sceptic

you that the flag does not move when no astronaut is
touching it. This is a falsehood that is easily proved by
examining the Apollo videos which we are entitled to
assume that they have too. The pro-NASA devotees know it
is a lie but hope you will not realise the truth. It is an abuse
of the truth but the pro-NASA group have no compunction
in repeatedly stating it whilst knowing it is not true. These
are just a selection of the statements made on this issue by
the pro-NASA experts.

“Can the conspiracy theorists show me some video
footage where the flag is flapping and yet the astronauts
are off doing something else? Because the only footage I
have ever seen where the flag is moving is when they are
in the process of planting it in the ground or they have
just let go of the flag pole after planting it into the
ground.”
Professor Martin Hendry
Professor of Gravitational Astrophysics and
Cosmology at Glasgow University.

“There is three hours of video of a camera looking at a
flag which shows that the flag does not move one iota
once the astronauts have let it go. No, there is no evidence
that flags flutter in the breeze”.
Dr Steve Barrett, Senior Research Fellow
Department of Physics University of Liverpool

“From a physics teacher point of view the only time you see
it moving is when its just been planted and the period of
oscillation matches two pi root over G etc for the lunar
gravitational field. Conspirators hate it when you start
doing that sort of analysis.”
Professor Anu Ojha OBE
Director UK’s National Space Academy

101

“It's not fluttering: it's swinging, and it only does so when
the astronauts handle it or touch it.”
Paolo Attivissimo “Moon Hoax:Debunked!”

“If the wind is causing this motion then why are the
flagpole and horizontal rod moving (bouncing), but the
flag itself doesn't move at all?”
Jay Windley, Webmaster Clavius Moonbase

“It isn't. After the flag is let go, it settles gently and then
doesn't move at all in the remaining footage.”
Howard Berry LiveScience.com

“So unless someone finds a shot of the flag flapping
without an astronaut manipulating the flagpole it's myth
busted”
Mythbusters TV Show

So what is the truth? We have the pro-NASA apologists
screaming for some evidence of the flag moving on its own
without being touched by an astronaut.

The facts are that the Apollo videos show several instances
when the flag waves when no astronaut has touched it and
on one occasion when there are no astronauts on the lunar
surface. This evidence is free for everybody to research
themselves so why are the pro-NASA group at pains to
ignore it. These are three instances of the flag moving
when no astronaut touches it. First from Apollo 15 (App
13.01), then Apollo 16 (App 13.02) and Apollo 14 (App
13.03). All these examples show the lag moving when no
astronaut is touching it or has just let go. So there, for the
pro-NASA devotees is the evidence.

How we ask the reader to pause for a moment and think
about this. We have the pro-NASA experts, these are

102

people that we should be able to trust, telling us that the
flag does not move unless touched by an astronaut. If they
are in any way experts on the Apollo evidence then they
knew they are being deceitful in trying to convince their
audience that such evidence does not exist. The reason
they do this is simply that they know that the Apollo
missions were faked and they need to resort to
disinformation and lies to support their falsehood. If they
truly did not know the evidence existed then they have no
right to pass themselves off as experts on the Apollo story.
Are we really to believe that these supposed experts in all
things NASA are incapable of watching a few videos and
discovering simple evidence for themselves? We think the
simple answer is no.

Finally, we would draw your attention to the statement by
Professor Anu Ojha when he states:

“From a physics teacher point of view the only time you
see it moving is when its just been planted and the period
of oscillation matches two pi root over G etc for the lunar
gravitational field. Conspirators hate it when you start
doing that sort of analysis.”

This is total disinformation. We have just shown that there
are several instances when the flag does move all by itself.
What is a more serious deception is that he states that
when the flag does move then it does so with “the period of
oscillation matches two pi root over G “. What he is saying
here is that the periodicity of the swinging flag is what it
should be on the Moon given the length of the quasi-flag
pendulum. This is untrue. There is only one instance in
which the periodicity of the flag can be accurately
measured and that is the instance shown in the Apollo 15
video above (see App 13.01) which we will analyse in the
next section "The Flag is on Earth".

103

[Authors Note: The periodicity is the number of seconds to
complete one full swing]
We have written to Professor Ojha asking him for any
evidence he has that the flag swings as though it is lunar
gravity. Although we were notified that the email was
received we have not heard anything since and we are
doubtful that we ever will. We think it is a travesty for
science when we have one of the leaders in European space
science and a Director of the UK’s National Space Academy
actively promulgating such mendacious information to
defend an untruth. It is a sad reflection on science if the
leaders in the field do not have the conviction to examine
the evidence and seek out the truth.

Credit NASA: Alan Shepard holds the flag AS14-66-09232

104

Credit NASA: Apollo 11 Buzz Aldrin on the Moon
105

14 The Flag is on Earth

On the Apollo 15 mission, there was an incident in which
astronaut Dave Scott passed by the American flag and it
started to swing with simple harmonic motion (App 14.01).
There has been heated debate from both the pro-NASA
group and the Moon landing deniers as to why the flag
started to swing.

The point being made by the Moon landing deniers was
that there is no atmosphere on the Moon and therefore the
flag must have been blown by some cooling fans on the
stage set on Earth. The pro-NASA diehards offer several
other explanations why the flag could have waved in the
vacuum of the Moon. These vary from the astronaut
touching it, electrostatic discharge, astronaut kicked up
some dust which hit the flag, vibrations on the surface and
so on. You can find pages and pages of this debate on the
internet.

This debate misses the important evidence of fakery that
can be determined from an analysis of this video clip.
Whatever caused the flag to swing is immaterial. It is not
WHY the flag moved but HOW it moved.

106

If we analyse the flag movements in the Apollo 15 video
(see App 14.01 time 2:37) it is possible to count the
number of swings in a given time period which is referred
to as its periodicity. The leading edge of the flag is showing
simple harmonic motion and can be treated as a quasi-
pendulum.

A pendulum obeys physical laws and there is a relationship
that links the length of the pendulum, the periodicity of the
swing and the gravitational force acting at that place where
the pendulum is situated. There is one other crucial
element and that is the type of pendulum that best
approximates to the quasi-pendulum of the flag which
depends on several factors. We will let “Steve the Chemist”
take up the story as he investigates the flag quasi-
pendulums in his excellent video (see 14.02).

