sceptic

Credit NASA: Apollo 11 Buzz Aldrin on the Moon
201

27 Erratic Lunar Orbits

Now for a quick primer on Orbital Mechanics. You may
have wondered why spacecraft or satellites manage to
remain suspended in orbit despite the force of gravity
pulling them down towards the planet or why astronauts
are apparently floating about seemingly weightless. This is
all about orbital mechanics. Watch this video which gets
into the mathematics but don't worry if maths is not your
thing it is the result that is important (App 27.01).

The equation which tells you what speed you need to stay
at a particular orbital height is:

V2 = GM/r

where V = speed
G = gravitational constant for the planet
M = mass of the planet
r = height about centre of planet

202

Note that this is an inverse relationship between speed and
height. So the closer you are to the surface of the planet
then the faster you must go to stay in orbit. Also, note that
the mass of the spacecraft is not relevant, so whatever the
mass the equation is still true. If you think about this then
there must be a point at which the speed of the spacecraft
is the same as the rotational speed of the planet. This is
referred to as a geostationary orbit and it is used on Earth
for TV satellites that remain in the same position above a
point on Earth which is why you do not need to constantly
keep moving your satellite dish to follow a moving satellite.

On Earth, the geostationary height above Earth is about
22,236 miles (35,786 km). So what about the Moon? If you
used the above formula you would calculate the
geostationary orbit height for the Moon as 54,955 miles
(88,441 km).

There’s just one small complication, 54,955 miles is
outside of the “Moon’s Hill” sphere. A Hill sphere is the
region around a planet in which the planet is the dominant
gravitational influence. The Moon’s Hill sphere has a
radius of only 41,073 (66,100 km) That means that a
spacecraft that attempted to orbit the Moon at a radius of
54,955 miles would find itself quickly pulled away from the
Moon’s orbit by the gravitational force of the Earth. So a
geostationary orbit of the Moon is not possible.

So what has all this to do with our investigation of Apollo?
In this historic video of Apollo 11, we can see what is
supposed to be the Moon as the Lunar Module descends
towards it. We will let Ted Aranda take up the story (App
27.02). At time 22:00 we are shown a video of the lunar
surface. The spacecraft is just hovering over the surface
similar to a helicopter with no lateral movement and we
have shown that a geostationary orbit of the Moon is not

203

possible. In the descent stage, the craft is still travelling
laterally in orbit and it cannot be stationary. This video is
certainly fake and was most probably produced by a
camera pointed at a model of the lunar surface.

You can also see the same inconsistencies in the Apollo 14
footage. In lunar orbit, the spacecraft changes direction
hovers and makes other erratic movements which would
not be possible for a craft supposedly in lunar orbit. We
could show you more nonsense of the Apollo lunar orbits,
but we think enough is enough.

We have seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate without
any reasonable doubt that the Apollo missions were faked.
In many instances, the level of expertise used to enact the
fakery was inadequate. These orbit videos cannot be real.
NASA alleged them to be “live” TV transmissions from the
Moon broadcast to several TV stations at the time they
were allegedly happening. As a consequence, they could
not have been edited in any way that would have
introduced the errors that we have noted. We can now
prove beyond any reasonable doubt that these TV
transmissions were a total clumsy fabrication.

Finally, to complete our erratic movements in
space, take a look at this strange rendezvous and
docking (App 27.03). The jerky movements are not
what we would expect to see in a space
environment. This is without doubt a model.

204

Copyright BBC: Route to the Moon
205

28 Leaving the Moon

In the three last Apollo missions 15, 16 and 17 they
allegedly used a Lunar Rover to drive around the Moon
and cover greater distances than was previously possible
on foot. These Lunar Rovers were left on the Moon so
NASA made use of the rover TV cameras to film the lift-off
of the Lunar Module ascent stage as it supposedly left the
Moon. These three brief videos are what they produced
(App 28.01, App 28.02 and App 28.03). The rainbow-
coloured fragments which we see flying through the
vacuum are supposedly the remnants from the exploding
bolts which were fired to separate the ascent stage from the
descent stage. It is patently obvious that these videos are
just models and a rather poor attempt at modelling at that.
We were surprised that they made such a poor
unconvincing effort given the importance of this aspect of
the mission.

The video sequences show two anomalies. The first is that
the rocket shows no exhaust plume when evidence from
other sources shows that hypergolic fuels do produce a
distinct plume in space. The second issue is that the ascent

206

profile contradicts physical laws in that it just pops up at a
linear speed as though it was pulled up on a string.

So should there be a visible exhaust plume? Jarrah White
investigates the matter in a three-part video series (App
28.04, App 28.05 and App 28.06). In this video series, he
examines several instances in which hypergolic fuels do
show a distinct exhaust plume in the vacuum of space
which demonstrates quite conclusively that the NASA lift-
off videos are fakes.

