sceptic

THE APOLLO MOON HOAX:
THE REAL EVIDENCE

A REFERENCE GUIDE TO THE FACTS

Marcus Allen & Trevor Weaver

1

Copyrights
No infringement of any copyright is intended.
All NASA video footage and documents referenced in this
book are in the public domain.
The reference to any copyrighted material is used under
the guidelines of "fair use" in title 17-107 0f the United
States Code. Such material remains the copyright of the
individual holder and is referenced here for the purposes
of education, comparison, and criticism only.
The UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 also
permits "fair use" for the purposes of criticism or review.
Similar rights exist in most countries.
The copyright of all other works referenced in this book
likewise remain protected by the original authors.
This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not,
by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, resold, hired out, or
otherwise circulated without the authors prior consent in
any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is
published and without a similar condition, including this
condition, being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.

The authors retain all rights to this work.

First Published: 01/07/21
ISBN: 9798516202094

Imprint: Independently published
Typeset: Georgia 12 point
Cover Design: Germancreative

Pages: 218
Price: £8.99

2

Credit The Onion (Satire): Headlines 21 July 1969
3

THE APOLLO MOON HOAX:

THE REAL EVIDENCE

A REFERENCE GUIDE TO THE FACTS
____________________________________

Table Of Contents

About This Book 7
1 Keeping the Secret 19
2 Not Easier to Fake It 23
3 Saturn V Rocket 29
4 Lost Apollo 13 Capsule 33
5 Avoiding the Radiation 41
6 Transmission Delays 49
7 Apollo Video Secrets 57
8 Kubrick Horizontal 67
9 The Fake Apollo Suns 71
10 Sun v. Earth Size 75
11 Lights on the Moon? 81
12 Buzz Metamorphism 87
13 The Waving Flags 99
14 The Flag is on Earth 105

4

THE APOLLO MOON HOAX:
THE REAL EVIDENCE

A REFERENCE GUIDE TO THE FACTS

Table Of Contents

15 Two Gravities? 111
16 Moon Dust Analysis 115
17 How Many Photographs? 123
18 That Fast Hasselblad 127
19 Moon Orbit Anomaly 135
20 Film In Space? 141
21 Star Gazing 155
22 Retro-Reflectors 165
23 Moon Rocks 177
24 NVIDIA Simulation 181
25 Sounds on the Moon? 187
26 LRO Satellite Images 193
27 Erratic Lunar Orbits 201
28 Leaving the Moon 205
29 Return Moon Missions 211

5

Credit Associated Press: 20 July 1969
Mark Armstrong, 6-year-old son of astronaut Neil

Armstrong, shows the morning paper.

6

About This Book

There have been numerous books published on NASA's
Project Apollo, mostly these are in praise of mankind's
great achievement but there are a handful of books from
Moon landing deniers which dispute the official NASA
story. This book is firmly in the latter category.

Researching the Apollo record is a time consuming task
with literally thousands of documents to examine,
hundreds of hours of NASA videos to watch and endless
hours of audio recordings to listen too. It is not a task for
the faint hearted observer but a veritable challenge for
those few brave souls who are in pursuit of the truth. It is
certainly a detective story of epic proportions. The truth
underlying Project Apollo is not based on mere opinion but
on the proper and robust application of science.

You may ask why does it matter what happened 50 years
ago, surely any exaggerated claim has been neutralised by
the passage of time. Not so, it is perhaps the reverse of this
logic. At the time the deceit was enacted, that man had
visited the Moon, it was simply a benign lie for geopolitical
purposes. It was perhaps also a useful lie at the time in that
it may have established a balance in diametrically
opposing ideologies and as such made global conflict less
likely. In other words, you could argue that there was a
justifiable reason for the fakery. However, as time has
passed it is no longer such a benign deceit. The
consequence of perpetuating this lie has serious
repercussions for our modern world.

The fallacy that the Apollo astronauts walked on the Moon
has been ingrained on the human psychic by a relentless
propaganda exercise that it is now considered as part of
our established history. So much so that it is now a

7

component of the curriculum in almost all schools around
the world. It is not inconsequential that we are teaching
our children to believe in falsehoods of this magnitude.
The real effect is to diminish factual scientific achievement
in that it imparts a false impression that real science has
no boundaries and that nothing is beyond the capability of
man. This phenomenon was very eloquently summed up
by the investigative journalist, the late, Dave McGowan
when he stated (App A.01):

“And yet, despite the fact that it was a relatively benign
lie, there is a tremendous reluctance among the American
people to let go of the notion that we sent men to the
Moon. There are a couple of reasons for that, one of them
being that there is a romanticized notion that those were
great years, years when one was proud to be an
American. And in this day and age, people need that kind
of romanticized nostalgia to cling to.

But that is not the main reason that people cling so
tenaciously, often even angrily, to what is essentially the
adult version of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the
Tooth Fairy. What primarily motivates them is fear. But
it is not the lie itself that scares people; it is what that lie
says about the world around us and how it really
functions. For if NASA was able to pull off such an
outrageous hoax before the entire world, and then keep
that lie in place for four decades, what does that say
about the control of the information we receive? What
does that say about the media, and the scientific
community, and the educational community, and all the
other institutions we depend on to tell us the truth? What
does that say about the very nature of the world we live
in?

That is what scares the hell out of people and prevents

8

them from even considering the possibility that they could
have been so thoroughly duped. It’s not being lied to about
the Moon landings that people have a problem with, it is
the realization that comes with that revelation: if they
could lie about that, they could lie about anything.”

