The Apollo Moon Hoax

49:00 when you will hear that repeated “echoes” are used to
add extra time in the delay. You can hear this obvious
correction clearly at the very beginning of this video from
NBC News (App 12.08). This editing of the original video is
described by “Hunchbacked” (App 12.09). This fact alone is
undeniable proof of NASA fakery in that they are attempting
to correct the oversights in the 1969 deceit.

Video of the Earth Seen from Space
A necessary shot we would all expect was that iconic view of
our distant Earth as the spacecraft was well on its way to the
Moon. This would be the absolute proof that the mission
was real. So it was essential that NASA provided this view of
the Earth but its efforts were not all that successful as we
will see.

This renowned view of Earth from the space capsule as it
was allegedly about halfway to the Moon is covered in the
famous Bart Sibrel film “A Funny Thing Happened on the
Way to the Moon” first released in April 2000 (App 12.10).
The video lasts 47 minutes and is well worth watching it
completely but you can skip to time 32 minutes to see that
portion of the video which discusses the Earth view from the
capsule.

In the video, it is claimed that NASA sent Bart Sibrel an old
film reel by mistake which shows an unscheduled TV
transmission in which the astronauts are filming the Earth
through the space capsule window. According to Bart Sibrel
this video shows the astronauts falsely staging the view of a
distant Earth through the capsule window when there are in
fact only in low Earth orbit and not half to the Moon as
NASA disingenuously claimed.

The real importance of this video lies in the discovery of a

251

third voice in the communications loop. According to NASA,
only two parties were involved in the communication, the
astronauts and the Capsule Communicator in Mission
Control in Houston, but we hear a third voice distinctly
different from the other two. It is just one word “talk” given
in the form of a command to Neil Armstrong. This is clear
proof that a third clandestine party was involved in
controlling the sequence of events. It is important that you
see this video without any narration, just the conversation
between Houston and the Apollo astronauts (App 12.11).
From this, you can better form your own opinion on what is
going on. Bart Sibrel's explanation of what is going on is just
one interpretation but Jarrah White has another. I present
Jarrah's explanation in full below.

“Over the past few months I have received many emails
from people asking me to comment on various videos
uploaded by the pro-NASA side. Specifically; they ask me
how can the Apollo 11 views of Earth be a transparency
over the window (as stated by Bart Sibrel and David
Percy) when one shot shows the Earth vanishing behind
the window. I explained this way back in 2007, but
unfortunately it seems that the propagandists'
misrepresentation of the footage continues to this day.

I am also asked how NASA got the cloud formations right if
these videos were faked. Apparently the clouds formations
seen in these telecasts are similar to those seen by weather
satellites. Firstly: the Apollo 11 crew made not one, but
FOUR television broadcasts during the coast phase of their
alleged voyage to the moon. According to the Spacecraft
Films DVD, the first one was filmed at 10:32GET (Ground
Elapsed Time, 10 hours 32 minutes after the start of the
mission); the second was filmed at 30:28GET; the third at
33:59GET; and the fourth was filmed at 55:08GET.

252

The first, third and forth broadcasts were all a continuous
video with no edits. But the second video (the one where the
earth clearly disappears behind the window), is just a
jumble of random interior and exterior shots. The
astronauts don't even appear in the same shot as the earth
vanishing behind the window.

In fact, if you actually watch these in-flight television
transmissions closely, you'll notice that the astronauts are
never in the same shot as the earth. The camera always
blacks out or cuts away between interior and exterior
shots. In the film industry, this is called 'smoke and
mirrors'. Anyways, long story short, Bart Sibrel and also
David Percy discussed the 10:32GET and 33:59GET
telecasts in their respective documentaries. These are the
two broadcasts that they say where filmed with a
transparency.

In response to the transparency claim, the 30:28GET
telecast has been flogged by members of the pro-NASA side
over and over again as though all four videos were the
same telecast! And not once do they reveal that it is in fact
an edited video. For the record, I believe that these videos
in which the 'earth' disappears behind the window were
filmed in a CSM mockup with an accurate globe on the
outside. At the request of a certain Youtube user who has
been confused by the pro-NASA side's representation of
these videos, I am uploading all four from start to finish.
Secondly: As stated above, these videos have been
compared with photos of earth taken by weather satellites
in orbit at the time. Naturally, the pro-NASA side has been
quick to call this 'evidence'.

This trait is typical among propagandists: they present a

253

piece of data or video that they don't know how to fake,
and they assume that anything they don't know how to
fake must be evidence that Apollo was real. Considering
that NASA had many weather satellites in orbit long before
and during Apollo, and that meteorologists had been using
such satellite photographs to predict cloud formations and
thus make forecasts for the week's weather, I'd say that's
how NASA was able to get the cloud positions right in these
videos.

Thirdly: I have also been asked why Sibrel says the
telecasts that NASA sent him were 'classified' when they
are available on the Spacecraft Films DVD set. The footage
that Sibrel received carried this title card: 'This film of the
Apollo 11 Mission was produced as a report film by THE
MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER and is not for general
public distribution'. Furthermore, NASA sent Sibrel this
footage in 2000. Spacecraft Films published their copy of it
in 2002. It seems to me that NASA decided to declassify
this footage after Sibrel leaked it! “

Jarrah White has posted a video showing his opinion of the
TV transmissions in which he also comments on the Bart
Sibrel video (App 12.12) and he subsequently posted an
addendum to this video (App 12.13). Now I need to admit
that all this is quite complex and not that simple to
comprehend. In the first video, Jarrah expresses doubts
about the dating of the video as shown on the title slate.
These doubts appear to be based on the date a newspaper
article was published in Australia showing an image of the
distant Earth from the Apollo 11 capsule which Jarrah
claims was published before the actual TV transmission.

In Jarrah's second video which is titled “MoonFaker:
Exhibit B, Corrections & Revisions” he attempts to simplify

254

his point about the dating of the video It appears to depend
on how NASA count the first day of the mission as either day
zero or day one. I am not entirely sure what relevance all
this has but I believe he is perhaps trying to suggest that the
video may have been made some time before the Apollo
mission and therefore must be fake.

What may be an important point made by Jarrah White was
that whenever they change the view between the Earth and
the interior of the capsule, it always blacks-out during the
change-over. You never see a direct camera pan from the
interior capsule view to the Earth view or vice versa. This
could be because they needed to turn off the interior lights
while they stage the Earth view or simply to adjust the focus
of the camera.

Jarrah also notes that while the audio is continuous the
video is not. It appears as though the video is edited and
portions omitted even though the Spacecraft Films DVD is
supposedly the full mission obtained from NASA. The
implication of this is that the astronauts are in low Earth
orbit and a pre-recorded video is being broadcast by NASA.

There seems to be no question that whichever version of
events you choose to accept these transmissions were clearly
faked.

Video of the Lunar Module Landing on the Moon
A 16mm Maurer Data Acquisition Camera (DAC) was fitted
in the capsule so that it had a view out of the Lunar Module
Pilot's window perfect for capturing the landing action. The
landing video for Apollo 14 is shown in this annotated NASA
video from the Apollo Lunar Journal (App 12.14). Watch
this first and then I will explain what is happening.

255

The approach part of the landing video used a camera
tracking over a model similar to that used in the astronauts
training simulator. If you look closely at time 14:36 you can
just about make out the striation lines of the model. I took
this screenshot from the video and added two black lines to
show the direction of the striations.

The model maker made up accurate scale models from
photographs taken of the lunar surface by the lunar orbiter
which flew parallel paths across the lunar surface on each
orbit. The only reference the model maker had was these
photographs on parallel paths and clearly he followed them
exactly to ensure accuracy. This resulted in discernable
parallel lines across the model surface.
Following the model sequence, a revolving matte was
applied to give the impression of sand being blown out by
the rocket engine. This was useful as it allowed the model
sequence to be dissolved into the actual stage set on which
the astronauts performed.