Although the evidence shows that there should be a visible
plume from a rocket exhaust burning hypergolic fuels the
pro-NASA defenders have no option but to attempt some
damage control by trying to skip around the subject. Here
we have Amy Shira Teitel of Vintage Space attempting to
conjure up several excuses why we do not see a plume from
the rocket exhaust on the Moon (App 28.07). She at first
categorically states that hypergolic fuels burn clear and do
not show a visible plume in space.

“Another characteristic of hypergols is tat they typically
burn clear this is the case of the Lunar Module … with a
characteristic clear flame.”

To prove her point she shows a clip of a Titan II rocket
leaving Earth but even though she states that there is no
exhaust plume the video does show a very visible plume for
all to see. Perhaps she suffered some temporary blindness.
Now rather paradoxically she starts to invent more reasons
why you cannot see her already “invisible” plume from the
rocket exhaust:

“.. and there's another piece to why we don't see the flame
of the ascent stage though it is a secondary reason to the
fuel mixture. On Earth, our atmosphere pressure means

207

that we see the exhaust of a rocket as a column it doesn't
really spread out much because the pressure of the air
keeps it contained. That's not the case on the Moon where
there is no atmosphere. Anything that burns can dissipate
far more easily so even if we could see it you wouldn't see
it the same as you do on Earth. And I'll throw in the fact
that the cameras weren't exactly high-definition TV
cameras that showed it. So even if you could see a very
tiny bit of the flame leaving the Moon you probably
wouldn't see it on that not so great TV footage.”

This “bits and pieces” explantation is pure damage control.
Even though she categorically stated that the fuel burned
with an inviable flame she nonetheless attempts to
bamboozle her viewers with a myriad of other reasons that
the flame cannot be seen. If the rocket exhaust is truly
invisible then why invent new reasons why it cannot be
seen?

We also have pro-NASA disciple Phil Plait who can explain
everything:

“There is actually a simple reason why you cannot see the
flame from the lander when it took off. The fuels they used
produced no visible flame! The lander used a mix of
hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide (an oxidizer). These
two chemicals ignite upon contact and produce a product
that is transparent. That's why you cannot see the flame.”
Phil Plait (App 28.08).

No matter how the pro-NASA group wish to offer the
invisible rocket plume excuse it was demonstrated to be
untrue by Jarrah White. However, if you are still not
convinced that the lunar take-off sequences are fakes then
read on as we will now examine some physical laws which
will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the sequence

208

was filmed on a model.
The second anomaly concerns the ascent profile shown in
the video. The ascent stage appears to rise at a uniform
rate which is uncharacteristic of rocket launches. The first
thing a rocket needs to do is to generate sufficient lift to
overcome the gravity caused by its own weight. You will
have seen many rockets lifting off and noted that in the
initial few seconds the rocket is slow until it generates
more and more thrust and then it accelerates upwards. We
do not see that in the lunar lift-off videos as the ascent
stage rises uniformly.
Robert A.Braeuing a pro-NASA devotee used detailed
NASA data to produce an accurate computer simulation of
the lunar lift-off of Apollo 17 (App 28.09). This resulted in
this table which gives the altitude at each elapsed second
(App 28.10). Here we can see that the lift-off is far from
uniform as shown by the lower dotted line. The upper solid
line is the ascent profile measured from the video which is
essentially uniform.

209

When this discrepancy was pointed out to Braeuing he
added the note you can read at the end of his paper under
the title “Launch Pad Acceleration” (see App 28.09).
Braeuing attempts to answer the discrepancy by stating
that the simulation model was not accurate for the first few
seconds even though it shows exactly the profile we would
expect to see.

“It should be stated that the objective of this simulation
was not to precisely recreate the behavior of the lunar
module at the moment of liftoff. The goal of the exercise
was to see if the LM could attain lunar orbit given its
reported mass and propellant load.”

This is a most feeble attempt to explain the discrepancy, if
the simulation model is not accurate in any part then the
whole is not accurate as it is an additive simulation which
means that the next second is based on the previous
seconds. Our thanks to the “Moonfakery” website for
producing this video which compares the Braeuing
simulation with the Apollo 17 video (App 28.11).

In creating the model lift-off sequences it appears that
NASA-X forgot about the finer details of physics. This is
irrefutable proof that the lunar lift-off videos were faked.
[Authors Note The Apollo 17 simulation paper by Braeuing
has been deleted off the internet]

210

Credit TIME Inc.

211

29 Return Moon Missions

So 50 years ago NASA sent 24 astronauts on journeys to
orbit the Moon. They tell us that 12 astronauts walked on
the lunar surface and six of those drove Lunar Roving
vehicles. Well, that is the official story and it is now part of
the historical record. So much so that if you express any
doubts on the matter you are branded as a conspiracy
theorist and as such dismissed out of hand. Since then,
well nothing really happened regarding the Moon.

