sceptic

The pause ought to be 2.51 seconds – minimum. That’s
1.258 seconds for the message to go out, and 1.258
seconds for it to come back, if the astronaut replied
instantly. If both Houston (H) and Columbia (C) spoke
instantly, and both continually spoke without
interrupting each other, you would see a pattern, if
recorded on Earth, like this (because of the time delays):

CH—CH—CH—

A pause of 1.07 seconds would be a distance between
Earth and Columbia of about 195,900 miles, or 42% of
the distance to the Moon and back. Had Columbia begun
her reply in order for the message to arrive at the time
recorded in this record, she would have had to start
speaking when Houston was saying “Columbia,
Columbia.” But etiquette and standard practice is to wait
until the “over”. When you listen to the record, it sounds
like a natural conversation, with everybody saying “over”
at the end, to punctuate the communication, wait for the
other party to speak. But the pattern continues.

I guess you’re about the only person around that doesn’t
have TV coverage of the scene.'

[1.07 second pause]

“That’s alright, I don’t mind a bit.”

In order for “That’s alright” to arrive on Earth 2.5 seconds
after transmission, Columbia would have had to utter it
when Houston was speaking the word “doesn’t.” It would
have been like this at the Columbia end:

“I guess you’re about the only person around that doe-
That’s alright I don’t mind a bit.”

51

Talk about completing each others’ sentences.

But what really attracted my attention is that in the
“brand new” and “refurbished” NASA video of the same
situation, the pauses are NOW the right length.

“I guess you’re about the only person around that doesn’t
have TV coverage of the scene.”

[3.37 second pause]

“That’s alright, I don’t mind a bit.”

More, there is an echo-artefact stuck in the middle, in-
between “scene” and the “That’s alright”. It’s an “echo” of
“the scene”. It arrives at a perfect 2.62 seconds after being
uttered, exactly the time it would take to Moon bounce.
It’s “perfect”. Here is the “refurbished” audio, showing the
end of the sentence, and the echoed word “scene”.

The problem is that neither the pause nor the echo in the
“original” version was there. The proper signature delay is
only there in the “new and improved” version.

“Northerntruthseeker” then concludes:

“What’s clear, if I am indeed working with the original
audio footage, is that the original recording could not
possibly have been a live conversation between the Earth
and the Moon, physics defies it. You cannot travel faster
than the speed of light with a radio packet, and these
recordings clearly show communication with a delay that
is 42% of the value it should be.

And it’s clear that the new and “improved” version has
delays that are just right, to sound as though they were

52

between the Earth and the Moon, complete with a little
Moon-reflection to “prove” that they were exactly “that
distance” away, along with a human pause before
replying.

Of course, the easiest explanation is that I simply got hold
of a piece of audio which had all the silence edited out,
trimmed for presentation. It’s normal practice, and
hardly a conspiracy. But the video on YouTube is labelled
as original rendering, and it seems that way in the fine-
grain of the audio. The static is continuous, there are no
abrupt transitions, and the human conversation has a
very natural rhythm, cadence.

At first, it seems this would be easy to settle. Hundreds of
people with audio editors and original recordings all over
the world can measure it and post their findings to the
internet, along with a detailed description of the origin of
their recording. But this has been complicated. NASA
apparently rounded up many of the original television
tape recordings in order to make their “new and
improved” versions. People who possessed them
previously no longer do. Then NASA says it thinks it
destroyed the original tape.

Everyone who has original, live, as-aired audio of
conversations between Earth and the Moon should post
them, and begin to measure the time delay between
transmissions. They should also make copies of their as-
aired original, and keep track of it. The transmissions
were recorded on Earth, so the time delay between
Columbia’s audio and Huston's reply can be zero. But the
audio delay between Huston's statement and Columbia’s
reply needs to be at least 2.51 seconds., 1.258 to go out.
1.258 to come back. Minimum.

53

One last word. The origin of the delay we expect is
physics. It is the most established physics in the world. We
are not talking about equipment delay, or digital delay,
or what have you. Physics requires that no signal, of any
kind, can make the trip faster than 1.258 seconds, closest
edge to closest edge, using the average distance Earth to
Moon. There is a little variation in, for example, edge of
Earth to edge of Moon, as opposed to most direct path,
but these would make the time lag longer, not shorter”.

We would suggest that this is a very telling analysis.
However. Just let us correct one thing. The very first
anomaly suggested by “Northerntruthseeker” is incorrect,
namely:

“Columbia, Columbia, this is Houston, AOS, over.”
[1.07 second pause]
“Houston, Columbia…”
The pause ought to be 2.51 seconds – minimum. That’s
1.258 seconds for the message to go out, and 1.258
seconds for it to come back, if the astronaut replied
instantly.”

What has happened here is that Neil Armstrong was
himself calling Huston but then heard the start of the
message from Huston and at that point he stopped talking
to listen to the message. He was not replying to a message
from Huston but starting one himself. One clue to this is
that Armstrong started his conversation with the call sign
“Huston” which is used when the astronauts are
themselves calling Huston. When they are replying to a
message from Mission Control they do not preface their
reply with “Huston”. Hope that is clear. This
misunderstanding by “Northerntruthseeker” does not
detract from the validity of his presentation for the other
anomalies.

54

The evidence is clear, the delays in the transmissions are
sometimes incorrect defying the laws of physics. We can
conclude that the Apollo astronauts were not on the Moon.
It transpires that NASA has altered the audio tapes
presumably to make them comply with what would be
expected if the astronauts were on the Moon. The question
is, why this should have been necessary except as damaged
limitation to conceal the hoax?