The NASA narrative that the first astronauts landed on the
Moon in 1969 is now part of the historical record. It is a
belief that almost the entire world accepts as being true.
According to recent surveys, the Moon landing belief is
widespread throughout the world although it does vary
considerably by country. This recent survey by YouGov on
global conspiracy theories was published on 18 January
2021. The author of the paper, ConnorIbbetson, sums up
the results of the survey:
“One in eight Americans themselves (13%) think the moon
landings were staged, as do an identical proportion of
Canadians. In some European countries around one in

9

five people doubt that Neil Armstrong truly made it to the
Moon’s surface, including 23% of Hungarians, 22% of
Greeks, 22% of Spaniards and 19% of Poles.
Once again, the Britons are the least likely to doubt the
official record: only 9% of people in the UK say they think
the United States faked their moon landings in 1969.”

Source YouGov: Connor Ibbetson 18 January 2021
The full results of the survey are shown here (App A.02).
Surprisingly, it appears that according to this survey then

10

people in the UK are the most likely to believe that the
Moon landings were factual.

You may be wondering why, if the vast majority of people
around the world are convinced that the NASA narrative
concerning the Moon landings is true. then how can we be
so sure it is a deceit. The answer lies in the depth of
knowledge that people have concerning the evidence
underlying the Apollo missions. If you question any of
these supposed believers about Project Apollo then you
will discover that they know very little about the details
except what they have seen in the mass media. At the time
of the Moon landings, there was little to suggest that what
we were being told and shown was not true.

For all, anybody knew it happened just as they witnessed it
on TV and read about it in the media with emblazoned
headlines. At that time almost all the people who saw it
had no reason to entertain the slightest doubt that it was
faked. Hence their cognitive bias that it is true, made them
incapable of detecting any signs of faking. It is a truism
that TV carries a strong element of potency and belief, in
that there is an inbuilt authority residing in the TV
medium.

For any individual to stand up in the 1970s and suggest
that it was a fake would have had a hard time convincing
anybody. The first person to attempt this was Bill Kaysing
back in 1976 when he self-published his book "We Never
Went to the Moon!" with co-author Randy Reid (App
A.03). Although that book is now somewhat out of date, it
was the catalyst that encouraged other Apollo mission
deniers to come forward and brave the tirade of ridicule,
which to this day is the penalty for doubting that man
reached the Moon.

11

The appearance of an embryonic internet in the 1990s and
the establishment of YouTube in 2005 enabled other
doubters to express their thoughts online. Finally, anyone
could examine the detailed NASA evidence that is
supposed to support the Moon landings. The internet is
now awash with pages on the Moon hoax. Type "moon
hoax" into Google search, and you will get 10 million-plus
webpages, happy reading.

We can distinguish several areas of propaganda concerning
the Apollo Moon hoax:

1. NASA (NASA-X the original clandestine group
within NASA)

2. the mass media (newspapers, magazines, TV)
3. the cinema
4. the Charlatans in the pro-NASA fan club
5. and to their shame, Academia

For the most part, the mass media lazily supports the view
that the Apollo missions were real. Most news items you
will have seen or read regurgitate the often-repeated few
anomalies suggested by the sceptics. These few anomalies
are used by the pro-NASA group to debunk any idea of a
hoax and to support the idea that Apollo was a real event.
They concentrate on dismissing the anomalies observed by
the sceptics but fail to supply any convincing factual proof
of the Moon landings.

The path to the truth for those bold enough to challenge
what is now seen as a “not to be questioned” indisputable
fact can be a lonely walk. If you wish to dare to examine
the scientific evidence underlying Project Apollo then you
will immediately become a “conspiracy theorist” with all
the unpleasant taints that the label now carries. You will be

12

ridiculed by the pro-NASA apologists who insinuate that it
is a moronic quest to examine the evidence for such a well-
established truth and you will be labelled a moron for even
considering it.

We can rightly assume that the pro-NASA clan in
formulating their own position on the matter must also
have made the same moronic journey of examining the
evidence to establish their position. Their proofs are
mostly summed up with a few fallacies that do not stand
the scrutiny of scientific analysis. On the face of it, their
proofs are readily accepted by a public who have not had
the time nor the inclination to investigate the matter for
themselves. As the late astronomer Carl Sagan once
eruditely stated:

“If we are not able to ask sceptical questions, to
interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be
sceptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for
the next charlatan, political or religious nut, who comes
ambling along”

The pro-NASA devotees promote themselves as competent
“debunkers” of any evidence of fakery presented by the
Moon landing deniers. Most often their debunking is
superficial, disingenuous or is based on disinformation.
We see the pro-NASA devotees making many spurious
claims which are not backed up by common sense,
research nor science. Their claims cover a range from the
bizarre, to a lack of research, or they use pseudoscience
and sometimes outright lies.

Some of the pro-NASA group claims are truly bizarre. For
example, they believe that the fakers would have told the
400.000 people who worked for NASA and its contractors
that they were going to fake the Moon landings. The pro-

13

NASA group never give any reasons why they believe this
but that does not stop them from using it to state that so
many people could not keep such a secret for so long (see
Section 1 Keeping the Secret). Some of the pro-NASA
experts who subscribe to this rather curious belief are:

 Dr Laura Danly (Curator Griffith Observatory. USA)
 Ruth Langsford (Presenter ITV News)
 USA Today (Website)
 Rick Fienberg (Press Officer American

Astronomical Society)
 Paolo Attivissimo (Self Appointed Expert Moon

Hoax Debunker)
 Dr David Grimes (Physicist at Oxford

University)

Perhaps even more disturbing are these two experts that
we can add to the list of illogical thinkers, the UK Institute
of Physics and almost unbelievably Professor Anu Ojha
OBE (Director UK’s National Space Academy and Director
of the National Space Centre).