In the video we see the flag swinging with simple harmonic
motion for about 30 seconds. Steve's times the 15 swings of
the flag which takes 29.9 seconds which gives a periodicity
of about 2 seconds. He shows that using the equation for a
simple pendulum that the periodicity of the flag, if it were
on Earth, would be 1.9 seconds but this flag is supposed to
be on the Moon. If the flag was on the Moon then it would
swing two and a half times slower with a periodicity of
almost 5 seconds and we would only see six swings of the
flag, not the fifteen that we observe in the video.

Steve notes that the flag is more similar to a rod pendulum
in that its weight is uniformly distributed along the length
of the flag. Using the equation for the rod pendulum Steve
derives the periodicity of the flag if it was on the Earth
would be 1.55 seconds while if it actually was on the Moon
it would be in the order of 3.8 seconds. There can be no
confusion between these two numbers.

107

Steve shows conclusively that the flag is behaving as
though it is in Earth gravity. It is possible to debate the
assumptions made and the accuracy of the observations.
However, the clinching factor is the large difference that
exists between the gravitational forces on the Earth and
the Moon and these cannot be confused.

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

That scene will have some slow-motion added, although
perhaps not a lot. The amount of slow-motion was reduced

108

the closer the astronauts were to the camera otherwise
their movements would look too glacial. The inclusion of
the slow-motion effect would improve Steve's analysis. If
the film were sped up by 20% then the periodicity of the
pendulum would then be a little faster, so less than the two
seconds he measured from the slowed-down NASA video.
We did contact Steve at the time and he agreed with our
observations.

We cannot know with any exactitude what the slow-motion
factor would be for this scene. It is likely to be small as the
astronaut is close to the camera. we would estimate that it
would be between 10% to 20%. If we assume that 20% slow
motion has been added then the real periodicity would be
2*0.8 = 1.6 seconds. This periodicity matches almost
perfectly that for the flag swinging in Earth's gravity. There
is absolutely no question that this sequence was filmed on
Earth. The flag moves far too quickly for it to be in lunar
gravity and the calculations prove it without any doubt. In
lunar gravity, the periodicity of the swing would be a full 4
seconds. NASA would not have been aware of the discovery
of this unexpected anomaly and therefore oblivious to its
relevance.

This one instance of the Apollo waving flag is irrefutable
evidence that the Moon video was faked here on Earth. If
the flag was on the Moon it would swing considerably
slower, in fact, 247 percent slower. Whenever you see the
Apollo flag supposedly on the Moon then it just waves far
too fast when it should look like it is moving in slow-
motion.

We can now consider again what Professor Anu Ojha
categorically told us in the last section:

“..the period of oscillation matches two pi root over G..”

109

and in this, he was referring to lunar gravity and we have
just proved beyond doubt that the flag waves as though it is
in Earth's gravity. So he is teaching an untruth and we find
it difficult to accept that he does not know that. We believe
that in order to maintain any credibility Professor Ojha
needs to provide evidence for his public assertions. He
knows as well as we do that there is no evidence to back up
his falsehood but no doubt he will keep repeating it to his
admiring audience. It is a sad reflection on UK university
teaching that a professor can make a claim for which he
has absolutely no evidence. On the contrary, the real
evidence conclusively proves otherwise (App 14.03).

Credit NASA: Lunar Module Antares AS14-66-9277
110

Credit NASA: Big Navy Jump Salute AS16-113-18339
111

15 Two Gravities?

First of all, take a look at the video sequence from Apollo
16 on the first EVA which has been referred to as the “Big
Navy Jump Salute” (App 15.01). Note in this video the time
has been superimposed on the lower left. Did you notice
anything strange about this video? Watch again and note
the behaviour of the falling sand and the jumping of the
astronaut.

Did you observe that the sand seems to fall too quickly or
that the astronaut stays air-borne far too long? The sand
has completely vanished before the astronaut has even
reached the apex of his jump. Gravity acts the same on all
objects, so the sand and the astronaut who rise together
must also fall together but they do not that so something is
amiss. Notice three strange things in this jump:

1. the sand falls before the astronaut does
2. the backpack starts to rise before the astronaut
3. the backpack rises higher than the astronaut

So how can we explain this?

We can compare the astronaut jump with a similar activity

112

such as a sand volleyball player as in the video (App 15.02).
We can see in that video what we should be observing with
the astronaut jump, the sand and the astronaut rising and
falling together. It is though the astronaut has some
additional force pulling him up. The fact that the backpack
rises before the astronaut does and it rises higher than the
astronaut does suggests some form of wire attached to the
astronaut's backpack. This aspect of the falling sand and
falling astronaut was covered in the “Make Believe: Smoke
and Mirrors” video (see App 7.03 and App 7.04).

What we can do is analyse the jump and apply some basic
physics. All we need is the time for the sand and the
astronaut to fall and the respective distances that they fall.
We have used the dimensions of the backpack to estimate
the respective heights. we estimate 0.27 metres for the
sand height and 0.508 metres for the astronaut jump
height at the apex. You may worry about the accuracy of
these estimates but as the difference between the gravity of
the Earth and Moon is a factor of six then we are unlikely
to get confused.

Now the formula for calculating the gravitational force is:

gravitational force = 2h/t2 metres/sec2

Where h is the height and t is the time of the fall

We used the timer to estimate the sand fall time from the
apex. So the time of the sand fall is:

6.90 – 0.67 = 0.23 seconds

which gives gravity = 2(0.27)/(0.23)2
= 0.54/0.053
= 10.18 metres/sec2

113

Derivation of sand fall time
Now for us, this is no surprise that the result is similar to
the gravitational force on Earth of 9.8 metres/sec2..

