sceptic

“The space and lunar environment is hostile to the normal
photographic processes. The presence of a radiation
environment during the journey to and from the moon, as
well as on the lunar surface, presents a potential hazard
to photographic films. Generally, films which are very
sensitive to light are also quite sensitive to high-energy
particle radiation. The resulting radiation damage to a
photographic film is very similar to the damage caused
by excessive heat. Exposure to a critical dose of radiation
will be evident, after development, because of an overall
fog covering the entire film.”

Given the considerations outlined in the MIT research
project, one would have expected that the Apollo cameras
would be something extremely special in terms of the
design to mitigate the effects of radiation, temperature and
vacuum. Surprisingly this is not the case as the Hasselblad
camera used for the Apollo missions was an off-the-shelf
design with minimum operational design changes as this
paper from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal describes
(App 20.10). The only addition in terms of temperature
control was to give it “a silver finish to make it more
resistant to thermal variations that ranged from full Sun
to full shadow helping maintain a more uniform internal
temperature”. However, nothing was added to the off-the-
shelf camera to improve its functioning in a vacuum or to
protect against radiation damage. So when the pro-NASA
groupies tell you that NASA produced a specially designed
camera for photography in space, it is a complete lie.

Richard Syrett hosted Marcus Allen in this one-hour video
interview. The discussion examines the anomalies found in
the Apollo photographic record. Marcus explains why
ESTAR base film could not have worked in the vacuum of
space (App 20.11). Marcus Allen is probably one of the
leading authorities on Project Apollo. He discusses

151

radiation damage to films, the problems of photography in
a vacuum due to outgassing and the issue of metals cold
welding together. It is important to note that the Hexagon
spy satellite used by the USA between 1971 and 1986 had
to keep the film in a pressurised environment. Here we
have a video of a presentation given by Phil Pressel who
worked for 20 years on the secret Hexagon project (App
20.12). Note that at 33:10 he mentions the problems of
using film in a vacuum:

“The film could not be in a vacuum because the humidity
would be lost and the reflectiveness of the surface of the
film would also be destroyed. So the whole film path was
in an enclosed set of tubes and they were pressurised with
about one psi of nitrogen.”

We have other evidence that using gelatin-based film in
the space environment requires a pressurised container.
The five Lunar Orbiters used in 1966-67 to take
photographs of the lunar surface to identify suitable
landing sites for the Apollo missions also had the film and
camera system inside a pressured container (App 20.13).
This webpage from the Lunar and Planetary Institute
describes the system as:

“The photographic system was housed in a pressurized,
thermally controlled container, and included the cameras,
film and film handling, film processor, and a readout
device for transmission to Earth by the communications
system.”

The film was moved during exposure to compensate for the
spacecraft velocity, which was estimated by an electro-
optical sensor. The film was then processed, scanned, and
the images transmitted back to Earth.

152

In this video from Scott Henderson, he discusses the
problems of using the Apollo Ektachrome ESTAR Film in
the vacuum of space (App 20.14). Finally, on this subject,
we have a paper on the aulis.com website that documents a
study undertaken by Rob Williams, Marcus Allen and Scott
Henderson (App 20.15).

We are now faced with a dilemma, The evidence shows us
that gelatin backed film has no resistance to a vacuum in
terms of the emulsions degassing and rendering the film
useless. This evidence is supported by the fact that the
Hexagon spy satellite and the NASA Lunar Orbiters
needed to have the film capture and processing in
pressured containers. On the other hand, we have the off-
the-shelf Apollo Hasselblad cameras exposed to the
vacuum on the Moon and allegedly working perfectly
satisfactory with no indication of any damage to the film.

The realisation that temperature and vacuum would be a
major problem as this quite from NASA indicates (App
20.16).

“The outer surface of the 500EL data camera was colored
silver to help maintain more uniform internal
temperatures in the violent extremes of heat and cold
encountered on the lunar surface. Lubricants used in the
camera mechanisms had to either be eliminated or
replaced because conventional lubricants would boil off in
the vacuum and potentially could condense on the optical
surfaces of the lenses, Reseau plate, and film.”

So how could NASA possibly explain why the Hexagon spy
satellite and the Lunar Orbiters required a pressurised
container but the Apollo Hasselblad cameras did not?

Having seen the evidence of using film in a vacuum we can

153

only conclude that the Apollo photographs could not have
been taken on the Moon with the Hasselblad cameras
using Ektachrome ESTAR Film. It therefore, follows that
all of the Moon photographs must have been faked.

Credit The Atlantic: Apollo 11 Astronauts 13 Aug 1969

154

Credit NASA: Apollo 8 Earth View 28 December 1968
155

21 Star Gazing

The one thing you would expect to see when you leave the
Earth's atmosphere on your journey to the Moon are stars.
Not just a few stars but trillions of stars lighting up the
blackness of space. You may be surprised to learn that the
Apollo 11 astronauts told us that they failed to see any
stars. For the majority of us, this is an astonishing
revelation but seemingly not a significant problem for the
pro-NASA diehards.

If you search the entirety of the Apollo lunar photographic
record you will notice that the sky is always black with no
sign of the multitude of stars lighting up the heavens. This
total lack of stars has been a contentious issue for the
Apollo researchers and continues to be so.

The first person to openly question the veracity of the
Apollo Moon landings was the late Bill Kaysing (1922-
2005). In 1976 he self-published a book entitled “We
Never Went to the Moon”. He was interviewed on radio in
1996 in which he made several comments on the subject of
seeing no stars in the Apollo photographs (App 21.01).

156

Interviewer: “In your book you mention that there were
no stars in the photos that NASA took.”

Kaysing: “That's right, and they had the most marvelous
opportunity to take pictures of all the stars in the universe
visible from the moon. I've talked to a number of top-level
astronauts, both locally and elsewhere, and they say that
the astronauts would have been overwhelmed by the sight
of trillions of stars, not to mention Jupiter and Saturn and
the other planets and so forth, but not one picture has
ever come back from the alleged trip to the moon showing
the stars in all their magnificence, nor do any of the
astronauts comment on the stars. They completely ignore
it. It would be like going to Niagara Falls and talking
about the hamburger you ate. “

Interviewer: ”Doesn't NASA say that the reason there
were no stars is because their cameras weren't set for the
proper exposure, isn't that their line?”