Now an example of inadequate research. The pro-NASA
supporters will tell you that the Apollo astronauts must
have visited the Moon as they left retro-reflectors on the
lunar surface. These retro-reflectors are being used to
bounce laser signals off the Moon and this could not
happen without the retro-reflectors being there. This is a
total falsehood and they must know it if they had done an
even minimum of basic research into the evidence.

What they fail to tell you, or perhaps due to a lack of
research they do not themselves know, is that laser signals
were being bounced off the Moon long before project
Apollo. Nevertheless, we have a whole list of “competent”
experts propagating this nonsense. A few of the eminent

14

experts who demonstrate their lack of research are:

 Laura Danly (Curator Griffith Observatory USA)
 Paolo Attivissimo (Self Appointed Expert Moon

Hoax Debunker)
 Adam Savage (Mythbusters TV Episode)
 Dr Martin Hendry (Professor of Gravitational

Astrophysics and Cosmology University of Glasgow)

Again we even have the veritable UK Institute of Physics
making this spurious claim, this is the one institutions that
we would have expected to have done some fundamental
research. One needs to question why so many supposedly
eminent people and organisations are prepared to stand up
and give assurances when they have failed miserably to
even investigate the evidence. We will discuss retro-
reflectors in Section 22.

On the face of it for the general public, such claims by the
pro-NASA group may be compelling arguments but none
of these assertions stands the test of evidential scrutiny as
we will see as we comprehensively examine the evidence.
The truth lies in the finer detail. It is not a matter of what
NASA-X got right but more of what they got wrong.

So welcome to our conspiracy world, the realm of the
moron, the world of the attention-seeking misfits of society
as the pro-NASA fan club would eagerly label us. Those of
us who dare to examine the evidence and form our own
view are castigated with so much venom that one is led to
imagine a cover-up of immense proportions by some
purposed propaganda machine. We are deemed to be
conspiracy theorists with all the scorn that the phrase now
imparts. This was eloquently summed up by the American
Apollo researcher Michael James Meyers:

15

"'Conspiracy theory' is a term of social branding. People
only have so many hours in the day to consider vast
quantities of information to plan their day-to-day lives.
We use heuristics to omit certain information. The logic
goes: if the media and/or bureaucrats in authority are all
saying X happened, someone saying Y happened instead
is probably wrong. And if the authorities saying X
happened call Y a conspiracy theory, then, why should we
bother wasting our time considering it?

Further, we can ignore claims the theorist makes going
forward, as, if he is making false claims about this, he is
probably wrong about many other things he will tell me
in the future. Labelling something a 'conspiracy theory'
and/or someone a 'conspiracy theorist' is a form of
intellectual triage. It allows us to reject or de-prioritise a
claim and move on to more pressing matters in our lives.”

We are challenged on our qualifications to dispute the
facts. We are reminded that we must submit to the
qualified and accomplished engineers, scientists and
technicians who worked within NASA in the 1960s. But
this idea that many brilliant people worked on Project
Apollo completely misses the facts underlying how the
fakery was achieved. Those very competent NASA
engineers, scientists and technicians were also fooled like
the rest of us by a small clandestine group of professionals
whose sole aim was to demonstrate American
technological superiority at a time when it was crucial to
do so. It is not easy to be a long time conspiracy theorist
when it comes to the truth underlying Project Apollo.
Xavier Pascal, a well-respected Moon landing denier of
many years, tells us from his experience how it feels to be a
sceptic (App A.04).

As “conspiracy theorists” we are battling against a wall of

16

ridicule and disbelief as Professor Carl Sagan of The
University of Chicago stated:

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been
bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence
of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding
out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply
too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve
been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you,
you almost never get it back.”

This book brings together the research of many Moon
landing deniers which has been assembled over the past
two decades. The authors claim no personal credit for most
of the insights into the fakery described in this book
although they have each played their part in the story with
public presentations, articles, videos, TV appearances and
several books. The evidence is focused in Sections, 29 in
all, which cover the main areas each of which exposes the
deceit. Most of these sections rely on scientific analysis
using physical laws to reveal the fakery. As such it forms a
handy guide to unravel a complex scenario of deceit. Much
of the evidence in this book is given on the accompanying
website link.

tinyurl.com/moonsceptics

You will be directed to appendices in the form of (App
3.02) which relates to Section 3 item 2. On the home page
of the website select the Section number and then on that
page select the item number. The relevant document or
video will be displayed on a separate page. Try it now for
the above example of Section 3 item 2 and you should see
the NASA TV footage of the Saturn V rocket launch for
Apollo 8.

17

This book is an assemblage of the work carried out by
many dedicated Apollo researchers over the past fifty
years. It is not the work of any one individual but of many.
Starting with the first suspicions back in the early 1970s
courageously voiced by Bill Kaysing, through the critical
analysis by Jet Wintzer in his acclaimed movie “Moon
Hoax Now”, to the outstanding work by Massimo
Mazzucco with his outstanding movie “American Moon”.
Several of the best Moon Hoax videos are available to view
in the last section of the website.
It would be too lengthy to mention everybody by name but
special thanks must be given to the exhaustive work
carried out by Jarrah White over many years with his
numerous Moonfaker videos exposing the Moon Hoax
(App A.05) and Bart Sibrel with his evangelical pursuit of
the truth and the astronauts (App A.06).
Happy reading and please review the book on Amazon,
whether good or bad.

