WAS WRITTEN TO
PROVE, ONCE AND FOR ALL, THAT WE ARE NOT BEING TOLD THE TRUTHABOUT THE NASA FILM FOOTAGE OF
THE APOLLO MISSIONS. THIS WILL ASTOUND EVEN THE MOST HARDENED SCEPTIC AND
CONVINCE MANY PEOPLE THAT THE WHOLE APOLLO MOON PROJECT OF THE LATE 1960's
AND EARLY 70's WERE A COMPLETE HOAX. VIDEO LINKS ARE PROVIDED SO YOU CAN
WATCH WITH YOUR OWN EYES THE
'OFFICIAL NASA FOOTAGE' THAT PROVES THAT WE
REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH!!!
PLEASE NOTE: A new updated version of this
article is now in the process of appearing at our new site
HERE. Over the
next few weeks, this 5 part epic will be added to the site. Part One is
available now - please click the link after reading this article for the latest
(CLICK ON THE FRAMED PICTURES TO VIEW THE FILM EVIDENCE.. ALL FILMS ARE
All pictures and
Movies on this page are either copyright of NASA, Aulis or The Disclosure
Evidence Of NASA Airbrushing
Out Moon Anomalies
Before we get into the issue
of the Apollo moon landings, I would like to finally show evidence of NASA
airbrushing out anomalies on the Moons surface. I have claimed since this
website began in 1999 that NASA has been covering up what they have found and filmed
on the Moon from lunar orbit and now I have the film evidence to back up that claim. For
many years now I have been subjected to flaming from the pro-NASA fraternity,
claiming that such evidence does not exist. Well, here's your wake up call!
Bill Kaysing was a
of technical publications and advanced research at Rocketdyne Systems from
1956 to 1963. He states that it was estimated in 1959 that there was a .0014
chance of landing man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth.
This took into account the effects of radiation, solar flares and micro
meteorites. He could not believe in 1959 that man could go to the Moon.
However, only 2 years
later, American President John F. Kennedy set a goal in May 1961, when he
made the following famous speech. 'I believe that this nation should
commit itself. To achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing
a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space
project in this period will be more impressive to mankind or more important
for the long range exploration of Space.' It was just eight years
later in 1969, that man finally left Earth and set foot on the Moon... Or
so we have been led to believe.
I would like to show
you some astonishing evidence that shows glaring mistakes or anomalies on
the 'official record' of NASA film footage and still photographs. I have
included the actual official Apollo film footage on this page to illustrate
and also possibly educate you, the reader, of the anomalies and to let you
see with your own eyes what has become one of the biggest cover-ups in
the history of Mankind. I will also explain why the US Government
has tried to keep this a secret for over 30 years.
I would like to suggest that if
Man did go to the Moon during the missions, the Apollo films that we were told
were filmed on the Moon are bogus and not the real footage. Evidence suggests
that Man could not travel to the Moon's surface, but instead they had to stay in
near Earth orbit within the safety of the Earth's magnetic field that would have
protected them from the radiation that is emitted by the Van Allen radiation
But why would NASA
and the United States bother to fake such an event and to what cause I hear
you ask? Please read on and I will explain. Was man too optimistic about what
we could actually do in deep space, and was President Kennedy's speech in May 1961 pressure enough to keep the hoax going?
David Percy is an award
winning television and film producer, a professional photographer and also
a member of the Royal Photographic Society. He is co-author, along with
Mary Bennett, of the fascinating book 'Dark Moon:
Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers'
(ISBN 1-898541-10-8). The majority of the film footage on this page is
taken from the film 'What Happened on the Moon?',
a film that also features Percy and Bennett and one which I strongly recommend
if you have an interest in the Apollo missions (details of how to purchase the
video are at the bottom of this article). Percy firmly believes that the Apollo
footage was either faked or not the original film that
was shot on the Moon. He believes that many anomalous features that would
alert the eagle eyed viewer, could have been placed in the films by whistle
blowers who were deeply dissatisfied to be a part of the cover-up. He has
studied the entire transfer of the original film on video tape, a feat
that not many people have done. What many people did not realize at the
time was that a lot of the footage was actually pre-recorded and not live
The first anomalous piece of footage I would like to discuss is from the
1972 Apollo 16 Mission. There is a major discrepancy between the still
photograph taken with a Hasselblad 500 EL/70 camera and the TV coverage film
which was shot from a stationary movie camera placed behind the astronauts.
The movie sequence (that is viewable by clicking the picture to the left)
shows one of the astronauts making a jump salute whilst another astronaut
takes a still photo with the Hasselblad camera. On the still photo (that is
pictured left) we see a flap of triangular fabric that has come loose and
flapped up behind the astronauts head. However the TV film which was shot from behind the astronaut doesn't show the flap? Why
that appears to be faked is the footage of Earth taken from the Apollo 11
when it was 130,000 miles away. This is the
very first view ever taken of
Earth on the mission and it seems strange that Buzz Aldrin would film the
Earth when he was stood far away from the window, why would he do
that? Surely you would want to get close to the window to get the best picture
and also to eliminate light reflections that are evident towards the end
of this sequence? But no, we see the window frame come into
view on the left of the shot. The camera isn't set to infinity either to
get the closest shot. The window frame that comes into shot would have
been out of focus if it was.
Did the astronauts actually film a transparency of the Earth that was stuck
to the window? You may think this odd, but a few minutes after filming the
Earth, the cameraman adjusts his lens and focuses on Mike Collins inside
the craft. What we see is what appears to be an exposure of the Earth taped
to the window that is in the background to the right of him. That is the
very same window that Aldrin was filming the Earth.
But the biggest shock
is yet to come! The camera pans left past Neil Armstrong towards the left
hand side of the Apollo 11, and what do we see out of the left window???