Kaysing: “That's their line and that's pure baloney,
because I've talked to photographic experts who say that
NASA have all the money in the world to have a camera
that would have taken magnificent pictures of stars. But
there's a little problem, you know, the temperature on the
moon is 250°F during the lunar day, and a friend of mine
put some film in an oven and ran it up to 250 and the film
just curled up. If you notice that the Hasselblad camera is
worn outside of the astronaut's suit and it is not curled in
any way. So that camera would have heated up to the
temperature to bake cookies in a very short time, because
the Sun on the moon is absolutely relentless, there's no
atmosphere to mitigate the heat of the Sun. So it's obvious
that the pictures that they brought back were not taken on
the moon, nor could they have actually taken any pictures
on the moon, even if they had gone there. “

157

Interviewer: “So apparently they faked the Moon
landing. If the Moon landing was faked, how come they
didn't include stars in their studio, apparently in the
Nevada desert where they were faking the moon
landing?”

Kaysing: “They could not fake the stars and maps
because there are too many astronomy buffs, and I've
talked to a lot of them. They would have measured the
angularity between stars and the position of the stars
behind, let's say, the Earth. No way, even with the most
advanced computers, could they have created star
pictures that would have been, let's say, acceptable to the
astronomy buffs. So at MIT, where the simulation took
place, the planning for it took place, they simply decided
to stonewall it and not include any pictures of stars at
all.”

The retort by the pro-Apollo devotees is that the camera
settings, given the brightness of the lunar surface, were
such that the faint light from the stars was not recorded on
the photographs. This must be accepted as one plausible
explanation but does not answer the real question. If you
are to send astronauts on the intrepid journey to the
distant Moon then surely one would have made some
arrangements to photograph the firmament for the first
time ever from outside the Earth's cloaking atmosphere.
Seemingly NASA did not think that this was a priority. But
let's not quibble about starry photographs but instead
listen to the real witnesses, the astronauts themselves.

The first real comments by the astronauts on seeing, or
rather not seeing stars, was given in the Apollo 11 post-
flight press conference (App 21.02). The Apollo astronauts
were quite definitive in their statements regarding not

158

seeing stars.

The late English astronomer Patrick Moore asked Neil
Armstrong the question:

“When you looked up at the sky could you actually see the
stars and the solar corona in spite of the glare?”
[Author's emboldening]

To which astronaut Neil Armstrong replied:

“We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or
on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking
through the optics.”

And then Command Module Pilot Michael Collins added:

“I can't remember seeing any.”

This statement by Collins was quite unexpected as the
question from Patrick Moore clearly related to seeing stars
from the lunar surface as witnessed by the interpretation
and reply from Armstrong. Collins was never on the lunar
surface. So it is not exactly clear what Collins was referring
to. We know that Collins did see stars on the far side of the
Moon as he remarks in his book “Carrying the Fire”:
“Outside my window I can see stars - and that is all.
Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black
void; the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence
of stars.”
And
“To add to the dramatic effect, we find we can see the
stars again. We are in the shadow of the moon now, in

159

darkness for the first time in three days, and the elusive
stars have reappeared.”

There has been some controversy over the actual wording
in the question from Patrick Moore. Note above that we
emboldened the word “and” in his question. Several pro-
NASA diehards attempt to distort the evidence by claiming
that Patrick Moore said “in” for example pro-NASA
evangelist Keith Mayes (App 21.03). But regrettably, Keith
Mayes doesn't even know who actually asked the question
as he attributes the question to Bart Sibrel who was only
fours years old at the time of the press conference. Do not
take our word for it listen carefully to Patrick Moore's
question at time 1:04:40 (see App 21.02).

The interpretation of the question by Neil Armstrong
clearly shows in his answer that he understood the
question as referring to seeing stars from the lunar surface.
Neil Armstrong's reply was categorical as he replied “We
were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on
the daylight side of the Moon by eye”. This diversionary
tactic is just another example of the pro-NASA lobby
attempting damage limitation.

So instead of wild ravings about how beautiful the universe
looks from space, we have these rather non-committal
statements from the Apollo 11 astronauts. It was almost as
though they did not want to talk about stars and did their
best to avoid the subject which in itself is rather puzzling.
After all, this was man's first view of the heavens from
another celestial body and one would have expected a
somewhat more enthusiastic description but instead, the
Apollo 11 astronauts want you to believe that you cannot
see stars in space. As Bill Kaysing pointed out it would
have been impossible for them to have faked the starry
heavens without the fakery being detected, so maybe it was
easier to simply ignore it.

160

Even fifty years later in an interview in 2019 at the time of
the 50th celebration of the first Moon landing astronaut
Michael Collins still fails to make any mention of seeing
the stars when in space on the Apollo 11 mission (App
21.04). In particular, in the interview, he categorically
states that the “... Earth was all that there was ..”. So again
not one mention of the billions of stars that must have
been lighting up the heavens. In another interview in 2019,
he also failed to make any mention of seeing stars which
must have been a magnificent spectre when he was on the
far side of the Moon but alas no mention (App 21.05 at
time 5:16). However, in a previous interview in 2018 he
waxes lyrical about the stars when he comments “..the
stars without any interference from our atmosphere were
not twinkling but they were extra bright .. the sky was
dark black except for the stars” (App 21.06 time 5:06).

We also have Neil Armstrong again confirm that he did not
see any stars in the lunar stars in this interview for the BBC
by the late Sir Patrick Moore televised in 1970 (App 21.06).
At the start of this interview, Patrick Moore asks
Armstrong a direct question about what he saw from the
lunar surface.

Patrick Moore: “But could you tell us something about
what the sky actually looked like from the Moon, the Sun,
the Earth, the stars, if any and so on.”