Derivation of astronaut fall time
The time of the astronaut fall is:
7.74 – 6.97 = = 0.77 seconds
which gives gravity = 2(0.508)/(0.77)2

= 1.016/0.593
= 1.86 metres/sec2
This is similar to the gravitational force on the Moon of
1.63 metres/sec2.
The two gravitational forces are very similar to what we

114

would expect for the Earth and the Moon respectively. So
we are witnessing the impossible phenomenon of two
different gravitational forces acting simultaneously at the
same time and at the same place. It is possible that there
may be an element of slow-motion that has been added to
the video but as the astronauts are close to the camera it is
likely to be small. Removing any slow-motion would
simply decrease the fall times which would increase the
gravitational forces calculated, but the magnitude of the
difference between the two gravitational forces would
remain.

There are a couple of other strange things about this video
that just add to the exposure of the deceit. In the first of
the two jumps the astronaut hangs at the apex for a full 6
frames or 0.2 seconds clearly, he is supported by the
counter-balanced wire (App 15.03). You can see his legs
move but he remains at the same height.

In the second jump, the astronaut appears to turn slightly
as he reaches the apex. This was a problem that you see in
many of the Apollo lunar videos that the wire tended to
cause the astronauts to spin. We will let Xavier Pascal
explain in his video (App 15.04).

This is clear irrefutable proof that this video has been
doctored to simulate the astronaut falling under the gravity
of the Moon which has been successfully achieved.
However, in concentrating on the performance of the
astronaut NASA-X were unable to doctor the falling sand
and this falls according to Earth gravity.

115

16 Moon Dust Analysis

Now we will discuss dust. We are all familiar with dust,
whether it is dust inside the home or dust we observe
outside in the atmosphere. We have no wish to disturb you
but the dust you see in your home is mostly discarded skin
and hair.

So why do we see clouds of dust, why doesn't any dust
immediately get pulled to the ground by gravity? The
reason is that the finer particles of dust, even though they
are subject to the normal gravitational force, get
suspended in the rising currents of air. You may observe
this on a sunny day in your home as you observe many tiny
shiny dust particles floating about suspended in the air.

On the Moon, there is no atmosphere so dust particles
cannot get suspended and will fall immediately to the
ground pulled in by gravity. This applies to any dust
particle irrespective of the particle size. So seeing dust
clouds on the Moon is a physical impossibility.

Now for some physics. Any object thrown obliquely into

116

the air in a vacuum will follow a distinct parabolic path
irrespective of its size and weight. This means that all sizes
of dust, coarse or fine, thrown up from the wheels of the
Lunar Rover on the Noon will follow a precise parabolic
path.

Credit Massimo Mazzucco: Source American Moon
However, in Earth's atmosphere, the full parabolic
trajectory will not be formed as the dust particles are
slowed down by the air resistance causing the dust to form
“rooster tail” clouds and then fall to the ground.

On the Moon, there will be no clouds and no “ rooster tails”
visible. So let's look at some footage of the Lunar Rover on
the Apollo 16 mission driving aimlessly about on the Moon
(App 16.01). This video has become known as the Lunar
Rover "Grand Prix". The commentary is by astronaut
Charles Duke and the alleged driver of the Lunar Rover is
fellow astronaut John Young. Note in the commentary
Charles Duke mentions “rooster tails coming from all four
wheels”. A “rooster tail” is a term used in fluid dynamics to
describe a high arching spray of water, dust, or snow that

117

is thrown up behind a fast-moving motorboat, motor
vehicle, or skier. This post suggests how the video
sequence may have been filmed (App 16.02).

As an aside notice how the astronaut driver John Young's
left arm is fixed in an awkward raised position and
immovable throughout the entire scene. We think it is hard
to hold your arm outright for so long. It is not as some pro-
NASA devotees have suggested that the left arm is holding
the steering control as that is in the centre and held by his
right hand. We suspect that what you are witnessing is a
remote-controlled version of the Lunar Rover carrying an
astronaut mannequin. Yes, a rubber dummy astronaut
with a fixed left arm. Why they would need to use a
mannequin we cannot imagine. Watch it again and see if
you agree.

Remember the Moon has no atmosphere, it is a complete
hard vacuum, so do you notice anything strange in the
“Grand Prix” video? No? Well watch it again and notice the
lunar sand being thrown into the air. Yes, that's right,
clouds of dust being raised by the wheels. Now the last
thing you should see in a vacuum are clouds of dust. A
vacuum contains no air to suspend the finer dust particles
so they would follow a parabolic arc. This video must have
been filmed in an air-filled environment, maybe on the
Earth?

On the Moon, any particles which are ejected from under
the rover's wheels would follow a perfect parabolic path.
This is basic physics and will apply to any size of particle as
there is no air to slow down any particles whatever the size.
We do not observe any continuous parabolic paths in the
Apollo video. What we do see are “rooster tails”, as the
finer dust particles are brought to rest by hitting the air
forming small clouds which resemble the tail of a rooster.

118

Credit NASA: Lunar Rover creating !rooster tails
Take a quick look at this extract from the excellent video
“American Moon” by Massimo Mazzucco (App 16.03). We
think this video explains it all. The Lunar Rover “Grand
Prix” from Apollo 16 is irrefutable proof that the Lunar
Rover sequence could not have been filmed on the Moon.

Credit Massimo Mazzucco: Source American Moon
119

In that image, you can observe dust clouds which would be
impossible on the Moon. We do not see the clear parabolic
arc we would expect to see on the Moon as illustrated in
the video “American Moon” by Massimo Mazzucco. We
would expect to see a clear parabolic arc with all the dust
particles following the same track. In my opinion, this is
the best video exposing the Apollo Hoax.
Here we see the photograph that Paolo Attivissimo said
was proof of astronauts being on the Moon. We have
indicated a parabolic arc that the dust should follow if the
Lunar Rover were in a vacuum, but you can see that it is
not. Notice that the finer dust particles are thrown
backwards from the wheels until they are brought to rest
by the air resistance when they form dust clouds. These
clouds then fall directly to the ground. The particles
ejected from the wheel do not produce a parabolic arc.