We see what appears to be another Earth... Go on, watch the video by clicking
the picture above and you'll see it with your own eyes!
It must also be noted that the
Apollo 11 at this point of the mission was supposedly half way to the Moon. The
time elapsed was 34 hours and 16 minutes, but from the view
of Earth in the right hand window, we can say that in fact they were not in
deep space at all, but still in low Earth orbit! look at the blue sky outside.
That would also explain why they would be filming an exposure of the Earth that
was far away, to give the impression that they were in deep space. The exposure
would be clipped to the window and the Sun's luminance would light it up, a
technique that was used to read star charts to
help with navigation and star reference.
Anomalies with the film footage!
Hasselblad were the manufacturer of the camera that took all of the
photos on the Apollo missions. Jan Lundberg was the Manager Of Space Projects
at Hasselblad from 1966 to 1975 and responsible for the production and
building of the Hasselblad 500 EL/70 cameras that were used on the Apollo
Missions. He says 'Originally NASA made all the alterations themselves,
then they presented what they had done to us and asked if we could do the
same, to which we replied yes we can, and we can do it better. We proceeded
to make the alterations that were accepted by NASA.' Protective
plates were added to the case and film magazine.
An important factor to take into consideration is the great variations in temperature
that the film would have had to endure whilst on the lunar surface. The temperature
during the Apollo missions were recorded as being between -180F in the shade
to an incredible +200F in full Sunshine. How could the film emulsion have
withstood such temperature differences? The astronauts can be seen to move
between the shadows of the rocks and then into full sunlight in some shots.
Surely the film would have perished under such conditions? If the film used
during the Apollo missions had such qualities as to withstand such differences
in temperature, why are Kodak not publicly selling them in today's market?
On all Apollo
footage there should be cross hairs or reticules present on the film.
These crosshairs were,
according to NASA, placed on the film to help calculate distances
on the Moon. The crosshairs were actually built into the camera
and therefore should be visible on every single picture taken by the astronauts
on the surface of the Moon. Incidentally, Jan Lundberg has stated
that the only way that you could calculate the distance in the shot
using the crosshairs would be if you had two cameras set up to take
a stereo picture!
Take a look
at the pictures presented here and you will see that parts of the
crosshairs have disappeared from the film. This is impossible unless
the film has been tampered with. The crosshairs should be completely visible
in all shots and not hidden behind objects in the pictures. The only solution
must be that NASA has gone to the trouble of either airbrushing out certain
objects in the film, or added them over the crosshairs!
Why does this
rock have a letter 'C' on it? There is also a 'C' on the ground in
front of the rock. The use of the letter C on film props is well
known by the people in Hollywood and is used to show where the centre of
the scene should be.
One sceptic on the Bad astronomy sceptics web group has even said
it is a hair??? on both the rock and ground? Now who's trying to
cover things up?
of the biggest anomalies that appear on the Moon shots are the way in
which shadows seem to be cast in totally different
directions, even when the objects making the shadows are a mere
few feet apart? A classic example can be viewed by clicking the
picture to the right. If the guy on the left was near a vertical rise of
ground (as has been suggested) his shadow would show a definite
'crease' where the land begins to rise. It doesn't!
Question: How can an astronaut cast a shadow several feet
taller than his colleague who is standing a few feet
away from him?
He is standing farther away from the arc light that
is illuminating them both. I truly believe that this footage is taken on
a film set, you cannot
reproduce this strange shadow phenomenon with natural light, and that includes
taking into consideration two natural
light sources (the Earth and Sun) as many sceptics would have you believe.
The video on the left contains
film footage from the Apollo 11, 12 and 14 missions that would suggest that
there are many light sources lighting the so-called Moon's surface. In the
Apollo 11 film the shadow cast by Armstrong is strange, the sun angle is
estimated at 10 degrees above the horizon. Now compare it with the Apollo
12 footage that shows a longer shadow. The sun is at a 15 degree angle and
so therefore the Apollo 12 shadow should have been shorter. In the Apollo
14 footage look at the shadow as it does some truly amazing manoeuvres! this
is consistent with moving away from a source of light that is close to the
Some of the
lighting on 'official NASA film' are very suspect. The NASA picture to
the left should show the astronaut in complete shadow because the sun is
behind him, and yet the whole of the
astronaut is caught in bright light? The shot should appear like the
one on the right which was simulated by David Percy.
I have had quite a few debates
on the web about the picture above and the others on this page. I'm told by sceptics that the picture
appears as it does because you have to remember that two light sources are
present on the Moon's surface (the Sun and Earth glow). I do not doubt that
there could be reflective light from the Earth, but, in my opinion, if a light
is bright enough to light up this astronauts suit, it is sure capable of
also producing another shadow behind him... Sceptics believe that he is
illuminated by light reflecting off the Moon's surface. As I've stated elsewhere on this page, the reflectivity is only
7% so the theory of the light bouncing from the surface is highly suspect. If this were the case, the rock on
the left of the picture would have hardly a shadow because it is closer
to the source where the light is
reckoned to be reflecting from!
Shadows do not appear to be correct on several of the Moon shots.
Take the picture to
the left for example. The shadow on the LEM is
due East and yet the shadows on the rocks in the foreground are South
A simulation by David Percy of how the shadows should
normally appear is illustrated in the picture to the right. If two
light sources are at work on the Moon's surface, they would
combine together and the shadows would fall accordingly, not at random
points. Unless the sceptics are saying that Sunlight is falling
in the middle of the picture and there is Earth light at the forefront
of the picture?
And that would go against known physics.