Credit NASA: Apollo 8 Earthrise
55

Credit NASA: Apollo 17 Lunar Rover
56

7 Apollo Video Secrets

NASA's Apollo astronauts never actually set foot on the
Moon so how did NASA-X manage to produce the video
evidence that fooled the world, and still does for most
people. We need to remember that we are back in the
1960s. It was a time long before computers with any real
processing power, or digital photographs, or computer-
generated images (CGI) were available. Fooling the world's
population with videos from the Moon must have
represented quite a daunting challenge for NASA-X. They
had certain aspects in their favour. Nobody has any
concept of what the Moon looked like close up and the
general public had only minimal knowledge of the science
involved.

The Apollo videos were filmed on Earth and we prove this
in Section 17 which irrefutably shows that the flag
supposedly on the Moon is swinging in Earth's gravity. The
question is how were these videos made as in most
instances they do demonstrate proper Moon gravity.

57

The perpetrators of the Apollo fakery were clearly
conscious of the fact that it would be possible to calculate
the gravitational force from the Apollo videos. They
therefore needed to ensure that all actions in the videos
such as falling objects conformed to the lesser gravity on
the Moon. The difference in fall times is significant, for
example, an object that would take one second to fall on
Earth would take 2.45 seconds to fall from the same height
on the Moon. One simple way to accomplish the Moon
gravity deceit would be to play back the film at a slower
speed to compensate for the gravity difference. This
method has been suggested by both Moon landing deniers
and believers although slow-motion techniques were
involved it is not the whole story.

NASA carried out many experiments using gravity-assisted
harnesses for the astronauts, ostensibly to accustom the
astronauts to walking and working in the lesser Moon
gravity (App 7.01 and App 7.02). You can observe in these
videos the super athletic abilities of the astronauts when
five-sixths of their weight is taken up by the gravity
reducing hardness.

Any such displays of these super athletic powers were not
seen in the Apollo videos. The pro-NASA group argue that
this was a safety consideration but when you see some of
the extremely reckless behaviour exhibited by the Apollo
astronauts then you can discount this. As the former NASA
contactor Dietrich von Schmausen commented:

“The astronauts often demonstrated frivolous behaviour,
jumping, hopping along, singing ditties and
wisecracking. They appeared to be happily tranquillized
or totally unconcerned for their personal safety, when in
fact any lapse in judgement or freak happenstance could

58

result in either immediate death or injury with absolutely
no hope of rescue. They did not exhibit behaviour
commensurate with the extreme nature of their situation."

The highest jump achieved by any astronaut is the so-
called “Big Navy Jump Salute” by astronaut John Young on
the Apollo 16 mission in which he reached about sixteen
and a half inches (0.42 m) which is less than can be
achieved on Earth with a standing jump (see App 15.01).
The astronauts were wearing bulky spacesuits but these
only weighed about 30 lbs 0n the Moon and their muscles
were accustomed to terrestrial conditions six times more
intensive.

In order to be able to manipulate the film to create the
Apollo videos with some slow-motion being used it was
necessary to film using a camera running at 144 frames per
second. If they had used a more normal 24 frames per
second then any attempt to show this, say at half speed,
would result in a jerky 12 frames per second which would
look unrealistic. In addition, the astronauts were
suspended in gravity reducing harnesses using a single
mono-filament wire. If you noticed in the NASA simulation
videos the astronauts were suspended in harnesses that
were equally balanced (see App 7.01 and App 7.02). We are
not entirely sure why they opted for a single wire rather
than the two-wire suspension that they employed in the
training rigs.

This single wire method of suspension caused the
astronauts to have a preponderance to spin uncontrollably
as evidenced in much of the Apollo lunar footage. It is
perhaps why the astronauts preferred to “bunny hop”
rather than to walk more conventionally. It was easy to
pass this form of locomotion off as being more convenient
in reduced gravity. Lifting one leg to walk when you are

59

suspended by a single wire induces a tendency to spin
which the astronauts found very tiring to control so they
opted for the now familiar “bunny hop” locomotion.

In 2014 a video appeared on YouTube entitled “Make
Believe: Smoke and Mirrors”. The video, posted
anonymously, purports to explain in considerable detail
exactly how NASA-X faked the Apollo Moon landings
videos. The video is somewhat complex in parts but does
provide a detailed explanation of how the videos were
created. What was surprising was the small number of
views this video had, only about 200, which for a video on
YouTube for almost four years is surprisingly few. In 2018
the video suddenly disappeared from YouTube and we
have never determined why it was removed or who
produced the video. Fortunately, several diligent people
took a copy and preserved this important set of videos.

We cannot confirm whether this video is genuine, or
merely some extremely elaborate hoax, but elaborate it is.
It would have taken a considerable amount of time,
technical knowledge, and some significant effort to
produce, given that the video is over 2 hours and 44
minutes long. Whatever the truth of the matter, the video
makes compelling viewing.

In the original video, the narrator heavily disguised his
voice to prevent him from being recognised, so it is often
difficult to understand what he is saying but watch for
yourself (App 7.03 and App 7.04). This is a rather strange
thing to do. Why make the video difficult to understand by
using a heavily distorted voice when another narrator
could have been used? It gives the impression that the
person was working alone in total secrecy.

There was also a series of videos made by another

60

anonymous organisation calling itself “MB Enhanced:
Smoke and Mirrors”. These videos added sub-titles to the
original “Make Believe: Smoke and Mirrors” videos to
make them easier to understand. These videos also
disappeared on the same day as the “Make Believe: Smoke
and Mirrors” videos (App 7..05 to App 7.24). More recently
Canadian filmmaker Bob Williams has provided a new
voice over to the original video and now the narration is
easier to follow (App 7.25).