This one photograph is irrefutable proof that this Apollo
video was not made in the vacuum on the Moon.
We have seen the evidence so what can the pro-NASA
apologists say about this? You would imagine when faced
with such compelling evidence then they would be at a loss

120

to make any comment. But no, quite astoundingly they
claim the exact opposite of what the physical science tells
us. They attempt to convince their ardent followers that
“rooster tails” can only occur on the Moon and that you
would never observe them on Earth. So they claim that on
Earth the dust would follow a distinct parabolic arc. You
have to admire their attempts at disinformation by simply
reversing the science. If you Google the term “rooster tails”
you will find that they are a common phenomenon on
Earth which have been studied for many years and long
before Project Apollo. But now according to the desperate
pro-NASA gang they can only occur on the Moon. These
are some of the claims made by the pro-NASA defenders.

“Tracking the movement of the dust cloud clearly shows
characteristic rooster tails and not the simple parabolic
arc of a dust cloud we would see produced by a rover
driving through, say, dust on Earth."
Ami Shira Teitel (App 16.04)
Popular Science

“However, in the color film footage of the astronauts’
electric car ride on the Moon the fine dust that it kicks up
falls immediately to the ground in a parabolic arc. That’s
because on the Moon there’s no air to brake its fall and
keep it floating. This footage, therefore, must have been
shot in a vacuum. This one of the best pieces of evidence
proving that the visual record of the Apollo moonwalks
was actually shot in an airless environment. “
Paolo Attivissimo (App 16.05)
Moon Hoax Debunked!

There is one more relevant comment we need to make on
this pseudoscience and this refers to an investigation
funded by NASA into the ballistic characteristics of the
Moon dust kicked up by the Lunar Rover (App 16.06). The

121

Summary of the investigation states that:
“We have analyzed the motion of the dust clouds lofted by
the Lunar Roving Vehicle of the Apollo 16 mission.
Adopting a simple 2D geometry, we found that the dust
followed ballistic trajectories under the influence of the
lunar gravity. The gravitational constant of the moon
derived from the dust trajectory is within 10% of the
expected value.”
In essence, they have shown that the lunar dust obeys the
lunar gravity, hardly a surprise as we know that NASA-X
manipulated the Apollo videos to conform to lunar gravity.
But that is not the reason we refer to this study. The real
reason we refer to this study is the graphic shown in Figure
2 of that paper.

Credit American Journal of Physics
Quite revealingly the graphic shows a dotted line
representing the parabolic arc that the dust should follow
but the actual dust trail stops suddenly. So how can they
possibly explain why the dust suddenly stops and curls

122

over? Of course, the answer is air resistance on the airless
Moon. This is irrefutable evidence that the Apollo 16
“Grand Prix” video was not made on the Moon.
Finally, take a look at this video which compares the lunar
Grand Prix” video with a car driving in the sand (App
16.07). This video clearly shows that “Rooster Tails” are
indeed produced on Earth despite what the pro-NASA
evangelists disingenuously try to persuade you is not the
case.
Almost unbelievably the pro-NASA charlatans have
knowingly inverted the science. To explain the NASA
Moon footage they need to distort the underlying physics.
Dust can only be created in an atmosphere that can
suspend the finer particles. In a vacuum this cannot
happen as with no air all particles of whatever size will
react the same and immediately fall to the ground. Instead
of the actuality they try to convince you that “rooster tails”
cannot appear in an atmosphere but only in a vacuum
whereas the exact opposite is the truth.
The only conclusion is that the pro-NASA defenders are
either lying in a desperate charade to defend their story or
they are so incompetent that they do not grasp basic
physics. We will leave you to decide for yourself.

123

17 How Many Photographs?

The Apollo astronauts were equipped with Hasselblad
cameras using gelatine coated Ektachrome film to
photograph the wonderful sights on the Moon. For the
moment we will forget about any problems with cameras
and gelatin-coated film working in the high lunar
temperatures and the near-total vacuum. We will consider
that in Section 20 “Film In Space?”.

The total number of photographs taken by the Apollo
astronauts on the lunar surface using the Hasselblad
cameras is stated by NASA to be 5771 over all of the six
lunar landing missions. So what you may think is so
remarkable about this? Nothing until you consider how
long the astronauts stayed on the lunar surface (App
17.01).

NASA wants the world to believe that 5,771 photographs
could be taken in the total time of 4,834 minutes that the
astronauts were allegedly on the lunar surface during all

124

six missions. A little maths will show you that it involves
an astronaut to be taking a photograph every 50 seconds.
Does this sound feasible given all the other activities they
were alleged to do?

The astronauts had a very pressing schedule of
experiments to be set out and performed, significant
amounts of rocks to collect and in most missions
considerable distances to be traversed on foot or in later
missions riding up to 20 km on the Lunar Rover at a
top speed of about 13 kph (about 8 mph). On Apollo 17
the rover travelled 35.9 km in 4 hours 26 minutes total
drive time. All of these ancillary activities reduce the time
even further for taking photographs. The idea of a
photograph every 50 seconds is therefore becoming
unrealistic.

This anomaly has not gone unnoticed by the pro-NASA
camp. In his book “Moon Hoax Debunked!” Paolo
Attivissimo, a staunch NASA supporter, attempts to
explain the seemingly unexplainable (App 17.02 see
Section 5.23). Attivissimo provides a defence for the
number of photographs only for the easiest example of the
Apollo 11 mission where only 123 photographs were taken
on the lunar surface in 151 minutes. This equates to one
photograph being taken every 74 seconds. He points out
that a large number of these photographs on Apollo 11
were taken as panoramas in quick succession. In total, he
identifies 52 of the 123 photographs that were taken as
panoramas. If we assume that 10 minutes was taken up
making these panorama shots which would equate to one
photograph every 11 seconds. This is probably somewhere
approaching the maximum that could be achieved with a
camera that needs 1.5 seconds to open and close the
shutter, wind the film on for the next frame and for the
astronaut to reposition himself for the next photograph.

125

Adjusting the numbers leaves us with 71 photographs in
the remaining 141 minutes. This is still a photograph every
1.96 minutes.