256

Note one interesting point that the object at the centre top
of the image changes shape from round to square after the
dissolve from the model to the full-size stage set (see App
12.14). This aberration was clearly a simple oversight by
NASA-X and it is the only Mission on which this happened.

Apollo 14 Shape Change After Dissolve Transition
If you think about what they were doing then it is quite
remarkable that they were able to make this transition from
a model to a full-size stage set with such convincing
accuracy. It clearly proved very difficult to always match up
persuasively the detail between the model and the full-size
set.
However, the transition from model to stage set was not
always perfect and often contains some anomaly. Here we
see another one from the same Apollo 14 video. The crater
shadows in the model prior to the dissolve are much deeper

257

than the final stage set version presumably because they got
the “sun” angle not quite the same. You need to watch very
closely to see this subtle difference. I have taken two
screenshots which perhaps shows the difference slightly
better.

Shadows before transition. Shadows after transition

One important thing to note is that for the first Moon
landing Apollo 11 they did not use this transition from a
model to a full scale set technique. It is only with Apollo 14
that they employed this technique with any degree of
success but even then as we have seen it was not perfect the
first time they tried it. For all later Apollo Missions, they
used a longer time sequence of the “sand” matte so any
transition was not so clearly discernable. Perhaps this was a
conscious decision to eliminate this transition problem.

TV pictures from the Moon
The best evidence to convince people that man had really
landed on the Moon would be “live” TV transmissions from
the lunar surface to capture the full glory of the action and
this is what NASA-X set about to produce.

NASA-X faced one big problem, how to produce “live”
television footage of men on the Moon operating in the
much-reduced Moon gravity? Clearly, the video needed to
be recorded and broadcast “live” to convince the world that

258

what they were witnessing as it happened was really true. Of
course, nobody would detect whether the TV signals coming
into Mission Control were “live” or even were actually
coming from the Moon. One needs to realise that one of the
most crucial parts of the hoax was to fool the operatives in
Mission Control. So how did they do this?

We can now introduce our main characters in the story and
see how they solved this problem.

Frederick Ordway who was an American space scientist and
author of visionary books on space flight (App 12.15). In
1965 he was a top official at the NASA, working closely with
the rocket scientist Wernher von Braun.

Arthur C. Clarke who was a well-known British science
fiction writer and was also an adviser to NASA and as such
was well connected with Ordway (App 12.16) .

At the time Stanley Kubrick was an up and coming film
producer and had achieved industry recognition with his
direction of the Kirk Douglas movie “Spartacus” (App 12.17)

The problem to be solved was how they could produce
convincing footage of men walking in the much reduced
gravity on the Moon. The idea emerged of making a movie
as a trial run for the NASA-X fakery. I believe that in about
1962 Arthur C. Clarke contacted Stanley Kubrick a well-
known film director to discuss the possibility of making a
sci-fi movie which would enable them to test out the
feasibility of producing convincing film footage of men
walking on the Moon.

The movie was to be “2001: A Space Odyssey” supposedly
financed by the American studio Metro Goldwyn Mayer

259

(MGM) to the tune of US$10 million. I find this rather
strange that a major studio would bankroll a movie for
which there was yet no script. Clarke and Kubrick would
write the script as the film developed although it was loosely
based on Clarke's book “The Sentinel”.

I suggest that the financing of movie was most probably
greatly influenced by NASA-X as it is doubtful that a major
studio would be willing to put up US$10 million for a movie
that had no established storyline. For NASA-X US$10
million would be a drop in the ocean given the extremely
large NASA budget.

The advantage of “The Sentinel” as the basis of the movie
was that it involved the Moon and offered the perfect test
bed for simulating Moon scenes that NASA-X needed to
test. As it transpired the movie was a great box office
success and grossed about US$180 million at the box office.

Arthur C. Clarke and Frederick Ordway were frequent
visitors to the Shepperton Studios where the movie was to
be made. In January 1966 production moved to the MGM-
British Studios at Borehamwood.

NASA gave Kubrick access to all their available data of the
Moon's topography which included the satellite
photography and later the large scale models that NASA had
created for astronaut training and the selection of suitable
landing sites for the Apollo Missions. These models were
later used as part of the fakery using small camera
technology which had been developed by John Dykstra who
at the time was a little known American special effects artist
who achieved fame much later for his work on the movie
“Star Wars”.

260

The resultant movie “2001: A Space Odyssey“ was started in
1963 and completed in 1968. It used the Front Screen
Projection technique to create the illusion of a large Moon
landscape which is exactly what NASA-X required. It was a
tremendous success being acclaimed as the best Sci-fi movie
of all time. Perhaps more importantly, it convinced NASA-X
that they could fabricate the Moon landings. A very
interesting discussion is shown on this video from
www.richplanet.tv in which the presenter Richard Hall
interviews Carl James (App 12.18). Carl James reveals many
pieces of circumstantial evidence which seem to point to
Kubrick's possible involvement.

It is abundantly clear that the Apollo Moon videos were
taken on a stage set as witnessed by the telltale evidence of
Front Screen Projection that we discussed in Chapter 6. The
fakery is this respect is rather poor as the “Kubrick
Horizontal” is so clearly visible in almost every Apollo Moon
video or photograph.

It always surprises me how anybody can view these videos of
the lunar-scape and be convinced that they were taken on
the Moon. I think the only explanation is that they do not
study the images in detail and overlook the very obvious
“Kubrick Horizontal”. This is acceptable for the average
person who may not look too closely at the videos or
photographs or even contemplate that elements within
NASA would have concocted such a massive hoax. I would
count myself in this group for 48 years in which I accepted
what NASA told us. However, the pro-NASA fan boys and
girls are in the main well-educated scientists who have
supposedly studied the subject in considerable detail. How
could they be so easily conned into accepting the NASA
evidence or are there other factors involved?

261

Some Rocks Brought Back from the Moon?
Proving that rocks come from the Moon is something of a
paradox. If the rocks are totally unique and therefore
unknown then it is not possible to state with any confidence
that they came from the Moon. The best that the geologists
can do is to infer that they seem likely to be from the Moon
but this is not proof. No doubt their judgement is somewhat
influenced by the fact that NASA told them that the rocks
were brought back from the Moon by the Apollo astronauts.

Rocks from the Moon do exist lying around on all parts of
the Earth. So one has only to search them out. We already
discussed in Chapter 4 the NASA field trip to Antarctica to
collect Moon rocks. So it doesn't take much imagination to
assume that the rocks collected were subsequently altered to
fake rocks supposedly brought back from the Moon. They
just needed to remove the traces of the burnt crust caused
by the fiery entry through the Earth's atmosphere and then
use lasers to add the micrometeorite zap craters that would
have been created on the Moon. This would be sufficient to
fool the geologists. Who really would be any wiser?

Photographs of Astronauts on the Moon
Producing photographs of astronauts on the Moon is a
relatively simple task and NASA did it to perfection, almost
too perfect to be convincing. Many of the photographs of the
Apollo astronauts on the Moon are so perfectly focused, so
perfectly framed and are of a standard that would be envied
by many semi-professional photographers. I consider these
photographs to be one of the weaknesses in the NASA
evidence.

Firstly, we need to consider the cameras “supposedly” used
by the astronauts on the Moon to understand why perhaps
the NASA photographs are considered to be too perfect to be

262

believable.

The cameras supplied were made by the company of Victor
Hasselblad AB, which is a Swedish manufacturer, and were
constructed to NASA specifications. Several different types
of camera were taken to the Moon to suit the type of still
photography and video tasks. I will not go into detail
concerning the technical aspects of these cameras, as I am
not a photographer and I probably would not understand
what I am saying. For any budding or even expert
photographers, you can see the full details in the NASA
documentation (App 12.19 and 12.20).

There are one or two aspects of the cameras, that are
claimed to have been used on the surface of the Moon which
differ from what you might expect and need to be
highlighted so that you can fully understand some of what
follows. The astronauts needed to wear special spacesuits to
be able to survive in the hostile climate while bobbing
around on the surface of the Moon. They also needed to
have both hands free to carry out specific tasks related to
planned scientific experiments. The camera was therefore
fixed “hands-free” into a special retainer attached on the
astronaut's chest although it could be unclipped and hand-
held if necessary.