Credit NASA: Apollo 11 Astronauts Aldrin and Armstrong

18

1 Keeping the Secret

A common so-called “proof” of the Moon landings offered
by the pro-NASA group relates to the number of people
who apparently worked on Project Apollo for NASA or one
of its contractors. It is often stated in phrases such as:

“Over 400,000 people were involved in Project Apollo in
one way or another, how can the conspiracy theorists
imagine that the secret about the hoax would not have
been revealed in more than 50 years?”

Now think about this one for a while and understand what
the pro-NASA disciples are inferring. The statement
implies that the pro-NASA camp believes that everybody
who worked for NASA or its contractors were somehow
informed either before or after the event that the Apollo
Moon landings were faked. It is a meaningless statement
and no evidence is ever provided to substantiate it. For the
general reader, such a statement makes eminent sense and

19

is accepted as a persuasive argument for debunking any
Moon landing conspiracy theory.

So the obvious questions they need to answer are:

1. When were these 400,000 NASA employees
informed?

2. How were all these people informed, by memo,
word of mouth or some other method?

3. For what reason was it necessary to inform them?

I doubt that any of these pro-NASA groupies could provide
a sensible answer to any one of these questions.

It is the most spurious and naïve debunking statement one
could possibly conjure up. We have no idea who started
this nonsensical idea but nonsense it truly is. How any
sensible person would imagine that the perpetrators of the
fake would diligently tell everybody their plans is just
ludicrous.

Now you may think this is the efforts of some fringe group
of children who ran out of something to contribute but you
would be very wrong. This feeble debunking statement has
been used by many of those whom you would consider to
have rather sharper thinking skills. Here are just a few of
the celebrated debunkers who rely on this trivia.

“How could so many people keep a secret”
Professor Anu Ojha OBE (App 1.01)
Director UK’s National Space Academy
Director of the National Space Centre.

“Most people take it as gospel that the US Government,
NASA, the 12 astronauts in total who have walked on the
Moon and the 400,000 people involved in the Apollo

20

programme would have neither the will nor the way to
fake one of humanity’s greatest ever achievements.”
UK Institute of Physics (App 1.02)

“It's pretty impossible for 400,000 people to keep a secret.
So if you were going to fake the Moon landings for the
public you'd have to fake it for them too which means all
of their data, all of the things they were looking at on the
screens, all their hardware that they were building, it
was just for nothing? That's not actually at all feasible.
You know how hard it is to keep a secret and somebody
would have leaked that.”
Dr Laura Danly (App 1.03)
Curator Griffith Observatory

“But for me personally, I just think far too many people
would have to have covered it up for far too many years
to never have slipped up”
Ruth Langsford (App 1.04)
Presenter ITV News

“But about 400,000 people worked on the Apollo
programme and that's a lot of mouths to keep shut about
such a sensational secret”
USA Today (App 1.05)

“About 400,000 scientists, engineers, technologists,
machinists, electricians, worked on the Apollo program. If
in fact the main motivation for believing in the moon hoax
that is you don’t trust the government, you don’t trust our
leaders, you don’t trust authority, how can you feel that
400,000 people would keep their mouths shut for 50
years? It’s just implausible.”
Rick Fienberg (App 1.06)
Press Officer American Astronomical Society

21

“Through the decades that have passed since the Moon
landings, not one of the approximately 400,000 civilian
technicians and engineers of the many aerospace
companies who worked on the Apollo project has ever
spilled the beans, not even by mistake or in a moment of
alcohol-fueled exuberance."
Paolo Attivissimo (App 1.07)
A physicist claims to show by mathematics that the
Moon landing hoax would have been exposed within
four years, well to be exact he says 3.68 years. He
believes that 411,000 were told about the hoax, and
based on his analysis, he maintains that there was
most probably no hoax involved in the NASA Moon
landings.
Dr David Grimes (App 1.08)
Physicist at Oxford University
We imagine that our celebrities must have considered this
to be one of their stronger points.
So when you next hear some pro-NASA evangelist try to
debunk the Moon landing deniers with the “keeping the
secret” absurd hair-brained piece of stupidity you will
know how to respond.

22

2 Not Easier to Fake It

One of the favourite assertions universally offered by the
pro-NASA brigade is that in 1969 it would have been easier
to go to the Moon than to fake it. This idea has no
evidential basis rather it is based on an incomplete
understanding of how NASA-X did fake it. It is a fact that
back in the 1960s there were no advanced computer
graphics possibilities, everything needed to be captured “in
camera”. However, post-production possibilities were
available to a limited extent using an optical printer which
enabled NASA-X to create the faked videos.

These are some of the pro-NASA supporter's comments on
the subject of being able to fake it.

“The technology to fake the Moon landings did not exist in
1969, the technology did exist to get to the Moon in 1969”
Dallas Campbell (App 2.01)
BBC Click Programme

“Some people say that in 1969 people were incapable of
sending a man to the Moon but they were capable of

23

staging the whole thing in a TV studio. In fact, the
opposite is true. By the late 1960s they did have the
technical ability not to mention the requisite madness to
send three guys to the Moon and back. They did not have
the technology to fake it on video.”
S.G.Collins (App 2.02)
Director Post War Media

“I can say with some certainty that the footage would
have been impossible to fake. ”
Howard Berry (App 2.03)
Livescience.com

“I think going to the Moon was easier to do in 1969 than it
would have been to hoax it.”
Dr David Wright (App 2.04)
Astronomer Griffith Observatory

What the Apollo protagonists do not appear to realise is
the efforts NASA made to train the astronauts using
realistic simulators. This was essential to accustom the
astronauts to the machines that they would need to control
on their mission to the Moon. These same simulators that
gave the astronauts realistic views of the approach, orbit
and landing on the Moon could also be used to fool the rest
of us which is exactly what happened.