Take a look at the “restored” version of the full EVA for the
Apollo 11 mission (App 17.03). Bear in mind that Apollo 11
had only one camera for the two astronauts. You will
observe the astronauts taking soil samples, erecting the
flag, laying out equipment but you will not observe them
stopping every two minutes to take a photograph. Note
that his plausible explanation was limited to Apollo 11
which is the least photo-intensive mission. He avoids
providing a similar level of detail for the other Apollo
missions but simply states:

“The same applies to the other moonwalks, in which the
astronauts took many panoramic sets ….. and also took
several stereo pairs, i.e., two photographs taken almost
simultaneously from two slightly different viewpoints,
which can be combined to produce 3D images.”

This is a typical “debunking” exercise that we get from the
pro-NASA devotees. Whenever this subject is raised again
Attivissimo will simply state “I have debunked that
already” but in reality, he has not debunked anything.
Even his paltry explanation does not even stand the test of
evidential scrutiny. Perhaps Attivissimo did not bother to
consider the other missions and do the maths and then he
would have realised that there was something not quite
right about this number of Hasselblad photographs. But
this simple attempt to explain the Apollo 11 photographs is
probably enough for the pro-NASA disciples to accept this
trickery as a “debunking”.

As a further example, take Apollo 15 about which the
Lunar and Planetary Institute state:

126

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

So we have 1,151 photographs taken by the “two crew” in
EVAs lasting 19 hours (1,140 minutes). That equates to 61
photographs every hour or one photograph every 59
seconds. Note that these 1,151 photographs were, according
to the NASA statement above, taken only with the
Hasselblad cameras so does not include any photos taken
by the Lunar Rover camera. If you are at all inclined and
have two hours to spare, take a look at this video which
shows the complete first EVA of Apollo 15 (App 17.05). Did
you see any astronaut take a photograph? Maybe a couple,
so when were they supposedly taking a photograph every
minute?

Something is seriously wrong here and simply highlights
the fakery once again. You can watch hours of the video
footage from the lunar surface and you will rarely spot an
astronaut taking a photograph and certainly not one every
50 seconds. The number of photographs claimed and
produced by NASA as being taken by the astronauts on the
lunar surface is inconsistent with the video evidence. This
is an indisputable exposure of the fakery.

We cannot explain why NASA has produced such a large
number of photographs but we will leave it with you to
ponder. Was NASA just over-excited about producing
Moon photographs and did not realise the issue they were
creating?

127

18 That Fast Hasselblad

The pro-NASA group try to give the impression that the
camera used by the Apollo astronauts on the Moon was
some ingeniously designed camera specially created for
working in the hostile environment of the Moon with high
radiation levels, a hard vacuum and significant
temperature variations.

“NASA went to Hasselblad and said make us some
cameras that would work on the moon. That's a rather
tough thing to do because of the temperature, because of
the vacuum”
Dr Steve Barrett (App 18.01)
Department of Physics at the University of
Liverpool

128

The truth of the matter is that the Hasselblad Moon
camera was not special in any way in terms of protection
from radiation, vacuum or temperature variations (App
18.02). It was the off the shelf Hasselblad 500EL which
you could buy yourself if you have the money. It was
merely adapted to specifications given by NASA for ease of
use by the astronauts in the lunar environment. This
involved removing the viewfinder as astronauts were
unable to look down due to the bubble helmet making the
viewfinder unusable and an unnecessary weight burden.
As the astronauts were wearing thick gloves the
operational buttons were enlarged and placed underneath
the camera body for ease of use. There were no changes
made to the delicate gear trains inside the camera.

Credit Hasselblad:
500EL Internal
Mechanism

So why are we discussing the Hasselblad 500EL camera? It
is remarkable how much evidence you can derive from a

129

few seemingly innocent photographs from which one can
expose the deceit.

Let's first look at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (ALSJ)
for the Apollo 17 mission. We have Gene Cernan and Jack
Schmitt at Geology Station 9. Gene Cernan has the camera
and decides to take a photograph of Jack Schmitt jumping
into the Lunar Rover. He allegedly manages to take three
photographs of the jump sequence as recorded in the
ALSJ. The following is the complete ALSJ text:

“AS17-134-20452 (OF300) ( 124k or 744k )

168:47:03 Station 9. Jack mounting LRV, sunstruck.
AS17-134-20453 (OF300) ( 176k or 1008k )

168:47:03 The second of three photos Gene took of Jack
jumping into the LMP Rover seat. Good view of the
segmented mirror on the top of the TV camera. Jack has
the LRV sampler in his right hand. Note the seismic
charge transporter mounted behind Gene's seat, just in
front of the rake. Both the low-gain and high-gain
antennas are pointed at Earth. The East Massif is in the
distance. A labeled detail shows a Velcro strap used to
secure the high-gain antenna lead to the high-gain mast.
A second detail shows the low-gain antenna lead now
secured to something on Gene's side of the console.
AS17-134-20454 (OF300) ( 104k or 692k ) “

And here is the conversation between the two astronauts:

“168:47:03 Cernan: Get on there one time. (Pause)
[Gene goes to the front of the Rover to take
pictures of Jack jumping in his seat. The three
pictures are AS17-134- 20452, 20453, and
20454.]

130

[Cernan - "It was sort of a target of
opportunity. It was just one of those
(unplanned) things you do. And it's a pretty
good picture."]
168:47:08 Schmitt: Ready? (Pause)
168:47:12 Cernan: I got three of them that time.
168:47:15 Schmitt: (Laughs)
168:47:16 Parker: 17, Houston. Do you read me through
the LM?
168:47:20 Schmitt: You're loud and clear.
168:47:22 Parker: Roger. Thank you.
168:47:25 Cernan: I hope they (the pictures) came out.”

Now we will look at the alleged three photographs taken by
Gene Cernan AS17-134-20452 to AS17-134-20454. The
links for these photographs in the ALSJ (App 18.03, App
18.04 and App 18.05). So we observe Jack Schmitt in the
process of jumping onto the seat of the Lunar Rover. In the
first photograph, he has just about landed and the
following two photographs show him settling into the final
seated position. So what you may be thinking is the big
deal with an astronaut jumping onto the Lunar Rover?

Credit NASA: Schmitt Jumping onto the Lunar Rover

131

Now, look at the communications log above. At mission
time 168:47:08 Jack Schmitt states “Ready? (Pause)”.
Then at mission time 168:47:12 Cernan: says “I got three of
them that time.” Note, that between Schmitt saying
“ready” and Cernan saying “I got three of them that time”
only 4 seconds had passed. In this brief 4 seconds, Cernan
manages to take 3 photographs with the adapted
Hasselblad 500EL camera.