These factors had three major consequences for
photography on the Moon in the way the cameras could be
operated.

Firstly, the astronaut's fishbowl helmets made it impossible
for them to look down into the viewfinder to frame the shot
and adjust the focus, so NASA did away with the viewfinder
as it would only have added weight and would not have
served any useful purpose.

263

Secondly, and another consequence of not being able to look
down at the camera, meant that the astronauts could not see
any buttons on the camera so that the buttons to operate the
camera were placed underneath at the front of the camera.

Thirdly, the spacesuits had to be pressurised with about 5
psi otherwise the astronaut's blood would boil and they
would turn into jelly and quickly die. The pressurised gloves
meant that it was very difficult to have a fine touch so the
buttons on the camera were made extra large. Imagine
typing your next email while wearing heavy-duty gardening
gloves and you get the idea. Hasselblad made all these
design adjustments to their standard 500EL design camera.

The Hasselblad cameras had an electric motor which largely
automated the picture taking process. The astronauts
needed only to set the distance, lens aperture, focus, and
shutter speed. I say, only, but wearing gardening gloves and
with your head in a fishbowl it is not such an easy task. Once
the release button was pressed, the camera exposed the film
wound-on to the next frame and tensioned the shutter.

The final design adjustment to the Hasselblad camera was
the fitting of a Reseau plate. The Reseau Plate was made of
glass and was fitted to the back of the camera body
extremely close to the film plane. The plate was engraved
with a number of crosses to form a grid. The intersections
were 10 mm apart and accurately calibrated to a tolerance of
0.002 mm. Except for the larger central cross, each of the
four arms on each cross was 1 mm long and 0.02 mm wide.
The crosses are recorded on every exposed frame,
supposedly providing a means of determining angular
distances between objects in the field-of-view. The
importance of the Reseau Plate in our discussions is that it
enables us to judge how well the photograph was centred

264

due to the larger cross centred on the Reseau plate.

The sceptic Marcus Allen has often commented on the
extremely high quality of some of the first photographs
taken by Neil Armstrong just minutes after arriving on the
Moon. In a presentation he made at the 5th British
Exopolitics Expo held at the University of Huddersfield on
September 28th 2013 he discussed this photography (App
12.21). It may be well worthwhile to watch the complete
video but I have extracted that part of the presentation
which covers these photographs (App 12.22)

Over the six Apollo Moon missions NASA state that the
astronauts took a total of about 6,000 photographs on the
Moon. Perhaps it is the mathematician creeping out of me,
but I do have a tendency when I see numbers to have an
urge to want to add, subtract, multiply and divide. So I got
to thinking, 6,000 photographs, now this is a very large
number. How long were they walking about taking
photographs while they were on the Moon? Well, it turns
out to be a total of just over 80 hours over the six missions.
No doubt you can see where this is going.

So calculator in hand I get 75 photos per hour (6,000/80).
So it seems that they took one photo every 48 seconds while
on EVAs that is a rather astonishing act of photography. I
must say that I am quite surprised at these numbers given
that many of these photographs were taken at different
locations, distances apart, so some walking or driving was
involved which limited the time to take photographs. I
realise in later missions Apollo 15, 16 and 17 that some
photographs were obtained from the camera on the Lunar
Rover but still the mind boggles at the number of
photographs allegedly taken on the Moon.

265

For example, for Apollo 15 NASA states that:

“The 67-hour stay time of the lunar module on the lunar
surface accommodated three EVA periods for a total of
almost 38 man hours of lunar surface activity. While on
the surface, the crew took 1,151 photographs with the
Hasselblad cameras. Major photographic tasks were to
record surface activities and document sample retrieval”

So we have 1,151 photographs taken by the “two crew” in
EVA's lasting 19 hours hours. That was 61 photographs
every hour or one photograph every 59 seconds. Note that
these 1,151 photographs were, according to the NASA
statement above, were taken only with the Hasselblad
cameras so does not include any photos taken by the Lunar
Rover camera. If you are at all inclined, take a look at this
video which shows the complete first EVA of Apollo 15 (App
12.23). Did you see any astronaut take a photograph? No,
you didn't, so when were they supposedly taking a
photograph every minute?

Something is seriously wrong here and simply highlights the
fakery once again. When I view all the videos of the Apollo
astronauts walking about on the Moon, I see very few
photographs being taken. I cannot explain why NASA has
produced such a large number of photographs but I will
leave it with you to ponder. Was NASA just over-excited
about producing Moon photographs and did not realise the
issue they were creating?

Evidence of Leaving Retro-reflectors
The retro-reflector saga was a ploy by NASA to act as a
“proof” that the Apollo astronauts did in fact land on the
Moon. They show clear video of the retro-reflectors being
“accurately” placed by the astronauts. We have already

266

discussed the retro-reflector story in Chapter 11 and
concluded that it is based on flawed science. The retro-
reflector only accounts for 0.000000967 percent of the area
covered by the diverged laser beam when it reaches the
Moon and only 0.000000000000000000714 percent by
the time it gets back to the receiving telescope on Earth.
Talk about finding the proverbial needle in a haystack.

If the retro-reflector is present in the area illuminated by the
laser it will only receive a minuscule part of the laser signal
and it cannot send back more than it received. This means
that the retro-reflectors of Apollo are much too small to be
really effective at such a large distance. The fact that the
system does not give an instantaneous result from one firing
of the laser but has to be repeated over many hours while
both the Earth and Moon are in constant relative motion is
just nonsense. What they think there are measuring to an
accuracy of 3 mm is puzzling.

NASA had intended that the subsequent use of the retro-
reflectors to bounce signals off the Moon would be
incontestable evidence of man stepping on the Moon and
placing the retro-reflectors there. Unfortunately, on closer
examination, this story is imperfect and doesn't stand the
scrutiny of the scientific evidence. Signals were being
successfully bounced off the Moon many years before
Project Apollo. Perhaps NASA didn't know about the work
of MIT in 1962 or simply hoped that it would not be
revealed.

Videos of Ascent Stage Blasting-off the Moon
If you have not seen the video of the Ascent Stage of the
Lunar Module lifting off from the Moon then take a look
now at the Apollo 17 leaving the Moon (App 12.24). It is a
surprisingly poor attempt at fakery. It looks like a model

267

being pulled up by a string and even worse it does not
exhibit the proper acceleration profile for a rocket taking off
when the first phase should be slow as the rocket initially
overcomes Moon gravity. The NASA-X model Lunar Lander
just pops up like magic.

You can view the other Apollo Mission blast-offs in these
videos Apollo 15 (App 12.25) and Apollo 16 (App 12.26). If
you are feeling concerned that they left a cameraman on the
Moon, then I can tell you that these videos were taken by the
camera on the Lunar Rover which was left discarded on the
Moon. The Lunar Rover camera was controlled from NASA
on Earth albeit with a signal delay so the camera operator
needed to act ahead of time. For both Apollo 16 and 17 the
camera on the Lunar Rover was panned to follow the rising
spacecraft. On Apollo 15 the camera does not pan upwards
to follow the spacecraft. NASA state that this was due to a
technical problem.

Now, what did we see in these supposed departures from the
Moon? Well, we certainly see a lot of flying debris in the
form of coloured fragments shooting out when the explosive
bolts are blown and guillotine knives are used to sever the
umbilical cables. These bolts are used to hold together the
descent and ascent stages. In all three videos, there is a
small triangular plume positioned on the descent stage
which stays visible for less than half a second but does not
follow the spacecraft upwards. There appears to be no
plume extending below the spacecraft as it rises. Finally, we
see that the rocket blast-off looks rather unnatural. I am no
rocket scientist, but it does appear as though the ascent
stage just pops up without any sign of that first pause one
would expect as it initially struggles to overcome lunar
gravity.