During the Apollo missions, the
movie cameras were fitted with special night lenses to compensate for the
lack of light. Due to the atmospheric conditions on the Moon's surface, only
7% of light is reflected from the ground (that's the same reflectivity as
asphalt). So, taking this into consideration, how did the Hasselblad stills
camera manage to pick up more detail than the movie cameras? NASA have confirmed
that no artificial lighting was used on the Moon's surface, so how can the
stills camera take pictures that were brighter and sharper than the movie
cameras that were fitted with special lenses to compensate for the dark
conditions? The picture to the right shows you just how dark a place the
Moon is. Look how dark the shadows are on the side of the rocks.
Watch the film sequence
to the left that has both movie and still pictures to
compare the difference. It's interesting to note that the still photos
seem to have Aldrin brightly
lit, in comparison to the gloomy motion picture images
that had the special night lens
on it? It appears that artificial lighting was used or has been added
to the still photos to show better features on Aldrin's suit and the
Lunar Lander. Because of the lack of atmosphere on the surface of the
Moon, the shadows would be intensely black.
As illustrated in the above
motion picture, why is there such a vast difference in the light from the
two cameras, unless the still shots were lit by artificial lighting? NASA
have said that no lighting was taken to the Moon, but this cannot be true
when you view the evidence. The still pictures seem to show that Aldrin
is being artificially lit as he descends the ladder.
The reflectivity of
the Lunar surface is so low, that light does not even reflect onto the rocks
that are on the ground, yet the light in these pictures are so intense, even
Aldrin's heel protector on his boot is lit up! Dr. David Groves who
works for Quantech Image Processing has done some analysis of these particular
shots and has used resources to pinpoint the exact point at which the
artificial light was used. Knowing the focal length of the camera's lens and being
able to get hold of an actual boot, he has calculated that the artificial
light source is between 24 and 36 cm to the right of the camera. If the
TV footage is actually real, then I could understand this, as the movie
images are very dark and grainy, but I believe that the still photographs
are definitely faked.
Lets move onto the
famous picture of Buzz Aldrin that shows the LEM, Neil Armstrong
and landing site in the reflection of his visor. One of the strange
things with this picture is that the reticule that is supposed to be
in the middle of the picture actually shows up at the bottom of Aldrin's
right leg? How can this be when the camera is attached to the cameraman's
chest??? A fact that is easily verifiable by the reflection of the
cameraman in the visor.
Many people have
speculated that the pictures have been retouched to bring up the detail
of the astronauts. But this cannot be applied to the Apollo 11 photographs
because a duplicate copy of the original Armstrong film has been analyzed
and shows that the pictures are all on one continuous roll of film
that contains over 100 images. Even Jan Lundberg from Hasselblad, the
makers of the camera, says that the pictures seem as though Armstrong
is standing in a spotlight. The only way the reticule could appear
in the bottom of the leg is if the picture had been copied and reframed!!!
The horizon is
about 89 degrees from the true vertical. Dr Groves has worked out
that after analysing the shadows cast by both the astronaut in the
picture and the supposed cameraman in the visor, that Armstrong who
is taking the picture is standing on ground that is a mere few inches
higher than where Aldrin is stood, If this is the case, then it means
that whoever took the shot was in fact at least 2 feet higher than
Aldrin and therefore means that Armstrong, although visible with the
camera in the visor, is not the actual person who took the shot.
During Apollo 12, one of
the cameras suffered a malfunction after the lens had been pointed towards the
Sun. As you can see from the sequence here, although the viewing public were
told at the time that the camera had burnt out, the lens is still working? the
camera didn't actually burn out at all. The very same thing happened on
Apollo 15 where the camera's lens didn't burn out. It is interesting to
note that during the Apollo 16 mission, one of the astronauts who was being told
by Houston to adjust the camera asked if he should point the camera towards the
Sun?? even though the manual from the camera specifically points out not to do
this? You may be interested to see what the astronauts say
on this film while this camera fiasco was taking place.
We have to remember that
the camera used didn't actually have any viewfinder,
and the astronauts could not see the whole of the camera that was strapped
to their chests due to the restrictions posed by their spacesuits.
They had to use their body to point in the rough direction of their subject.
The astronauts even had
to change the lens whilst stood outside on the lunar
surface, wearing their heavy gloves. A feat that is quite hard to believe
considering the very awkward
pressurized gauntlets that they were wearing. The
precaution of changing the film inside the LEM was not adhered to and
could have ended in disaster if the film had actually been dropped into
the dust on the ground. And what about the exposure to the heat?
It would have been virtually
impossible to change the film and adjust the lenses in such apparatus.
However in certain films, they do
seem to be wearing different gloves that do not seem to be pressurized?
How can we see so much detail
on the gold portion of the Lunar Lander in
this picture? As is evident by the shadow in front of the module, the Sun
is in the background and the gold
area should be covered with shadow, not
Sunlight? And why does the 'Sun' have a halo around it if the Moon has no atmosphere?
Why Did The Apollo 11
About being in deep space?
This footage shows the Apollo 11
crew pre-recording supposed 'live' footage. Armstrong claims that they are
130,000 miles from Earth, and yet we soon discover that the camera is placed
on the other side of the cabin, with the windows blacked out, filming the Earth
through the round window opposite. Why would they do
this if they wanted the best shot of the Earth? The answer is simple - to fool
the public into thinking that it is far away, when in fact the craft is still in
Earth orbit. How do we know this? Because just before the camera is turned off,
the windows are uncovered to reveal blue sky!
Australian Viewers See Something
That Proves Apollo 11 Was A Fake
In western Australia during
the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moon landing, several people saw a very
unusual occurrence. One viewer, Una Ronald watched the telecast and was astonished with what she saw.
The residents of Honeysuckle
Creek, Australia, actually saw a different broadcast to the rest of the World.
