAR LANDING SITES

latitude longitude Source

Apollo 11 23 d 26' (23.43 ) E S#01
0 d 41' 15" ( 0.6875) N S#02
0 d 04' 05" ( 0.0681) N 23 d 42' 28" (23.7078) E S#03
0.67 N 23.49 E S#10
0 d 43' 56" ( 0.7322) N S#05
0.71 N 23 d 38' 51" (23.6475) E S#06
0.647 N 23.63 E

23.505 E

Apollo 12
3 d 11' 51" ( 3.1975) S 23 d 23' 08" (23.3856) W S#01

3.20 S 23.38 W S#03
2.94 S 23.45 W S#04

3.04 S 23.42 W S#05
3.036 S 23.418 W S#06

3 d 12' ( 3.20 ) S 23 d 49' (23.82 ) W S#08
2 d 56' 33" ( 2.9425) S 23 d 26' 36" (23.4433) W S#09

(center of target ellipse)

Apollo 14 S#01
3 d 40' 24" ( 3.6733) S 17 d 27' 55" (17.4653) W S#03
S#04
3.67 S 17.47 W S#05
3.67 S 17.46 W S#06
S#07
3.65 S 17.48 W S#08
3.66 S 17.48 W

3 d 40' 19" ( 3.6719) S 17 d 27' 46" (17.4628) W
3 d 40' ( 3.67 ) S 17 d 28' (17.47 ) W

Apollo 15

26 d 06' 03" (26.1008) N 3 d 39' 10" ( 3.6528) E S#01
26.1 N 3.7 E S#02
S#03
26.10 N 3.65 E S#04
26.11 N 3.66 E S#05
S#06
26.08 N 3.66 E S#07
26 d 05' (26.08 ) N 3 d 39' ( 3.65 ) E S#08

26 d 04' 54" (26.0817) N 3 d 39' 30" ( 3.6583) E
26 d 06' (26.10 ) N 3 d 39' ( 3.65 ) E

Apollo 16

8 d 59' 29" ( 8.9914) S 15 d 30' 52" (15.5144) E S#01
8.99 S 15.51 E S#03
S#04
8.60 S 15.31 E S#05
8.97 S 15.51 E S#06
S#08
8 d 59' 29" ( 8.9914) S 15 d 30' 52" (15.5144) E
8 d 60' ( 9.00 ) S 15 d 31' (15.52 ) E

Apollo 17 30 d 45' 57" (30.7658) E S#01
20 d 09' 55" (20.1653) N 30.76 E S#03
30.80 E S#04
20.16 N
20.17 N

237

20.16 N 30 d 46' 30.77 E S#05
20 d 10' (20.17 ) N (30.77 ) E S#06
S#07
20 d 09' 50.5(20.16403)N 30 d 44' 58.3(30.74953)E S#08
20 d 10' (20.17 ) N 30 d 46' (30.77 ) E S#09

20 d 09' 50" (20.1639) N 30 d 44' 58" (30.7494) E

SOURCES OF THE COORDINATES

S#01:
http://cass.jsc.nasa.gov/pub/expmoon/apollo_landings.html

S#02:
http://cass.jsc.nasa.gov/pub/expmoon/Apollo_LandingSites.html

S#03:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apolloland.html
http://lunar-apps.arc.nasa.gov/history/timeline_items/

S#04:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/averearthview/lunarform/landing.html

S#05:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj
http://www.ksc.nasa.gov/history/apollo/apollo.html

S#06:
http://www.nasm.edu/APOLLO/LandingSites.html

S#07:
http://www.nasm.edu/APOLLO/AS14/Apollo14_LandingSite.html till
http://www.nasm.edu/APOLLO/AS17/Apollo17_LandingSite.html

S#08:
http://people.aero.und.edu/~vaughn/english/explore/manned/apollo/apollo.h
tm

S#09:
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS12/10075360.TXT and
http://images.jsc.nasa.gov/images/pao/AS17/10075898.TXT

S#10:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4205/ch14-1.html

238

Now, how do these seemingly lost Apollo sites affect the
lunar ranging exercise? Well, the retro-reflectors were left
on Apollo Missions 11, 14 and 17 and you can see in the table
above that the exact location of these sites is somewhat
dubious. If this is the case, you are left wondering at what
heavenly point they are aiming the laser beam.

I firmly believe that the laser ranging idea of placing retro-
reflectors on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts was just
another ploy by NASA to try to “prove” that the fake Apollo
Missions were real.

The logic behind accurately measuring the distance between
the constantly moving Earth and the Moon to a few
centimetres is completely ridiculous as the measurements
need to be carried out for a period of several hours in order
to collect enough returned photons “to get an accurate
measurement”. There is no way it can be known where these
returned photons are coming from, a mountain on the
surface of the Moon, a deep valley on the surface of the
Moon, or actually from the retro-reflector placed on the
Moon's surface.