268

We will let Jarrah White outline the problem as he sees it
(App 12.27). In Jarrah's view, the claim by the pro-NASA
believers that the propellants used in the ascent stage rocket
would not give rise to a visible plume is not true and he
compares this to video footage from the Apollo 9 Mission.

I think you need to be a staunch pro-NASA believer to watch
these lift-offs from the Moon and be convinced that you are
watching some real event rather than some clumsily made
model attempt to fake it.

Video Capsule Landing on its Return to Earth
In some NASA videos of the capsule retrieval at sea, we may
have been looking at a real event or a capsule that had just
been unceremoniously dropped out of an aircraft. Either
way that part of the fakery was relatively easy.

If you can convincingly devise all these elements then you
may be able to fake the Moon landings. Unfortunately,
NASA was not able to do that without leaving many clues
that expose the fakery.

Simulation of Gravity
When you think about what is the difference between the
Earth and the Moon, you come up with two main elements.
Firstly, the Moon has a hostile climate with extremes of
fluctuating temperatures, high levels of radiation and no
atmosphere to sustain life. Secondly, it has a much lower
gravitation force compared to the Earth. The simulation of
the astronauts coping with no atmosphere is easily solved
with a fancy looking spacesuit supposedly with adequate
radiation protection but actually made of sewn together
layers of nylon unbelievably with zips.

Gravity is a much greater challenge. In theory, you could

269

train the astronauts in French mime like the famous Marcel
Marceau so they could pretend lower gravity in their
movements. This may have been less comical than what
NASA actually did. The best solution and the one adopted by
NASA was actually to simulate the Moon's lesser
gravitational force using slow-motion photography and
harness supports for the astronauts to relieve them of up to
83% of their Earth weight.

Astronauts were trained on Earth using special harnesses
which simulated the lesser gravitational force on the Moon.
There are several videos of these training exercises
produced by NASA in 1968. Here you can see some of the
ingeniously complicated contraptions devised in order to
simulate Moon gravity (App 12.28). Note that somehow they
state that they had managed to develop simulated lunar soil.
How I don't know given that they had nothing to compare it
with.

The training videos also showed astronauts using both
pressurised and unpressurised suits. The differences
between the unpressurised suit and the pressurised suit are
vast as the pressurised suit clearly inhibits the astronaut's
movements particularly at the joints. It is also clear in the
simulated lunar gravity condition that the astronauts had
problems in obtaining friction at their feet due to the fact
that up to 83.3% of their weight was taken up by the
counter-balanced wire. This aspect of friction at the
astronaut's feet will be discussed later.

The extraordinary ability of the astronauts shown in the
training videos to perform quite athletic movements,
jumping very high and even performing high somersaults
with little apparent effort. These athletic performances were
never seen in the actual Apollo Moon footage.

270

Astronauts on Wires
In the end, NASA opted for a single wire attached between
the backpack and the astronaut's body probably in some
harness around the astronaut's waist and chest. The wire
used was probably a braided black metal monofilament less
than 5 mm diameter, so it was not normally visible to the
Apollo cameras but on some rare occasions it could be
detected (App 12.29 and 12.30). In addition to the wire
support, NASA also used various slow-motion techniques to
simulate the gravity of falling objects.

The single suspension wire also had a negative effect in that
the astronauts exhibit some strange movements due to their
reliance on the wire support. In many cases, the astronauts
appear to stumble and then regain their balance. Some of
these sequences appear quite odd but this is simply because
the astronaut is partially suspended by the single wire (App
12.31). The single wire support also gave the astronauts a
tendency to spin then correct themselves.

The presence of the wire caused the astronauts to “lean” on
it for support and then to have sudden spasms induced by
the wire going slack causing a full body jerk to regain
balance. Their attempts to regain control of their balance is
affected by the pull of the wires and so many times they
appear to undergo “spasms” in their movement which looks
quite unnatural. However, this is a natural reaction of the
human balance system and we all exhibit these strange
spasms if we feel we are about to lose our balance. Try now
to lean over backwards and you will see what I mean.

Many unnatural physical movements of the astronauts are
often seen in the Apollo footage. The backpack can often be
seen being pulled back as the astronaut bends forward. Also
when the astronaut jumps, it appears that the backpack

271

rises first which is not what you would expect to see. You
would expect to see the head of the astronaut rise first and
then the backpack would get pulled up afterwards by the
astronaut's body. These instances are common if you watch
very carefully the footage of the astronauts moving.

For example, take a look at these sequences in the video
posted on YouTube (App 12.32). In this video, you see more
clips of the astronauts training with wire harnesses. Note
also, the “unnecessary” throwing of all manner of objects by
the astronauts. I say “unnecessary” but this was an
important part of the NASA ploy to present ample
opportunity for you to calculate the gravitational force and
hence “prove” it was really filmed on the Moon. You can also
see many examples of how the suspension wire was used to
“jerk” up an astronaut who had fallen.

The original video was filmed in slow-motion at 144 frames
per second (frps). An optical printer was then used to select
the frames required to build the slow-motion effect taking
into account the type of action on the set. This BBC Horizon
video from 1985 shows how the optical printer is used in
film making (App 12.33). Although this video shows the
more advanced Green Screen method and not the Front
Screen Projection method for the super-imposed back
screen image the techniques using the Optical Printer are
very similar. Note that VFX is just shorthand for Visual (V)
Effects (FX).

The suspension wire had counter-balance for the specific
astronaut's weight but the amount of weight taken off the
astronaut also depended on the final video frame rate per
second to be used as follows:

83.3% simulated lunar gravity requires 24 frps

272

44.6% simulated lunar gravity requires 44 frps
39.0% simulated lunar gravity requires 48 frps
0 % simulated lunar gravity requires 59 frps

This was a quite clever device of the fakers to cover the
deceit. Most sceptics have suggested that the video was
simply slowed down by some factor to create the simulated
Moon gravity. This would have led to the fakery being easily
discovered by simply speeding up the video by some factor.
Several sceptics have tried this but the results are never
totally convincing. The reason is that the frame rate is
constantly changing. so instead of you watching one clip at a
specific frame rate you are in effect watching several shorter
clips all at different frame rates but cleverly stitched
together. The frame rate changes are quite subtle usually
occurring as an astronaut jumps or performs some other
distracting activity.

The use of different frame rates (i.e. levels of slow-motion)
was quite ingenious. It was used extensively to falsely add
depth to the scene by tricking the eye that the stage set was
larger than it was. They did this by changing the amount of
slow-motion used depending upon what was happening on
the set. The closer the astronaut was to the camera then the
amount of slow-motion was much reduced. Particularly
when astronauts were manipulating objects very close to the
camera then the slow-motion was perhaps only 10%. As the
astronaut moves further away from the camera then the
amount of slow motion is increased in stages. This gave the
illusion that the stage set was much deeper than it actually
was as the time it takes the astronaut to move away is falsely
increased.

A good example of this is shown in this short clip extracted
from the anonymous “Make Believe: Smoke and Mirrors”

273

video #(App 12.34). Watch carefully and at elapsed time 5
seconds you can clearly see the speed change as the
astronaut slows down unnaturally. This is a good example of
the frame speed changing as more slow motion is added the
farther away that the astronaut moves from the camera.
Note that this revealing video a14v.1152334.mp4 has been
removed from the NASA archive and is no longer available.
It has been replaced by a new version a14v.1152334.rm in
Real Player format (App 12.35). Interestingly, the clear
evidence of the frame speed change has been eliminated.
This is just another example of NASA editing the evidence
that clearly reveals the techniques of the fakery.

In total at least seven different frame extraction sequences
can be detected which were used by NASA-X. These can be
used to calculate different frame adjustment factors needed
to remove the slow-motion from the NASA footage. The
basic equation is:

24 frps / slow-motion frps = frame length adjustment factor

For completeness, I will list all seven factor changes as
shown in the anonymous “Make Believe: Smoke and
Mirrors” video. Each factor change is used in specific
applications.