What is especially important about the technique
employed was the use of varying frame rates. This use of
varying frame rates coupled with the astronauts being
suspended by a gravity assisting harness makes reverse-
engineering the videos quite difficult. We mentioned
earlier the assumption that the video frame rate had
simply been slowed down to simulate Moon gravity and
that attempts to recreate the original video by speeding it
up failed to produce a realistic result. This was because the
videos contained many sections at different frame rates
often every few seconds.

Frames per second was a crucial aspect of the hoax and we
need to understand it. A slow-motion master at 144 frames
per second (FPS) was captured of the astronauts
performing their tasks on an Earth-based lunar set. Often,
the astronauts were suspended from a single counter-
balanced wire, although not always. For example, in the
Apollo 11 mission no suspension wires were used and no
background projection. Instead, they used extremely
blurry video images presumably to hide the deception.
There was also no live feed 0ffered to the news agencies
who had to re-film the action from the video displayed on a
large screen further degrading the already blurred video.

Working from the slow-motion master an optical printer

61

was then employed to generate from this master various
slow-motion speeds (App 7.26). The closer the camera was
to the astronaut performers, the less extreme the slow-
motion used. When the astronauts moved away from the
camera, then more slow-motion was introduced. Any
detailed close-up action used much less slow-motion, say
when the astronauts were using their fingers to handle
objects close to the camera. Too much slow motion for
close up events would have revealed the fakery.

Most of these speed changes are undetectable to the
human eye and take place when some activity in the video
distracts the viewer's eye say an astronaut jumping.
Occasionally they are obvious, for example, the amount of
slow-motion is increased as an astronaut moves away from
the camera so falsely enlarging the scene as can be seen in
this clip from Apollo 11 (App 7.27). In this short clip, you
can see at least three obvious frame rate changes. Note that
this video clip has now been replaced on the ALSJ with a
new version in which the frame rate changes are less
perceptible (App 7.28).

Whenever we see objects being dropped or thrown then
the precise amount of slow-motion to simulate lunar
gravity is used which is 41%. You may be wondering where
the 41% comes from, so time for a little maths. Hopefully,
you will remember from your schooldays the basic
equations of motion in which we have:

d = ut + ½ gt2

where d = fall height
u = initial speed (zero for dropped objects)
t = time of fall
g = gravitational constant (Earth or Moon)
g for Earth is 9.807 m/s2

62

g for Moon is 1.62 m/s2

For an object dropped from rest the initial speed “u” will
be zero. So our equation simplifies to

d = ½ gt2

Rearranging we have

t = Sqrt(2d/g)

So we can calculate the time for an object to fall, say one
meter, on the Earth and then compare this with that on the
Moon. On Earth for a one-metre fall we have:

t = sqrt(2x1/9.807) = 0.4515 secs

And on the Moon we have

t = sqrt(2x1/1.62) = 1.111 secs

So on the Moon objects would take 1.111/0.4515 = 2.46
times longer to fall from the same height. So to simulate
Moon gravity from a video shot on Earth we need to slow it
down by a factor of 0.4515/1.111 = 0.406 or about 41%.

The “Apollo Project” team are a group of Project Apollo
investigators who have examined the fall times from
various Apollo lunar videos (App 7.29). Mostly the
perpetrators of the hoax simulated Moon gravity correctly
but not always (see App 7.29 time 3:42). It is these
instances in which the fall times of objects in the videos do
not obey normal physical laws for lunar gravity which is
impossible and are obvious examples of the deceit. Just
more proof of the fakery.

63

Credit Apollo Project Team: Hoaxers Get Gravity Wrong

We now know how the videos were created step by step
using frame rate changes on the original master video shot
at 144 fps. Knowing the frame rate changes it is possible to
precisely re-engineer the original film footage. The “Apollo
Project” team have done that and it makes remarkable
viewing (App 7.30). We can now see how the astronaut
actors performed on the stage set on Earth.

In viewing the Apollo videos one thing may strike you as
rather odd. Notice how the astronauts are comfortable
walking around in upright positions. So why is this
strange? The typical weight of an Apollo astronaut is 180
lbs (82 kg) and the backpack weighs a similar 180 lbs. Now
imagine you put a backpack on which weighs the same as
yourself what would happen? One of two things, you would
either fall over backwards or you would need to bend
forward to get your centre of gravity over your feet. The
fact that on the Moon all things weigh only one six of their
Earth weight is immaterial as it is not a matter of weight
but one of static balance. This point is taken up by “Steve
the Chemist” in his video (App 7.31). The other point made
in this video is the question of friction. Look again at the
gravity training videos (See App 7.01 and App 7.02). You

64

can see that with the gravity harness on the astronaut
tends to slide as predicted by “Steve the Chemist”.
The perpetrators of the fakery were quite clever in the way
in which they attempted to disguise their manipulation of
the videos making it difficult to reverse engineer unless
you are totally determined. Unfortunately for them, they
made many errors from which the fakery is exposed.

Credit Orange County Register: 21 July 1969
Note above the banner “Lunar 15 Makes Moon Landing”.
In reality, the Soviet Luna 15 lander crashed into the Moon
several hours before the scheduled American lift off from
the Moon.

65

Credit TIME Inc.

66

8 Kubrick Horizontal

How anybody can look at the photographs and
videos supposedly taken on the Moon and convince
themselves that they are real must have been
altogether indoctrinated. Naturally, nobody knows
what the lunar-scape looks like at close quarters
but one thing of which we can be reasonably sure
of, it does not look at all like NASA portrayed it.

