The Apollo Moon Hoax

CHAPTER 3

BUILDING THE DREAM

“Be great in act,
as you have been in thought”
William Shakespeare, King John

The Race Begins
More than a year before President Kennedy's Moon speech,
NASA was actively discussing a manned mission to the
Moon. An abstract from the NASA document “The Apollo
Spacecraft - A Chronology” (App 3.01) reports on a meeting
held on 5-6 January 1960:

“During a meeting of the Space Exploration Program
Council at NASA Headquarters, the subject of a manned
lunar landing was discussed. Following presentations on
earth orbit rendezvous (Wernher von Braun, Director of
Marshall Space Flight Center), lunar orbit rendezvous
(John C. Houbolt of Langley Research Center), and direct
ascent (Melvyn Savage of NASA Headquarters), the
Council decided that NASA should not follow any one of
these specific approaches, but should proceed on a broad
base to afford flexibility. Another outcome of the discussion
was an agreement that NASA should have an orbital
rendezvous program which could stand alone as well as
being a part of the manned lunar program”

On 7 February 1961, the final report of the NASA Manned
Lunar Landing Task Group outlined "A Plan for Manned
Lunar Landing" within the decade using either the Earth
Orbit Rendezvous or some direct ascent technique. This led
to Presidents Kennedy's “Man on the Moon” speech to

51

Congress on 25 May 1961. The race to the Moon was on.

The Logistics
The first issue to be faced by NASA was how do you get a
man to the Moon and safely bring him home. There were
many major obstacles ahead, the first of which was the
logistics. To take a rocket from Earth directly to the Moon
and return it safely was quickly rejected as being too
difficult due to the massive weights involved, mostly the
weight of the fuel required. It is a paradox of escaping
Earth's gravity that most of the fuel needed is required to lift
the fuel, in fact fuel accounted for 94% of the weight.

There were some suggestions put forward by Werner von
Braun to take components of the system into low Earth orbit
using multiple launches and then assemble a Moon rocket in
space. In fact as early as 1955 von Braun had suggested his
grand plan for Moon exploration (App 3.02). This again was
rejected as being too complex as there was not then the
experience of assembling machines in space or more
realistically doing anything in space.

There is a video from 1966 produced by the MIT Science
Reporter television programme which describes the lunar
landing (App 3.03). It is interesting as it shows some
simulation equipment by which the astronauts could
practice the Moon landing. We will discuss simulators later
in this chapter.

The logistics method finally chosen was dubbed as the
Lunar Orbit Rendezvous Approach and was first suggested
by an obscure NASA scientist named Dr John C.Houbolt.
The concept was to build a rocket composed of many pieces
and discard the useless weight of each piece when its
function was completed (App 3.04). Perhaps not the most

52

economical approach but at this stage money was not seen
as a serious constraint.

At first, Houbolt was ridiculed for his suggestion and
bitterly opposed by Werner von Braun himself. He actually
instructed Houbolt to forget the crazy idea. Von Braun was
in favour of the big rocket approach, in which the entire
rocket would be sent to the Moon and then brought back to
Earth. This was an almost impossible idea due to the
massive weight needed to be lifted out of Earth's gravity.

Finally, Houbolt believing that his approach was the only
feasible method, went above von Braun and wrote to the
NASA top leadership outlining his case. Eventually, and
sensibly, Houbolt's logistical method was perceived by
NASA, to not be just one of several alternative ways to
achieve the landings on the Moon, but the only feasible way.
Unfortunately, Houbolt is little known, but without his
imagination, his dogged determination and courage to put
his job on the line, then there would have been no Moon
landings, or as the sceptics will surely interject, no “Moon”
fakery.

The idea of the Lunar Orbit Rendezvous Approach was to
get a smaller second rocket into Earth orbit using a very
large rocket, then using this second smaller rocket to travel
to the Moon and back. A third spacecraft would be carried to
perform the actual Moon landing and lift-off from the lunar
surface. This third spacecraft was further composed of two
spacecraft coupled together, the first to perform the Moon
landing (descent stage) and the second to perform the lift-
off from the Moon (ascent stage). An interesting early video
from 1963 describes the logistics of the operation to get men
to the Moon (App 3.05).

53

The Saturn V Rocket
First NASA needed a large rocket with enough power to
escape Earth's gravity and carry the smaller second rocket
into low Earth orbit. Initial work on the Saturn series of
rockets started in late 1960. Apollo 4 was the first
unmanned flight mission to use the Saturn V rocket which
launched on 9 November 1967 (Note the Roman “V” in
Saturn V simply indicates that it had 5 engines). So the
development of the Saturn V rocket took a good 6 years and
NASA now had only two years remaining to reach the Moon
if they were to fulfil President Kennedy's dream.

The Saturn V rocket was huge, being the tallest, heaviest,
and most powerful rocket ever brought into operational

status and it still holds
records today for the
heaviest payload launched
and largest payload capacity
taken into low Earth orbit
(310,000 pounds). It stood
365 feet high which would
place it three-quarters of
the way up Blackpool Tower
(518 feet), or for the benefit
of our American cousins, six
stories higher than the
Statue of Liberty (302 feet),
so quite a sizeable and
totally impressive vehicle
(App 3.06 and App 3.07).

Source NASA:The Saturn V at lift-off

54

The Command Module
In 1960 at the same time that work had started on the
Saturn V rocket NASA were also designing the Apollo
spacecraft to get the astronauts from low Earth orbit
onwards to the Moon. This rocket consisted of 3 separate
components closely coupled together as shown in the
diagram. Note that in this diagram the spacecraft is shown
in the configuration with the Lunar Module attached to the
front of the Command Module.

Source: orbiterchspacenews.blogspot.com
Note that the Service Module (SM) and the Command
Module (CM) are coupled together for most of the flight and
when together are referred to as the CSM. They only
separate in low Earth orbit on the return journey just before
the Command Module prepares to re-enter Earth's
atmosphere.
A good overview of the development of the Command
Module is given in this “Moon Machines” video (App 3.08).
The Command Module is the only part of the whole system

55

that returns to Earth all the other hardware is jettisoned in
space. The ascent stage of the Lunar Module is left to crash
into the Moon or the Sun. The descent stage of the Lunar
Module is left on the Moon having been used as a launch
platform for the ascent stage. The Service Module is left to
burn-up on re-entry through the Earth's atmosphere. In
fact, more than 99.99% of the original Apollo system is
destroyed during use.

In the initial design of the Crew Module it was realised that
the vehicle would be too heavy to re-enter the Earth's
atmosphere. The heavier the space craft when it hits the
Earth's atmosphere the more energy it has and the more
heat it would need to dissipate. The initial design was too
heavy and would have simply burned up on re-entry. It was
realised that all of the equipment did not have to return to
Earth so the decision was made to split the Crew Module
into two parts, the Command Module and the attached
Service Module which contained most of what was required
for the Moon journey. Before re-entry the Service Module
could be jettisoned leaving just the light Command Module
to re-enter through the Earth's atmosphere.