Even in the lesser gravity on the Moon Jack Schmitt
cannot be air bourne for a full 4 seconds. This video shows
an astronaut performing the same jump into the Lunar
Rover and it takes no more than 2 seconds to perform the
full jump (App 18.06). We can see that in the first
photograph (see App 18.03) that Jack Schmitt is already
partly in the Lunar Rover so we are actually talking about
one second to take the remaining two photographs.

The Hasselblad 500EL takes over 2 seconds to open the
shutter to expose the film, close the shutter and then
automatically wind the film forward for the next frame.
Watch this video showing the Hasselblad camera taking
three shots one intermediately after the other, and you will
observe that it takes 7 seconds (App 18.07). So the
minimum time to take three photographs with this camera
is 7 seconds. The point is that this sequence of three
photographs is impossible in the one-second time interval
that we estimate between the first and last photographs.

Look closely at the photographs and you can observe the
small cross engravings that were etched onto the reseau
plate. You will see that each photograph contains all
twenty-five fiducials (5 by 5 grid) and that each
photograph is perfectly centred as can be seen by the
central larger fiducial. This shows that the photographs
have not been cropped. So between the first and second

132

photograph the cameraman Cernan must have either
stepped backwards or refocused the camera. There was no
time to refocus the camera so Cernan must have stepped
back. Note between the second and third photograph the
camera has been tilted slightly upwards. Both of these
actions, stepping back and tilting the camera, would add
still more to the 7 seconds required to take the three
photographs. So the NASA story must be untrue. These
three photographs cannot have been taken in the sequence
as claimed by NASA and recorded in ALSJ.

That is not the end of this “jumping into the Lunar Rover”
photo sequence saga. Look again at the first photograph
(see App 18.03) and notice that Schmitt has the sampling
tool in his left hand. Now look at the second photograph
(see App 18.04), and you see that the sampling tool has
been transferred to his right hand during the momentary
fraction of a second between the two photographs. Finally,
look closely at the third photograph (see App 18.05) and
there is no sampling tool in either hand. This without a
doubt confirms that the photograph sequence was clumsily
set up as a studio shoot and is totally fraudulent.

I acknowledge FM Productions for these insights as we
turn our attention now to Apollo 15 at Station 8. Again we
are going to witness the truly remarkable speed of the
NASA version of the Hasselblad 500EL camera.

The following is the transcript from the ALSJ:

“148:02:20 Scott: Okay, my pan. Get it out of the way real
quick. (Long Pause)
Dave's Station 8 Pan (frames AS15-92- 12420 to 12438)”

Here is the resultant panorama that was supposedly
produced by Dave Scott which consists of 18 separate
photographs (App 18.08).

133

The problem we have again is that the video shows Dave
Scott taking the pan and he only takes about 32 seconds to
take the 18 photographs which is equivalent to one
photograph every 1.8 seconds. In his 32 seconds pan time,
he adjusted the camera setting at least once and turned to
reposition himself 17 times. Each turn, then reposition the
camera aim would take at least half a second, thus further
reducing the time for photography. See this video for a full
explanation of this pan photography anomaly (App 18.08).
Note at the end of the last video it highlights the fact that
the whirring of the camera can be distinctly heard. There
should not be any audible sound in the vacuum on the
Moon. This was another area in which NASA-X was
careless in the deception. This is a topic that we will
discuss later in Section 25.

Credit NASA: Armstrong and Aldrin in training

134

Credit NASA: Apollo 9 Spacewalk AS09-20-3064
135

19 Moon Orbit Anomaly

NASA produced a series of photographs showing
earthrise images for several of the Apollo missions.
These photographs were taken with the Hasselblad
cameras by the astronauts from within the Lunar
Module as they descended to the Moon.

In particular, we will look at the earthrise photographs
from Apollo 12 and Apollo 14. On the Apollo 12 mission, 17
such earthrise images are recorded in the Apollo Flickr
catalogue (App 19.01) and five images for Apollo 14. The
NASA photograph reference numbers are:

Apollo 12 (AS12-47-6879 to 6895)
Apollo 14 (AS14-66-9224 to 9228)

The Apollo 12 image sequence is shown in this
video from arch pro-NASA devotee “BertieSlack”
(App 19.02).

136

It is relevant to note the mission dates for these
two missions Apollo 12 (14 Nov 1969 to 24 Nov 1969 )
and Apollo 14 (31 Jan 1971 to 9 Feb 1971). There is
more than one year between the two missions.
We can now compare two images from these
missions, AS12-47-6879 and AS14-66-9228.

[Authors note: We have cropped the original images
and adjusted the brightness and the contrast for
comparison purposes]

137

Notice anything strange about this comparison?
Yes, they are the same photograph but with a
slightly different Earth image added to account for
the different mission dates. The 17 Apollo 12 images
are part of the same sequence as the 5 Apollo 14
images. How could this be when the two landing
sites are 112 miles (181 km) apart?

It is obvious that these images have been faked, most
probably using the LOLA simulator. The sequence was
generated for Apollo 12 and when they came to Apollo 14
they were just too lazy to fake some new images so they
simply resorted to using images from the Apollo 12 fakery.

This post from "AwE130" also suggests that the
Apollo Moon earthrise sequences were created
using the LOLA simulator for Apollo 12 and 14 (App
19.03). The article displays 5 of the Apollo 14
images (AS14-66-9224 to 9228) in front of 17 from
Apollo 12 (AS12-47-6879 to 6895). A close
inspection shows that these images supposedly
from two different missions, more than one year
apart, are in perfect sequence and are part of the
same sequence.