Armstrong: “The sky is a deep black when viewed from
the Moon as it is when viewed from cislunar space, the
space between the Earth and the Moon. The Earth is the
only visible object other than the Sun that can be seen
although there has been some reports have seen planets. I
myself did not see planets from the surface but I suspect
they might be visible.”

161

It is obvious that from his demeanour that Armstrong is
uncomfortable with that particular question. Note that
Armstrong carefully ignores any mention of stars even
though he was specifically asked about stars. He does
however confirm that the only visible object to be seen
from the Moon and on the way to the Moon in cislunar
space was the Earth. This has to be doubly perplexing as
NASA state that course corrections were made using a
sextant to take star sightings.

If we look at the mission transcripts for the Apollo 11
mission we find that the astronauts did see stars on their
journey to the Moon.

“00 00 46 45 Neil Armstrong I can see some stars

00 02 48 07 Michael Collins I see a bright star out
there, must be Venus. Forgot to memorize John Mayer's
views out the window well enough to say that's Venus or
not, but it's sure bright.

02 23 59 20 Neil Armstrong Houston, it's been a real
change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and
recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's -
the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But
all the way here, we have only been able to see stars
occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not
recognize any star patterns.

If we now compare what Neil Armstrong stated at the post-
flight press conference:

“The sky is a deep black when viewed from the Moon as it
is when viewed from cislunar space, the space between
the Earth and the Moon. The Earth is the only visible
object other than the Sun that can be seen ...”

162

With his observations during the flight in cislunar space:

“00 00 46 45 Neil Armstrong I can see some stars”

and

“02 23 59 20 Neil Armstrong Houston, it's been a real
change for us. Now we are able to see stars again”

We are not saying that the Apollo 11 astronauts denied
seeing stars but what is suspicious is how they tended to
avoid the subject. Their avoidance of the subject of seeing
stars is not a matter of ineptitude but a purposeful evasion
of the debate. The demeanour of the astronauts in the
post-mission Apollo 11 press conference indicates that they
were exceedingly uncomfortable and hiding some element
of the truth. It is a significant telltale sign of the deception.

In a slight deviation from the current theme, it may be of
interest to watch this next set of three videos from
Richplanet.tv. The 1970 Patrick Moore interview with Neil
Armstrong (see App 21.06) has been analysed by a
professional in Statement Analysis. We will not go into
detail about Statement Analysis but simply say that it is a
technique of analysing someone's answers to questions to
form an opinion as to whether they are lying or not. It is
widely used by police and law enforcement agencies when
interviewing suspects. Take a look for yourself and see
what you think (App 21.08, 21.09 and 21.10). A brief
description of Statement Analysis is given at the start of
the first video. The conclusion from this analysis was that
Neil Armstrong was most probably not telling the truth.

The Apollo astronauts are not the only ones to have been in
space, so perhaps we need to ask other astronauts if they
were able to see stars in space once they were outside the
Earth's cloaking atmosphere. Well, the answer is a

163

resounding “yes”. There are many reports by other NASA
Apollo astronauts and others that stars are not only visible
in space but do form a spectacular and wondrous view.
Here we have NASA astronaut William Readdy telling us
that you can see stars in the daytime (App 21.11). Readdy
flew three space shuttle mission in the early 1990s. In
2020 astronauts Michael Hopkins of NASA crew 1 on
returning to Earth from the ISS expresses his amazement
at the sight of stars (App 21.12).
The fact that the Apollo 11 astronauts did not specifically
mention seeing stars at the post-flight press conference
does not in itself prove that the Moon mission was a hoax.
One would have thought that the brilliant stars lighting up
the heavens was the most obvious observation that they
would have made. Given that they were specifically asked
about seeing stars but then almost denying that they saw
any is enough to make one suspicious about the whole
mission.

Credit NASA: No Stars AS16-107-17436

164

Credit NASA: LRO Simulates Apollo 11 Armstrong View
165

22 Retro-Reflectors

One of the ubiquitous proofs of the Moon landings
invariably quoted by many pro-NASA groupies concerns
the retro-reflectors allegedly left on the Moon by the
Apollo astronauts. These retro-reflectors are made up of
tiny reflecting prisms, similar to those you often see on
road signs and the rear of bicycles. These prism retro-
reflectors will always reflect an incoming light beam back
in the same direction that it originally came from.

It is claimed that these retro-reflectors are being used now
to measure the drift of the Moon away from the Earth. The
implication is that the Apollo astronauts must have placed
them on the lunar surface for these experiments to be true.
In this Mythbusters' episode, they take a look at these
reflectors as the ultimate proof that man went to the Moon

166

(App 22.01). The episode firstly provides a brief
description of the retro-reflector. The rest of the
programme consists of a visit to the Apache Point
Observatory in New Mexico to see the laser ranging
experiment in action. There is something about this video
that does not make sense. We will explain later after we
have discussed the subject of laser ranging using the retro-
reflectors.

The mathematics of the laser ranging experiment is mind-
blowing. Each laser pulse fired at the Moon contains 200
quadrillion photons but on a good day, it may receive back
only between 1 to 3 photons but mostly none are received.
A quadrillion by the way is a thousand trillion, a very large
number indeed. Imagine that you had been alive for 200
quadrillion seconds then you would now be over 6 million
years old. So a very large number indeed.

It is said by NASA that the retro-reflectors can be used for
experiments to measure the distance of the Moon from the
Earth, by recording the length of time it takes for the laser
signal to be returned. Remember, it takes about 1.3
seconds for light from the Earth to reach the Moon. The
basics of lunar ranging are described here (App 22.02).

It may surprise, and perhaps if you are of a nervous
disposition slightly worry you, that we are slowly losing the
Moon, as it constantly moves further from Earth by about
one and a half inches per year, about the same distance as
your fingernails grow each year. This just means that the
future Moon holiday you were planning may get
marginally more expensive than you had originally
budgeted for. How these retro-reflectors work and what
they are used for, is extremely well covered in this video
from “Kris de Bum” (App 22.03).