It is difficult to mention any other technological
achievement in the history of man that suddenly stopped
with no ongoing development. If any of the Apollo
missions had successfully reached the Moon, then we
would have expected continuing scientific and commercial
development of the resources on the Moon. We should
have seen Moon bases, exploration of minerals and many
other scientific ventures but after more than 50 years we

212

have nothing.

This does not mean that the idea of returning to the Moon
has been forgotten. In 2004 NASA started developing the
Orion Project (subsequently renamed Constellation and
now renamed Artemis) to develop the means of sending
astronauts to Mars and also back to the Moon. The latest
date for a return to the Moon was set by President Trump
to be 2024. So it will take 20 years of planning and
development to get astronauts back to the Moon and that
is assuming that the 2024 target date is achieved.

This fact must be compared to the timescale supposedly
achieved in the Apollo Project. On 24 December 1968 just
seven years and five months after President Kennedy
announced on 25 July 1961 the proposed mission to the
Moon, the Apollo 8 astronauts were supposedly orbiting
the Moon. At the time that President Kennedy announced
the goal of reaching the Moon, only one American, Alan
Shepard, had been briefly into space and even that was just
about one minute on the 15-minute suborbital mission.
Perhaps more telling is that NASA did not have at the time
a rocket that could achieve low Earth orbit.

So we are expected to believe that back in the 1960s getting
man to the lunar surface was a relatively easy endeavour
that could be achieved in 8 years from start to end and this
was starting with virtually nothing. Logically one would
expect that 43 years later with all the tremendous
improvements in technology and the experience of doing it
before then it would also be as easy if not easier. This is not
the case. It now appears getting to the Moon is no longer
such an easy task. One needs to ponder why? Perhaps they
never went to the Moon.

It is doubtful that President Trump's target date of 2024

213

will be achieved under the new President Biden's term in
office as he is unlikely to agree to the increased funding
that NASA now says they need. None of these doubts has
stopped NASA from producing slick videos boasting of
their plans to get astronauts back to the Moon. First under
the constellation programme (App 29.01) and now with
Artemis (App 29.02). There have been many excuses by
the pro-NASA group why NASA did not return to the Moon
(App 29.03).

Before we say goodbye to the Moon, there is one very
pertinent point to mention concerning the Apollo landing
sites. In July 2011 NASA released a paper:

“Recommendations to Space-Faring Entities: How to
Protect and Preserve the Historic and Scientific Value of
U.S. Government Lunar Artifacts”.

In this paper which consists of a full 93 pages it states (App
29.04):

“THIS DOCUMENT, DATED JULY 20, 2011, CONTAINS
THE NASA RECOMMENDATIONS AND ASSOCIATED
RATIONALE FOR SPACECRAFT PLANNING TO VISIT
U.S. HERITAGE LUNAR SITES”.

NASA also gives the legal framework for this document as:

“The USG [United States Government] continues to
maintain ownership of NASA hardware and other
property on the surface of the moon, including the Apollo
artifacts. These recommendations are not legal
requirements; rather they are technical recommendations
for consideration by interested entities. NASA seeks
coordination in advance of lunar activities that would
impact NASA artifacts of historic and scientific interest to

214

ensure that all appropriate interests are recognized and
protected. NASA recognizes that these recommendations
may evolve and welcomes the opportunity to work with
foreign space agencies and other entities planning robotic
lunar missions”.

The paper outlines specific areas, including approach
paths, which it states should not be violated as they
contain historical artefacts. It lists guidelines to protect the
Apollo 11 and 17 landing sites listing them as off-limits
including close proximity limits for ground-travel and no-
fly zones to avoid spraying rocket exhaust, or dust onto
ageing, but historic equipment.

Robert Kelso, NASA’s director of Lunar Commercial
Services at Johnson Space Center in Houston, has taken a
hard look at future revisits to the Apollo sites and how to
protect US Government artefacts on the Moon. Kelso has
carved out a set of guidelines intended to safeguard the
historic and scientific value of more than three dozen
“heritage sites” on the lunar surface. The guidelines were
reported by the YouTube Channel “Sky News” (App 29.05).
The guidelines set out the main concerns that NASA has
for the future preservation of the Apollo Moon landing
sites.

A greater urgency for guidelines had been sparked by the
Google Lunar X Prize’s offer of US$20 million to any
private team that lands a robotic rover on the Moon’s
surface. An additional US$4 million was on offer for any
team that could snap pictures of artefacts near or at the
Apollo landing sites. For Kelso, a key question is:

“As the small commercial landers make preparations for
possible visits to these historic sites, how do we protect
these culturally significant sites from damage so that we

215

can inspect them historically and scientifically?”