# The “Make Believe: Smoke and Mirrors” main video and
an appendix were posted on YouTube by an anonymous
person who heavily disguised his voice to avoid being
recognised. It was later added to by an additional 20
annotated videos to assist understanding also by an
anonymous “Enhanced Team”. All of these videos have since
disappeared from YouTube with no explanation. You can
view all of these videos on the website for my previous book
www.man-on-the-moon.info in Chapter 19.

274

59 frps Used to simulate Moon gravity of some
falling objects

24 / 59 = 0.4067 (Actual factor used 0.41)

44 frps Main film speed
24 / 44 = 0.5454 (Actual factor used 0.5454 )

42 frps Level one adjustment for detailed

action in distance
24 / 42 = 0.5714 (Actual factor used 0.57)

39 frps Level two adjustment for more detailed

action in mid-range
24 / 39 = 0.6153 (Actual factor used 0.615)

33.4 frps Level four adjustment for more detailed

action when astronaut is close to the
camera

24 / 33.4 = 0.7185 (Actual factor used 0.718)

26.67 frps Only used oddly on occasions when the
astronaut is extremely close to the

camera
24 / 26.67 = 0.8998 (Actual factor used 0.9)

24 frps Used for normal speed

24 / 24 = 1.0 (Actual factor used 1.0)

There may well be other speed change factors used that have
not been identified.

Gravity of Falling Objects
The one way to determine whether the astronauts are really
on the Moon is to measure the gravity by observing the time

275

it takes for objects to fall. NASA-X made sure that there
were many such possibilities to determine the gravity by
having the astronauts needlessly throwing all manner of
objects at every opportunity. Here are a few examples of
objects being thrown taken from Apollo 16 on the first EVA
(App 12.36).

In all other missions, we also see the same unnecessary
throwing of all manner of objects. I say unnecessary but for
NASA-X it was an important aspect of the hoax in order to
falsely “prove” that the astronauts were really on the Moon.
The exception is Apollo 11 in which we do not see anything
being thrown. Perhaps it was a later idea of NASA-X.

The pro-NASA fan club has been eager to use these
instances as absolute proof that the astronauts were really
on the Moon. I find this quite bizarre, do they really imagine
that NASA-X would have been so dumb as to forget that we
could calculate the gravity from the videos? Or do they fail
to properly understand what a hoax is all about? Of course,
NASA-X took this into account and used counter-balanced
wires on the astronauts and slow-motion photography as we
have already discussed. As we have seen they provided
ample opportunity to calculate the gravity from the
numerous instances of objects being purposefully thrown
around on the Moon. They also introduced pendulums to
provide more opportunity for us to make the gravity
calculation.

Although NASA-X were quite clever in this gravity
deception, it was far from perfect and they made several
glaring errors. There were other instances that NASA-X
seemingly forgot or failed to imagine. For example, the
swinging flag that we discussed in Chapter 8 “Defying
Gravity” (see App 8.08).

276

Gravity of Falling Sand
Although, NASA-X were able to manipulate the videos to
respect the lesser gravity on the Moon for objects thrown
and the jumps of astronauts. They were unable to
accomplish this simultaneously for the falling sand. In
Chapter 8 “Defying Gravity” we also examined the “Big Navy
Salute” made by astronaut John Young on the Apollo 16
mission (see App 8.10) in which the astronaut falls
according to the gravity of the Moon but the sand falls
according to Earth's gravity. It was not possible with the
techniques used to fake both these events at the same time.

Here we have a close look at some of the astronaut jumps all
taken from Apollo 16 but you can observe numerous such
instances in all the other Apollo Missions (App 12.37). In all
cases, the sand clearly falls faster than the astronaut which
according to the laws of physics is impossible. In
manipulating the “observable” gravity of the astronaut they
were unable to simultaneously do the same for the falling
sand. So what we observe is the astronaut behaving as
though he is on the Moon and the sand behaving as though
it is on Earth. This is incontestable evidence of the NASA-X
fakery. When the evidence is so clear and indisputable how
can the pro-NASA fan club members be so blind? It is this
blindness to the evidence shown by the pro-NASA group
that leads one to consider whether they are simply NASA
shills and are simply acting disingenuously.

Moon Stage Set
It is beyond doubt that the Apollo Moon scenes were
recorded in some studio here on Earth. There have been
various suggestions made by the sceptics as to the location
of the set. Sceptic Bill Kaysing suggested that the base for
the Apollo Simulation Project was a closely guarded secret
base just outside the small town of Mercury in Nevada, USA.

277

Wherever the Moon sequences were filmed it would need a
large circular set of up to 300 metres or possibly more in
diameter. The one exception that stands out is Apollo 11 the
supposed first Moon landing. The set for Apollo 11 looks
very limited in size and does not show any background
features as the later missions do. Apollo 11 did supposedly
touch down in a flat area but there should have been
mountain ranges clearly visible in the distance as discussed
in Chapter 6 “Visions of a Moon”. I have no evidence for
this suggestion as it is merely a hunch but it may be possible
that that Apollo 11 video was shot at Pinewood Studios in
England. Remember that “2001: A Space Odyssey” did have
a moonscape scene based on NASA detailed data. It could
have been a test for NASA-X to judge whether the hoax
would look acceptable on video. In all Apollo videos
supposedly taken on the Moon we have no idea whether the
astronauts shown are the real astronauts or merely actors.
We can never see their faces as the gold covered visor is
always down.

There is just one exception
to this. In Apollo 17, the
claimed last man on the
Moon Eugene Cernan, for
one brief moment he has his
visor up and you can just
about make out a face which
could be him.

Source NASA:
Eugene Cernan
with visor up

278

We do not even know whether the voices in the videos were
recorded at the time of the video or added later. Certainly
some of the commentary made by the astronauts in the
videos is somewhat benign and perhaps not what we would
expect from trained astronauts on a scientific mission.

The remaining Apollo Missions were clearly filmed on a
much larger specially constructed set which had gantry
cranes above for the suspension of the astronauts on wires.

As I have stated previously Apollo 11 did not appear to use
the wire suspension technique or as far as I can discern the
Front Screen Projection technique. A revealing insight into
the Apollo Moon stage set is given in the “Make Believe:
Smoke and Mirrors” video which I mentioned above as
shown in this extract from the video (App 12.38).

Friction
The “simulated” lower gravity on the Moon caused other
problems for the astronauts and is one reason for their
rather strange “bunny hopping” locomotion in that they had
insufficient friction at their feet. So what is Friction? So let's
start with some physics on the friction of walking on ice and
how to cope with it (App 12.39).

Friction when walking is simply the force created between
your shoes and the ground and is the force that stops you
falling over. But as the slipperiness of the surface increases
then you need to take smaller more cautious steps in order
to maintain your balance.

Go try walking on some ice or some other very slippery
surface and you will see what I mean.

279

The formula for friction is

F = μG

where
• μ is the coefficient of friction between your feet (or
shoes) and the surface that you are walking on
• G is the force you exhibit on the ground, your weight

Note that the coefficient μ depends on the two surfaces that
are in contact, the material of your shoe soles and the nature
of the ground. Typically, for synthetic material shoe soles on
concrete or asphalt, the coefficient is in the range 0.6 to
0.75. Did you ever try to walk on ice? Well, the coefficient of
ice is between 0.1 and 0.15 depending upon the roughness of
the ice. So when you walk on ice you tend to slip as shown in
this YouTube video (App 12.40).

This would have had significant problems for the astronauts
on the Moon as described by “Steve the Chemist” in this
YouTube video (App 12.41). The simulation of the lesser
gravity of the Moon by the use of suspension wires resulted
in the astronauts having less frictional support at their feet.
This video is interesting as it also explains why we would
expect to see the astronauts bent over due to their
backpacks. It is also the reason why toddlers take smaller
steps when they first start to walk. We never see the
astronauts bent over to keep their balance as would be
expected when you are carrying a backpack equal to your
own weight. Note that this static balance effect is the same
irrespective of the actual weight as it is a function of
dynamics not weight so any argument that everything
weighed six times less on the Moon is completely missing
the point.