This fake sequence of earthrise images was
probably created for Apollo 12 using the LOLA
simulator, and then part of the same sequence was
later lazily used to represent the Apollo 14 mission.
One imagines that NASA-X would never have
thought that someone could have found this
intricate deceit. The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
(ALSJ) does contain a note in an attempt to explain
this apparent “similarity” between the two sets of
earthrise images (App 19.04):

138

“Journal Contributor Henri Partanen notes that the
photos in this sequence are very similar to an Apollo 14
earthrise series that starts with AS14-66-9224. Those
photos were also taken at AOS just prior to descent
initiation. Because the Apollo 12 and 14 landing sites are
both equatorial and are only separated by about 10
degrees of longitude, the orbital planes are
similar.”
[Author's emboldening]

One can only suspect that somebody from the pro-
NASA lobby noticed the error in the deception and
that is why the note was added later in an attempt
to cover the deception. Despite what the ALSJ
states the orbital planes would have had to be
identical to produce a perfect match in the
sequence of photographs. Take a close look at the
images from Apollo 12 and Apollo 14 side by side.
Note the circled points as a comparison.

Credit AwE130: Detail Apollo 12 and Apollo 14

You can see that the shadows are identical. This is
impossible for an alleged separation of 10 degrees
longitude difference between the two missions.
These photographs are not from two separate
Apollo missions but are one faked sequence. The
crude images of the Earth have been superimposed

139

later with the Earth depicted in different positions
for each mission to account for the libration of the
Moon at the time of the landing.
There is no question that this a clear example of the
deceit by NASA-X.

Credit NASA: Apollo 11 Recovery

140

Credit NASA: Dave Scott at Hadley Rille AS15-85-11514
141

20 Film In Space?

Now we will consider the use of Ektachrome film in the
hostile space environment which means being subject to
high levels of radiation, variations in temperature and a
hard vacuum. It is not only the effects on the film but the
temperature changes on the delicate Hasselblad camera
mechanism.

We discussed radiation when we talked about astronauts
passing through the Van Allen Radiation belts in Section 5.
But this may not be the biggest radiation problem facing
any astronauts and their equipment going to the Moon.
Outside the Earth's magnetosphere, the radiation will be
much more harmful to humans in that they will experience
it for significantly longer times. This is what NASA says
about space radiation (App 20.01). Note that this report
states:

“Once astronauts venture beyond Earth's protective

142

atmosphere, they may be exposed to the high energy
charged particles of galactic cosmic rays and solar
particle events (SPE) and secondary protons and
neutrons. Because of their ionization patterns in
biomolecules, cells and tissues are distinct from terrestrial
radiation, the resulting biological effects are poorly
understood, and the amount of risk involved is subject to
large uncertainties.”

So despite over 60 years of research and twelve astronauts
allegedly landing on the Moon radiation is still “poorly
understood and subject to large uncertainties”. Note the
caveat “Once astronauts venture beyond Earth's
protective atmosphere”, which is strange when allegedly
NASA claim that a total of nine Apollo missions already
went outside the Earth's protective atmosphere. One
would have thought that such experience would have
provided sufficient data on radiation hazards outside the
Earth's magnetosphere.

NASA has also produced a comprehensive 88-page E-Book
on Space Radiation which is worth a read (App 20.02).
According to Table 4 in that E-Book the Apollo 14
astronauts received an average of just 1.27 mSv/day,
whereas the astronauts on Skylab received 2.05 mSv/day.
Note that Skylab orbited at an altitude of 296 miles well
within the Van Allen radiation belts. One has to question
the surprisingly low Apollo radiation levels quoted by
NASA. In this study by Andreas Märki published in the
International Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science in
November 2020 (App 20.03), he concludes based on the
results of his modelling that:

“The radiation from the Sun has to be set to zero in the
computer model to achieve the published radiation dose
value of the Apollo 11 flight.“

143

In other words, the radiation doses supposedly received by
the Apollo 11 astronauts could only be true if there was no
radiation from the Sun, which is implausible. The obvious
conclusion is that the Apollo astronauts never ventured to
the Moon and the published radiation dose figures were
conjured up by some well-meaning first-year apprentice
within NASA.

What is particularly interesting about the recent NASA
publications on radiation is that there is minimal reference
made to the Apollo missions, except to repeat the
extremely low doses received by the supposed lunar
mission astronauts. Although NASA is at great pains to tell
us the radiation doses received by the astronauts, they are
not so forthcoming about the measurements of radiation
taken on the Moon. The Apollo astronauts did many
experiments on the Moon but hardly anything is reported
concerning the levels of radiation on the lunar surface
(App 20.04).

Now retrospectively the German Institute DVLFR has
made such measurements from instrumentation aboard
the Chinese Change'4 Moon mission (App 20.05). The
conclusion from this paper is that although radiation is
indeed high, it is unlikely to be high enough to impede
crewed lunar exploration. So no issue here then.

In their E-Book on radiation NASA state (see App 20.02):

“It is important to note that the NASA Apollo program
was designed to land humans on the Moon and bring
them safely back to Earth; it was not designed to establish
a permanent presence on the Moon. The duration of the
lunar surface missions were very short, largely due to the
risks of space radiation exposure and the unpredictable

144

nature of the solar weather.”

Whatever the figures for the radiation received by the
Apollo astronauts let us accept the NASA figures.
Pat Troutman, NASA Human Exploration Strategic
Analysis Lead, confidently assures us:

“Some people think that radiation will keep NASA from
sending people to Mars, but that’s not the current
situation . When we add the various mitigation techniques
up, we are optimistic it will lead to a successful Mars
mission with a healthy crew that will live a very long and
productive life after they return to Earth.”

NASA have bold intentions to send astronauts to Mars,
although they do not seem to have any good reasons to do
it except perhaps to take the pressure off the Apollo Moon
landing debate. Given that they cannot get back to the
Moon, it may appear to be a strange ambition to venture to
Mars. Even so, NASA is offering a $29,000 prize to anyone
who can tell them how to mitigate the effects and stay safe
from space radiation (App 20.06). My suggestion would be
to do the same as they did on the Apollo missions, remain
well within the Earth's protective magnetosphere. If you
are thinking of going for the prize then you better watch
this NASA video which outlines all the problems that they
face (App 20.07).

Radiation affects any organic material which includes
plants, animals and astronauts. Take a look at this
radiation damage on a potted plant (App 20.08). The
damage caused by radiation is not the same for all organic
materials, apparently, cockroaches could happily live on
the Moon in an air-filled environment which is probably
the best place for them.