Almost without exception, we can detect the continuous
line between the real foreground stage set and the fake
background scenery. This dividing line is often referred to
as the "Kubrick Horizontal". It is a reference to Stanley
Kubrick who used the Front Screen Projection technique in
his movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" which gives rise to a
similar false dividing line between the real stage set and
the projected background scene. The foreground shows
sharp realistic detail because it is a real stage set while the
background is just a washed-out image lacking any
convincing detail. It is not a reference to the suggestion
that Stanley Kubrick may have falsified the Moon landings.

67

The pro-NASA devotees try to explain this strange dividing
line for example this from the arch self-appointed
debunker Paolo Attivissimo:
“Because it’s the outline of the natural rises and hollows of
the lunar terrain. The same effect occurs in desert photos
taken on Earth.”
Paolo Attivissimo (App 8.01)
Moon Hoax Debunked!
NASA-X used a small stage set often with a false
projected or painted distant scene of mountains as
the background. When we say "a small" stage set, it
was probably circular with a diameter of about 600
metres and in some cases perhaps even more
extensive in the later Apollo missions. If you study
the development of the Apollo missions, then you
cannot fail to notice that both the stage set and the
background images become more realistic in the
later missions, with the addition of more detail.

Credit NASA: Apollo 17 Fake Moonscape

68

These scenes, supposedly to have been taken on the
Moon, are quite unrealistic to most people, but the
pro-NASA fan club is nonetheless quite happy in
what they observe. There is no question that these
images are not real photographs taken on the
Moon. The painted or projected backgrounds, for
example, in Apollo 17, are an attempt to show more
detailed lunar scenery, but even so, they are still
not realistic images. The stage set is more
ambitious in that it is more realistically merged
into the background with a Kubrick horizontal some
distance from the background mountains, as shown
by the dotted line.

Credit NASA: Apollo 17 Harrison Schmitt
In the early Apollo missions, the attempts to disguise the
Kubrick horizontal were less successful. The Kubrick
horizontal was placed at the foot of the mountains, in
which location it was that much more noticeable.

69

Ted Aranda provides us with an excellent analysis
of this Kubrick phenomena in the Apollo
photographs and videos (App 8.02). He comments
on the unnatural separation line that is ubiquitous
in the lunar imagery. He draws attention to the
significant amount of detail in the foreground
which is real and is a limited stage set up to 100
metres in depth. The background is a washed-out,
bland, featureless painting or a projection onto a
screen that looks unreal. He shows images from the
Earth and notes that you do not see such a thing as
a Kubrick horizontal. The only exception is the rare
case where you are on top of a plateau. Otherwise,
we never observe such a sharp differentiation
between foreground and background. Finally, he
provides an overview of how the Front Screen
Projection system works.

The proof of the fakery can be shown by the analysis of
parallax as in this video from the aulis.com website by
Oleg Oleynik which proves that the painted or projected
background is too close to be distant mountains (App
8.03). Further proof can be seen in the Apollo 16 Lunar
Rover footage in which rocks on the false background show
no parallax as the Lunar Rover traverses (App 8.04).

There is no question that the ubiquitous Kubrick
Horizontal visible in many of the Apollo videos and
photographs undeniably exposes the fakery.

70

9 The Fake Apollo Suns

Perhaps one of the most difficult challenges for the
perpetrators of the fake was modelling the Sun. The
luminosity of the Sun is about a thousand times brighter
than a 100 Watt light bulb at a distance of three metres so
it would require some very powerful lights. This amount of
wattage, perhaps 100,000 watts, would produce a lot of
heat which would require some significant cooling if the
astronaut actors were to be able to perform adequately in
their spacesuits. It could well be that this cooling was the
source of the flag movements we discussed earlier.

The “sun” in the Apollo photographs and videos
never looks convincing. Here is a sample of the
“suns” from the Apollo 12 mission assembled by
Rasa Viharii. In each case, you can see a distinct
halo that has the semblance of a studio light and is
not characteristic of the real Sun which should have
an indistinct shape with radiating spokes.

71

Credit Rasa Viharii: The Strange Apollo 12 Suns
And this close up version of the spotlight “sun” from the
Apollo 14 mission.

Credit NASA: The Apollo Spotlight AS14-66-9305
72

We can also observe some strange looking “suns” reflected
in the visors of the Apollo astronauts. We will let “Steve the
Chemist” explain all about convex surfaces in his video
(App 9.01). In his second video, he shows that the
reflection of the “sun” in the visor of the astronaut is far
too large to be the real Sun (App 9.02). The size of the
reflected "sun" varies considerably. If you view the videos
you can observe that it can be up to 3 to 4 inches in
diameter and not the half-inch or so that we would expect.
It also has no radiating spokes. He deduces from this that
it must be a studio light, possibly with a large parabolic
reflector.

Steve also draws our attention to an Apollo 15 video
clip in which you can see the size of the reflected
“sun” decrease with a decrease in the brightness of
the scene. The reflection of the real Sun cannot
change its size and he concludes that it must be
some form of studio lighting. In his opinion, this
firmly places the filming squarely on Earth. So what
should the Sun look like from space and the Moon? We
have this image from Apollo 11 taken in Low Earth Orbit
which shows the Sun and the radiating spokes (App 9.03).

Credit NASA:
AS11-36-5293

73

Xavier Pascal examines the strange appearance of the
Apollo “suns” on several Apollo missions (App 9.04). He
compares the characteristics of images of the Sun taken
from Low Earth Orbit with images supposedly taken on the
Moon. He concludes that the Apollo “sun” images are
merely some form of large spotlights.
The evidence is clear the “suns” that we see in the
Apollo photographs and videos cannot be the real
Sun. When we compare photographs of the real Sun
with those of the “sun” on the Apollo images then
the difference is clear.