280

The limited friction that the astronauts had when the
counter-balance weight was large resulted in them tending
to bounce rather than walk. You see this unusual “bunny-
hopping” locomotion very often in the Apollo Moon videos.

The Problems with Moon Dust
The topic of Moon dust has been debated continuously ever
since NASA published the now iconic photograph of the
distinctive boot print made by Buzz Aldrin from the Apollo
11 Mission. The sceptics argued that it would not be possible
to leave such a distinct boot print in the dry dust on the
Moon. Therefore, they suggest that the “Moon dust” must
have been damp which we know would be impossible on the
Moon which has no atmosphere as any moisture would
instantly evaporate.

The scientific word for Moon dust is regolith which simply
means the loose material covering the solid base rock on a
planet, on Earth we call it organic soil or sand. The word
“regolith” is derived from the combination of two Greek
words, rhegos (which means “blanket”) and lithos (which
means “rock”). You never know, this might be useful
information on your next holiday to Greece if you run out of
meaningful conversation.

The pro-NASA group will explain to you that the regolith on
the Moon is totally unlike that here on Earth. On the Moon,
there is no weathering by wind, rain or ice so the regolith
particles are not rounded but are sharp and jagged.
According, this “jagged” theory is offered as the reason why
the grains of sand appear to “stick” together whereas round
grains would just collapse and slide away.

The pro-NASA Mythbusters produced a TV show in which
they engineered an experiment conducted in a vacuum

281

chamber in an attempt to prove that the photograph of the
boot print made by Buzz Aldrin on the Moon was genuine
(App 12.42). For the experiment, they obtained an Apollo
Moon boot from NASA and some simulated Moon regolith.
The Mythbusters appear to have convinced themselves that
they had managed to replicate a similar boot print in
simulated Moon regolith. The Mythbusters constructed a rig
in a vacuum chamber and made a boot print which they
claimed reproduced the Apollo Moon boot print exactly but
you can judge for yourself how successful they were from
the following comparative photograph.

282

In this photograph, we have above the actual boot print
made by Buzz Aldrin on the Moon and below the
Mythbusters attempt. Notice in the real Apollo boot print
how sharp the edges of the imprint are. The Mythbusters
boot print has no sharp edges mainly because the sand is
dry and therefore cannot leave a sharp edge so in effect the
Mythbusters may have proved the opposite of what they
intended.

Oily Sand
NASA-X would have had concerns that sand on Earth would
form dust clouds as the particles are suspended in the air.
The solution was to add a small amount of light oil to the
sand. This had the effect of eliminating the dust clouds but
still giving the sand the appearance of separate grains. You
can try it for yourself, buy a bag of sand and add a very small
amount of thin oil to it, say vegetable cooking oil.
Experiment with the amount of oil to achieve your “Moon
dust” consistency. You will have produced your own “Moon
regolith”. Notice that it is quite sticky and adheres to almost
everything.

The addition of a small quantity of oil solved the problem of
the dust clouds but also caused a severe problem for the
astronauts in that the sand stuck to everything. You see it all
the time in the NASA videos, covering the astronaut's suits
and even adhering to the side of metal equipment.

This would have not happened if the sand was only “jagged”.
The astronauts complained of the dust problem getting into
the Lunar Module capsule. They could not brush it off as the
oil caused it to be very sticky and would have required
detergent to remove it. NASA-X needed to mention this
problem with the Moon dust as it was glaringly apparent
from the videos that it stuck to almost everything.

283

The Evidence
In creating the evidence to support the fake Apollo Moon
landings NASA-X could be commended on achieving such a
good job considering the extremely limited resources
available back in 1969. Certainly, it has fooled the majority
of people for 50 years and still fools a large gullible
proportion of the population. However, it was not at all
perfect as we have seen in this book. There are so many
weaknesses in the evidence which totally expose the deceit.
There are still those, who no matter what the evidence
shows us, will steadfastly cling to the belief that the Apollo
astronauts did reach and walk on the Moon. One needs to
question this mentality adopted by seemingly intelligent
people who are supposed “experts” in the Apollo evidence.
How can this group of pro-NASA experts watch the Apollo
videos and not see the glaring inconsistencies and the tell-
tale evidence of the fakery?

284

CHAPTER 13

LIGHTS, CAMERA, ACTION

“All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players”

William Shakespeare, As You Like It

The Apollo Missions were controlled predominantly at the
Mission Control Center in Houston. You can see the
complexities of this set-up in the NASA video covering the
Apollo 13 Mission (App 13.01). All telemetry data came into
this centre where it was viewed and acted on by the data
feed controllers. Any fakery would have had to penetrate the
scrutiny of these operatives.

We have patiently examined this piece, or that piece, of the
evidence which shows conclusively that the Apollo Moon
landings were faked by NASA-X. We have examined
photographs, studiously watched videos, read documents,
listened to opinions and interpretations from experts and
laymen alike. None of this answers the question how did
they make this into an apparently seamless presentation
broadcast “live” to the world.

In the proceeding chapters, we have shown that there are
too many inconsistencies in the NASA evidence for the
Apollo Missions to have been real but it still remains to
consider how the final fakery was produced. It is certain that
the many hours of “fake” mission video, the faked
photographs, the fake Moon rocks and even some of the
missions transcripts were produced before the Apollo
missions were even started. The problem is that we have not
yet explained totally how all these faked elements could

285

have been used in practice to produce the seamless viewing
of the Apollo Missions.

The Production
Let us examine this in detail. We are dealing with an event
that was shown live all around the world and each mission
was continuous for several days. For Apollo 11, the event
lasted over eight days, while for Apollo 17, it lasted over
twelve days.

We witnessed the launch of the Saturn V rocket from Cape
Kennedy, with or perhaps sometimes without astronauts.
We observed the astronauts floating weightless in the
spacecraft, we saw them walking on the Moon, and we saw
them return to Earth to the final splashdown. All of this
time they were supposedly in constant contact, via both
voice and video, with Mission Control in Huston. All this
activity was seen by hundreds of people in NASA and
millions of others throughout the world.

If only a handful of people were involved in the fakery, then
in addition to the whole world being fooled, the very people
who were supposedly controlling the event minute by
minute at Mission Control in Houston, and elsewhere, were
also totally fooled. This appears, at first sight, to be highly
improbable.

It is abundantly clear that all these scientists and engineers
in mission control did not know that what they were
watching was not true. If that is the case then what
telemetry data feeds were they seeing and what TV
transmissions were they watching.

Simulated Telemetry
We do know that when they designed the control room at

286

mission control in Houston it was necessary to test the
complete system using simulated telemetry. There is
nothing wrong with this, it is normal practice to test
equipment using simulated data. I have done it many times
myself in my career. The question must then be, where was
this “fake” data coming from?

NASA launched the TETR-A satellite (TEst and TRaining
satellite) on 13 December 1967. The purpose of this satellite
was to simulate transmissions coming from space and the
Moon so that the controllers at Mission Control in Houston
could rehearse the Apollo Missions. These simulated
transmissions would also appear to be a perfect source for
the fake transmissions later to be used on the “real” Apollo
Missions.

The satellite was used to provide simulated data feeds of all
the telemetry that would later come from the actual Apollo
Missions. It is reported by NASA that the TETR-A satellite
fell to Earth on 28 April 1968, so it could not have been used
during any of the actual Apollo Missions. This is actually
disputed by several sources who maintain that it was still
operational after April 1968 so it could have overlapped the
initial Apollo Missions. You can see the basis of the
discussion here on the Clavius website (App 13.02).

However, the simple fact is that once this simulated
telemetry data had been collected a satellite would no longer
be necessary so whether the TETR-A satellite was still
operational after April 1968 is of no material consequence.
The simulated telemetry, possibly with amendments, was
subsequently used during the Apollo Missions disguised as
real telemetry coming from the Apollo spacecraft. The NASA
operatives would have no idea where this telemetry was
coming from, numbers on a screen are simply numbers on a

287

screen whatever the source was. There would probably still
be actual telemetry coming from the real spacecraft in low
Earth orbit but this could simply be ignored and not
broadcast to the NASA operatives in Mission Control.