Just shortly before Armstrong stepped onto the Moons surface, a change could be seen where the picture goes from
a stark black to a brighter picture. Honeysuckle Creek stayed with the picture
and although the voice transmissions were broadcast from Goldstone, the
actual film footage was broadcast from Australia. As Una
watched Armstrong walking
on the surface of the Moon she spotted a Coke bottle that was kicked in
the right hand side of the picture. This was in the early hours of the morning
and she phoned her friends to see if they had seen the same thing, unfortunately
they had missed it but were going to watch the rebroadcast the next day.
Needless to say, the footage had
been edited and the offending Coke bottle had been cut out of the film.
But several other viewers had seen the bottle and many articles appeared in The West Australian newspaper.
Western Australia received their
coverage in a different way to the rest of the World. They were the only
Country where there wasn't a delay
to the 'live' transmission. Bill Kaysing says 'NASA and other connected
agencies couldn't get to the Moon and back and so went to ARPA (Advanced
Research Projects Agency) in Massachusetts and asked them how they could
simulate the actual landing and space walks. We have to remember that all
communications with Apollo were
run and monitored by NASA, and therefore journalists who thought they were
hearing men on the Moon could have easily been misled. All NASA footage was
actually filmed off TV screens
at Houston Mission Control for the TV coverage... No one in the media were
given the raw footage.'
Bill Wood is a highly qualified
scientist and has degrees in mathematics, physics and chemistry, and a space rocket and propulsion engineer. He has been granted high
security clearance for a number of top secret projects and has worked with Macdonald Douglas and engineers
who worked on the Saturn 5 rocket (the Apollo launch vehicle). He worked
at Goldstone as a Communications Engineer during the Apollo missions. Goldstone in
California, USA, were responsible for receiving and distributing the pictures
sent from the Apollo to Houston. He says early video machines were used to
record the NASA footage here on Earth by the TV networks. They received the
FM carrier signal on Earth, ran it through an FM demodulator and processed
it in an RCA scan converter that took the slow scan signal and converted
it to the US standard black and white TV signal. The film was then sent onto
Houston. When they were converting from slow scan to fast scan, RCA used
disc and scan recorders as a memory and it played back the same video several
times until it got an updated picture. In other words the signal was recorded
onto video one then converted to video two. Movie film runs at 30
frames per second, whereas video film runs at 60 frames per second. So in
other words the footage that most people saw that they thought was 'live'
wasn't, and was actually 50% slower than the original footage!!!
This picture from Apollo 15 is really
quite an amazing feat of camera work if you consider that it was taken without
any means of knowing if everything
was in shot. No viewfinder, no one to tell you if everything is in shot.
Isn't it strange that the only thing visible on the dark part of the Lunar
Lander is the American Flag? You cant put that down to two light sources. More likely a NASA artist and an airbrush! This picture was later used on
postcards and NASA advertising.
Did you know that the picture
to the right is the only close-up picture taken of Armstrong on the Moon...
a bit strange considering that he was the first man to step onto the lunar
surface. Why only one picture of the first man on the Moon?
Why No Dust?
The lunar lander used two engines
stacked on top of one another. The LEM's descent engine used hyperbolic
propellants, that means two different fuels that light at the same time.
The exhaust jet coming out of the LEM on descent or ascent should have created
an enormous cloud of reddish coloured gas, instead we see the bursting apart
of the milar covering as it leaves the Moons surface? The fuel used are
exactly the same as used on the Shuttle today, and we can clearly see the
exhaust smoke coming from them, so why not the LEM?
Surely there should have been some type of crater under the Apollo landing
modules, especially the Apollo 12,
as it slowly moved across the moon's surface before landing.
The 5000 degree Fahrenheit heat from the
10,000 lb thrust of the engine should have produced at least some volcanic rock. If you compare the molten volcanic rock at Mount Etna, that
was boiled at only 1000 Celsius. I have heard some sceptics claim that the
engines force would have been dispersed mainly sideways, but if this is so,
what actually held up the 2,300lbs of lunar lander when it was on its descent
to the Lunar surface? Why was there not any dust in the landing pads
either? There is certainly lots of dust scattered when the LEM is leaving
the Moon and if the engine simply blew all the dust away from around the LEM
as it landed, how did Armstrong manage to create that famous footprint?
Do you seriously believe that
Neil Armstrong could land the Lunar Module by trying to judge the terrain below
from a very restrictive view of the Moons surface from the small triangular
window positioned on the side of the craft?
By the time of the Apollo
13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in space travel was beginning to
diminish. This could have been partly due to most of the previous Apollo
12 Mission having to rely mainly on an audio transmission, due to the camera
malfunctions encountered. Was this a factor in the alleged near disaster
on the Apollo 13 mission? Were NASA trying to get back the publics
attention and therefore guarantee the continued funding of the US Government?
On the 13th hour of the 13th day
of the 13th Apollo Mission, disaster
struck when an oxygen tank exploded.
The film here sees the astronauts from the Apollo 13 just before
they transferred to the LEM, the craft is allegeded to be some 200,000 miles from Earth. If we look out
of the window we see blue sky? how can this be if they are in deep space??? Surely
the windows should be showing black space, unless they are in near Earth
orbit of course?
Take a look at the two pictures below.
As pointed out by Percy and Bennett
in 'What happened on the Moon?', the picture on the left shows the Odyssey
after it was damaged by the oxygen tank explosion... the one on the
right shows a normal shot of a command and service module with its
cover removed from the scientific instrument bay.
Do they look
similar to you?
How could Astronaut Fred Haise state the crew aboard Apollo 13 could see
Frau Mauro? At the
time of the accident, Frau Mauro, which was to be the original landing site
of the Apollo 13, was in darkness and would remain so for the entire time
that the Apollo 13 was near the Moon. In fact it did not reappear until 88
hours after the Apollo 13 had left. By this time the Apollo would have been
19,000 miles away on its way back to Earth, making it impossible for any of
the crew to see Frau Mauro during the mission
How did NASA recreate the effects of weightlessness???