Credit NASA: Supersized Apollo sun AS12-46-6739
If the Apollo “sun” is not the real Sun then we are
entitled to ask what is it?

74

10 Sun v. Earth Size

One aspect of the lunar photographs that has caused
considerable attention is the visual size of the Earth and
the Sun as depicted in these Apollo photographs. For the
mathematically inclined we have this video from Xavier
Pascal in which he examines the size of the Earth as shown
in the Apollo Moon videos compared to the optical
parameters of the cameras used (App 10.01). He shows
(left) the original Apollo photograph compared (right) to
what he calculates it to be based on his analysis.

Credit Xavier Pascal: Comparison Earth sizes

75

But there is a much easier way to show that the “earth”
images shown on the Apollo photographs are far too small.
The visual sizes of the Earth and the Sun can be related
one to the other by reasoning as follows:

 The Sun and Moon when viewed from the Earth
look exactly the same size. This is why we see the
total eclipse of the Sun by the Moon when the Moon
covers the Sun almost perfectly.

 The Sun is to all intents and purposes equidistant
from the Earth and the Moon so it will look the
same size when viewed from either.

 The diameter of the Earth is 3.66 times that of the
Moon so it should be the same factor larger than the
Sun in the Apollo photographs when viewed from
the Moon.

This is quite a surprising revelation when you examine the
Apollo photographs and observe the size of the depicted
“sun” compared to the size of the Earth in the majority of
these photographs. Remember we expect to see the Earth
being 3.66 times larger than the Sun but this is never what
we are shown in Apollo.

Sun AS17-136-20699 Earth AS17-134-20387
76

This unattributed paper on the aulis.com website explains
the dilemma (App 10.02). The explanation for the
excessively large Apollo “sun” is that the lighting required
to imitate the brightness of the Sun would of necessity
need to be very powerful to obtain adequate coverage over
the expansive moonscape set. In consequence, this
artificial “sun” would need to be very large to have the
required power. The Aulis paper concludes with this
statement:

“A few officials at NASA with the highest level clearances
may have been aware of the problems regarding the ‘sun’
size at the time of the photographic sessions. Professional
astronomers and cosmologists have opted to either
remain silent on this issue, or were totally unaware of
these sun-size discrepancies until now.”

Take this photograph of the real Sun taken from Low Earth
Orbit on the Apollo 11 mission (AS11-36-5293) compared
to this Apollo 12 “sun” photograph taken from the lunar
surface (AS12-46-6763). It hardly needs me to comment
on the size difference. These two “suns” are photographed
from the same distance from the Sun and using the same
Hasselblad camera.

Credit NASA: AS11-36-5293 AS12-46-6763

77

You may wish to debate whether the camera settings were
the same for both photographs. However, the comparison
of the curvature of the Moon's horizon in the two
photographs indicates that they must have been very
similar. Also, note that if the Earth was superimposed on
the NASA photograph AS12-46-6763 (right) it would be
3.66 times larger than the Apollo “sun” and would
completely fill the photograph.

For example, to give you some idea of what the Earth
should look like on Apollo photographs we have
superimposed the Earth onto the NASA photograph AS14-
66-9305. We have assumed that the “sun” on the
photograph was just the central bright spot (ignoring the
halo of the spotlight).

Earth Size as it should be superimposed
onto NASA AS14-66-9305

78

How the ardent pro-NASA disciples can, in all honesty,
consider that these photographs were taken on the Moon
by the Apollo astronauts defeats me. This one single issue
is sufficient to demonstrate that the Apollo lunar surface
photographs could not have been taken on the Moon. The
Apollo “sun” that we observe in the lunar photographs is
nothing more than some large spotlight. It appears that
this issue never occurred to the fakers and that they were
oblivious to the consequences in that it would reveal the
fakery. It constitutes just one more piece of
incontrovertible evidence that the Apollo astronauts never

walked on the Moon.
Credit NASA: Apollo 12 exiting the Lunar Module
79

Credit NASA: AS14-66-9306
80

11 Lights on the Moon?

There has been an endless debate between the Moon
landing deniers and the pro-NASA clan concerning alleged
inconsistencies in the shadows cast by objects and
astronauts on the lunar surface. The inconsistencies
identified by the Moon landing deniers are based on the
fact that the rays of light from the Sun are for all intents
and purposes parallel by the time they reach the Moon and
therefore the shadows cast should be parallel. Relying on
this fact they comment on photographs and videos in
which the shadows are not parallel and claim that this
must prove that there were additional artificial sources of
light on the Moon to cause these anomalies.

Although the logic of parallel rays is true, it does not follow
that one should observe parallel shadows in photographs
or videos. The reason for this is that in photographs and
videos of a scene one is viewing a three-dimensional scene
in two dimensions and consequently perspective is
involved. Based on the effect of perspective then non-
parallel shadows in themselves are not proof of additional

81

light sources. In the discussions between the Moon landing
deniers and the pro-NASA group, it is clear that there is
some confusion on this point and much of the debate is
inconsequential.

Having said that we are not inferring that there were no
additional light sources used in the Apollo theatre but
analysing shadows does not prove this. There are far better
proofs of additional light sources having been used which
expose the fakery. In this section, we will examine a few of
these proofs.

The method of ray tracing may be the answer to the
shadow anomalies as described in this article from Luis E
Bilbao on Aulis.com (App 11.01). The author examines the
problem of the supposed inconsistent shadows and
concludes that:

“.... it is possible to demonstrate that there are no reliable
grounds – based on shadow directions alone – to assert
whether or not more than one light source is present in
any given Apollo lunar surface picture.”