So let us summarise what we have:

1. A large collection of fake photographs taken on some
Moon set here on Earth

2. Hours of fake Moon video filmed on some Moon set
here on Earth

3. A collection of fake Moon rocks, meteorites probably
collected from Antarctica subsequently modified to
hide the evidence of the entry through the Earth's
atmosphere and then add the telltale zaps pits

4. A simulated series of telemetry data obtained from
TETR-A and perhaps modified to suit each Apollo
Mission

The question to be answered is how all this could be
fashioned into some seamless presentation that could fool
the world for 50 years and not just once but nine times
when you include Apollo 8, 10 and the supposedly ill-fated
Apollo 13.

Several of our Sceptics, Bill Kaysing, Jarrah White, Bart
Sibrel, have hinted in their various videos and books on the
subject how, in their opinion, NASA achieved the pretence.

The final clue they needed was the discovery by Bart Sibrel
in the video “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the
Moon”. This was the evidence of the existence of an
additional communication channel directly to the astronauts
bypassing and therefore unbeknown to the mission control
operatives. This was revealed in the “Talk” interruption at

288

elapsed time 34:34 (see App 3.03). Supposedly the only
communications channel was between the Houston Capsule
Communicator and the astronauts. However, this voice is
clearly neither of them and is uttered in the tone of an
impatient “direct order” to Neil Armstrong.

The finding is significant, but what is perhaps more
significant still is the fact that this previously unpublished
video was then released by NASA to Spacecraft Films but
with the “Talk” interruption removed. Why would NASA
have needed to have done this, if it wasn't in some way
incriminating? Quite often we see that the deliberate actions
of NASA to edit evidence is more revealing than the actual
original anomaly.

For the sceptics, this was the final piece of evidence they
needed to expose the enigma. They could now complete the
whole story of how NASA could have deceived not only its
own operatives but most of the entire world.

They had the fake videos of the activities on the Moon
filmed in some stage set on Earth as we described in
Chapter 12. These videos could be scripted down to the
second. This script could then be controlled by the
clandestine team who could instruct the Capsule
Communicator who was the only one allowed to
communicate with the astronauts. He could then appear to
be communicating with the astronauts in the “fake” video
being played and broadcast to the world. The reality of this
direct communication was further cleverly enhanced by
NASA, in that they often had the Capsule Communicator
give instructions to the astronauts which they seemingly
obeyed, for example, “pick up that rock near your left foot”.
The existence of a correctly timed script made the
impossible, eminently possible.

289

The only issue was that the Capsule Communicator had to
be in the clandestine loop. This was solved by NASA only
allowing another astronaut to communicate directly with
the astronauts on the Moon, therefore the Capsule
Communicator was always also an astronaut and surely to
be in the know. This NASA said was for safety reasons as
only another astronaut could properly interpret what the
astronauts were saying or doing.

So there we have it, a complete understanding of how NASA
deceived the entire world, and most of its own employees.
The improbable turned into the possible.

It really was all faked

290

CHAPTER 14

CONCLUSIONS

“But this denoted a foregone conclusion”
William Shakespeare, Othello

I would imagine that back in 1972 NASA-X must have been
feeling reasonably confident that they had successfully
achieved the greatest hoax in history as they had seemingly
convinced the whole world of the great achievement of
advanced American technology. There were a few voices in
the wilderness that cast doubts on the truth of the matter.
People like Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene, but they could be
ignored as attention seeking cranks. After all, there have
been conspiracy theories since time began. What NASA-X
could not have imagined was the rapid development of the
internet and the power that this gave to the ordinary
individual to carry out their own investigative research into
the Apollo Missions.

It is often said that it is easier to prove that something didn't
happen than to prove that it did. This is the case with the
Apollo Moon Missions. At the first cursory glance, the
evidence is all there to prove that the Apollo Missions
actually reached the Moon, not once but nine times,
although they only claim to have landed on the lunar surface
six times. However, it is the errors in this imperfect fakery
that enable us to be confident in our conclusions that these
missions were in fact faked. In this book, we have examined
the evidence for the fakery and shown conclusively that the
Apollo astronauts never reached the Moon. It is now certain
that the Apollo astronauts never travelled any farther into
space than low Earth orbit and some not even that far.

291

In this book we have highlighted several instances which
indisputably reveal the fakery. Now we can summarise our
findings of those aspects in which the fakery can be clearly
detected.

Chapter 5 Too Much Radiation
The question of radiation and the dangers of passing
through the Van Allen radiation belts was examined in
Chapter 5. We have the detailed information from NASA
that the astronauts only received extremely minimal
radiation dosages on the way to the Moon and back again.
The error NASA made in first presenting this story is that
initially, they claimed that the astronauts passed straight
through the Van Allen radiation belts.

As more questions were raised about the dangerous
radiation in the Van Allen belts, NASA needed a story that
the Apollo Missions avoided the worst of the Van Allen belts
by taking a northerly route to avoid the most dangerous
inner belt. This assertion is in complete conflict with all the
original NASA documentation produced at the time of the
missions. In all the published documentation released at
the time, the routes were clearly described and shown on
diagrams as the trans-lunar burn taking place around the
equator. On the so-called northerly route this would not
have been possible without much additional fuel and time.

However, the biggest tell-tale of the deceit is in the voice
recordings of Apollo 8, the first mission to go outside the
Earth's protective magnetosphere and to traverse the Van
Allen radiation belts. Given the known dangers of the
radiation in the Van Allen belts, it is completely implausible
that no mention was made of the Van Allen radiation belts
in the voice transcripts of Apollo 8. Mission Control would

292

have been asking for Geiger counter and dosimeter readings
all the way as the spacecraft passed through the Van Allen
radiation belts as an essential precaution for the safety of
the astronauts. If the radiation being suffered by the
astronauts was severe it may have been possible to
terminate the mission and return the astronauts to the
protective safety of the Earth's magnetosphere. None of this
happened which is an affirmative indication that Apollo 8
did not leave low Earth orbit and consequently did not pass
through the Van Allen radiation belts or go to the Moon.

Perhaps, the final word should come from NASA
themselves. In Chapter 5 we mentioned the BBC Newsnight
interview with NASA Chief Scientist Dr Ellen Stofan, who is
the principal advisor to the NASA Administrator, aired in
November 2014 she said:

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

This a very revealing statement given that NASA claim to
have sent Apollo astronauts 27 times outside the Earth's
protective magnetosphere and according to NASA's own
data the radiation effect on these astronauts was minimal.
So one needs to ponder why it is now seen as such “a really
big issue”. NASA now tell us about the difficulties of
providing radiation protection for the astronauts but the
obvious question is, didn't they already solve this problem

293

for the Apollo Missions half a century ago?

I think the only conclusion one could make is that the
Apollo astronauts never travelled outside the Earth's
magnetosphere and now NASA are faced with the problem
of supposedly repeating the missions to the Moon without
killing the astronauts. I am personally very doubtful that
humans can travel into space with the present technology.

Chapter 6 “Visions of a Moon”
In Chapter 6 we examined the evidence of the photographs
and videos supposedly taken on the Moon. For me, this is
one of the most revealing evidence of fakery. The use of the
front screen projection technique to create the moonscape
was the real weakness of the fakery. The tell-tale fingerprint
of the discernable “Kubrick Horizontal” in almost all
photographs and videos is all the evidence one needs to
show the fakery. There is no way that these could be natural
features unless all Apollo Mission landed on a sort of a
plateau which we are told was not the case.

Not only do we see the overwhelming evidence of the
“Kubrick Horizontal” but we also see compelling evidence of
the use of artificial lights being used to light the set and
actors. This is most apparent in the infill lighting around
and on the astronauts but also in the unevenly lit Moon
surface. In Apollo 11 we also see that this extra lighting even
illuminates the rear black screen which is supposed to be the
blackness of deep space.