The recommendations listed by NASA are intended to
apply to US Government artefacts on the lunar surface,
such as:

 Apollo lunar surface landing and roving hardware;

 Unmanned lunar surface landing sites (e.g.,
Surveyor robotic landing sites) and impact sites,
such as those of NASA’s Ranger spacecraft, as well
as the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing
Satellite (LCROSS) that slammed into the Moon in
October 2009;

 US Government experiments left on the lunar
surface, tools, equipment, excrement bags and
miscellaneous moonwalking gear;

 Specific indicators of US human, human-robotic
lunar presence, including footprints and rover
tracks.

An anthropology professor at the New Mexico State
University, Beth O’Leary, argues that the NASA guidelines
are essential. They create a series of keep-out zones and
boundaries around the historic artefacts at all the Apollo
sites. Apollo 11 and 17 are acknowledged as having special
historical and cultural significance, she said:

“Those two locales are treated as unique by prohibiting
visits to any part of these sites, and all future visiting
vehicles would remain beyond the 'artefact boundaries' of
each entire site. This provides a robust zone of protection
around these two sites. For me, the NASA document
represents a giant leap for lunar historic preservation,
NASA references its ownership of its lunar hardware and
the need for protecting what it calls ‘witness plates’ or

216

‘lunar assets’, those significant artefacts it created in the
past that are now on the Moon. This is a critical first step
and many more have to follow, but for the first time
NASA formally recognizes the heritage value of Apollo 11
and other extraordinary lunar sites.

Importantly, it recognizes that future missions can
disturb or change the earlier lunar sites in ways that
scientific and historic information can be lost. Also, some
of the sites are still active and continue to provide data,
such as Apollo retro-reflectors used to measure the
distance between the Earth and Moon via laser ranging.
It was time for a preservation strategy”.

NASA takes pains to explain that it is only doing this to
protect the “discarded food and faeces of the astronauts”,
the argument itself is specious. The real purpose of the “No
Fly Zones” alleged by some Moon landing deniers is to
dissuade upcoming lunar missions by other countries
including Japan, India, Israel and China from "spilling the
beans" on what is precisely up there.

It is somewhat unbelievable to comprehend how the
United States with absolutely no space fleet can impose
“No Fly Zones” on the Moon. But let us assume for a
moment that they could impose their will, why would they?
The key question is: Are they trying to keep something
secret? The US Government claims that the
recommendations for “No Fly Zones” are only for
preserving and protecting historical sites and artefacts of
the Apollo Missions. Apollo 11 and 17 sites will remain off-
limits with ground-travel buffers of 75 metres and 225
metres from each lunar lander.

When we first encountered this business of “No Fly Zones”
we searched for what we imagined would be the numerous

217

protests from the Moon landing deniers claiming that
NASA had something to hide, but surprisingly there is
almost nothing. We did find this contribution from
“Lovuian” who questions the timing of the announcement
given that there had already been several previous Moon
exploring satellites from China and India (App 29.06).

Credit NASA: Apollo 17 Science Equipment on the Moon
Things have moved on considerably since 2011 with the
United States enacting a new law that requires American
companies and other entities working with NASA on new
missions to the Moon to avoid disturbing the American
hardware left there 50 years ago. The "One Small Step to
Protect Human Heritage in Space Act” became law on 31
December 2020 (App 29.07). Note that the law can only
apply to “American companies and other entities working

218

with NASA” but seeing as most of the other nations aiming
for the Moon are collaborating with NASA in some way or
another, then it does have much wider implications.
One can only conclude that NASA is determined to avoid
the fakery of 50 years from ago being exposed. The new
law appears to flout the United Nations 1967 “Outer Space
Treaty” to which the US was a signatory.
You may well argue that the fact that NASA abandoned the
Moon in 1972 is no proof that the Apollo Moon landings
were faked. However, the fact that the “Orion,
Constellation, Artemis” project has not shown any
meaningful results over twenty years and that NASA is
attempting to ban anyone visiting the Apollo landing sites
is indicative of some skulduggery.
One would have thought that NASA would be eager for
some other entity to show proof that the Apollo Moon
landings actually took place but seemingly not. The excuse
of saving for posterity the uncontaminated excrement of
Apollo astronauts is just untenable. Make your own
conclusions.

219

TREVOR WEAVER BOOKS ON PROJECT APOLLO

Man on the Moon: Fact or Fiction?

Amazon Reviews
- An easy-going read which is

exhaustively researched
- Specific and Impartial
- This is the most complete

analysis of the Apollo event
- No more hearsay... Just the facts

The Apollo Moon Hoax: How Did They Do It?
A Generation Deceived by NASA

Amazon Reviews
- A great introductory reference

on the Moon hoax
- A must-read for all
- The definitive exposé on the hoax
- You will never see things like

this again!

The Apollo Moon Hoax: Exposing The Deceit
Confronting The Charlatans

Amazon Reviews
-
-
-
-

220