The Lunar Module
The Lunar Module was perhaps the most difficult space
vehicle to design as there were so many unknowns
particularly the little-known landing conditions on the
Moon. Also, once landed on the Moon how to get off again?

It was designed, and built by Northrop Grumman, according
to detailed NASA specifications (App 3.09). It consisted of
two separate stages, closely coupled together, at the bottom
is the descent stage and above it the ascent stage. The
combined weight of these two spacecraft was 32,400
pounds. The “Moon Machines” video provides an interesting

56

overview of the Northrop Grumman development of the
Lunar Module (App 3.10)

Source NASA: Apollo 11 Lunar Module on the Moon
The descent stage, weighing 21,900 pounds, with its
maximum 10,500 lbs-force thrust throttleable engine on a
gimbal, was the method of providing a powered descent to
slow the craft down to accomplish a soft, safe landing on the
Moon. The important new developments with this rocket
descent engine is that it had a throttle, necessary to adjust
the amount of thrust, similar to the accelerator in your car,
and a gimbal by which the rocket motor could be angled.
The throttle was indispensable to reduce the thrust as the
Lunar Module slowly approached the Moon's surface. It was
the ability of the astronaut pilot, assisted by the onboard
computer, to skilfully adjust the throttle, and the gimbal

57

angle of the rocket, to ensure a successful upright landing.

The ascent stage, weighing 10,500 pounds, was used for the
final take off from the Moon. It had a fixed direction 3,500
lbs-force thrust engine, with an array of side-thrusters for
latitudinal movement. The system had a difficult birth and
was plagued with many problems during its design and
development. So much so that it over-ran its development
programme and consequently missed its inaugural test
flight on Apollo 4, so that its first flight into space was
rescheduled, and if finally flew on Apollo 5.

The total weight of the module was a major constraint for
Northrop Grumman. Every pound of Lunar Module weight
would require four pounds of fuel at Earth take-off.
Therefore, every ounce that could be saved was saved,
including not providing seats for the astronauts, who were
obliged to stand. They also tipped the Lunar Module upside
down, and gave it a shake, to dislodge any stray nuts and
bolts inadvertently left during the construction. When you
look at the Lunar Module you have to wonder whether it
was really designed by an engineer at the forefront of
precision technology, or simply fashioned by a group of
over-excited children just before the long awaited school-
play, as some sceptics have mockingly insinuated.

The truth is, say NASA, that it didn't need to be streamlined
as there is no atmosphere on the Moon and it didn't need to
be fancy looking as it was assumed there were no spectators
on the Moon to give mordacious comments as it landed. The
sceptics have had great fun mocking the flimsy looking
design of the Lunar Module with its gold “Quality Street”
wrapping paper and the seemingly excessive use of Gaffer
tape, but more of that hilarity in Chapter 6.

58

Both the descent and ascent engines used hypergolic fuel,
this consists of two components, the fuel itself and an
oxidiser. When these two components are brought into
contact with each other in the rocket engine they
spontaneously ignite. The advantage of hypergolic fuel is
that no igniter is required. I could imagine the astronauts
using their last match trying in vain to ignite the rocket, in
fear of being marooned on the Moon.

The problem with the hypergolic fuel is that it was found to
be exceedingly corrosive and after each test of the engines
they had to be completely rebuilt. Now think about that for a
moment, none of the engines used on the actual Apollo
Lunar Module descent, or ascent stages, could therefore
have been tested prior to use, imperfection was not an
option, they had to be perfect. This could be viewed as a
major design flaw in an already dangerous endeavour.

Another, not to be overlooked property of hypergolic fuel, is
its total instability, it boils at 38C and freezes at -1C. The
climate on the Moon can vary between 123C in the direct
sunlight, and -153C in the shade, so keeping the fuel safe
was a major challenge requiring some serious insulation, as
did the whole Lunar Module. According to NASA that is
what that fetchingly gold coloured “Quality Street” paper is
all about. In fact, say NASA it is a sophisticated insulation
material called Mylar.

The major issues in the design of the actual Lunar Module
were those of control for the landing and propulsion for the
eventual take-off. Naturally, nobody had ever piloted such a
vehicle in space, so some form of testing was of the essence.
NASA contracted Bell Aerosystems to create a bizarre
looking vehicle, which was affectionately, and quite
accurately, referred to as the “flying bedstead” (App 3.11).

59

In order to better simulate the one sixth gravity that would
be experienced on the Moon, it had a gimbal mounted
vertical jet engine to counter the 5/6 of its weight, and
therefore simulate the effect of the lesser gravity on the
Moon.

Source NASA: Lunar Lander Simulator
The astronaut pilot controlled a separate throttleable rocket,
with a controllable gimbal which allowed the descent engine
to be tilted by up to 6%. In addition it had small side
thrusters for attitudinal control. It was a most ungainly and
unstable vehicle which the test pilots found extremely
difficult to master. There is a famous video of Neil
Armstrong escaping almost certain death as he ejected
seconds before it crashed into the ground in a ball of flames
(App 3.12). As one may imagine, this video is often
referenced by the Moon landing sceptics as one good reason
why it would not work on the Moon, but more of that later.
In total five of these unusual aircraft were built, of which

60

three were destroyed in near fatal accidents, one on 6 May
1968 with Neil Armstrong as pilot; one on 8 December 1968
with Joe S. Algranti as pilot; and one on 29 January 1971
with Stuart M. Present as pilot. Luckily, they had the luxury
of an ejector seat, so they survived. An ejector seat on the
Moon would not help as there is no air for the parachute and
landing safely on the Moon with no ride home is in any case
rather pointless.

The “flying bedstead” proved exceedingly dangerous to fly as
witnessed by the crashes. Sensibly, it was equipped with a
rocket-powered ejection seat, so in each accident the pilot
managed to survive mercifully intact, although no doubt
considerably shocked. NASA soon considered it to be too
dangerous for testing and all subsequent testing was carried
out in a safer purpose-built ground based simulator.

We now know flight simulators quite well as very
sophisticated software controlled machines providing quite
realistic environments, very close to actuality. But we are
back in the 1960s when computers were still in their infancy
and not much more advanced than simple calculators.
NASA described the ground-based simulator as being “high-
tech”, which I suppose it was at the time.

NASA built several other simulators to cover most aspects of
Project Apollo. For example, the Lunar Module simulator
was an optimistic attempt to provide some experience of
what it might be like to control an unusual spacecraft as it
approached the Moon's surface in powered descent. It was
not so much computerised, but more mechanical, utilising
extremely large models of the Moon's surface, cameras and
a rudimentary seating arrangement for the pilot.