It was not only the astronauts that required extensive
training but also the Mission Controllers. To do this NASA
created many simulation exercises that covered the
complete mission. On 13 December 1967 NASA launched
the TETR-A satellite (TEst and TRaining satellite) (App
2.05). 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 complete Apollo missions. These simulated

24

transmissions would also appear to be a perfect source for
the fake transmissions later to be used on the “real” Apollo
missions. These were not only intended for the training of
Mission Controllers but also to check out all the
communications and ancillary equipment.

The question is could the simulations have been realistic
enough to convince the general public and the mission
controllers? The best evidence we have is from the people
who were involved at the time. For example, the words of
the Apollo 11 Flight Director Gene Kranz (also Flight
Director for every odd-numbered Apollo mission):

"The simulations were so real that no controller could
discern the difference between the training and the real
mission”

Also this from NASA engineer Jack Clemons who worked
extensively on the Apollo Project in the 1960s (App 2.06).

“With those (simulators) we could simulate most of the
mission so that during the actual mission you had these
computers crunching along, telling us how it was going
and what needed doing."

Or this from NASA astronaut Alfred "Al" Worden in an
interview in the Express newspaper entitled “Moon
landing: 'Simulation on the ground' Apollo 15 astronaut's
confession exposed” (App 2.07) in which he said:

"I must admit that, at the cost of appearing insensible, we
trained so intensely and for such long periods that when
the moment of the mission came, it was like carrying out
another training session in the simulator.”

So the pro-NASA group's contention that faking it in the

25

1960s would have been impossible is hardly substantiated.
If NASA-X could fool the NASA Mission Control operatives
who believed they were controlling the mission into
believing that it was real, then it would be pure arrogance
to assume that they could not also fool the rest of us.
So all they needed to add were a few filmed sequences in
grainy black and white which they could playback “live” as
though coming from the Moon. Everything else is there,
the technical guys, the design plans, the hardware, the
computers, the spacesuits, the Lunar Module, the Lunar
Rover. Finally, an assortment of Moon rocks collected in
Antarctica by Wernher Von Braun himself. at the time he
was Deputy Associate Administrator on Project Apollo.

Credit NASA: Von Braun collecting Moon rocks 1966-67
26

So perhaps the pro-NASA devotees can explain to us all
precisely what their issue is? We suspect that the real issue
is they have been somewhat indolent in their research
which speaks volumes for their expertise regarding Project
Apollo.

The evidence that we can amass indicates that there was
no great problem for the perpetrators of the hoax to
assemble the necessary elements to achieve the deception.
Given the circumstances, they achieved a credible scenario
on the surface but small errors were made which enables
us to unravel the deception.

Credit NASA: Apollo 11 Crew

27

Credit Bedford Gazette: Headlines 21 July 1969
28

3 Saturn V Rocket

There is no doubt that the design and construction
of the Saturn V rocket was a major technological
achievement back in the 1960s. At the time when
the Moon landings were given the impetus by
President Kennedy in 1961, NASA had little in
terms of rockets powerful enough to even reach
Low Earth orbit. To come from that state of having
almost nothing to the first 1966 launch of the
complex Saturn V 1B rocket on the unmanned
Apollo 4 in just six years was remarkable progress
(App 3.01). Even more remarkable was the first
launch of the larger Saturn V rocket in 1968 which
allegedly enabled the Apollo 8 crew to reach and
orbit the Moon (App 3.02). It was claimed to be one
of the loudest ever man-made noises on Earth as
the five rockets produced 7.5 million pounds of
thrust. This article from space.com shows the major
components of the Saturn V (App 3.03).

29

Notwithstanding the technological achievement of
designing and building this rocket, doubts have
been expressed concerning its ability to achieve the
Moon landings. We are not experts on the power of
rockets so we will leave it to those better informed
to express an opinion. In this detailed analysis by
Russian scientist, S. G. Pokrovsky of the Saturn V
rocket from the Apollo 11 mission posted on
aulis.com (App 3.04) the author concludes that:

“The velocity achieved at the separation point was
found to be significantly (800-1100m/s) lower
than that required to satisfy the stated flight plan.
This finding implies that the declared payload
needed for a return lunar mission could not have
been propelled to the Moon.”

This paper also from aulis.com by Gennady Ivchenkov
analyses the heat transfer and strength of the
tubular cooling jacket of the Saturn V engines (App
3.05). The author also concludes that the rocket
could not have achieved the claimed Apollo
missions as he states:

“The pressure in the F-1 combustion chamber is
likely to have been significantly lower than that
stated, due to the fundamental shortcomings of the
tubular cooling system of American rocket engines.
This is further confirmed by the fact that all rocket
engines now being developed and currently in use,
including those in the United States, use the
'Soviet-style' cooling system. Consequently, the
launch weight of the Saturn V was lower and,
accordingly, could not have ensured the
accomplishment of the Apollo Moon landing
program.”

30

In his second paper on the velocity and lifting
capacity of the Saturn V rocket, S. G. Pokrovsky
looks again at the data (App 3.06) and concludes:

“The estimate obtained was that the velocity
achieved was significantly (800-1100m/s) lower
than that required to satisfy the flight plan for
propelling this mission to the surface of the Moon.
Further study concludes that no more than 28 tons,
including the Apollo 11 craft, out of 46 tons as
stated by NASA could have been placed into lunar
orbit.”

It is clear from this analysis that the power output
of the Saturn V rocket as stated by NASA is brought
into doubt. Now we will examine the evidence
produced by the Canadian Apollo researcher Randy
Walsh.