167

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

Source NASA: Apollo 14 Laser Reflector on Moon
There two main institutions both sited in the USA namely,
the Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-Ranging
Operation (APOLLO) located in southern New Mexico and
the McDonald Laser Ranging Station (MLRS). As soon as
we saw that acronym APOLLO we became suspicious. We
was right to be somewhat suspicious, as the APOLLO
facility was largely funded by the Micro-gravity Division of
NASA.
APOLLO is a collaboration between several universities, a
few scientific institutions and the NASA Jet Propulsion
Laboratory. What really surprised me was that the facility
did not become operational until 2005. We have no idea
what happened in the 36 years since the Apollo 11

168

astronauts supposedly placed the retro-reflectors on the
Moon.
According to the International Laser Ranging Service
(ILRS) there are about 40 institutions throughout the
world involved in laser ranging but in 2015 only the two
USA sites mentioned above and the Observatoire de la
Côte d’ Azur, in France that were technically equipped to
carry out Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) to Apollo retro-
reflector arrays on the surface of the Moon. In

Credit Tom Zagwodzki: Goddard Space Flight Center
However, all of this may be immaterial. It transpires that
you do not need retro-reflectors to bounce signals off the
Moon. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the
Crimean Astrophysical University were both firing lasers at
the Moon and receiving a return signal in 1962, long before

169

any reflectors were supposedly installed on the Moon by
the Apollo missions (App 22.04).
Also, both the American and British military were beaming
radio signals at the Moon and receiving return signals in
the late 1940s. So there is no apparent reason why signals,
radio or laser, cannot be bounced off the Moon with no
special reflectors, provided that there is a large enough
collection dish on Earth to receive the greatly diminished
returned signals.

An interesting technical paper has been produced by
Andreas Märki of the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology. Although the contents of the paper are highly
technical it does provide some relevant conclusions (App
22.05). The paper examines the direct reflected light from
the Apollo retro-reflector as well as the scattered light from
the lunar surface. In summary, the paper finds minimal

170

evidence that the laser reflections obtained from the
Moon's surface are specifically from retro-reflectors. The
author states:

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

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

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

His final conclusion is even more damning:

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

You do not need to be a brilliant mathematician to do some
simple maths. Now, the laser beam when it reaches the
Moon is not a pinpoint of light but the laser light has
diverged to have a large radius when it hits the lunar
surface. The Lunar Planetary Institute (LPI) website states:

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

171

diameter when it returns to Earth”

Wikipedia state that the diameter when the beam reaches
the Moon is 6.5 km (App 22.06). For simplicity, we will use
the LPI figure of 7 km diameter which is 3.5 kilometres or
3,500 metres radius. The area in square metres covered by
the laser beam is лr² (that is Pie times the radius squared):

3.14 x 3,500²
= 38,484,510 sq m

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

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

100 * 0.372/38,484,510 percent

= 0.000000967 percent

If the retro-reflector is present in the area illuminated by
the laser, it will only receive a minuscule part of the laser
signal and cannot send back any more than it receives.

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

172

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

= 0.000000000000738 percent

Combining our two percentage figures gives

0.000000967 x 0.000000000000738 percent

= 0.000000000000000000714 percent

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

They scientists fire 1017 photons on each test which would
on average give a return of less than one photon using the
percentage figures calculated above. (The Mythbusters
video quoted 200 quadrillion photons but what is in a
number?). Apparently, they usually receive no photons
returned but sometimes one photon is returned which
agrees with our rough calculations. So they need to make
many observations over a lengthy period of time to finally
get the 3,000 photons they need to make an “accurate”
measurement.

Remember that we commented earlier that there was
something very wrong with the Mythbusters' video when
they visited the Apache Point Observatory. The video gave
the impression that the Mythbusters' team watched the
laser ranging operation which identified the Apollo 15
retro-reflector. We have now learned that it can take up to
8 hours to collect the 3,000 protons needed to make a
measurement so the video was mischievously misleading,
as it gave the impression that the measurements could be
made in a few minutes while the Mythbuster Team
watched.

173

The Lunar Planetary Institute also states that:

“Because of this very weak signal, observations are made
for several hours at a time. By averaging the signal for
this period, the distance to the Moon can be measured to
an accuracy of about 3 centimetres (the average distance
from the Earth to the Moon is about 385,000 kilometres)”

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

The retro-reflector on Apollo 15 was three times larger
than the ones on Apollo 11 and 14 but quite honestly it does
not affect the maths. It is more than likely that any light
returned from the Moon as a result of the laser is just a
reflection from the lunar surface either from a mountain
top or a deep valley so how can this measure the distance
to the constantly moving Moon. Perhaps even worse,
successively returned photons may be coming from quite
different points of reflection.

A further relevant point is that NASA appears not to know
exactly where the Apollo landing sites are, which we find
quite surprising. We would have thought that NASA would
know exactly where their spacecraft had landed on their
historic landings on the Moon but it seems not. NASA
gives several different coordinates for each of the Apollo
missions the worst being for Apollo 11 which has two
locations differing by 20 kilometres. So accurately pointing
some laser at the tiny retro-reflector appears to be
somewhat irrelevant.

174

The details are given in the paper by Michael Stennecken
“Lost Lunar Landing Sites: The CLLC Initiative” (App
22.07). Note that eight of the ten sources quoted for the
Apollo landing coordinates are from NASA themselves.
Now, how do these seemingly lost Apollo sites affect the
lunar ranging exercise? Well, the retro-reflectors were left
on Apollo missions 11, 14 and 17 and you can see in the
table (see App 22.08) that the exact location of these sites
is somewhat dubious. If this is the case, you are left
wondering at what heavenly point they are aiming the laser
beam. we firmly believe that the laser ranging idea of
placing retro-reflectors on the Moon by the Apollo
astronauts was just another ploy by NASA to try to “prove”
that the fake Apollo missions were real.

The logic behind accurately measuring the distance
between the constantly moving Earth and the Moon to a
few centimetres is completely ridiculous as the
measurements need to be carried out for several hours to
collect enough returned photons “to get an accurate
measurement”. There is no way it can be known where
these returned photons are coming from, a mountain or a
deep valley on the surface of the Moon, or actually from
the retro-reflector allegedly placed on the Moon's surface
by the Apollo astronauts. Coupled with this they do not
even know if the successively returned photons are even
coming from the same point of reflection.