145

Perhaps what is more important is what radiation and the
severe vacuum does to the Ektachrome film that was used
in the Hasselblad cameras on every Apollo mission. This
film is coated with an organic gelatin emulsion, so why
wasn't this emulsion affected by exposure to the higher
levels of radiation, vacuum and temperature? The
photographs from the supposed Apollo Moon missions are
exceptionally good considering these radiation, vacuum
and temperature conditions. So how was this possible?

According to NASA, the most damaging form of radiation
in space is the Galactic Cosmic Radiation (GCR) about
which they state (see App 20.02):

“GCR are heavy, high-energy ions of elements that have
had all their electrons stripped away as they journeyed
through the galaxy at nearly the speed of light. They can
cause the ionization of atoms as they pass through matter
and can pass practically unimpeded through a typical
spacecraft or the body of an astronaut.

The GCR are a dominant source of radiation that must be
dealt with aboard current spacecraft and future space
missions within our solar system. Because these particles
are affected by the Sun’s magnetic field, their average
intensity is highest during the period of minimum
sunspots when the Sun’s magnetic field is weakest and
less able to deflect them. Also, because GCR are difficult to
shield against and occur on each space mission, they are
often more hazardous than occasional solar particle
events.”

This image shows Galactic Cosmic Radiation falling onto
the surface of Mars over a period of time. Galactic Cosmic
Radiation appears as faint white dots, whereas the moving
stars appear as white streaks.

146

The above image is from Mars but there exists a similar
problem on the Moon:

“In general, we are largely shielded from GCR on Earth
because of our planet’s atmosphere and magnetic field,
whereas the Moon is not shielded from GCR because it
lacks a global magnetic field and atmosphere.”

So why do we not see any signs of radiation damage on the
Apollo photographs? Some Apollo photographs are poorly
framed, some badly focused, some overexposed and many
completely pointless but not one shows any sign of the
slightest fogging. How can the radiation and vacuum have
no detrimental effect on the film?

In 1965 NASA commissioned the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT) to carry out a study to examine this
very problem of the film being exposed to space radiation
and the vacuum of space (App 20.09). The abstract of this
report states:

“The performance of photographic tasks in outer space,

147

and especially on the lunar surface, will be encumbered
by unique problems not present during earthbound
photography. Familiarity with the underlying principles
of photographic films is necessary in order to appreciate
the effects of the environment of outer space on films.”

In this final report it states the issues as:

“In addition to the absence of a sky the environment of
outer space, particularly the vacuum, will create
problems in using photographic materials. The vacuum
environment will remove the water content of the gelatin
binder and the support material which will reduce their
tensile strength and allow cracks and fissures to form in
the emulsion. Reduced pressure may also create problems
of inadvertent static exposures caused by the discharge of
electrostatic fields as the film is unwound.

Extremes in temperature, likely to be encountered on the
lunar surface, will present a further problem by
influencing the sensitivity of photographic materials. The
high temperatures created in direct sunlight are likely to
produce inordinately high fog levels, whereas the
extremely low temperatures present in the absence of
sunlight might reduce the film's sensitivity to an
impractical level.”

Photographic emulsions are suspensions of silver halide
grains in a gelatin layer binder and, except for silver
chloride which is nearly transparent, exhibit a considerable
degree of turbidity (loss of clarity). A series of film types
were tested in a hard vacuum to ascertain their resilience
to mechanical failures and the disintegration of the gelatin
binder.

“The purpose of the first experiment was to determine

148

possible mechanical failures occurring in films subjected
to low pressure. The gelatin binder was of particular
interest because previous information suggested that a
peeling or cracking phenomenon might occur.
Unprotected strips of Plus-X, Kodachrome 11, Ektachrome
Daylight ER, and XR film were placed in the chamber and
remained at 10 Close inspection of the films after removal
revealed no observable changes.”

The conclusion of the experiment regarding the effects of a
hard vacuum on the film are given as:

“It has been reported that low pressures in the order of 10-
6 mm Hg do not cause a change in the sensitometric
properties of one particular photographic film. A high
definition film of very low exposure index was given an
exposure while being subjected to a pressure between 10-5
and 10-6 mm Hg. The result of this exposure was the same
as an exposure made on a similar film under normal
atmospheric pressure. However, films subjected to such
pressures will encounter a loss in moisture content of the
emulsion as well as the support. Sufficient reduction of the
water content causes the tensile strength of the gelatin to
weaken and, if not properly handled, will cause cracks to
form in the silver halide gelatin emulsion. Winding the
film with the emulsion side toward the center of curvature
will minimize such cracking. “
[Authors Note: the pressure of 1 mm Hg of mercury is now
defined as one Torr]

In other words, the study concludes that the effect of a
hard vacuum would be acceptable provided that the film
winding has the emulsion side towards the centre of the
curvature. The issue here is that the films were only tested
to a vacuum level of 10 -6 Torr whereas the vacuum on the
Moon is in the region of10-10 to 10-12 Torr which is a

149

considerably harder vacuum. So one has to wonder
how relevant the study was to actual lunar
conditions.

The study then looked at the effects of high and low
temperatures on the films.

“Photographic film is adversely affected when subjected to
a high temperature environment for prolonged periods of
time. At temperatures of +120°F (49°C), the silver halide
crystals of a high speed emulsion would form a latent
image after several hours to produce a noticeable fog
upon development.”

The study concluded that:

“The effects of low temperatures are not permanent and
disappear when the film temperature is raised back to
normal room temperatures. “

Again we have a problem of the conditions tested not being
comparable with those on the Moon. The test only looked
at a maximum temperature of 120F (49C), but the
temperature that could build up on the camera on the
Moon after several hours of exposure could easily be more
than this. The long term lunar surface temperatures can be
as high as 260F (127C). The mitigating factor is that the
Hasselblad cameras were mostly attached to the
astronaut's chest. As the astronauts moved around then
the camera would be subject to ever-changing periods of
sunlight and shade. The resulting temperatures that the
cameras would reach would be much lower than those on
the lunar surface.

In terms of radiation exposure the report states:

150