Some sceptics have
this footage wasn't taken on the Moon, how do you explain the astronauts
being able to 'bounce' around on the surface, you couldn't
do that here on Earth?' 'How would you reproduce the effects
of the 1/6th gravity of the Moon?'
If the same sceptics
cared to double the speed of the film, they would see that the astronauts
don't act any differently to how they would on Earth! Lets take a look at some footage
that seems to show astronauts suspended by a thin wire. In fact, if you
look closely, you will see the
light reflecting off the wires above the astronaut. Watch how the astronaut
seems to be almost jumping on the spot to turn around in the next sequence, its
rather similar to the practice rig used in training here on Earth. In the last sequence of this footage, see how the astronaut who has
fallen over, gets up. He stands up without putting his hands on the ground,
or the other astronaut helping him. just like a puppet on a string!!!
Many sceptics will probably try and convince you that the
hammer and feather experiment which was achieved during the Apollo
15 mission could not be recreated in a studio.
Well, here is the original NASA footage on the left and on the
right is a very similar experiment which is simulated and comes from
the 'What happened on our Moon?'
video. The simulation is carried out within a 1G atmosphere here on
Earth, so that blows that one out of the water.
Radiation plays a big part in space travel. Solar
flares could have affected the astronauts at any time. The Apollo leaving Earth would travel through 2 specific areas of very high
radiation called the Van Allen Belt. The first field is 272 miles out from
Earth. The amount of radiation in the belts actually varies from year to
year, but every 11 years its at its worst when the sunspot cycle is at its
highest. And guess what? 1969 to 1970 was one of the worst times to go,
as this was the time where the radiation was at its peak. I have had numerous
internet chats with sceptics who say that the radiation would not play a
part in the missions because Man would have not been in the radiation belt
for too long. My answer to that is, when Dentists or Doctors take X ray pictures
they either leave the room or stand behind a sheet of thick lead to shelter
from the radiation. Why did NASA only use a small sheet of aluminium to protect
the astronauts when they knew that the radiation levels in Space and on the
Moon's surface would be many hundreds of times more deadly? And why would they
risk their astronauts to such conditions? In 1959 Bill Kaysing was privy to a
study made by the Russians. The Russians discovered that the radiation on the
moon would require astronauts to be clothed in four feet of lead to avoid being
killed. Why didn't NASA heed their warnings?
Did you know that the US Government
tried to blast a hole in the belt 248 miles above Earth in 1962? During Operation
Starfish Prime a Megaton Nuclear Bomb was used to try and force an unnatural
corridor through the Van Allen Belt... Unfortunately, the radiation
levels actually got worse, not better. What they created was a third
belt that was 100 times more intense than the natural belts, and as estimated
by Mary Bennett in 'Dark Moon - Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, by 2002
this artificial zone will still have 25 times more radiation than the other
2 belts. There is no agreement to how wide these radiation belts actually
are. Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer of the belts estimated that they
were at least 64,000 miles deep, but NASA say they are only 24,000 miles
deep. Each Apollo craft spent approximately 4 hours within the belts.
So to what lengths did NASA
take to shield the astronauts against the radiation? Its accepted that a
minimum of 10 cm width of aluminium would be needed at the very least to keep
out radiation. However the walls of the Apollo craft and capsule were made
as thin and as light as possible and as a result the craft initially could
not carry enough air inside to withstand the equivalent to sea level air
pressure. NASA had to reduce air pressure inside the cabin to cope. Here
are the official stats from a NASA website: (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html)
'At sea level, the
Earth's atmosphere is a mixture of gases - primarily of nitrogen (78% by
volume), oxygen (21%), water vapour (varying amounts depending on temperature
and humidity), and traces of carbon dioxide and other gases. Oxygen is, by
far, the most important component of what we breathe and, indeed, the Apollo
astronauts breathed almost pure oxygen laced with controlled amounts of
water vapour. With the nitrogen eliminated, the cabin pressure could be
considerably less than sea-level pressure on Earth - about 4.8 psi (pounds
per square inch) versus 14.7 psi - and, consequently, the cabin walls could
be relatively thin and, therefore, light in weight.'
One of the worst sun flares
ever recorded happened in August 1972, which was between the Apollo 16 and
17 missions. This single flare would have delivered 960 rem of virtually
instant death to any astronaut who was up in Space, and yet all of the Apollo
astronauts were carrying out their missions in what amounts to nothing more
than a thick linen suit. These pressure suits may have helped protect the
astronauts against heat or micro meteorites, but certainly would not have
given any radiation protection. By the way, there is no known method of registering
when and how strong Solar flare activity will be. So, rather like hitting a
bingo jackpot,I guess NASA just
The radiation would have greatly
affected the film that was shot on the Moon. Physicist Dr David Groves Ph.D.,
has carried out radiation tests on similar film and found that the lowest
radiation level (25 rem) applied to a portion of the film after exposure
made the image on the film almost entirely obliterated. Why didn't that happen
to the Apollo films?
Readers will be interested to
hear that the biggest Solar Flare for 25 years was recorded in April, 2001. So
sceptics who are claiming that NASA know when the Solar Flares are going to
appear are talking rubbish - as usual. If this were the case, why didn't
they bring down the astronauts from the Shuttle and ISS if they knew this
gigantic Solar Flare was about to erupt?
Probably the most convincing
argument however about the dangers of radiation to astronauts comes from NASA
themselves. Read this report made on 8th September, 2005. It makes very
interesting reading, especially when you have a number of sceptics like I have
breathing down my neck trying to claim otherwise!