The laser retro-reflector argument is absolutely no proof
that man landed on the Moon. Likewise, the fact that laser
beams can be bounced off the Moon without any laser retro-
reflectors does not in any way disprove the Apollo Moon
landings. However, the fact that NASA continues to defend
the laser retro-reflectors as proof that the Apollo astronauts
went to the Moon for me is indicative of manifest deceit. The
very idea of being able to produce extremely accurate
measurements of the distance between the Earth and the
Moon over a period of several hours while the Earth and
Moon are in constant relative motion is just totally
ludicrous.

239

Summary
It appears that none of these four “self-evident” assertions
by the pro-NASA group can be taken as conclusive evidence
that the Apollo Missions were real. No doubt, they will be
repeated over and over again by the NASA devotees, I guess
eagerly encouraged by NASA. The simple fact is that they
have no solid basis when examined in detail.

240

CHAPTER 12

CREATING THE EVIDENCE

“The best is yet to come”
William Shakespeare, Twelfth Night

As we reach the 50th Anniversary of the faked Apollo 11
Moon landing, it is time to expose the deceit for what it
really is. No doubt, there will be grand celebrations around
the globe to honour this seemingly great achievement. In
this vein, I have just read that there will be a “Moon
Celebration Week” in London and no doubt there will be
many others around the globe. We also have UK television
stations allocating hours of coverage to the Apollo Missions
and I would suspect the same in other countries. I am guilty
too, as I will also appear in a TV documentary on the
subject.

Unfortunately, it never happened in the way in which NASA
claims. It was faked as we have shown conclusively in the
proceeding chapters of this book. It is now beyond any
reasonable doubts and only the pro-NASA diehards can
desperately cling onto the illusion that it actually happened.
In this chapter, we will examine the methods used by the
clandestine group within NASA (NASA-X) to cleverly
construct the deceit which has fooled the world for half a
century and probably will still fool half of the world for
another 50 years.

How to Approach the Problem
Imagine that you were tasked to design, plan and produce
the hoax. What would you need and how could you do it?
That was the crucial question that NASA-X must have faced

241

back in the early to mid-1960s. Would it be possible to
completely fake the Moon landings? How can you fool the
whole world live on television? And how could you hope to
keep such a monumental secret?

The Apollo Missions must be successful, there was too much
at stake for it to fail. It was a matter of national prestige, not
to mention its importance in the Cold War and the alleged
competition with the Soviet Union. The risks of relying on
the science and technology to achieve a successful outcome
were too immense and the possibility of failure could not be
countenanced. Fakery could be used to ensure success.

What you also need to bear in mind is that the real Apollo
Missions were being designed, planned and programmed by
dedicated scientists on the assumption that NASA would be
able to get men to the Moon. We, therefore, have two
programmes running in parallel, the real scientific NASA
working hard to actually achieve the Moon landings and the
NASA-X clandestine group working parallel to NASA to
ensure that it was achieved by fakery. This second project
has been referred to as the Apollo Simulation Project (ASP)
by the well known late sceptic Bill Kaysing (see App 12.01).

The problems involved in the faking of the Apollo Missions
were immense. It was to be a hoax on a grand scale
perpetrated in front of the entire world. When I first looked
in detail at the NASA archive I was totally disbelieving that
it would have been possible to produce so much “factual”
evidence. An assertion continuously echoed by the pro-
NASA group.

There appeared to be far too much detailed information in
the form of mission transcripts, second by second dialogue
between the astronauts and Mission Control, hours of video

242

footage and thousands of photographs. How could this have
been fabricated and stitched together in so much minute
detail?

This is one of the main arguments in defence of NASA by
the pro-NASA devotees who claim it would have been easier
to actually go to the Moon than attempt to fake it. This
assumes that actually going to the Moon was a realistic and
viable option and this is extremely doubtful. One of the
strongest arguments for this is the fact that after the Apollo
Missions no nation has ever attempted to go to the Moon
during the intervening 50 years. There is no question that if
the Apollo Missions had been real then there would have
been many like missions to the Moon and the exploration of
the Moon would now be a commonplace event but it is not.
Now, as we observe the current efforts of NASA then we see
that getting to the Moon is no longer such an easy task.

Beginning the Fakery
NASA-X clearly infiltrated NASA from the very beginning.
They would have had operatives employed by NASA at all
levels, even to the highest echelons of the organisation. This
is common practice for the DIA/CIA in all theatres of
operation.