Instead of following the shadow directions, the author uses
a method of “ray tracing” in which he identifies point
couples consisting of a point on the object casting the
shadow and the corresponding point on the shadow.
Connecting these two points describes a ray of light. Using
several of these point couples he can define a point at
which the rays converge. This method has the advantage of
being independent of the contours of the terrain whereas
shadows can often be distorted by the unevenness of the
terrain. The author states:

“This technique produces some interesting results:
a) if a unique source of light is present, all rays converge

82

to a unique point,
b) if the source is behind the camera, and its shadow is
present in the photo, then the convergence point coincides
with the shadow of the camera,
c) if the source is in front of the camera, then all rays
converge towards the source.”
This is a very important finding which he illustrates by
applying the method to other photographs from the Apollo
record. He then goes on to analyse this photograph.

Credit NASA: AS14-68-9486
[Authors Note: The contrast in the original photograph
has been increased for the purpose of print clarity.]

83

The analysis by Luis E Bilbao using the ray tracing method
shows conclusively that a second artificial light source
must have been present to explain the LM shadow.
Finally, on inconsistent shadows, we believe that this one
photograph reproduced from the Luis E Bilbao paper
clearly illustrates the point we want to make. It shows that
shadows created by the parallel sides of the window do not
look to produce parallel shadows. Now, step inside the
building and measure the shadows and you will find that
they are truly parallel.

Source: Luis E Bilbao, Aulis Online CC BY-NC–ND 3.0
Now the sceptics would vehemently insist that they should
see parallel shadows as these shadows are caused by
parallel light rays from the Sun and are being cast by truly
parallel objects. As you can observe from the photograph
this is simply not true, the shadows must converge to a

84

vanishing point due to perspective. This is not evidence of
a second light source. Conversely, it does not prove that a
second light source was not used in some Apollo
photographs.

One of the most perceptive Apollo researchers has been Jet
Wintzer. Jet is an American filmmaker producing and
directing the award-winning film “Moon Hoax Now”. In
that movie, he identified an instance in Apollo 16 at Station
2 in which the existence of an artificial light is revealed. We
have extracted the relevant section of the movie (App
11.02) but we encouraged you to watch the complete video
(App 11.03).

In the video extract, you see two shadows that cross over
the entire set. NASA has made it abundantly clear that no
artificial light sources were taken to the Moon so the only
light source on the lunar surface was from the Sun. The
video shows two gigantic shadows crossing over the entire
scene all the way to the horizon. These are definitely
shadows as we also see a shadow cross over the backpack
of the astronaut. The interesting thing about these
shadows is that they come from opposite directions. The
shadow coming from the right is from the direction of the
Sun but there is nothing large enough to move that could
cause such a huge shadow. The shadow coming from the
left has no natural explanation.

The only conclusion is that there at least two large artificial
lights sources that cause these shadows and that proves
without any doubt that the Apollo astronauts were not on
the Moon.

Now we come to a very recent discovery by Jet Wintzer on
an incident in Apollo 16 in which he shows conclusively
that an artificial light source must have been present. He

85

analyses a video from the Apollo 16 mission (App 11.04).
This video presents the clearest ever proof that in creating
the Apollo lunar footage that stage lighting was used. The
video shows a light source that illuminates the backdrop of
the stage set, so proving that the supposed black deep
space is in fact a solid wall.

Credit Associated Press: Andrew Aldrin, age 10, viewing
his picture in the newspaper, July 17, 1969 in Houston

86

12 Buzz Metamorphism

Perhaps, the most iconic image of the Apollo Moon
landings is this one of Buzz Aldrin (Shown above
NASA Reference AS11-40-5903) from the Apollo 11
mission taken by Neil Armstrong. It is also one of
the most discussed, debated and contested Apollo
photographs as we shall discover.

So why is this one image so important? Many Apollo
photographs share the same characteristics as this one, but
this one happens to be a well known iconic image that has
been widely used by the media to represent the Moon
landings. The reason that this image is relevant is that it
contains evidence that proves it was not taken on the
Moon. This fact in itself does not prove that the Moon
landings were faked, but it is enough to make you seriously
consider it. Why would NASA lie about the location of
where a photograph was taken unless they had some
bigger secret to hide?

87

"Fall off" is a term used in photography to explain
the difference in light levels when an object is
illuminated by artificial light. As a crude
generalisation one can argue that the light that falls
closer to the light source will be brighter than the
light falling further away. The "fall off" occurs
because light will scatter more, and therefore dim,
as it takes a longer path.

Why is this important? Well, "fall off" is clear evidence that
some form of artificial light was employed to illuminate the
scene. The Apollo astronauts took no artificial source of
light so the "fall off" proves that the photographs could not
have been taken on the Moon. The real sunlight would
illuminate the ground to a fairly consistent brightness.

The original photograph clearly showed significant
evidence of "fall off". The "fall off" has been widely
commented on by the Moon landing deniers. So it would
appear that somebody has replaced the original
photograph in the Apollo records with one manipulated to
remove the telltale "fall off" and show an evenly
illuminated lunar surface.

The pro-NASA disciples are adamant that the original
version of this photograph does not show any of the “fall
off” claimed by the Moon landing deniers. For example,
this video contribution by “amontaiyagala” in which he
comments on the David Percy video “What happened on
the Moon?” (App 12.01).

In the video “amontaiyagala” makes the unsubstantiated
and outrageous claim that David Percy is lying and has
doctored the original image to add the “fall off”. He
compares David Percy's photograph with the version taken
from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (ALSJ) which on

88

the face of it shows no “fall off”.
So the question is which photograph is the original? We
will show you the proof that our friend “amontaiyagala”,
who prefers to hide behind his pseudonym, is the one who
is lying and the one who employed fabricated evidence to
support his falsehood. We will prove this with the help of
the Wayback Machine.