Even the Moon landing simulator proved to be a problem to

61

control and the pilots had great difficulty in learning to
master this unfamiliar method of flight. The astronaut pilot
seated in the simulator would have seen the cratered lunar
surface track past him on a revolving conveyor-belt which
was supposed to accustom him to the visual clues that a
pilot would see upon arrival at the Moon.

The use of the simulator was, rather hastily, discontinued
soon after Neil Armstrong planted the American flag on the
Moon. According to NASA this was because landing on the
Moon proved to be surprisingly problem free. One would
have thought that the simulator could be credited as being
of some assistance to Neil Armstrong prior to the event and
it would have likewise been of similar assistance to the
following astronaut pilots but NASA mysteriously
considered otherwise.

The Lunar Module used an altimeter radar to report its
height above the lunar surface as it descended towards the
Moon. Below each of the foot-pads hung 1.5 metre probes
that illuminate a light in the cabin when the probes touch
the lunar surface and the astronauts can then immediately
stop the engine to avoid the engine nozzle hitting the ground
and the lander bouncing back up again, like children on a
bouncy castle.

Once the Lunar Module had landed the descent stage was of
no consequence, as it had been virtually exhausted of all its
fuel. However the batteries on the descent stage were the
only ones used for the stay on the Moon. The ascent stage
was more of a problem as it was full of fuel ready for the
ascent and equally as important it was the only safe refuge
for the astronauts in the hostile environment of the Moon.

It was therefore necessary to keep it cool using an active

62

cooling system, a coolant loop with heat exchanger, and an
evaporator. It also needed to be re-pressured, when the
astronauts returned after their “walkabouts” on the lunar
surface. All of these systems were powered by the descent
stage batteries. Most astonishingly, NASA state that due to
the complexity, the development costs, and the time
constraints, off the shelf battery technology was used and
this in a $25 billion project. Having recently had a spate of
flat battery problems with my car, I found this rather
surprising, luckily I was not on the Moon. One has to bear in
mind that these were batteries using 1960s technology.

Now battery power, and all its associated terminology, is a
complex technical subject. The Moon hoax sceptics question
whether the lunar lander had sufficient power to keep all
systems running while it was on the Moon's surface. Unlike
the Command Module the lunar lander did not carry any
fuel cells, so was totally reliant on battery power. In brief, a
fuel cell burns oxygen and hydrogen in the presence of some
form of catalyst to produce electrical energy and useful
water as a by-product.

Another relevant point discussed by several sceptics is the
size of the Lunar Module and the amount of space inside for
two astronauts, plus their associated clobber. NASA shows
this to be a total of 235 cubic feet, with dimensions
approximately 7' 8”, by 3' 6”, by 8' 9”, an exceeding small
space for two astronauts, and their bulky spacesuit change
of clothes. In fact the habitual volume according to NASA
was only 160 cubic feet. Look around you and imagine this
size, it is rather diminishingly small.

In the confined area of the Lunar Module cabin, the two
astronauts descended to the Moon and spent two days there,
either standing, or at night sleeping in hammocks, yes I said

63

sleeping in hammocks.

The Spacesuit
Once the astronauts ventured outside the protective cocoon
of the Lunar Module then they were faced with a totally
inhospitable and alien environment. A virtual vacuum with
no air to breath, stepping onto a boiling hot surface,
scorched by solar winds and bombarded by
micrometeorites. There are better places to plan your next
vacation.

The design of the spacesuits is well described in this
excellent “Moon Machines” video (App 3.13). Each time they
did an Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) the astronauts needed
to don their bulky spacesuits and backpacks in this confined
space.

You may have seen videos of astronauts being prepared in
their spacesuits here on Earth (App 3.14 to 3.17), which all
demonstrate that you need a great deal of assistance to get it
on. This is one of the areas of the Moon landing which many
sceptics have been keen to highlight. Given what we see in
the above NASA videos, you may ask, is it really feasible that
the two astronauts could have put the spacesuits on
themselves in such a confined space without outside help?

The spacesuits used on the Apollo missions weighed,
together with the backpack, 180 pounds, which for those of
you paying proper attention, is only equivalent to 30 pounds
on the Moon due to the one sixth gravity. Even so, needing
to perform this difficult task in such a confined space is not
the easiest way to get dressed. Even donning the helmet and
the gloves and ensuring a proper seal appears to require
assistance as can be seen in the NASA videos. One must
conclude that each astronaut helped the other in some way.

64

I have been unable to find any NASA videos of the
astronauts performing this task in the environment of the
lunar lander capsule. Of course, this is not surprising as they
never had any reason to do it.

Lunar Rover
If you are bound for the Moon and you want to see some of
the sights, then what better than to take your own car. The
first time a Lunar Rover was included on a mission was on
Apollo 15 in 1971 and then subsequently on Apollo's 16 and
17. A detailed description of the Lunar Rover is given on the
“Astronotes” website (App 3.18), and also the “Moon
Machines” video (App 3.19).

Naturally, the Lunar Rover needed to be transported all the
way to the Moon on board the Lunar Module. The vehicle
could carry two men but was too large to fit inside the Lunar
Module so NASA designed a fold-up version that could be
unpacked when the Lunar Module had safely landed on the
Moon's surface.

The design of the folding Lunar Rover was ingenious as
shown in the NASA animation (App 3.20). NASA also
produced a handbook for the Lunar Rover (App 3.21). This
fold-up version was carried in one of the cargo bays between
the legs of the lunar lander and was unloaded by the
Astronauts when on the lunar surface. You can even watch
the astronauts struggling to unpack the Lunar Rover in this
video from Apollo 15 (App 3.22). Seems it was not such an
easy task.

The Lunar Rover also carried two cameras, and both audio
and vision transmitters to send the television signals back to
Mission Control on Earth. The Lunar Rover cameras could
even be controlled by Mission Control from here on Earth,

65

albeit with a delay of about 3.2 seconds in the control loop,
but nevertheless they managed to video the blast-off of the
lunar lander from the Moon.

Source NASA: Apollo 17 Lunar Lift-Off
66

CHAPTER 4

WHEN DID IT GO WRONG

“I have more care to stay
than will to go.”

William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

At first sight, it would appear that at some point between
President Kennedy's “We go to the Moon” speech in 1961
and 1969 something went seriously wrong with Project
Apollo. There is little doubt that Project Apollo started in all
seriousness in 1961 and NASA did intend to try to take men
to the Moon and bring them back safely. So what went
wrong? One answer may intrigue you, as we will discuss
later perhaps nothing went wrong.

We will probably never fully know what the problem was
that caused NASA to embark on the most incredible act of
deception, but clearly, at some point, a decision was made
that the Moon landings needed to be simulated, in other
words, faked. The question is, can we infer from the
available evidence when and why this decision was made.