How much radiation awaits lunar
A new NASA mission aims to find out
September 8, 2005: On the Moon, many of the things that can kill you
are invisible: breathtaking vacuum, extreme temperatures and space radiation top
Vacuum and temperature NASA can handle;
spacesuits and habitats provide plenty of air and insulation. Radiation, though,
The surface of the Moon is baldly exposed
to cosmic rays and solar flares, and some of that radiation is very hard to stop
with shielding. Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a
dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet. All this radiation
penetrating human flesh can damage DNA, boosting the risk of cancer and other
Above: The surface of the Moon is exposed to space radiation.
According to the Vision for Space Exploration,
NASA plans to send astronauts back to the Moon by 2020 and, eventually, to set
up an outpost. For people to live and work on the Moon safely, the radiation
problem must be solved.
"We really need to know more about the
radiation environment on the Moon, especially if people will be staying there
for more than just a few days," says Harlan Spence, a professor of astronomy at
To carefully measure and map the Moon's
radiation environment, NASA is developing a robotic probe to orbit the Moon
beginning in 2008. Called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), this scout
will pave the way for future human missions not only by measuring space
radiation, but also by hunting for frozen water and mapping the Moon's surface
in unprecedented detail. LRO is a key part of NASA's Robotic Lunar Exploration
Program, managed by the Goddard Space Flight Center.
One of the instruments onboard LRO is the
Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER).
"Not only will we measure the radiation, we
will use plastics that mimic human tissue to look at how these highly energetic
particles penetrate and interact with the human body," says Spence, who is the
Principal Investigator for CRaTER.
placing the radiation detectors in CRaTER behind various thicknesses of a
special plastic that has similar density and composition to human tissue, Spence
and his colleagues will provide much-needed data: Except for quick trips to the
Moon during the Apollo program, most human spaceflight has occurred near Earth
where our planet's magnetic field provides a natural shield. In low-Earth orbit,
the most dangerous forms of space radiation are relatively rare. That's good for
astronauts, but it leaves researchers with many unanswered questions about what
radiation does to human tissue. CRaTER will help fill in the gaps.
The CRaTER telescope consists of silicon radiation detectors (red) mounted on
detector boards (green), separated by pieces of "tissue-equivalent" plastic
Out in deep space, radiation comes from all
directions. On the Moon, you might expect the ground, at least, to provide some
relief, with the solid body of the Moon blocking radiation from below. Not so.
When galactic cosmic rays collide with
particles in the lunar surface, they trigger little nuclear reactions that
release yet more radiation in the form of neutrons. The lunar surface itself is
So which is worse for astronauts: cosmic rays
from above or neutrons from below? Igor Mitrofanov, a scientist at the Institute
for Space Research and the Russian Federal Space Agency, Moscow, offers a grim
answer: "Both are worse."
is Principle Investigator for the other radiation-sensing instrument on LRO, the
Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector (LEND), which is partially funded by the
Russian Federal Space Agency. By using an isotope of helium that's missing one
neutron, LEND will be able to detect neutron radiation emanating from the lunar
surface and measure how energetic those neutrons are.
The distribution of ground-level neutron radiation around the Moon's south pole.
"Hot spots" are red; cool spots, blue. Credit: Lunar Prospector. [More]
The first global mapping of neutron radiation
from the Moon was performed by NASA's Lunar Prospector probe in 1998-99. LEND
will improve on the Lunar Prospector data by profiling the energies of these
neutrons, showing what fraction are of high energy (i.e., the most damaging to
people) and what fraction are of lower energies.
With such knowledge in hand, scientists can
begin designing spacesuits, lunar habitats, Moon vehicles, and other equipment
for NASA's return to the Moon knowing exactly how much radiation shielding this
equipment must have to keep humans safe.
H. J. P. Arnold is an astronomer
and keen photographer, an expert on space and astrophotography and was the
assistant to the Managing Director at Kodak during the Apollo years. He has authored many space photography books. He comments that the film
that was supplied by Kodak for the missions was essentially the same as
used here on Earth. it was ektachrome 64 ASA or ISO as it is called today.
He has commented that you would expect to see some small dots on the films
where a high velocity nuclear particle had hit the film, however no evidence
of this whatsoever has come forward. The only thing that would protect the
film from this damage would be a thick layer of lead around the camera casing,
which according to Hasselblad was not used. Let's also remember that the films
were changed whilst outside on the Moon's surface and not in a controlled
The Hills Are Alive
One of the main anomalies that leads me to believe that the Moon footage
was taken on a film set is the fact that the same mountains appear on different
Apollo missions which are supposed to be landed several hundreds of miles
from each other. In the following sequences you will even see the camera pan
across the landscape that at one point includes the Lunar Landing Module.
In another shot from the same mission, we see the very same mountains, but
no Lander? How can this be when the mountains appear to be exactly the same
distance away from the camera?
This film shows two different Apollo missions, which are supposed to be
in different areas of the Moon, but show the exact same mountains in the
I possess an Apollo film documentary called 'Apollo: One Giant Leap
For Mankind' which features all of the Space missions from before the
Apollo project right up until the Soyez-Apollo link up and the
On this video during the Apollo 16 Mission we are told that
the film to the left was shot during the first trip by the Rover to
Stone Mountain, a trip that was carried out on 21st April and at 1
km west of the landing site... The second piece of footage to the right
was taken the next day, at a site that was 4 km to the South of the
landing site... What you can see in BOTH films is the same rocks. How
can this be if the sites are several km's apart?
It turns out that after some research, the two films were of the same
EVA and was mistakenly labelled by NASA. Rather a lapse for such a
company don't you think?
One For The Sceptics
Over the past few years
I have been in constant debate with several members of the 'Bad Astronomy' website
and Apollo believers who visit this site.