It is interesting to note that according to the UK Guardian
newspaper the laser ranging programme was axed in June
2009 (App 22.09). On hearing the news the head of the
laser ranging project at the McDonald Observatory Peter
Shelus commented:

"It is a bitter-sweet feeling to know this is going to come

175

to end at McDonald. We have done a great deal of
important work using the moon mirrors but it is clearly
time for it to end. However, we are hopeful that this work
will be continued at other astronomy centres."

The annual funding by the National Science Foundation
(NSF) was a mere $125,000, so given that it cost billions of
dollars to supposedly place the retro-reflectors on the
Moon, it is a somewhat surprising penny-pinching
decision.

The laser retro-reflector argument is absolutely no proof
that man landed on the Moon. Likewise, the fact that laser
beams can be bounced off the Moon without any laser
retro-reflectors does not in any way disprove the Apollo
Moon landings. However, the fact that NASA and its
groupies continue to defend the laser retro-reflectors as
proof that the Apollo astronauts went to the Moon for me
is indicative of manifest deceit. However, it still a baseless
fact that is endlessly repeated by almost every pro-NASA
apologist.

“It's a laser reflector to ensure that the laser beam
bounces straight back. Without that being there the beam
would be too diffused by the time it reflects off the Moon
for you to measure anything.”
Dr Martin Hendry (App 22.13)
Science Week 2010 Lecture

“Strictly speaking, however, these devices cannot be used
as indisputable evidence of crewed Moon landings,
because the Russians managed to place their own retro-
reflectors on the Moon by using uncrewed probes (Luna
17 and Luna 21, in 1970 and in 1973). But they do prove
that the United States, in 1969 and in 1971, were actually
able to somehow place these instruments exactly where

176

they claim to have landed astronauts on the Moon.”
Paolo Attivissimo (App 22.11)
Moon Hoax Debunked!

“If there is no laser reflector on the Moon then you're not
getting it (she is referring to receiving a return signal
from the Moon)”
Laura Danly (App 22.10)
Curator Griffith Observatory USA

“We shined that laser at the Moon on the second test and
we got a clear spike back. Photons came back to our
receptor. There's only one way that that could happen is if
there was a piece man-made equipment up on the Moon
to reflect them back.”
Adam Savage (App 22.12)
Mythbusters TV Episode

“A final nail in the coffin of the Moon hoax theories is a
simple instrument installed 50 years ago by Apollo 11.
During their day on the Moon, Armstrong and Aldrin
planted a lunar laser ranging retro-reflector array on the
surface. It’s still operational today, and allows us to
reflect lasers off of it and measure the distance to the
Moon down to the centimetre. We simply couldn’t do this
if we hadn’t visited the Moon.”
UK Institute of Physics (App 22.14)

In conclusion, the very idea of being able to produce
extremely accurate measurements from the alleged retro-
reflectors of the changing distance between the Earth and
the Moon over a lengthy period of several hours while the
Earth and Moon are in constant relative motion is just
totally ludicrous.

177

23 Moon Rocks

One of the pro-NASA supporter's arguments that proves to
them that the Apollo astronauts landed on the Moon is
that they brought back 2,196 samples of rocks and dust
weighing 842 lbs (382 kilos) from the Moon on all six
landing missions. On the face of it that is very convincing
evidence that can easily be accepted by the general reader.
These Moon rocks allegedly brought back by the Apollo
astronauts have been examined by geologists around the
world who have unanimously confirmed that they are
definitely rocks from the Moon (App 23.01).

If rocks taken directly from the Moon have never been seen
before then it is a paradox to confirm that they were
brought from the Moon by the Apollo astronauts. The
geologists who confirmed that these rocks were brought
back by the Apollo astronauts were very carefully selected
by NASA and not by any independent authority. The
question here is not whether the rocks are Moon rocks but
did the Apollo astronauts bring these rocks back? No

178

geologist however expert can possibly answer that one.

The surface of the Moon is regularly impacted by large
objects emanating from outer space (App 23.02). As a
result, some Moon rocks are ejected high above the lunar
surface and get captured by Earth's gravity. Such captured
lunar rocks are slowly brought by gravity to the Earth. Well
glacially slowly, about 10,000 years before they enter the
Earth's atmosphere. So the Earth is strewn with Moon
rocks (more properly referred to as lunaites) ejected from
the Moon by asteroid impacts. There are also meteorites
from Mars lying on the Earth's surface brought here by
similar events and they can take about 9 million years to
arrive here. NASA may have already collected some of
these Mars rocks in readiness for some future faked
mission to Mars.

Moon rocks are very similar to rocks naturally occurring
on Earth which is no surprise as both the Earth and the
Moon share a common ancestry as a result of two planets
colliding over 4 billion years ago (App 23.03). Jarrah
White comments on this similarity between Earth and
Moon rocks (App 23.04).

In passing through the Earth's atmosphere the lunaite
would have developed a burnt crust due to the excessive
heat of entry. This heat would also have erased any “zap
pits” which are made by micrometeorite impacts whilst the
rock was lying on the surface of the Moon. It would have
been comparatively easy to remove the burnt crust from
the rocks and use a high powered laser to add a few of the
required “zap pits” to produce “genuine” Moon rocks with
all the necessary chemical characteristics.

The point is that we do not need astronauts to bring back
rocks from the Moon. In 1970 the Soviet Union used the

179

unmanned Lunar 16 to bring back Moon rock samples
albeit it only 3.56 ounces (101 grams). It is doubtful that
the 842 lbs of Moon rocks attributed to the Apollo
astronauts could have been brought back by an unmanned
craft with the technology available in the 1960s. However,
Werner Von Braun solved the “moon rocks” problem for
NASA by collecting lunaites on a field trip to Antarctica in
1966-67. Jarrah White takes up the story of the von Braun
expedition to Antarctica and the probable origin of the
Apollo “moon rocks” (App 23.05 and 23.06).