When
The precursor to the Apollo Missions were the Mercury and
Gemini Programmes. The first two manned Mercury
launches were those of Alan Shepard followed by Gus
Grissom. At the time in 1961 the Americans had no rockets
that could get men into low Earth orbit. Instead they utilised
the Redstone ballistic missile adapted to carry the Gemini
capsule. This was a far from ideal method to lift the first
American astronauts into space but the urgency of the
situation in regards to the competition to beat the Russians
was politically crucial.

67

The major problem facing NASA was that the Redstone had
not proved to be entirely reliable. Out of thirty five launches
twenty had been failures so a better than average chance of a
failure (57 percent). This was a major concern for President
Kennedy as he did not want to add a dead astronaut to his
presidency. He was so worried that he suggested postponing
the launch of Alan Sheppard aboard a Redstone rocket.
Then out of the blue we have this, as quoted on page 77 in
Gerhard Wisnewski's book “One Small Step”:

“But then, quite suddenly, all was sweetness and light. On
22 March 1961, at a White House meeting, Hugh L.
Dryden, who was at that time the grand old man of
American rocket technology, explained to the President
that no unwarranted ricks would be involved in the first
manned Mercury flight. How interesting that even the
launch of such a man into space with a Redstone rocket
was supposed to be exactly that, an unwarranted risk. If
no risk existed, could it mean that there would not be a
man on the Mercury-Redstone combination at all”

There clearly was a very substantial risk given the history of
failures of the Redstone rocket so why suddenly is it that the
President is told to relax as there was no unwarranted risk
involved? Also, Edward C. Welsh the Manager of the
National Aeronautics and Space Council confidently asked
President Kennedy “Why postpone a success?” (App 4.01
page 6). This sudden confidence by Kennedy's advisors
leads one to imagine that the fakery may have already been
afoot as early as 1961.

Project Apollo was an immense undertaking further
exacerbated by the very limited time frame set by President
Kennedy. Within two years it was dogged with problems,

68

development of the hardware was falling behind schedule
and the costs of the project were spiralling out of control.

One of the most significant problems was with the company
North American Aviation (NAA) who were the contractors
for the manufacture of the Command and Service Module
spacecraft and the second stage of the Saturn V launch
vehicle. A review was conducted in November–December
1965 by a NASA team headed by Lt Gen Samuel C. Phillips,
director of the Apollo Manned Moon Landing program, to
investigate the schedule slippage and cost overruns incurred
by NAA. This became known as “The Phillips Report” (App
4.02).

The Phillips Report was a scathing denunciation of NAA's
management of the Apollo Program. The report stated:

“Today, after 4 1/2 years and a little more than a year
before first flight, there are still significant technical
problems and unknowns affecting the stage. Manufacture
is at least 5 months behind schedule. NAA's continued
inability to meet internal objectives, as evidenced by 5
changes in the manufacturing plan in the last 3 months,
clearly indicates that extraordinary effort will be required
if the contractor is to hold the current position, let alone
better it”.

The report identified many problems in the performance of
NAA including deficiencies in logistics, systems engineering,
cost estimating, workforce efficiency and quality control. In
summary, almost all aspects of the contractors' work were
inadequate. This was leading to major delays in Project
Apollo and significant cost overruns. In a letter from George
E. Mueller, Associate Administrator for NASA Manned
Space Flight, to the President of NAA he stated:

69

“I can see no way of improving future performance, and
meeting commitments which NAA must meet if we are to
achieve the national objectives of Apollo, except to improve
the management and technical competence of your Space
and Information Systems Division”

Project Apollo was falling seriously behind schedule and
haemorrhaging funds on an unprecedented scale.

Apollo 1
The first evidence we have that something may have been
amiss with Project Apollo comes from astronaut Virgil “Gus”
Grissom who had already been selected as the first man to
step onto the Moon. He had been into space before on 20
July 1961 when he rode the Liberty Bell 7 space capsule as
part of the Mercury Programme and was the third American
to fly in space. His flight was sub-orbital and lasted just 15
mins and 37 seconds. Grissom is said to have travelled 302
miles, reaching a maximum height of just over 118 miles.
Given that one accepted definition of space is that it starts at
100 miles from the Earth's surface then Grissom only spent
only about one minute in actual space.

Gus Grissom was publicly critical of the poor safety
specifications of Project Apollo and even of its entire
technical feasibility. He was so concerned about Project
Apollo that on 22 January 1967 he held an “unauthorised”
Press Conference in which he told reporters that the United
States is “at least a decade away” from even contemplating a
mission to land on the Moon. Not surprisingly, he was
severely reprimanded for giving the interview without the
permission of NASA, particularly giving his totally negative
comments about Project Apollo. The Associated Press
reported, ”pretty slim” was the way he put the Apollo’s

70

chances of meeting its mission requirements.

Source NASA: 20 July 1961 Grissom and Liberty Bell 7
Following this reprimand, a few days later Gus Grissom
came out of a water tank for reduced gravity simulation of
the supposed Lunar Module and hung a lemon attached to a
coat-hanger in front of a NASA emblem to indicate to any
cameras present, without speaking, what he and his fellow
crew members, Roger Chaffee and Edward White, thought
about the poor safety specifications and even of the entire
technical feasibility of Project Apollo.
Now, whether Grissom and his fellow astronauts were
voicing something unique to themselves, or something that
was already being discussed privately within the NASA
hierarchy we cannot be sure. Whatever the situation
Grissom was a clear danger for NASA and its credibility
which leads some to suggest that NASA-X wanted him “out
of the way”.

71

Gus Grissom's Lemon on a Coat-hanger

On 27 January 1967, Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger
Chaffee, the Apollo 1 crew, died during testing when a flash
fire engulfed the oxygen-filled Command Module. They
were the first United States astronauts to die in the line of
duty.

There has been intense speculation since that the fire was no
accident. The day after Grissom's death it was reported that
the FBI raided his home and seized all his manuscripts and
documents. These may have contained incriminating
evidence of the disarray of the Apollo programme and
highlight its incompetence and disarray, as was stated by
others before Congress.

Scott Grissom, Gus Grissom’s son, thinks it was not an
accident but a deliberate act to silence his father. He
publicly stated in 1999 that he believes his father had been
murdered. After examining the remains of his father’s death
capsule and the faulty switch blamed for causing the fire, he

72

discovered a small and functionless metal plate which
appeared to have been deliberately inserted into the wiring.
This almost certainly caused the spark and the resulting fire
in the sealed atmosphere in the capsule of pure oxygen.
Certainty the family of Gus Grissom believe that he was
intentionally eliminated by the DIA/CIA as this video from
“frankmat” explains (App 4.03).

Source NASA: The ill-fated Apollo 1 Crew
Poor Safety Procedures
Thomas Baron was a safety inspector during the
construction of Apollo 1. After the fire in the Apollo 1
capsule, he testified before Congress on 21 April 1967 that
the Apollo programme was in such disarray that NASA
would never make it to the Moon. Note, that this was just 15
months before the launch of Apollo 8 which allegedly took

73

the first astronauts into orbit around the Moon.