Bad Astronomy is a website that is a general meeting place for people who
think that they can explain the hoax theories concerning the Apollo program
and the site goes into detail on other anomalies that appear on space
footage. During my time debating on the site, I was issued several challenges by sceptics who said that if
I could show 'official NASA footage' showing certain anomalies, then that
evidence MAY make them think that something is definitely amiss with the
NASA Apollo footage. Needless to say, as at the time of writing, none
of them have come forward and changed their stance.
The three main challenges
1. Produce pictures
showing stars that are taken on the Moons surface. They say because of the
very bright conditions on the Moon, stars would not be visible from its
2. Show an example
of Movie footage that was taken aboard the Lunar Rover whilst it is in motion.
(I asked the site how could the satellite dish at the front of the rover
relay the video signal to a satellite or Houston if it was moving all over
the place?). I was even told that this footage does not exist?... see below
3. If I could provide
film footage of the LEM producing a flame on the Moons surface (This would
prove that the movie was not taken on the Moon because the Moons atmosphere
and vacuum would prevent such a flame).
That was the
challenge... and here is the evidence... Enjoy ;o)
One of the biggest debates between
hoax theorists and sceptics concerns the non appearance of stars from the
surface of the Moon. If the objects in the sky that appear in the film to
the left from the Apollo 15 Mission are not stars what are they? We can rule
out marks on the lens of the camera or in the film because these objects
appear on various parts of each shot and not just in one place.
Click on these pictures of Hill
305 and the Hadley Delta to see a larger view of 'stars' in the sky
above the Moon. They all show a similar formation from different angles.
These pictures are from a set (AS15-9012249 to AS15-90-12269) Most of this
set shows 'stars' in the sky!
writers tell me that a flame would not be visible on the surface of the Moon
because it is a vacuum and has no atmosphere. We'll BA writers, watch
the movie to the right. It shows the Apollo 16 LEM leaving the Lunar surface
and what do we see... a flame Therefore this piece of footage alone
proves that the Apollo program was hoaxed!
The sceptics reading this article could
perhaps explain why the movie to the left shows light suddenly increase
when Armstrong is at the bottom of the steps before his first descent from
the Lunar Lander? It certainly is not due to the light aperture being changed
on the camera because only the light behind the lander alters and not the
actual lander shadow. Its amazing how Armstrong, who at first is in complete
darkness on the ladder, suddenly gets lit up when he is halfway down the ladder. Lets remember that there are no clouds on the Moon to obscure
the Suns light! The cameraman doesn't move position by the way... Early
in the footage you'll notice that the LEM managed to park itself in a bright
light... how fortunate! That will take some explaining if artificial lighting
Lets try and put this
all into perspective.
Lets compare the Apollo cover-up with the USSR launch of the dog called
Laika into space. She was launched into Space to see what the effects of
Space travel would have on a live creature.
It was publicly announced that Laika died painlessly when her oxygen supply
ran out, but the truth was finally revealed many years later that the dog
had in fact died when the front nose cone of the craft carrying her had been
ripped off after reaching Earth's orbit and that the dog probably died from
the intense heat of the Sun.
Further investigations revealed that
the nose cone had actually been designed to do this. So, in fact, the makers
of the rocket had known that the dog would die even before she was sent
into space... this evidence took 30 years to be revealed to the general public.
Also consider the recent revelation that Yuri
Gagarin was not the first person to orbit Earth as first claimed by Russia.
Thousands of people
were employed to work on the Apollo mission, but very few people had access
to the complete picture. By giving several people a small role in the missions
meant that they would not see the whole project.
Some of the Eleven
Apollo astronauts had non space related fatal accidents within a twenty two
month period of one another, the odds of this happening are 1 in 10,000...coincidence?
James B. Irwin
(Apollo 15) resigned from NASA and the Air Force on July 1, 1972.
Don F. Eisele
(Apollo 7) resigned from NASA and from the Air Force in June 1972.
Roosa (Apollo 14) resigned from NASA and retired from the Air Force in
from NASA in 1977
Why did they all
resign from the 'successful' Apollo Program?
How did man manage to collect the rock samples if we didn't go to the Moon??? 750 lbs or
so were said to be collected on the Apollo missions. This maybe so, but according
to official NASA records, only a couple of pounds were actually collected
by the astronauts. It would not be impossible to irradiate a rock or put
it in a vacuum to get the same results.
Did you know that two years before the Apollo
11 mission, its lead scientist Dr. Werner Van Braun made a trip to Antartica
which is a prime area for collection Moon rocks?
Why hasn't anybody spoken out about the cover-up? They have.
Bill Kaysing got in touch with his friend, a private investigator from San
Francisco called Paul Jacobs, and asked him to help him with his Apollo anomalies
investigations. Mr. Jacobs agreed to go and see the head of the US Department
of Geology in Washington, as he was travelling there the following week
after his discussion with Mr. Kaysing. He asked the geologist, 'Did you
examine the Moon rocks, did they really come from the Moon.?' The geologist
just laughed. Paul flew back from Washington and told Kaysing that the people
in high office of the American Government knew of the cover-up. Paul Jacobs
and his wife died from cancer within 90 days!
Lee Gelvani another
friend of Kaysing, says he almost convinced informant James Irwin to confess
about the cover-up. Irwin was going to ring Kaysing about it, however he
died of a heart attack within 3 days. Is this evidence that a cover-up is
Check out the film documentary at the top of
this page showing NASA employees talking about how they were instructed to
airbrush out anomalies on the Moons surface.
Why would NASA fake the Apollo Mission? I think
the main reason why the US Government and NASA faked the 'official record'
is because they could not be seen to be the weak link, especially when you
consider that during the 60's, the USA were at the height of the Cold War
with Russia. Also their own President had forecast that before the end of
the 60's Man would be on the Moon. It would be better to try and fool the
public and hoax the footage, rather than let their biggest rival in the World
strike a huge moral victory by beating them to the Moon.