Randy has examined the evidence in detail and
particularly the cooling system of the Saturn V
rocket. The temperature in the combustion chamber
reached 5,000oF and sufficient cooling was,
therefore, essential to protect the integrity of the
engine. The cooling pipes were wrapped in the
engine skirt. It is the insufficient cooling provided
by this system that led to engine instability. It is
suggested that NASA throttled back the engines to
minimise this problem. If that were the case then
the Saturn V could not have produced the required
thrust to get men to the Moon. It is a complex
scientific area so we will let Randy Walsh explain in
this video interview (App 3.07). There is also a
video based on his latest book “The Apollo Moon
Missions Hiding a Hoax in Plain Sight” (App 3.08).

31

Although this is an extremely technical area the evidence
from the experts indicate that all may not have been well
with the Saturn V engines, at least not to the specification
declared by NASA. It may not be conclusive proof of the
fakery but it does provide us with reasonable suspicion.

32

4 Lost Apollo 13 Capsule

Apollo 13 was a gripping movie starring Tom Hanks who
played Apollo astronaut Jim Lovell (App 4.01). It achieved
box office success around the world as it told the riveting
story of three intrepid astronauts who against all odds
survived a crippling accident to their spacecraft while in
deep space. The ingenuity of the technicians back in
Huston saved the day and the astronauts were finally
saved. At the 1996 Oscars, the film was awarded six Oscars
for Best Music, Best Film Editing, Best Picture, Best Actor
in a Supporting Role, Best Actress in a Supporting Role
and the Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material
Previously Produced or Published. The movie was allegedly
based on a true story of an event that took place in April
1970.

First of all, we need to understand the background of the
Apollo Project. Apollo 11, the alleged first Moon landing,
caught the public imagination with an estimated
worldwide TV audience of 650 million viewers. The next

33

mission Apollo 12 was a media failure partly because Alan
Bean “accidentally” destroyed the TV camera at the
beginning of the mission by exposing it to direct sunlight
and managed to burn out the tube. People had no interest
in listening to astronauts chatting on the distant Moon.
Even without destroying the camera, there was not much
more of interest to see as two spacemen plodded around a
grey dusty landscape taking photographs and setting out
equipment.

So NASA-X decided that some new drama was needed to
activate both public and media interest again and keep
Project Apollo alive with the money rolling in. The new
drama was to be the gripping near-tragedy of the Apollo 13
mission. It all started with the now-famous phrase from
astronaut Jack Swigert:

“Huston, we've had a problem here”

The story goes that there was an explosion in one oxygen
tank which ruptured the second oxygen tank causing a
total loss of oxygen. Oxygen was crucial for the astronauts
to breathe and was also a crucial component along with
hydrogen in the fuel cells, which provided most of the
electrical power. It turned out to be an extravagance of
suspense closely followed by the world's media. However,
we will not cover this well-known story again. If you need
to catch up on the action, then the Apollo 13 story is also
well covered in this NASA video (App 4.02). Suffice it to
say it all ended well for the three astronauts and
particularly for the NASA Press Office.

The Apollo 13 spacecraft would have been rocked off-
course by the explosion so how could it get back on course?
The Apollo guidance system relied on continuous
incrementation and could not fix its position by absolute

34

reckoning. After the blast sent it off course, it would have
lost its current location and would have been unable to
establish its new position autonomously. There is a video
from Xavier Pascal, which examines what might have
happened (App 4.03).

Finally, there has always been one aspect of the Apollo 13
story which was puzzling. First, the background. The
Project Apollo had many technical challenges concerning
the heat emanating from the Sun. When in direct sunlight,
the temperature of the exposed spacecraft in space rose to
250F (121C). In the shade it cooled to approximately -140F
(-96C). The crew capsule had a cooling system to dump
waste heat from the CM cabin and electronics to outer
space via two radiators located outside the capsule.

During the journey to and from the Moon, the Apollo
capsule was always in direct sunlight. In theory, it would
heat up to 250C on the side exposed to the Sun. To avoid
overheating one side of the capsule it was periodically
rotated on its axis to expose the other side to the Sun. This
rotation was known as a BBQ roll, or to be more
technically correct “Passive Thermal Control” mode (PTC).
Astronaut Alan Bean when being interviewed by Bart
Sibrel tells Sibrel that without cooling the spacecraft
controlled internal temperature would raise from the
climate-controlled 21C to 120C (see App 3.17 at time 2:10).

Now we have Apollo 13 coming back from the Moon with
no electricity to power the cooling system. We see in the
“Apollo 13” movie that the astronauts almost froze to
death. At first, we thought this was just some artistic
licence introduced into the film to heighten the tension.
But no, astronaut James Lovell confirms that they almost
froze, furthermore it is recorded in the Apollo Flight
Journal (App 4.04). A better explanation of this quandary

35

is provided in this video posted on Shill Stompers (App
4.05). So we remain confused.
Now to a rather bizarre aspect of Apollo 13. Remember
Apollo 13 was launched on 11 April 1970. Coincidentally on
12 April 1970, a Russian fleet was on exercises in the Bay of
Biscay just off the French and Spanish coasts. To their total
surprise, they found an Apollo capsule floating in the sea.
They recovered the floating capsule and took it back to the
port of Murmansk in Russia. The story goes that six
months later a US icebreaker “Southwind” made a
"courtesy call" to the port of Murmansk. They were
surprised to be presented with the Apollo capsule which
was then taken back to the USA and is now on exhibit in
Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Credit Eddie Pugh: NASA Capsule in Murmansk
It is probably best to let co-author Marcus Allen outline the
Apollo 13 story based on his research (App 4.06). However,