Baron had submitted a detailed 500-page report to
Congress detailing his findings (App 4.04). He believed that
his opinions made him a target and he reported that he and
his family had been harassed. One week after he had
testified his car mysteriously stalled on a level railway
crossing and was struck by a train. He, his wife, and step-
daughter died in the accident. The accident was officially
judged to be suicide. Some Sceptics, the foremost being Bill
Kaysing (App 4.05), believe that Baron was murdered to
silence him. It is interesting to note that Baron's report on
the failings of the NASA Project Apollo disappeared and has
never been found.

The Clavius website has a more critical assessment of
Thomas Baron and indicates that he was somewhat
overzealous in his work (App 4.06). Note, that we should
not be so surprised that the Clavius website portrays
Thomas Baron in such a bad light given that the Webmaster
Jay Windley is one of the leading NASA Fanboys. However,
it does make the point that if NASA were going to silence
him then why wait until after he had presented his evidence
to Congress. It would have been more logical to have him
silenced before, but then again the damming details of his
investigation may not have been fully known beforehand.
Although his original report has been lost, or purposefully
disposed of, you can get some idea of his claims in this
excerpt posted on the Clavius website (App 4.07). You can
also read Baron's testimony to Congress on the Clavius
website (App 4.08).

The outcome of this tragedy was that Project Apollo was
suspended pending a thorough investigation which resulted
in a further delay of one year following a complete redesign

74

of the Command Module. In March 1967 the NASA Director
James Webb testified in front of the House Committee on
Science and Astronautics expressing doubts about the
chances of fulfilling Kennedy's goal. He was the very man
who just six years previously had confidently told President
Kennedy that a man on the Moon could be achieved within
the decade. One year later on 7 October 1968, James Webb
suddenly left NASA just three months before the Apollo 8
flight to the Moon. This followed the sudden resignation of
the NASA Assistant Director Robert Seamans in January
that same year. We also had Mercury astronaut Walter
Schirra announcing his departure from NASA just 4 days
after James Webb had announced his departure.

One has to wonder why, when the Apollo Moon landing was
less than a year away, did these people decide to leave NASA
in such a hurry. It is at this juncture in 1967, or perhaps
1966, that some sceptics contend that the decision was made
to fake the Moon landings.

Apollo Moon Rocks?
In December 1966 Wernher Von Braun, the chief architect
of the Apollo Program, participated in a NASA geological
field trip to Antarctica together with other top NASA
executives as described in this Jarrah White (App 4.09).

The trip's supposed purpose was to look at Antarctica as a
learning experience for lunar bases and Mars colonisation
and also to collect Moon rocks for comparison with the
rocks to be brought back from the Moon. On this trip they
collected several hundreds of pounds of meteorites
originally from the Moon (more properly called lunaites). It
is probable that the lunaites collected in Antarctica were
sufficiently altered to be later passed off as Moon rocks
supposedly brought back by the Apollo Missions.

75

NASA: Von Braun with NASA executives in Antarctica

So the evidence points to the fact that before 1967 there
appeared to be serious problems with Project Apollo which
necessitated collecting lunaites to be used later as fake
Moon rocks. It can be safely assumed that the idea to fake
the Moon landings had certainly been taken by 1966. It is
therefore extremely probably that Gus Grissom, and his
fellow astronauts on Apollo 1, knew of the planned fakery
and did all they could to avoid being party to it. This may
also explain why James Webb, Administrator of NASA, his
deputy and the astronaut Walter Schirra all decided to leave
at the same time in 1967.

Who?
It has always been assumed by the NASA sceptics that the
mastermind behind the fakery of the Apollo videos was the
film director Stanley Kubrick. During the period 1964 to the
film's release in 1968, Kubrick was working on the

76

acclaimed sci-fi movie “2001: A Space Odyssey” . In the
making of that movie, Kubrick collaborated closely with
NASA and NASA Officials were frequent visitors to Kubrick
at the Shepperton Studios in the UK.

Kubrick and NASA Officials at Shepperton UK 1965
In the photograph, we have from left to right, Frederick
Ordway 111 (NASA Official, dressed for cricket?). Donald
Slayton (NASA astronaut), Arthur C. Clarke (Sci-fi author),
Stanley Kubrick, and George Mueller (Senior Administrator
Project Apollo). The man at the back is unknown.
NASA provided Kubrick with detailed photographs of the
Moon and gave him access to the large detailed models of
the Moon that NASA was creating.
Frederick I. Ordway III was an American space scientist and
author of visionary books on space flight. His expertise in

77

science fiction and real space exploration with NASA helped
shape the groundbreaking imagery and feel of the film
“2001: A Space Odyssey”. He was often seen at the
Shepperton Studios in the UK with Arthur C. Clarke and
Stanley Kubrick.

Frederick Ordway with Clarke and Kubrick
Given the evidence of the close cooperation between NASA
and Kubrick, it is not at all surprising that the sceptics see
Stanley Kubrick as the man behind the NASA fake videos as
suggested in this YouTube posting from “Shaking My Head

78

Productions” (App 4.10).

I believe it was more likely that the actual “hands-on”
mastermind was one of Kubrick's staff, a man named
Douglas Trumbull. Kubrick himself was not a visual effects
expert but relied on the expertise of men like Trumbull, and
possibly John Dykstra a young special effects talent. Later,
Douglas Trumbull and John Dykstra worked together on the
movie “Silent Running”.

This collaboration of NASA with Kubrick could well place
the NASA decision to fake the Apollo Missions even earlier
than 1966 that I mentioned above, perhaps even as early as
1964. This would be just three years after Project Apollo
started.

Why?
The question is why did NASA need to fake the Apollo
Missions. There are several possibilities. The first and
perhaps most obvious is that they realised that there was a
significant risk that NASA could not achieve the Moon
landing due to the failure of the technological developments.

However, I firmly believe that the decision to fake the Moon
landings was taken irrespective of any individual risk
identified by NASA. It is no secret that the DIA or some
other clandestine elements of the US Government (maybe
also the Central Intelligence Agency) had infiltrated NASA
from its very inception, after all, NASA was basically a
military run establishment and probably still is to this very
day. Many of the people working at NASA would have been
infiltrated DIA/CIA operatives.

Project Apollo could not be allowed to fail. There were too
many factors of national security and prestige to allow any

79

hint of failure. President Kennedy had made his declaration
that the USA had the technological means to land men on
the Moon by the end of the decade. Come what may that
must be shown to have been achieved, anything less would
have been unthinkable.

The risks to national defence and prestige for America were
immense, the fact is that the US had virtually nothing in
1961 when it came to space exploration. Remember that at
this time only one American, Alan Shepard, had even been
briefly into space and this was only for a 15 minute 23
second suborbital flight on top of a Redstone ballistic
missile hastily adapted to accommodate the astronaut
capsule. It should be emphasised that at the time of
Kennedy's announcement NASA had not even developed a
rocket powerful enough to get astronauts into low Earth
orbit, let alone a rocket to get them to the Moon and back.