If you are to convince the world that you have landed men
on the Moon then you need to have some solid evidence
with which to “prove” it. So what evidence would you need
and how could you fabricate it?

At a minimum you would need to have the following:

• Video of the Saturn V rocket launch and successfully
leaving Earth

• TV shots of astronauts in the space capsule to
243

demonstrate weightlessness in low Earth orbit and
trans-lunar coast
• Audio of astronauts talking to Mission Control with
the appropriate time delays relative to the distance
from the Earth
• Video of the Earth seen from deep space through the
capsule window
• Video of the Lunar Module landing on the Moon
through the capsule window
• The most conclusive piece of evidence would be “live”
TV pictures from the Moon showing the astronauts
walking in lunar gravity. It would be essential to
provide some calculable proof of Moon's gravity, say
by astronauts dropping lots of things, jumping up
and down, and the odd pendulum demonstration
• Some “lunar” rocks and dust brought back by the
astronauts from the Moon
• Photographs of astronauts on the Moon but best not
get carried away and produce too many
• Some conclusive proof that you have been there such
as leaving some retro-reflectors and other equipment
that could continue to be used after the astronauts
left
• Videos of the Lunar Module ascent stage blasting-off
from the Moon
• Videos showing the re-docking of the ascent stage of
the Lunar Module with the Command Module
• Video of the capsule landing in the sea on its return
to Earth
• Finally, a Press Conference to hear the astronauts
story of adventure

So there you have it, lots to do but if you could accomplish
these aspects then you are well on your way to faking it. We

244

will now examine what NASA-X did and how well they did
it.

Saturn V rocket leaving Earth
The development of the Saturn V rocket was not without its
problems but finally, it launched on 9 November 1967. It
surprised everyone who was present at the Cape Canaveral
launch site with its tremendous force. It shook whole
buildings and smashed nearby windows with the force of a
small earthquake.

Wernher von Braun, the chief NASA rocket scientist, took a
conservative approach to his rockets and wanted to
cautiously test each of the three parts of the rocket
separately. His way was to over-design and build rockets
that were more sturdy than was perhaps necessary. This
philosophy took its toll on NASA's early efforts and they did
not have the luxury of time with the end of decade lunar
landing deadline was fast approaching. The Saturn V rocket
was the only machine to get them there.

George Mueller who headed the Office of Manned Space
Flight realised that NASA would never make it to the Moon
by the end of the decade without a new more forceful
approach to its rocket development program. He called for
NASA to adopt an "all-up" approach to its rocket tests.
Rather than testing components separately, the standard
approach in NASA's early days, he wanted von Braun to test
the full rocket all in one go. It was a risky approach. He also
insisted that the first flight of Saturn V was to carry a fully
functioning Apollo Command and Service Module as
payload so their systems could be tested in orbit. The
mission would follow a trajectory that would have the
Command Module re-enter the atmosphere as though it
were returning from the Moon, adding a heat shield test to

245

the program.

It is said that Mueller's decision ultimately saved the Saturn
V program. Designated Apollo 4, the first Saturn V launch
was a stunning success. Only Apollo 6 saw another
unmanned Saturn V launch. Quite amazingly the third
Saturn rocket NASA ever launched supposedly took the
Apollo 8 crew to orbit the Moon in December 1968.

We have more discussion on the capabilities of the Saturn V
rocket in the next section when we discuss how far the
astronauts actually went.

Videos of Weightlessness in Space
Perhaps one of the most convincing images of space is to see
astronauts in the weightlessness environment of the
spacecraft. We have mentioned before that they are not
actually “weightless” but simply in constant free fall under
the force of gravity.

If you watch the videos of the astronauts in the space
capsule then on some occasions they are empathising the
weightless aspect by doing pointless tricks with various
floating objects such as food morsels, pens or notebooks.
This concentration on showing weightlessness was an
important aspect of the NASA-X fakery. On other occasions,
you see nothing of weightlessness, just two or three men
residing in odd positions about the capsule presumably to
give the impression of them being weightless.

I had always assumed that the Apollo astronauts on all
missions at least had reached low Earth orbit but there
appears to be some evidence that on some missions they
didn't even leave the Earth.

246

In his book “We Never Went to the Moon”, Bill Kaysing
suggests that no Apollo Mission went into low Earth orbit
and that all the Saturn V rockets reached on untimely end in
the deep Atlantic Ocean (see App 12.01). I understand that
he later revised his view on this but he was certainly of the
opinion that the Apollo 15 astronauts never left the ground.
It must be remembered that at the time Bill Kaysing was
writing there was no internet and no wealth of information
available on the Apollo Missions.