36

there is yet another explanation of this story from Eddie
Pugh who accepts the NASA story that it was the
boilerplate BP-1227 version of the Command Model lost at
sea during testing (App 4.07).
Neither of these accounts satisfactorily explain what an
Apollo capsule was doing floating in the Bay of Biscay the
day after Apollo 13 launched. The explanation given by
NASA that the Apollo capsule was lost during training
exercises by the US Navy in UK waters does not seem at all
plausible. Strangely, an important piece of Apollo
hardware had gone missing, but there is no record that
NASA ever reported it as being lost. We can find no
reference to the “UK based US Navy” having trained for
capsule recovery in British waters. All Apollo missions
were planned to re-enter over the Pacific Ocean, not in the

UK or European waters.
Credit Nandor Schuminszky: Handover of Apollo Capsule

37

Aulis.com offers us a very comprehensive analysis of this
story (App 4.08). The postulation examined by this article
was:
“April 1970: NASA launches Apollo 13, but apparently it
aborts only minutes later, an emergency splashdown in
the eastern Atlantic. The Soviets then recover an Apollo
module that had “fallen from space". But all is not lost.
The US sends an icebreaker to a Russian port to bring
home the lost Apollo module. Was this event the real
Apollo 13 accident? ”
The inference that this may well have been the Apollo 13
capsule jettisoned after launch could have some merit. As
Marcus Allen clearly shows the astronauts did have a way
to escape the launch tower by a slide into a safe room
located below the launch pad, and this possibility must be
plausible. If the mission was to be a staged event, then why
risk the lives of the astronauts. It would be enough for the
press and the public to see the astronauts enter the launch
tower complex. What happens after is not observed by
anyone.

Recovered Apollo Capsule at Grand Rapids Michigan

38

The real question is: was it a real NASA Apollo capsule
picked up by the Russians or just a strengthened version of
a capsule known as a boilerplate model used for crew
training that had mysteriously been lost by the US Navy?
The simple answer would be to go and inspect it at Grand
Rapids. Unfortunately, for some undisclosed reason, it has
been sealed in the manner of a time capsule not to be
opened until 2076. You may be wondering why they would
keep it hidden for so long? Does it contain some evidence
that would reveal that it is the real Apollo 13 capsule?

Credit NASA: Apollo 14 Smooth Moon AS14-66-9295
39

Credit Cinema Magazine (Germany): October 1995
40

5 Avoiding the Radiation

One of the most debated issues in the Apollo Moon landing
saga has been the possible dangers of astronauts traversing
the Van Allen radiation belts. These belts of high radiation
are suggested by the Moon landing deniers as being an
impenetrable barrier for deep space travel. In the official
NASA story the Apollo astronauts traversed these belts
without any ill effects and according to the NASA
published figures only received minimum radiation
dosages.

Dr James Van Allen in a paper published in the Scientific
American magazine warned of the likely dangers of
astronauts entering these radiation belts when he said
(App 5.01):

“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

41

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 suggesting a
route that would minimise the astronaut's exposure
to this deadly radiation. This concept of a polar
trajectory has been seized upon by the pro-NASA
apologists to explain why the Apollo astronauts had
no trouble with radiation when travelling to the
Moon and back.

Amy Teitel is the pro-NASA glamour girl who hosts the
website Vintage Space. In September 2014 she posted a
paper in Popular Science in which she states that the
Apollo mission flew right through the radiation belts. She
shows a diagram in which the path appears to miss the
inner belt, thought to be the most dangerous one (App
5.02).

Then in 2017, we have two new videos, one more from
Amy Teitel (App 5.03) and one from Curious Droid (App
5.04). Curious Droid is a website hosted by Paul Shillito,
dedicated to investigating matters relating to aerospace,
space, robotics, transportation technology, and other
similar technical subjects. Now both these latter videos
claim that the Apollo missions took a northerly route when
leaving the Earth and a southerly route when returning, to
avoid the worst of the Van Allen radiation belts.

42

Both Amy Teitel and Curious Droid utilise the diagram
first produced in a paper by Robert Braeunig (App 5.05).

Credit Robert Braeunig: Apollo 11 Translunar Trajectory
For some unexplained reason, Braeunig's paper has now
been removed from the internet but is available on the
"WayBack Machine" site.
[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].
We have contacted both Amy Teitel and Paul Shillito
enquiring as to the source of their information on this
supposed “safe route” taken by the Apollo astronauts. After
six months, We have had no reply from either which we
suspect is indicative. They are still free to contact us by the
email given for the website and we will happily include any
reply from them in later prints of this book.

43

[Author's Note: This book is produced on a “print on
demand” basis so it is possible to alter the text for future
purchasers].
We 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 we 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).

The above diagram was produced by scientists from the
NASA Combined Release and Radiation Effects Satellite
(CRRES). The data was from a satellite that was launched
in 1990. It shows a schematic diagram of the Van Allen
radiation belts, to which has been added a thick black line
which just about misses the inner radiation belt. The
objective of the paper was for students to carry out certain
observations and calculations relating to radiation. The
paper does not say that the thick black line represents the
trajectory of the Apollo spacecraft.
Amy Teitel and Curious Droid are both self-proclaimed
experts in the Apollo missions, and therefore they must

44

have known that what they were saying was not factual.
Examination of the Apollo record clearly shows that their
interpretation of the evidence was flawed. Such actions are
inexcusable given that they both have an audience which is
greatly influenced by what they present. You can examine
all of the NASA documentation concerning the Apollo
flight trajectories from the time, and there is no mention of
any "safe route" to avoid the inner radiation belt. One has
to question why these experts both made the same
spurious claims.
Careful analysis of the NASA documentation in the Apollo
mission reports shows the real picture as revealed in these
videos from Armando Balance (App 5.07 and App 5.08).
The NASA documentation provides the precise data from
which we can plot the alleged trajectory through the Van
Allen radiation belts of all the Apollo spacecraft for each
mission. Look at the Apollo 14 trajectory passing through
the inner belt as given in the data published by NASA
compared with the curved route suggested by Braeunig's
paper.