I believe that very early on, perhaps shortly after Kennedy's
announcement, the clandestine unit within NASA decided
that the mission would be faked. In this way the USA could
definitely demonstrate to the world and particularly to the
Soviet Union that the US had the capability to challenge
them technologically. As Gene Kranz remarked, albeit in a
different context:

“Failure is not an option”

The danger of relying on the achievement of science and
technology was far too risky. That is not to say that NASA
would not have been capable to achieve success but faking it
would make it a certainty, only if they could achieve a
convincing fake. I believe that this is when they started
contacts with Stanley Kubrick, possible as early as 1963.

80

The success of the fakery was important for several
compelling reasons:

• They needed to fulfil Kennedy's stated goals at all
costs

• The Moon landings would demonstrate that the USA
was the world leader in technology and space
exploration

• The success of the Moon landings would take the
pressure off the US Government in relation to the
ongoing and increasingly unpopular Vietnam War

• Some of the enormous fiscal allowances approved
with public support for the Moon landings could be
diverted for military and other “Black Op” use which
otherwise may not have been approved

So the importance of demonstrating success was paramount
and any methods would be considered to achieve it, faked or
not. In the following chapters, we will examine in detail the
irrefutable evidence that the Apollo Missions were totally
faked.

81

82

CHAPTER 5

TOO MUCH RADIATION

“These violent delights have violent ends
And in their triumph die,
like fire and powder”

William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet

Radiation is just about everywhere. We receive it
continuously from the sun and from the rocks beneath our
feet. It emanates from our television sets, radios and mobile
phones. We even absorb it from certain fruits, vegetables
and nuts, so much for being a clean living but radioactive
vegetarian.

Radiation and its effects on humans is a very complex
subject, beyond the understanding of the majority of us, not
to mention the confusion amongst the scientists themselves.
Of course, if the radiation is severe enough, we know the
result, you will die. The question we need to answer is how
much radiation is considered safe for the human body?

Many of us will have been subjected to radiation in the form
of X-rays and CT scans, either at the dentist or in hospital.
Any X-ray or CT scan will damage tissue in your body, that
is a fact. What is important is the amount you receive and
the duration over which you receive it. Small doses of
radiation can be tolerated by the body, even though they do
cause damage to tissue, but the body has the ability to repair
damaged tissue over time.

We are all exposed to radiation every second of our lives
from natural background radiation. As a guide, here are

83

some estimates of the level of radiation that we receive from
common X-ray, and CT scan procedures as compared to
normal background radiation:

• Chest X-ray equivalent to 2.4 days of natural
background radiation

• Skull X-ray equivalent to 12 days of natural
background radiation

• Lumbar Spine X-ray equivalent to 182 days of natural
background radiation

• CT Head X-ray equivalent to 243 days of natural
background radiation

• CT Abdomen X-ray equivalent to 2.7 years of natural
background radiation

So X-rays and CT scans are dangerous but are judged by the
medical world to be worth the risk, in that they may provide
early detection of more harmful maladies.

You may at this point be thinking you are inadvertently
reading some medical journal, well not quite. We need to try
to understand radiation, as the Apollo astronauts needed to
pass through what are thought to be extremely dangerous
areas of radiation on their journey to the Moon. So
understanding is important for what follows.

We measure radiation with an instrument called a Geiger
counter, named after its inventor, the German physicist
Hans Geiger in the 1920s. Radiation is measured in units
called roentgen, named after another German, Wilhelm
Roentgen who discovered x-rays in 1895, for which he
received the first-ever Nobel Prize in Physics in 1901. There
are several other units in which radiation is measured, at
which point it becomes quite complex so we will stick to just

84

a few of them.

For the purists, one roentgen is the amount of ionizing
radiation producing one electrostatic unit of positive or
negative ionic charge in one cubic centimetre of air under
standard conditions. What did he just say? Now don't worry
too much if you don't understand that definition, you are
certainly not alone.

The Van Allen Belts
Here on the Earth, we are surrounded by two, and
sometimes three, regions of intense ionizing radiation called
the Van Allen radiation belts, which are formed as a result of
the Earth's molten inner core, which mostly consists of iron.
The spinning of the Earth results in the molten iron creating
a giant magnet with lines of magnetic flux radiating far out
into space. It is these belts of magnetic flux that trap most of
the harmful radiation from the Sun and keep the Earth safe
and protected. This is the Earth's magnetosphere and this is
what enables us mere mortals to live here on Earth without
dying due to an overdose of deadly radiation. Unless of
course, you are partial to many vegetables.

These belts were first detected by the American physicist, Dr
James Van Allen in 1958, hence the eponymous name. He
used balloons and rockets, carrying instruments to measure
the levels of radiation as they passed through this region.
What he detected was that the radiation measured by Geiger
counters first increased then dropped and then suddenly
increased again. From this, he concluded that there were
two distinct belts of radiation. It has now been established
that there can sometimes be three, depending on the level of
solar flares occurring on the Sun. These radiation belts are
like massive doughnuts circling the Earth.

85

Source NASA: Schematic of Van Allen Radiation Belts

There is no agreement on the thickness of the Van Allen
radiation belts. Van Allen himself estimated that they
extended 64 thousand miles from Earth, whereas NASA
claims that they only extend to 24 thousand miles. This may
be academic, as even beyond the radiation belts there is
total exposure to solar radiation particles, with no
protection from the Earth's magnetosphere.

As noted above, the Earth has a magnetic field with a north,
and a south pole, as we know from using an ordinary
compass when a youthful boy scout, or girl guide. It is
estimated that this magnetic field reaches out 36,000 miles
into space, into a region we call the magnetosphere. It is the
magnetosphere that prevents most of the harmful particles
from the Sun, carried in the solar wind, from reaching the
Earth. Particles from the solar wind enter the
magnetosphere and are directed along the lines of magnetic
flux towards the poles, causing the impressive displays of
the northern lights (Aurora Borealis) and the southern lights
(Aurora Australis).

86

It is relevant in our discussion to note that the radiation
belts are weakest near the Earth's poles and most intense
around the equator. The question then, is it possible for
humans to traverse these regions of radiation and remain
unharmed, with the correct number of fingers and toes? It is
on this basis that the Moon landing sceptics make their case.
They claim that the Van Allen radiation belts are an
impenetrable barrier, deadly to any spacefarer who attempts
to traverse them. Therefore they conclude that the Apollo
Missions to the Moon could never have taken place. In
consequence, they say that man never walked on the face of
the Moon.

We know that the astronauts on the Apollo Missions that
supposedly went to the Moon, never died from, or as far as
we know no astronaut ever suffered from any form of
radiation illness. So if it is impossible for humans to survive
the Van Allen radiation belts, then Apollo was, at least in
part, hoaxed regardless of what all other evidence suggests.