NASA: Von Braun Collecting Moon Rocks in Antarctica
It is doubtful that anyone could be definitive concerning
the actual source of the alleged Apollo “moon rocks”. What
we can be sure about is that these rocks are not definitive
proof that the Apollo astronauts went to the Moon. Given
the many irrefutable proofs that we demonstrate in the
other sections of this book then we can be reasonably sure
that the Apollo Moon missions were faked and that the
“moon rocks” were nothing more than Earth lying lunaites
collected in Antarctica and elsewhere by NASA.

180

Credit NASA: AS17-134-20476
181

24 NVIDIA Simulation

There have been several attempts by the pro-NASA lobby
to explain why astronaut Buzz Aldrin is so brightly
illuminated as he descends the ladder of the Lunar Module
on the Apollo 11 mission. He is on the opposite side to the
Sun in the deep shadow of the Lunar Module.

The company NVIDIA used its Maxwell GPU technology to
try to replicate the Buzz Aldrin photograph (App 24.01).
They used a lunar surface albedo of 12% and also took into
account the glare from Neil Armstrong's spacesuit that
they estimated to have an albedo of 80-90%. Both of these
light sources are coming from below and would not have
brightened the upper surfaces of Buzz Aldrin's backpack.

NVIDIA state that their intention is to:

182

“Explore the truth behind the iconic Buzz Aldrin moon
landing photo. See how modern graphics innovations can
shed new light on a 45-year-old conspiracy theory.”

We rather doubt that disproving Moon hoax conspiracy
theories was their primary aim. We think they were more
interested in gaining added publicity for their product.

In the video, they talk a lot about accurately modelling the
Moon and the reflective surfaces but they make no
mention of accurately modelling the amount of light from
the Sun. we would have thought that the strength of the
light from the Sun was a crucial aspect of their modelling
given that they were examining the reflective brightness. It
would appear that they could have easily increased the
brightness of their fake sun to achieve any result they
wanted. Also, note that the albedo of the lunar surface as
stated by NASA is 8% and not the 12% that NVIDIA used.
Other than that it is very difficult to obtain any detailed
information concerning the NVIDIA modelling process to
ascertain that it was a valid simulation.

This NVIDIA modelling exercise has been challenged by
Jarrah White (App 24.02 and 24.03). Jarrah was contacted
by someone who had the NVIDIA graphics card and who
was attempting to reproduce the NVIDIA simulation. He
describes to Jarrah the difficulties he has encountered in
trying to obtain the modelling details. Finally, when he did
receive the modelling skin from NVIDIA, he discovered
that he was unable to change several important settings.
All this indicates that NVIDIA may have something to
hide.

We suspect that the validity of the modelling of the Buzz
Aldrin photograph was not their prime objective. What was

183

more important was some useful publicity for their
products. Nevertheless, their work has been endlessly
celebrated by the pro-NASA groupies as some proof that
the Apollo Moon landings were real, particularly given the
video title “Debunking Lunar Landing Conspiracies with
Maxwell and VXGI”. A more appropriate title would have
been “Debunking NVIDIA with Maxwell and VXGI”.
We believe that NVIDIA were also quite selective in the
photograph that they choose to “debunk” the Apollo Moon
landing conspiracy. It was just one of several photographs
which show Buzz Aldrin descending the ladder, but it was
not the most unexplainable one. For example, why didn't
they apply their methodology to this photograph?

Credit NASA:
AS11-40-5862

In this photograph, we can see Buzz Aldrin well lit even
though he is still partly inside the Lunar Module. Not only
that but we can distinctly see inside of the hatch which is
supposedly in the deepest shade. What could possibly be
illuminating Buzz Aldrin if it is not some additional

184

lighting?

Credit NASA: Detail from AS11-40-5862
We challenge NVIDIA to use their methodology on this
photograph. If they care to accept the challenge, we
promise to add their results to future copies of this book. It
could be that NVIDIA has unwittingly already answered
my challenge. Take a look at this screenshot from the
NIVIDIA video (see App 24.04 for a clearer view).

185

Pay attention to the hatch entrance area (circled) and see
how dark it is. NVIDIA may have managed to brighten the
figure of Buzz Aldrin to “prove” their point but what about
the hatch area?

NASA Photograph NVIDIA Rendering

In the above side by side comparison, we see the Apollo
photograph of Aldrin exiting the LEM and the hatch area
from the NVIDIA video. It cannot be argued that the white
suit of Buzz Aldrin was illuminating the hatch area as he

was in the absolute shadow of the LEM and no reflection of
light from the lunar surface could have reached him while

186

inside the LEM entrance. Perhaps NVIDIA would like to
explain why the hatch is not lit up in their rendition as it
was in the Apollo photograph. We can only think that the
NVIDIA guys were not “bright” enough to realise the
problem (pun absolutely intended).

It is not possible that the light reflection from the lunar
surface, or Armstrong's shiny suit, could illuminate the
inside of the hatch entrance to the Lunar Module and also
show considerable detail inside. These photographs were,
without a doubt, captured with the aid of some additional
light sources. There is no other possible explanation
despite what the pro-NASA apologists may wish you to
believe. This exercise by the NVIDIA team was an absolute
failure but surprisingly not for the pro-NASA disciples who
only see what they want to see to support their cause. The
mass media have reported on his fiasco of an experiment
by NVIDIA, and in their ignorance, they present it as some
positive proof of the Apollo Moon landings.

In 2014 Marcus Allen was contacted by NVIDIA to take
part in their demonstration of the Maxwell and GPU
technology. Marcus refused on the basis that he was
unwilling to sign a confidentiality agreement. The full
detailed story of this NVIDIA attempt to debunk the Moon
landing deniers is told by Marcus Allen in this paper from
the aulis.com website (App 24.05).

Despite the title of the NVIDIA video “Debunking Lunar
Landing Conspiracies with Maxwell and VXGI” it can only
be construed to be another failed attempt by the pro-NASA
camp to prove the unprovable.