Source NASA: Graphic from Armando Balance
45

And the Apollo 12 re-entry trajectory passing directly
through the inner Van Allen belt.

Source NASA: Graphic from Armando Balance
There was no attempt made by NASA to avoid the worst of
the Van Allen radiation belts. NASA published the full
details of the missions from which one can deduce the
actual trajectories taken by each Apollo mission.
The fictitious story by Amy Teitel and Paul Shillito is just
another example of how the Charlatans attempt to distort
the real evidence to suit their case. Either such actions are
dishonest given that they pass themselves off as experts in
the subject so they should be capable of thoroughly
researching the evidence and not attempting to deceive
their audience. The only alternative is they are not the
experts that they profess to be.

46

In summary, examining the original documentation it
appears that NASA did not take seriously enough the
aspect of radiation dangers on passing through the Van
Allen belts. Now they leave it to members of the pro-NASA
Charlatans to try to rewrite history. However, NASA will
need to face the radiation aspect of space travel in the
forthcoming Artemis Project, and that may prove to be
problematic. The nightmare scenario is that the "return" to
the Moon may result in severely radiation injured or even
dead astronauts.

So now whenever this subject is raised, the chorus from the
pro-NASA groupies is that the Apollo astronauts avoided
the worst of the Van Allen radiation belts by taking a
special route. We see acclaimed Project Apollo experts
such as Amy Shira Teitel, Paul Shillito, Phil Plait, Professor
Anu Ojha and many others knowingly broadcasting this
falsehood. This concept of a special route taken by the
Apollo spacecrafts is untrue and these experts know it is a
lie but it is all they can offer to cover the deceit.

They have looked at the evidence as well as we have
and they can see that NASA provides detailed data
on the routes taken by each of the Apollo missions.
The truth is that there is no documentation whatsoever in
the NASA archive to show that they plotted some trajectory
to avoid the Van Allen radiation belts. Contrary to what the
pro-NASA groupies disingenuously state, the evidence on
this matter rests within the official NASA records. These
records show that the Apollo astronauts flew straight
through the centre of the Van Allen radiation belts. In
particular, we would mention the official NASA Apollo 14
Final Mission Report (App 5.09) in which it categorically
states on page 148:

“The trans-lunar injection trajectory lay closer to the

47

plane of the geomagnetic equator than that of previous
flights, and therefore, the spacecraft travelled
through the heart of the trapped radiation belts.”
[Authors emboldening]
So the next time you hear some pro-NASA groupie offering
this debunking falsehood just ask them for their evidence
as there is none. In fact, quite the opposite as the NASA
evidence contradicts their lie. Perhaps even suggest to
them that they should read the NASA Apollo mission
reports which totally contradict their false statements.

Credit Athens Messenger: Headlines 16 July 1969
Note the article on the right-hand side of the newspaper.
Even before the Apollo 11 mission had supposedly reached
the Moon, Vice President Spiro Agnew was suggesting
aiming for the planet Mars next. Now that is some
confidence.

48

6 Transmission Delays

Communication between Huston Mission Control and the
astronauts supposedly on the Moon was by radio waves
which travel at the speed of light, a staggering 186,282
miles per second (about 300,000 km/sec). The Moon is
about 240,000 miles distant from the Earth so radio waves
from the Moon would take about 1.3 seconds to reach us
here on Earth. That means that the signal of an astronaut
communicating from the Moon would take 1.3 seconds to
reach Mission Control on Earth. Likewise, any signal from
Mission Control would take 1.3 seconds to reach the
astronauts on the Moon. So we always have a delay in the
communications between Mission Control and the
astronauts on the Moon.

The delay we expect depends on which side of the
conversation that it was being recorded. The relevant point
to remember is that the communications between the
astronauts on the Moon and the Capsule Commander
(CapCon) in Huston were all recorded at Mission Control.
Therefore, when the CapCon hears the message coming
from the astronaut on the Moon, he can reply immediately.

49

When CapCon replies his answer will take 1.25 seconds to
reach the astronaut on the Moon and assuming the
astronaut immediately replies it will take a further 1.25
seconds to travel back to CapCon. So we must expect to
hear a minimum delay of about 2.5 seconds between
CapCon talking to an astronaut and him hearing the reply
from the astronaut. This is simple physics and must always
be observed. If we hear an astronaut reply to a message
from Mission Control in less than 2.6 seconds then the
astronaut cannot be on the Moon.

There are many examples in the Apollo record of this
transmission delay being too short that can only be
explained if the astronauts are not on the Moon. Here
Xavier Pascal shows several solid examples in which the
transmission delay is incorrect and as a consequence, the
astronauts cannot have been on the Moon (App 6.01).

There is one interesting comparison made on the following
website, authored by somebody who refers to themselves
as the “Northerntruthseeker” which we invite you to visit
(App 6.02). Note that the video in the post does not work
as it used Adobe Flash which has been discontinued but
the video was the Apollo 11 Moon landing (see App 6.03).

We will cover the information from this video submission
in detail. A section from “Northerntruthseeker”'s website
describes the delay problem. We have this in the audio
recordings:

“Columbia, Columbia, this is Houston, AOS, over.”

[1.07 second pause]

“Houston, Columbia…”

50