Bill Kaysing's book is revealing for many other reasons. It
was first penned in 1974 and first self-published in 1976. It
was later republished by Health Research Books in 2002. It
is a fascinating and quite detailed exposé of the Apollo
fakery which Kaysing refers to as the Apollo Simulation
Project (ASP).

Sceptic Jarrah White takes up this story about how far the
Apollo astronauts went. He has examined the videos of the
astronauts shown in weightless conditions in the capsule in
his two-part series (App 12.02 and 12.03). He points out
that on the Apollo 10 and 11 missions blue light is noticeable
through the capsule windows which he suggests indicates
that the capsule was actually in low Earth orbit even though
it was claimed by NASA to be halfway to the Moon in the
blackness of space. In Apollo 15 he shows that none of the
in-capsule video sequences lasts more than 30 seconds
which he maintains could have been filmed in the KC135
aircraft, affectionately known as the “Vomit Comet” (App
12.04).

So, Jarrah's conclusion seems to be that after Apollo 11 there
were no astronauts in the capsule with the possible
exception of Apollo 14. His reasoning is that after Apollo 11
NASA had fulfilled Kennedy''s goal to get men to the Moon

247

so it was no longer necessary to risk the possibility of some
rocket or other equipment malfunction.

I have just read an interesting article in the Nexus Magazine
(April-May 2019 Issue) by Randy Walsh entitled “Moon
Missions: Hiding a Hoax in Plain Sight”. Randy looks at the
evidence surrounding the power of the Saturn V rocket. He
shows amateur footage of the Saturn V lift-off from Cape
Canaveral for Apollo 11. His interpretation of the evidence
indicates that the Saturn V rocket could not have achieved
sufficient thrust to reach the optimal orbit for the trans-
lunar blast-off to the Moon and consequently, none of the
Apollo Missions could have gone to the Moon. This is the
paper referred to in that article and is by Popov PhD and
Andrei Bulatov which is posted on the Aulis website (App
12.5). According to this analysis, the Apollo 11 Saturn V
rocket didn't even make it into low Earth orbit but most
probably crashed into the Atlantic Ocean.

Photo Hunter Freeman: Stay Home Astronaut

248

This is in conflict with the “blue light” showing through the
capsule which Jarrah White pointed out in his video (See
App 12.02). If NASA-X had staged that video on Earth why
would they purposefully used “blue” light through the
windows when it should have been the blackness of deep
space? I think it must have been in low Earth orbit and that
NASA-X simply overlooked the finer details of what space
should look like through the capsule window.

So we seem to have very conflicting information about how
far the Apollo astronauts actually went and how many of
them reached low Earth orbit. It is perhaps academic as it
does not in any way detract from the main essence of the
deception. What we do know for certain is that they never
went to the Moon.

Audio of astronauts talking to Mission Control
Communication between Mission Control is to be expected
throughout the Apollo Mission. NASA had simulated all
aspects of the mission many times as part of the astronaut
training regime. They would, therefore, have had ample
audio tapes to use to make up the transmitted audio. What
they did not have they could easily fabricate.

There was however one aspect of the audio transmission
that NASA originally overlooked. The transmission signal
used for the audio conversation was radio waves which
travel at the speed of light, an astonishing 186,000 miles
every second. So light would travel 7.5 times around the
Earth in one second.

The Moon is about 240,000 miles from the Earth so any
signal would take about 1.3 seconds to reach Earth.

240,000/186,000 = 1.29 seconds

249

So when an astronaut on the Moon speaks it takes 1.3
seconds before Mission Control in Houston will hear him.
Likewise, when Mission Control asks the astronaut a
question then it must be at a minimum 2.6 seconds before
he gets a reply, that is 1.3 seconds for the signal to reach the
astronaut on the Moon and 1.3 seconds for the return signal
to be received back on Earth assuming the astronaut replies
instantly. Normally, there should be a slightly longer delay
as the astronaut absorbs the question and formulates his
response.

In some of the original NASA audio, this necessary time gap
according to the Laws of Physics was not there. For
example, watch this first TV transmission from the Moon on
Apollo 11 (App 12.06). At 26 seconds you hear Mission
Control comment:

“I think you are the only person around who does not have
TV coverage of the scene”

That comment ends at 30 seconds. At 31 seconds we hear
the astronaut on the Moon reply but that is after only one
second.

“That's alright I don't mind a bit”

This is physically impossible, the astronaut is answering
before he could have even received the message. There is no
confusion here as we can definitely see that the astronaut is
replying to that specific question. When NASA had this
problem pointed out by the sceptics they produced an edited
version on 17 July 2014 with the correct time delays added
(App 12.07). This new version is referred to as being a
“restored” video whatever that means but it is also an edited
version as you can hear if you listen from time 47.13 to

250