187

25 Sounds on the Moon?

The Moon, unlike the Earth, has no atmosphere, so
Astronauts need to carry a self-contained breathable
atmosphere with climate control to cope with the erratic
lunar temperatures. Breathable oxygen is one reason why
they need to wear those cumbersome spacesuits, but it is
not the only reason. The astronauts also need protection
from harmful cosmic rays and the spacesuit was supposed
to provide this. Then there is the extreme of high and low
temperatures on the Moon ranging from +127C in the
sunlight down to -173C in the shade. Therefore the
spacesuit required some form of cooling to combat the
excessively high temperatures and some method of heating
to survive the exceedingly low temperatures. Note that
these quoted temperature ranges are only achieved after
long periods in the sunlight or in the shade. There is no
atmosphere on the Moon and hence no air convection, so
the only form of heat accumulation or dissipation is by
radiation or conduction mostly through the astronaut's
boots and gloves.

188

The upshot of the Moon having no atmosphere is that
there is no medium in which to carry sound. If you need a
refresher on the transmission of sound then watch this
video (App 25.01). You may recall that school science
experiment of sound in a bell jar in which the sound of the
bell diminished and became silent as the air was evacuated
from the bell jar (App 25.02). Consequently, we should
never hear any sound on the Moon. The only sounds we
should hear in the Moon videos are the communications of
the astronauts as they carry their own atmosphere so their
internal microphones will pick up their voice.

So what is the situation with the Apollo videos, do we hear
any sound outside in the vacuum of space? The simple
answer is yes and NASA even admits this but offers
excuses in an attempt to explain away the discrepancy. So
how can we hear sound in a vacuum?

We can hear sounds when the astronauts are hammering,
walking and doing other activities. In some NASA videos, it
is possible to identify actions by the astronauts in which a
distinct sound can be clearly heard, for example walking or
shuffling their feet. This should not be possible if they are
really in the vacuum on the Moon.

NASA even produced a “Lunar Science for Kids” webpage
which was intended to educate children. In one section
they explained that there was no sound possible in the
vacuum on the Moon. It was placed on the NASA website
in 2009 and it stated:

“Sound needs something to travel through to get from one
place to another. On the Moon, since there is no air, sound
cannot travel above the surface. So, there is no sound on
the surface of the Moon. When the Apollo astronauts were
out on the Moon's surface, they could only talk to each

189

other, and to mission control, by using the radios in their
air-filled helmets. Even when the astronaut in the photo
on the right, hit a metal tube into the ground with a
hammer, no sound was made”.

Credit NASA: Lunar Science for Kids, Now Deleted
Unfortunately for NASA, the photograph shown on the
webpage was the one which showed the very act of
hammering in the flagpole and that was one video that has
been identified as an action causing a sound as shown in
this video (App 25.03).
The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal states:
“What seems likely is that, when Gene hits the rock, the
hammer rebounds against the palm of the pressurised
glove creating a sound wave in the suit loud enough to be
picked up by the microphone at Gene's lips. In brief, the
suit acts like a drum”.
So according to NASA, there is a plausible explanation of
why we hear sounds. It is when the astronauts are touching

190

the object which is making the sound. This then allows the
sound vibrations to be transmitted through the astronaut's
suit and into the internal microphone. We cannot help
thinking that this explanation is similar to the flag that
only moves when the astronaut is touching it. We showed
that explanation to be totally untrue (see Sections 13 and
14).

In August 2011, the offending webpage in the “Lunar
Science for Kids” concerning no sound on the Moon
suddenly disappeared. It was deliberately removed by
NASA, but with no explanation. One needs to ponder why?

We have many examples of sounds in the Apollo 1videos,
for example, this collection from Apollo 16 identified by
Project Apollo (App 25.04, App 25.05 and App 25.06).
They used an analysis technique in which noise was
removed, background sounds were isolated and levels
adjusted. The timing was then re-synchronised with an
offset of eleven frames to reveal the hidden sounds. Watch
the video and you will hear that the sounds are
indisputable. The project resulted in this excellent video
from Apollo Project which undoubtedly exposes the NASA-
X fakery (App 25.07).

The statement by NASA that the spacesuits of the
astronauts acted as a sound drum in untenable. It is
disproved by Jet Wintzer who identifies a significant
incident in the Apollo 15 video footage as astronaut James
Irwin throws a metal band into the air which hits the
Lunar Module and makes a distinct sound (App 25.08 at
time 8:45). This act negates the reasoning given by NASA
for hearing the hammer blows “because the spacesuit
acted like a drum” as in this case there is no physical
contact between the astronaut and the source of the sound.

191

There is no question that hearing sounds in the videos
supposedly made in the vacuum on the Moon completely
exposes the NASA-X deception. This example of the
breaking of physical laws is yet another irrefutable
evidence of the Moon landing hoax.

Credit NASA: President Nixon meets Apollo 11 Astronauts

192

Credit NASA: Apollo 12 Recovery
193

26 LRO Satellite Images

It 1s often said that the final proof for the Moon
landings would be to see the artefacts left by the
astronauts still lying on the Moon. They left behind
all manner of objects including the descent stage of
the lunar lander, discarded equipment, cameras,
spacesuits, human spoil, scientific experiments and
in later missions a Lunar Rover. If the Apollo
missions did go to the Moon, then these artefacts
would still reside on the lunar surface undisturbed
unless they have been obliterated by a chance
wondering asteroid impact.

We would need to wait until the next Moon visitors
go to the Moon to confirm the existence of these
artefacts. However, NASA had a better idea to
prove the Apollo Moon landings, photograph the
sites from a lunar orbiter. Surely high-resolution
photographs of these artefacts would silence the
Moon landing deniers once and for all. Well, that

194

was the plan but like many plans, it didn't quite
work out.

On 18 June 2009 NASA launched the Lunar
Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) aboard an Atlas V rocket
from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida.
NASA stated that the primary objectives of the LRO were:

“LRO’s primary goal was to make a 3D map of the
Moon’s surface from lunar polar orbit as part of a
high-resolution mapping program to identify
landing sites and potential resources, to
investigate the radiation environment, and to
prove new technologies in anticipation of future
automated and human missions to the surface of
the Moon ”

In September 2010, LRO operations were handed
over to NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD)
to continue the science phase of the mission for
another five years rather than the previous
activities purely related to exploration and future
missions. The LRO flew over the Apollo landing
sites taking images of the lunar surface from an
altitude of 50 km and later from only 25 km.