Credit NASA: AS11-40-5903 Latest ALSJ Version
But first, lets listen to Jarrah White as he discusses the
various versions of this photograph (App 12.02). It appears
that the original photograph as published at the time of the
Moon landings in 1969 has gone through several stages of
metamorphosis. The lunar surface has been lightened to
remove the original evidence of “fall off”. Jarrah White
shows evidence of the original photograph first published

89

on 2 August 1969 in the West Australian newspaper. This
photograph shows the clear dark areas of “fall off”. You can
find similar early versions of this photo in many national
papers published at the time. So Jarrah White's version in
the West Australian is not a unique example. For example,
this one published in the 21 July 1969 edition of the New
York Times.

The deceit by the pro-NASA group is evident as the new
brightly illuminated photograph still shows evidence of the
revealing “fall off”. As David Percy points out, the new
image (left) still shows clear evidence of “fall off” when the
brightness is simply decreased by 50% (right).

90

The saga of the Buzz Aldrin on the Moon photograph
(NASA AS11-40-5903) does not end there. In November
2004 the image was replaced in the Apollo Lunar Surface
Journal (ALSJ) with a new "brightened" version which
appears to have the "fall out" removed. This replacement
image has been given a new reference A11-69-HC-684.
Prior to this date on 16 April 2003 the photograph AS11-
40-5903 on ALSJ had the original with the “fall out”
clearly showing as can be seen on the Wayback Machine
(App 12.03). Also, a new page relating to this photograph
appeared in the journal in 2005, which discusses changes
made to this photograph (App 12.04).

This revised version (A11-69-HC-684) of the original
image (AS11-40-5903) is now appearing on most of the
pro-Apollo tribute sites. For example, the Clavius website
was showing the original version (AS11-40-5903) with the
“fall off” visible until 2 Aug 2004 but by 4 December 2004,
the photograph was replaced by the brightened version
(A11-69-HC-684).

So why after 35 years are we seeing these changes to the
historic record. We imagine that they were eager to replace
all the photographs that clearly showed "fall off" as so
many Moon landing deniers were stating that it was clear
evidence that the photographs must have been taken on
Earth using secondary lighting.

So what is the real story behind all these shenanigans?
Kipp Teague, who created the Project Apollo Archive in
February 1999, decided in 2000 to rescan the Apollo
photographic archive and later present it on the Flickr
website in 2015 (App 12.05). On the Flickr website Teague
explains:

“The Project Apollo Archive as created in 1999 as a

91

companion to my "Contact Light" web site, a personal
retrospective of the era of the space race. A subsequent
collaboration between the Archive and Eric Jones' Apollo
Lunar Surface Journal led to acquisition over the years of
countless historic Apollo and other space history images
generously provided by NASA and others for processing
and hosting on the NASA-hosted Journal as well as on my
site. Contrary to some recent media reports, this new
Flickr gallery is not a NASA undertaking, but an
independent one, involving the re-presentation of the
public domain NASA-provided Apollo mission imagery as
it was originally provided in its raw, high-resolution and
unprocessed form by the Johnson Space Center on DVD-R
and including from the center's Gateway to Astronaut
Photography of Earth web site. Processed images from
few film magazines to fill in gaps were also obtained from
the Lunar and Planetary Institute's Apollo Image Atlas.

All mission photographs in this new gallery are courtesy
of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
specifically the Johnson Space Center, with special thanks
to Mike Gentry as well as to Steve Garber of the NASA
History Office for their invaluable assistance. I am also
greatly indebted to Eric Jones who has dedicated
countless hours to building and curating the exhaustive
Apollo Lunar Surface Journal web site. This new Flickr
gallery would have not been possible without the support
of Mike, Steve and Eric, and many others over the years.

Thank you for your interest and for helping to keep alive
the spirit of space exploration and its history.”
Kipp Teague October, 2015”

Notice that Kipp Teague is at great pains to tell us that all
this initiative has nothing to do with NASA and it is purely
a personal endeavour by him assisted by Eric Jones who is

92

responsible for the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. So we
may safely assume that these two gentlemen are dedicated
pro-NASA disciples. We understand that the point of this
exercise was to take the raw, high-resolution and
unprocessed form of the Apollo photographs and produce
new scans at a higher resolution than had previously been
available.

It was reported in the UK edition of the Guardian
newspaper on 5 October 2015 that the Apollo Flckr
webpages had been created. In that interview, Teague
stated that:

“These images were processed for inclusion on our
websites, including adjusting colour and brightness levels.
The images were also reduced in size to about 1,000 dots
per inch (dpi).”

The interesting point to note is that the images had the
colour and brightness levels adjusted although it does not
say why. Teague's next point is more relevant. See what
you think when he says:

“Although the images had been preserved and even
digitised, improvements in quality of the screens now
used meant the photos were left looking pixelated.”

Now as we understand this he is saying is the resolution of
computer monitors have advanced significantly and the
original scans of the Apollo photographs can sometimes
appear pixelated. From this, we assumed that the new
scans would be at a much higher resolution. However, in
his previous statement, he said “The images were also
reduced in size to about 1,000 dots per inch (dpi).”
We find this rather confusing as we expected that the
resolution (dpi) for the new scans would be greatly

93

improved not reduced. Perhaps we misunderstand the
process or the interviewer misquoted as later we see 1.800
dpi mentioned.

According to the Guardian report, Teague said that over
the years he had received numerous questions about the
images, which prompted him to independently reprocess
the archive in unedited, higher resolutions. The new
versions are 1,800 dpi, even those shots that are blurry,
black and white or close-up.