It is nothing less than miraculous that sane, presumably
sensible, scientists can look closely at these supposed
moonscapes and be convinced that is what the Moon really
looks like.

294

Chapter 7 “The Suns of Apollo”
In Chapter 7 we examined the lighting on the Moon and the
strange reflections of the “sun” in the visors of the
astronauts. The images we saw were not at all what we
expected. In several cases, we even observed the reflection
of two “suns” in the astronaut's visor.

Perhaps, the biggest evidence of the deceit was the change in
the size of the “sun” reflection in the astronauts visor and
the simultaneous change in the lighting of the scene as
described by “Steve the Chemist” (see App 7.02).. This was
clearly the reflection of some lighting source other than the
real Sun which would always show a constant size.

Attempting to fake the real Sun was always going to be a
challenge for NASA-X. Whatever lighting source they used
on the stage set could never realistically produce the same
illumination that one would get from the real Sun such as an
evenly lit lunar surface. Attempting to convincingly mimic
the light from a burning star 93 million miles was always
bound to failure.

Chapter 8 “Defying Gravity”
In Chapter 8 we examined the question of gravity. It was
one of the main pieces of evidence that NASA hoped would
demonstrate that the Moon landings actually occurred and
NASA invited you to measure the gravitational force from
the videos of astronauts jumping, needlessly throwing
objects or from swinging pendulums. Instead it just proved
to be the most convincing piece of evidence that
demonstrated the fakery beyond doubt.

The pro-NASA devotees have rejoiced at this evidence and
have used it many times in an attempt to prove that the
Apollo Missions were real. They do not appear to

295

understand what fakery is all about. What did they expect
NASA to do if they did fake it, show Earth gravity? NASA
were able to ensure that the timings on the video did match
what you would expect to see on the Moon. As we saw in
Chapter 8 they used a combination of slow-motion
photography and counter-balanced wires to support the
astronauts.

The problem that NASA-X could never solve was the
simultaneous fakery of the movements of the astronauts and
the behaviour of the Moon dust.

In Chapter 8 we saw clearly videos which showed two
distinct levels of the gravitational force occurring at the
same location and at the same time (see also App 12.37).
The laws of physics and common sense tell us that this
cannot happen in the real world so what we are witnessing is
the fake world of NASA-X. This is a world in which the laws
of physics are being manipulated by trickery in an attempt
to falsely convince us that the Apollo astronauts actually
walked on the Moon.

The result was the most convincing evidence of the fakery
and proof that the videos were shot in Earth gravity.

Chapter 9 “Silent Sounds”
Sound is transmitted by vibrations that travel through the
air or some another medium and can be heard when they
reach a person's ear. The important thing here is that sound
requires some medium to cause the vibrations to be
transmitted. On the Moon there is no atmosphere so there
cannot be any sound.

However, we have seen videos in which sound can be heard
when the astronauts have used hammers as part of the

296

setting up of equipment. It has been argued by the pro-
NASA believers that this sound was transmitted through the
astronaut's hand, arms and body so as to reach the
microphone in the astronaut's helmet. Such an explanation
is eminently plausible, although one would have expected
the sound to be somewhat more muted and not “ringing” as
we heard in the video. We have also even heard the faintly
muffled sound as astronaut's walk. In effect the pro-NASA
believers are suggesting that we hear these sounds “because
the spacesuit acted like a drum”.

Fortunately, we do not need to rely on such debatable
evidence as we have an instance in which sound is heard
when no astronaut is in contact with the objects making the
sound. This was revealed in the video clip identified by Jet
Wintzer (see App 9.13 at time 8:36). It occurs when Apollo
15 astronaut James Irwin discards a metal band by throwing
it into the air. Fortunately for us, it hits the Lunar Module
and makes a distinct sound thereby providing all the
evidence we need. The “James Irwin metal band throwing
incident” is clear irrefutable proof of the NASA fakery. There
are no other feasible explanations.

Chapter 10 “Diminished Technology”
In Chapter 10 we discussed the loss of interest after Apollo
for NASA to target the Moon for future missions. It is indeed
strange that after Project Apollo ended prematurely in 1972,
going back to the Moon was forgotten and for decades NASA
concentrated on other goals.

President Kennedy's Moon speech was in May 1961 and just
less than 8 years later the Apollo 11 crew “supposedly”
landed on the Moon in July 1969. It all seemed so easy back
then but it is clearly more difficult now. Now, we have NASA
struggling since 2004 to leave low Earth orbit and they do

297

not expect to walk on the Moon again until 2024, if we are
to believe the latest deadline. That is the best part of 20
years of development and that with far more sophisticated
technology in terms of computer-aided design software,
automated manufacturing techniques, and the experience of
having done it before.

It now seems that it will take twice as long to do what they
did so easily before. There is something rather strange about
this story. The only conclusion that one can draw from this
is that the Apollo Missions never actually went to the Moon.
This surely must be absolute proof of the NASA fakery. The
real reason that NASA has not returned to the Moon in the
past 50 years is obvious, the simple fact is that they never
went there in the first place.

Chapter 11 “Keeping the Secret”
In Chapter 11 we discussed the main reasons that the pro-
NASA believers often use to prove, to themselves mostly,
that the Apollo Missions could not have been faked.

These are:
1. Too many people worked on the project so any fakery
would have been disclosed by at least one of them in
the past 50 years
2. The Russians surely would have known it was faked
and would have certainly revealed it to the world
3. The astronauts brought back Moon rocks which have
been attested by geologists as definitely being from
the Moon
4. The astronauts left retro-reflectors on the Moon and
these are still being used to measure how fast the
Moon is drifting from the Earth

Although at first sight, these reasons offer compelling

298

evidence that the Apollo astronauts must have been to the
Moon, we found in Chapter 11 that none of these reasons
had any basis when examined in detail.

Does Anyone Believe the Astronauts?
The one group of people who should know the answer to the
question “did man walk on the lunar surface?” are the
astronauts themselves. The astronauts have made many
public appearances and told us their story of great
adventure but can it shown that they are telling the truth.

In the both the pre- and post-Press Conferences of Apollo 11,
the astronauts demeanour caused some observers to suspect
that they were extremely uncomfortable which gave rise to
many suspecting that they may have been lying. Judge for
yourselves (Pre-flight App 14.01 and post-flight App 14.02).
So what is the truth?

Apparently, there is one method called Statement Analysis
which some people claim can be up to 90% effective in
determining whether a person is lying or not.

I personally had not heard about “Statement Analysis”
before. I suppose I did know, for example, that enforcement
agencies take statements from witnesses to a crime and
analyse them for inconsistencies. Statement Analysis is one
step further in that they examine the language used and
make inferences from the words and structure of the
language used.

If, like me, you have never heard of “Statement Analysis”,
then this is what Wikipedia tells us :

“Statement analysis, also called scientific content analysis,
is a technique for analyzing the words people use to try to

299

determine if what they said is accurate. Proponents claim
this technique can be used to detect concealed information,
missing information, and whether the information that
person has provided is true or false.”

The website “SkepDic.com” also says this:

“Statement analysis (aka content analysis) analyzes the
content of statements to detect whether information
provided by a suspect is truthful or intentionally
incomplete. Supposedly, there are linguistic cues a person
gives that can reveal concealed, missing, or false
information. Those who defend this technique of
interrogation believe that they have a reliable method to
detect deception in ways that go beyond the obvious
technique of making logical inferences from what is stated
and identifying implausible claims based on general or
specific knowledge. Anyone can detect a lie, for example,
when a suspect is caught in a contradiction or makes
statements that are inconsistent with one another. To
someone with substantial background knowledge relevant
to the issue being investigated, it is often obvious when a
person making a statement has omitted important
information”.

So it is a method of detecting deception and is used
extensively by many law enforcement agencies, and also
companies, throughout the world. So how useful and
accurate is it?

Statement Analysis is a science in its own right, and is
claimed by adherents to be very accurate in detecting
deception (App 14.03). They claim that Statement Analysis
techniques are very accurate because they are based on the
English language, which has tight word definitions, and

300