The level of radiation in the Van Allen belts is determined
by, mostly unpredictable, solar particle emissions, such as
solar flares. There is evidence to suggest that major flares
occur at their most savage according to an eleven-year cycle.
The general unpredictability of these solar flares implies
that any space mission through the Van Allen radiation belts
does carry an inestimable danger to the astronauts. Clearly,
this would imply that NASA would have carefully studied
the Van Allen radiation belts and we must assume they
concluded that it was not dangerous to send astronauts
travelling through them. Paradoxically 1969 was the height
of the eleven-year solar flare cycle, so the danger would have
been at its greatest for Apollo 11, and it would not be
possible to pick a worse time to sojourn on the Moon.

87

It is interesting to note what James Van Allen himself said
about the dangers of the radiation belts, in a scientific paper
published in Scientific American in March 1959 (App 5.01),
long before the Apollo era, in which he states:

“Our measurements show that the maximum radiation
level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100
roentgens per hour, depending on the still undetermined
proportion or protons to electrons. Since a human being
exposed for two days for even 10 roentgens would have
only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts
obviously present an obstacle to space flight. Unless some
practical way can be found to shield space travellers
against the effects of radiation, manned space rockets can
best take off through the radiation-free zone over the
poles.”

Note, Van Allen's final sentence, “manned space rockets
can best take off through the radiation-free zone over the
poles”. So Van Allen is clearly suggesting a route which
would minimise the astronaut's exposure to this deadly
radiation. Remember he said that the radiation is equivalent
to between 10 and 100 roentgens per hour and that even a
dose of 10 roentgen over two days would give a 50-50
chance of survival.

The Apollo astronauts according to NASA would spend only
about 2 hours travelling through the Van Allen belts on the
outward journey and about 2 hours on the return journey.
So based on James Van Allen's findings without protection
from the radiation the astronauts would have received a
significant dose of radiation of between 40 and 400
roentgen. A more modern unit of radiation exposure risk is
the Sievert and one roentgen is basically equivalent to 0.009

88

Sieverts. So the astronauts would be exposed to between
0.37 to 3.7 Sieverts after passing through the Van Allen
radiation belts. It is not easy to state categorically what this
would do to the astronauts, but the following is a rough
guide:

• A dose of 0.35 was the average exposure of Chernobyl
residents who were relocated after the blast in 1986.
Some died later from radiation-related illnesses.

• A one Sievert accumulated dosage is estimated to
cause a fatal cancer many years later in 5% of people.

• A five Sieverts single dose which would kill half of
those exposed to it within a month.

Unfortunately, the range of radiation given by Van Allen is
so wide, 40 to 400 roentgen, that it is difficult to decide
conclusively what the effects might be on the astronauts.
Perhaps all we can conclude is that at the lowest level the
astronauts would survive into old age, but at the highest
level would probably not.

We do know that the Apollo spacecraft did not have any
significant radiation protection, except its construction from
a thin skin of aluminium, steel, and some plastic cladding.
Similarly, the Lunar Module for those missions that landed
on the Moon, the protection from radiation was minimal.
The pro-NASA group would maintain that this was adequate
protection from the radiation but this seems totally
inadequate. On one occasion in 1990 the space shuttle went
to an altitude of 385 miles when it launched the Hubble
telescope. The astronauts reported seeing “shooting stars”
as cosmic rays hit the optic nerve and this was far below the
Van Allen belts.

So the sceptics have always contended that the Apollo
89

Missions were impossible, and consequently, man never set
foot on the Moon. However, NASA has published their
official data on the average radiation received by the Apollo
astronauts which are surprisingly orders of magnitude less
than we calculated above.

Average Radiation Dose per Apollo Astronaut

Apollo Mission Average Skin Dose Rads

7 0.18

8 0.18

9 0.2

10 0.48

11 0.18

12 0.58

13 0.24

14 1.14

15 0.3

16 0.51

17 0.55

From the official NASA figures then the Apollo astronauts
only received an extremely low degree of radiation
accumulation. The minimum figure based on the Van Allen
paper would have been 40 roentgen which is about 35 rad
which is an order of magnitude more than the NASA figures.

Do you notice anything rather strange in these figures? Let
me explain what the problem is. Note for example, that the
average number of rads per crew member is the same for
both Apollo 7 and Apollo 8 which were completely different

90

types of mission. Apollo 7 remained in low Earth orbit for 11
days whereas Apollo 8 spent six days going to the Moon and
back. This means that Apollo 8 traversed the Van Allen
radiation belts twice and was outside the Earth's protective
magnetosphere for more than 5 days. In comparison the
radiation dose in low Earth orbit is about 0.016 rads per
crew member per day and the figure for Apollo 8 is about
0.03 rads per day. From this one may conclude that the
radiation passing through the Van Allen belts and beyond is
only double that of low Earth orbit. If these NASA figures
are true then the research of James Van Allen was
completely wrong by several orders of magnitude.

From this analysis, it is clear that it is not possible to
definitively conclude whether the astronauts would have
been severely affected by radiation or not. According to
NASA, then the actual radiation was minor, but according to
the Van Allen paper, it would have been considerably
higher.

Radiation and Project Orion
So let us look at what NASA is now saying about this
radiation issue in the context of the new “slick” Orion
Project (App 5.02). Note that Kelly Smith, the narrator,
draws a diagram showing the path the spacecraft will take,
which appears to be right through the Van Allen radiation
belts on an equator trajectory.

This route he shows through the Van Allen radiation belts is
important as we shall see later. He also makes this
categorical statement concerning radiation:

“... we must solve these challenges before we send people
through this region of space ...”

91

Source NASA: Kelly Smith indicates route to the Moon

As might be expected, the sceptics have jumped on this
statement as some form of admission by NASA that the
Apollo Missions never went to the Moon. The point being
made is that the Apollo Missions supposedly solved this
challenge fifty years ago and proved that radiation was not a
problem, either going through the Van Allen radiation belts
or travelling to and walking on the Moon. So we may ask,
why is it suddenly seen as a problem for NASA and the
Orion Project?

However, it is clear from our brief analysis of the subject
that we cannot conclude whether it would be feasible for the
astronauts to have survived the passage through the Van
Allen radiation belts, or whether NASA faked the Moon
landings. We need to look for other evidence of any NASA
fakery.

The Historical Records
At this point, I am obliged to give credit to Scott Henderson

92

for much of the insights that will now be discussed. Scott
Henderson is a fervent Apollo Moon Hoax investigator, who
through numerous hours of patient research has uncovered
many previously undetected anomalies in the Apollo story.
So my thanks to Scott for providing me with some of the
basis of which follows.

You will recall that Dr James Van Allen recommended that a
safer passage through the eponymous radiation belts would
be to exit via the poles.