The most relevant aspect of this restoration exercise was
not the increased resolution but the objective to adjust the
brightness levels. No plausible reason was given for the
adjustment in the brightness levels, but the image evidence
shows that the levels were increased considerably. This
increase in the brightness levels significantly reduces the
tell-tale “fall off” evidence, and we suspect that this was the
sole aim of the rescanning process. However, as we have
observed the exercise only disguised but did not eliminate
the tell-tale "fall off".

Original AS11-40-5903 Brightened A11-69-HC-684
Credit NASA

In our opinion, the newly scanned and falsely brightened

94

version looks very bland and washed out and lack detail, so
it is difficult to accept that it is an improvement. We
believe that it is just an attempt to disguise the “fall off”.
Many of the other photographs have suffered the same
treatment and now looked washed out too.

We had a quick look on the Wayback Machine for the 6
January 2002 version of the Wikipedia page for Apollo 11.
Sure enough, the photograph shown on that page is the
original one with the “fall off” clearly visible. It remained
there until 23 April 2009. The Wikipedia page for Apollo 11
was updated with the new brightened version sometime in
2009. This fact proves that the accusation by
“amontaiyagala” that the photograph had been falsely
darkened by some sceptic to be completely unfounded (see
App 12.01).

So the chronology of events goes something like this. In
20o0 David Percy identified the visible evidence of “fall
off” in the Buzz Aldrin photograph. This evidence was then
widely repeated by several Moon landing deniers to such
an extent that NASA needed to react. They attempted to
remove the evidence which they did on 4 December 2004.
Coincidentally, the Clavius website also changed the
photograph on 4 December 2004. and this was followed by
the Apollo 11 Wikipedia page sometime after April 2009.
You may believe in the coincidence of several events, or
you may think that some events are a reaction to a
previous event.

Take a look at this "expert" analysis of the Buzz Aldrin
photograph by a curator from the Smithsonian National
and Space Museum (App 12.06). We do not show you this
for the "expert's analysis" which is somewhat trivial. We
show it to draw attention to the photograph she used and
remember she represents the Smithsonian National and

95

Space Museum. The video was put online in October 2017.
Note that she is using the original image from 1969 with
the "fall off" clearly visible. We can only guess that she
never got the email that things have changed.

Finally, before we finish with the Buzz Aldrin photograph,
take a look at this page from the official NASA website
(App 12.07). We did this search on 4 August 2020. In case
NASA decides to change it, we also took the latest version
on the Wayback Machine for 17 March 2020 (App 12.08).

You see that the iconic Buzz Aldrin photograph is still the
original with the “fall off” clearly visible. Interestingly
although the high-res version you can download is again
the original, but the low-res version on offer is the one that
has been brightened. You can find the original version with
the “fall off” on several NASA webpages, for example, this
one still on the Goddard Space Flight Center website (App
12.09). We also have this webpage from the NASA History
site which still offers the old image (App 12.10). It seems
that NASA has still not caught up with all of its sanitisation
of the historical record. Even as recent as 17 July 2019 an
article in the UK Guardian by Jonathan Jones titled
“Greatest Photos ever?” was still using the original image
with the “fall out” clearly visible (App 12.11).

There is one other photograph from the Apollo 11 mission
that you need to view. The image is NASA AS11-40-5935
supposedly taken by Neil Armstrong while allegedly
wandering aimlessly about on the Moon.

It shows a lunar landscape with a bright shaft of light from
the right-hand side that one assumes must be sunlight but
it looks more like a torchlight. Note that the light has a
distinct halo around it as would a spotlight.

96

Remember, that the astronauts took no other form of
independent lighting so it must be the Sun. The Sun is
about 93 million miles away so the rays of light from the
Sun are parallel by the time they reach the Moon.

Credit NASA: AS11-40-5935 A Spotlight?
The light source in this next photograph cannot be the Sun
as the centre of the light source is just above the top right
and not 83 million miles away. Buzz Aldrin did say he
sneaked a torch into his pack so maybe he was just having
some fun off-camera. Search the Apollo image library (App
12.12) and you will find many photographs from other

97

Apollo missions that show a diverging shaft of light from
an artificial light source. No matter what the pro-NASA
boys and girls would like you to believe, the evidence
clearly shows that the Apollo photographs were not taken
on the Moon but in some studio here on planet Earth.

AS11-40-5935 Location of light source, not the Sun
Finally, in this section, Ted Aranda also has some
comments on the obvious errors in the lunar photography
record (App 12.13). He starts by examining the iconic Buzz
Aldrin photograph that we have just discussed and
continues to other photographic elements which expose
the deceit.
All of these discussions concerning whether the Apollo
Moon photographs were taken on the Moon may be
immaterial. We will see in Sections 20 and 21 that the
Ektachrome film supposedly used in the Hasselblad

98

cameras could not have survived the vacuum on the Moon.
99

13 The Waving Flags

The waving of flags in the Apollo videos has been an
ongoing debate. The suggestion by the Moon landing
deniers is that the flags wave because they are disturbed by
some airflow which in the vacuum of the Moon would be
impossible. So what does cause the flags to wave?

The suggestion put forward by the Moon landing deniers is
that it is probably from air conditioning units on the set.
The slow-motion filming at 144 fps means that the film is
exposed for much less time than the more usual 24 fps.
Each film frame is exposed for only 16% of what it would
normally be. The consequence is that extra lighting is
needed which in turn will cause additional heating on the
stage set. Hence the need for some additional form of
cooling thus the windy air conditioning units.

But “NO” the pro-NASA fan club will respond that the flag
only moves when an astronaut is either touching it or has
just let go of the flag after which the inertia will cause it
still to move for a few seconds. They will categorically tell

100