“Among LRO’s achievements was to take extremely
high-resolution photographs of landing sites of
several older lunar landers and impact vehicles,
such as landing sites from all of the Apollo landing
missions (plus Surveyor III near the Apollo 12 site)
and the Apollo 13, 14, 15 and 17 Saturn IVB upper
stages. Other targets included the later Ranger
impact probes, and the Soviet Luna 16, 17, 20, 23
and 24 soft-landers, and China’s Chang’e 3 and
Chang’e 4 landers and rovers.”

195

We expected to be finally convinced that the Apollo
Moon landings were real by those "extremely high-
resolution photographs of landing sites" showing
the Apollo artefacts lying on the lunar surface. We
were to be somewhat disappointed in the
resolution. Take a look at this NASA video which
announces these “high resolution” images (App
26.01).

So what do we see, the Apollo artefacts in
resolvable detail? Well, not precisely, we are
treated to a few pixels of white and black with large
arrows and labels explaining to us what we are
supposed to be seeing. You need to have a very
open mind to consider that these images are “high
resolution” or proof that the artefacts are actually
there.

Apollo Moon landing denier Jarrah White makes a
forensic analysis of the LRO photographs of the
Apollo landing sites taken from an altitude of 50
km (App 12.02 and App 12.03).

Like the rest of us, who eagerly awaited these
allegedly high-resolution images, Jarrah is
disappointed in the results. The supposed Apollo
artefacts are simply not distinguishable as being
anything like we expected to see. Jarrah also
demonstrates that there are several strange
anomalies in the images which show that they have
been extensively and falsely manipulated.

196

Credit NASA: LRO Image of Apollo 12 Landing Site

Interestingly Jarrah compares the LRO images with the
GeoEye-1 satellite images. The Geo-Eye-1 photo-
reconnaissance satellite was launched in September
2008 and orbits above Earth at an altitude of 681
km taking photographs at 0.41 m resolution (App
26.04). There is no comparison with LRO imagery
as the GeoEye-1 images show significant detail
down to the scale of cars and even people. Like this
image of the London Olympic Stadium in 2011 (App
12.05). Both the Moon based LRO and the Earth-
based GeoEye satellites have similar resolutions
(0.50 and 0,41 metres per pixel respectively) so it is

197

hard to contemplate why there is such a great
difference in what we can discern from the images.

In 1967 the Lunar Orbiter 5 flew at a height of 46
km compared with 50 km for the LRO in 2009 (App
26.06). Examining the photographs taken it would
appear that from 1966 to 2009 it would appear that
there was virtually no advancement in camera
technology. However, we know that this is not true
as GeoEye-1 flew before a year before the LRO then
there can be no excuse for using a camera with such
a poor resolution for the LRO images.

Comparing the 1967 Lunar Orbiter 5 photograph
with the 2009 LRO photograph of the Tycho crater
then we see little improvement over the intervening
40 years.

1967 Lunar Orbiter 5 2009 LRO
Credit NASA

There is only a very marginal improvement in the
resolution. We would suggest that there is no
improvement at all given that the Lunar Orbiter 5
was flying almost twice as high as the LRO. You can

198

view the LRO photographs here (App 26.07).

So we need to ask ourselves what went wrong with
the technology. The Geo-Eye-1 satellite was
launched one year before the LRO so it cannot be
that the technology for a better camera resolution
was not available for LRO. Then take into account
that LRO was flying at a mere 25 km above the
lunar surface whereas GeoEye-1 is at 681 km, so
about 28 times higher. Furthermore, GeoEye-1 is
looking through the Earth's atmosphere whereas
LRO is operating in a clear vacuum. Are we to
believe that NASA did not have the technology to
achieve better resolution or that there was again
some deceit involved to achieve the desired result?

Wait, now let us not be hasty to jump to conclusions. The
LRO was taken down to an altitude of only 25 km with a
promise to give even better resolution images of the Apollo
landing sites and views of the artefacts as Jarrah White
investigates (App 26.08). On the question of the “better
resolution images”, he concludes that these cannot be real
untouched images. Jarrah comments on his findings in the
video text:

“After comparing the image with it's 25km counterpart, it
has become apparent that - despite all the hype - the
newer 25km images are in fact no sharper than the
earlier 50km images. And despite LRO being only 25km
above the lunar surface, the earth-orbiting GeoEye-1 still
takes better pictures of Apollo-sized objects from nearly
700km away. This ultimately calls into question the whole
point of dipping into the lower altitude, assuming the
LRO even dipped into this lower altitude at all.”

It is abundantly clear that the LRO images have been

199

mischievously and very inexpertly manipulated.

In his more detailed examination of the LRO
images, Jarrah White takes a look at some elements
that do not give any confidence that the LRO
photographs are genuine (App 26.09 and 26.10). He
notes several instances of strange manipulation of
the images.

Then we have the question of the tracks made by the Lunar
Rover. Jarrah White is again our guide to the evidence
(App 26.11). He discovers many unexplained anomalies in
the images concerning the Lunar Rover tracks for Apollo
15 which are distinct around the landing site but hardly
visible elsewhere even though in some locations the Lunar
Rover has driven twice over the same tracks. We see a
similar problem for Apollo 17 in which the Rover Tracks
end at the edge of the supplied image. How can this be,
unless the tracks have been added to the small image but
not to areas outside that image?

Of course, we know the real reason that the LRO images
are so indistinct. The traces of the artefacts have been
added later onto the raw LRO images. If the published
LRO images were in any greater detail, then the
Photoshopping would probably have been that much easier
to detect. The problem we have with all this is that the pro-
NASA group rejoice at the clarity of these “high resolution”
images and are now fully convinced that the astronauts
walked on the lunar surface. It is a leap of faith to look at a
few indistinct pixels and convince yourself that you are
looking at objects made by man. We will leave it for you to
contemplate and decide for yourself what is the truth.

200