In September 2014 Vintage Space, a website hosted by Amy
Teitel posted a video (App 5.03). In this video, she states
that the Apollo Mission flew right through the belts, but she
does show a diagram in which the path appears to miss the
inner belt, thought to be the most dangerous one.

Then in 2017, we have two new posts, one again from Amy
Teitel (App 5.04), and a second from Curious Droid (App
5.05). Curious Droid is a website hosted by Paul Shillito,
which is dedicated to investigating matters relating to
aerospace, space, robotics, transportation technology, and
other similar technical subjects. Now both these latter
videos suggest that the Apollo Missions took a northerly
route when leaving the Earth and a southerly route when
returning, so as to avoid the worst of the Van Allen radiation
belts.

I have searched in vain to find any NASA documentation of
this supposedly polar trajectory to the Moon taken by the
Apollo Missions. The first reference that I can find for the
diagram shown by Curious Droid is in a NASA Space Math
Page 7 of unknown date but first detected on the WayBack
Machine on 20 August 2008 (App 5.06).

93

[Author's Note: For those who are unfamiliar with the
WayBack Machine. It is a digital archive of the World
Wide Web and other information on the Internet created
by the Internet Archive, a non-profit organisation, based in
San Francisco, California, USA. It only randomly samples
internet sites, so it is not guaranteed to detect every site].
The diagram that is shown in the Space Math paper (see
App 5.06), was produced by scientists from the NASA
Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite (CRRES)
which was launched in 1990.
This shows a schematic diagram of the Van Allen radiation
belts, to which has been added the supposed route of the
Apollo Missions as a thick black line which just about misses
the inner radiation belt.

Source: NASA Space Math The Deadly Van Allen Belts?
94

The idea in the Space Math site was for students to calculate
the amount of radiation that the astronauts would have
received if they had taken the route shown by the thick black
line. Radiation levels were given for each of the colours.
It is clear that this Space Math paper was the source of
Curious Droid's diagram as can be seen by comparing this
diagram to snapshots taken from the Curious Droid video.
He shows the suggested routes for the Apollo Missions,
outbound to the Moon, and inbound back to Earth. He
shows the routes taken as black lines which completely miss
the inner belt.
I can only assume that Curious Droid added these routes
himself as I was unable to find any other source.

Source Curious Droid: Suggested Apollo Outbound Path
95

Source Curious Droid: Suggested Apollo Inbound Path
We also have a snapshot of the supposed Apollo Missions
path through the Van Allen belts from Amy Teitel's video
(see App 5.04).

96

We have a further pro-NASA believer providing us with
information on this trans-lunar trajectory in 2009 by Robert
Braeunig (App 5.07). The figure above from the Vintage
Space website is taken from this Braeunig paper. For some
reason this paper has now been deleted from the internet.

So according to the pro-NASA group, the Apollo Missions
took polar routes to avoid the worst of the Van Allen
radiation belts, this is exactly what Van Allen suggested, so
what is the problem?

So what is the Problem?
Well, I will now explain the problem.

If we examine the original NASA documents from the 1960s,
then we see no mention of the Apollo Missions taking any
polar route, in fact, quite the opposite, they all made the
trans-lunar burn, and left for the Moon a few degrees north
or south of the equator, which would take them directly
through the worst of the Van Allen radiation belts.

Apollo 8 was the first manned mission to go to the Moon,
and therefore the astronauts were supposedly the first
humans to traverse the Van Allen radiation belts. It is
therefore pertinent to concentrate our investigation on this
mission. Given that this was the first time man had
traversed this area of dangerous radiation, then surely the
concerns of NASA would be reflected in the documentation
produced at the time and the conversations they had with
the astronauts during the mission.

We can examine the NASA documents regarding the Apollo
8 Mission and see what was said about radiation risk, paths
through the Van Allen radiation belts, and their
conversations with the astronauts while, and after, they

97

traversed this region of radiation.

We have the following documents from the NASA archive.

1. Apollo 8 Press Kit (App 5.08)
2. Apollo 8 Flight Plan Vol. 1 (App 5.09)
3. Apollo 8 Final Flight Evaluation Report (App 5.10)
4. Apollo 8 Flight Transcripts (App 5.11)
5. Apollo 8 Post Launch Report (App 5.12)
6. NASA Translunar Injection (App 5.13)

For each Apollo Mission NASA produced Press Kits to be
circulated to journalists prior to each mission. Let us first
examine the NASA Press Kit which was released 0n 15
December 1968, just 6 days before the Apollo 8 launch. You
will see that this Press Kit shows clear diagrams of the orbit
profile and the route supposedly taken to the Moon.

This document is unambiguous in that it shows the orbit
profile as being over the Pacific Ocean almost on the
equatorial plane, for both outbound and inbound routes.
This is in stark contrast to the diagrams shown above by
Vintage Space, Curious Droid, and Robert Braeunig which
all show a northerly route just about missing the inner
radiation belt.

Similarly, the Apollo 8 path to the Moon is shown to be
clearly close to the equatorial plane. Note that in his deleted
paper Robert Braeunig says that this diagram should be
disregarded as a “not to scale” drawing. It is not just a
matter of scale, but one of the Earth's orientation as clearly
shown.

98

Source: NASA Apollo 8 Press Kit

There is no mention of radiation in the Flight Plan of any
polar route (see App 5.09). The Final Flight Evaluation
Report contains a list 0f 25 Primary Objectives and 12

99

Secondary Objectives (see App 5.10). None of these
objectives mention radiation measurement or any effect it
may have on the astronauts. Similarly, there is nothing in
the Flight Transcripts about the Van Allen belts (see App
5.11), or in the Post Launch Report (see App 5.12).

In addition, the NASA translunar injection figures show
clearly that Apollo 8 enacted the translunar burn at latitude
21.477, longitude -143.9242 (see App 5.13). From this
latitude, a polar trajectory would be impossible. You will see
similar latitudes and longitudes in this table for all the
Apollo Missions that traversed the Van Allen radiation belts.

Jarrah White also discusses this question of the supposed
polar trajectory and also concludes that such a northerly
path would be impossible given the Saturn V launch from
Florida (App 5.14).

The original NASA documentation is unequivocal. It was not
until the early 2000s that the idea of Apollo 8 taking a polar
route was first mooted by the pro-NASA group and one
cannot help thinking that this was only as a reaction to the
sceptics doubting that a safe passage was possible through
the Van Allen radiation belts. As such it appears to have
been fabricated a long time after the event, in fact, more
than 30 years after.

These facts clearly demonstrate beyond any reasonable
doubt that NASA faked the Apollo Moon landings and
needed to amend their story when their first version of
events was cast into doubt. It seems that suddenly,
somewhere between 2005 and 2014, we have a group of
pro-NASA supporters spreading this story of special polar
routes. The NASA source of which I am unable to find.

100