If man really went
to the Moon, why did NASA drop the successful Saturn 5 launch rocket after
the last Apollo mission? The shuttle weighs 3/4 heavier than the Saturn 5
Rocket, puts only 1/6th of cargo weight into orbit and costs 3 times
as much to launch. The shuttle is basically a glider with no escape for the
crew if things go wrong (as we all know they do). Why scrap a rocket that can outperform its newer model?
The Shuttle was first flown 2 years behind schedule.
Did you know NASA could
have easily launched the Shuttle on top of the second stage of the Saturn
5 rocket? The first stage would have dropped into the Ocean and the second
stage and the fully loaded shuttle orbiter would have travelled into low
Earth orbit. The second stages could have then been left in orbit and assembled
to make the Space Station, which would have been well on its way to completion
by the time the Shuttle was first launched in 1981. They could have had the
first launch of the shuttle a whole 5 years before it was finally launched
and saved the American taxpayer 20 billion dollars.
Why didn't Russia even
bother to land a cosmonaut on the Moon after the Americans beat them to
it??? Russia were ready to launch their own craft just one month after the
success of the Apollo 11 Mission - so why did they scrap their lunar program? Many people would say that its because it was too late, but if you
want to look at it like that, why didn't this apply to NASA when the Russians
beat America in putting the first satellite, animal, man, woman and space
station into orbit? Russia would not have thrown in the towel just because
America had beaten them at one single thing in Space!
Not one thing that
appears on the surface of the Moon had to be placed by Man. Be it mirrors
to reflect lasers from here on Earth to calculate distances or seismology
equipment. All could have been placed there by robotic machines. It wouldn't
necessarily need a human to place them there.
Graham Birdsall (the late Editor
of UFO Magazine UK) commented that during the very first Pacific UFO
Conference in Hawaii in September 1999, Astronaut Brian O'Leary who worked
alongside the likes of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the Apollo 11 mission
during 1967-68, commented ' If some of the films were spoiled, it is remotely
possible that they (NASA) may have shot some scenes in a studio environment,
to avoid embarrassment!'
During Project Apollo,
six highly complex manned craft landed on the Moon, took off and returned
to Earth using a relatively low level of technology. An 86% success rate.
Since Apollo, twenty five simple, unmanned craft with increasingly higher
levels of technology have attempted to fulfil their missions to Mars. Only
seven succeeded. Russia have, and continue to have unmanned craft launch into
space. Their project worked more towards first sending an unmanned lander to the
Moons surface to collect samples, take pictures and measure radiation levels.
Why did NASA not even send an unmanned craft to the Moons surface before risking
human lives? Basically,
The mission was a cold-war bluff to get the soviets to think that we were more
advanced than they were. It is just like a
poker bluff where
you want it to look like you are holding the stronger hand. I this case the
soviets decided to fold.
WATCH THIS GREAT PIECE OF FOOTAGE..
The astronaut has a very hard time trying to keep the flag still as it blows
in the wind...
If Man were so successful
at landing on the Moon over 30 years ago, why haven't we been back? In The
Ride report, a report headed by Sally Ride, a former astronaut herself, an
estimation was made on how long it would take to make a similar trip to
the Moon today. If NASA were fully funded in 1987, they estimated that they
could land men on the Moon by 2010, that's 23 years...
Since it only took
8 years from President Kennedy's announcement till the first mission, why
would it take 23 years to send man back to the Moon for the 7th time?
In 1999 this estimate
changed. Douglas Cook, Director of the Exploration Office at Houston's Johnson
Space Centre calculated that Man could go back to the Moon within 100 years....
I'm not holding my breath!!!
Cosmic Conspiracies was recently approached by Jim Oberg,
NASA consultant, who was interested in a piece of footage that appeared on this
page which showed the Surveyor III probe on the Moons surface, filmed by the
astronauts aboard Apollo 12 as it descended onto the lunar surface. Mr. Oberg is
writing a book (originally funded by NASA) about the whole 'Moon Hoax' subject,
in a bid to put a lot of the speculation to rest. Mr. Oberg believed that the
film we had (taken from 'What Happened On The Moon') was bogus and not original
NASA footage, however David Percy and Mary Bennett believe otherwise !!!
Here to read more
I receive several letters from Apollo
believers on an almost daily basis telling me that I'm completely wrong,
however, consider this. The distance that Man allegedly had to travel to get
to the Moon was the equivalent of 30 Earth diameters. Now compare that with
the greatest distance that Man has travelled since then (in the Shuttle)
which is 400 miles. That is the equivalent of just 1/2 an inch from the
Earth compared to the distance travelled to the Moon.
Von Braun said in his book 'Conquest To The
Moon' (published in 1953) that it would be impossible to send anyone to the
Moon because of the sheer size of craft needed to do the trip. In fact,
taking Von Braun's calculations into consideration, a spaceship that needed
to travel that distance would have had to be 266 times bigger than the
Also consider the recent announcement from
NASA that it would take scientists 15 years from now to design and build a
craft to go back to the Moon. Why when we have allegedly been there 6 times
J. F. Kennedy announced in 1962 that Man
would travel to the Moon by the end of the decade. Just 7 years later Man
allegedly did just that. But more than 35 years later in a World that is
vastly technologically superior to the 1960's, why would it take over twice
as long to do the same thing today?
During the Apollo 11 mission a
strange object accompanied the spacecraft whilst it was in space. Thinking
that the object could be the S4B, a part of the rocket that had been
unattached 2 days previously, they contacted Houston asking for the
whereabouts of the rocket part. Buzz Aldrin: ‘Obviously, the three
of us weren’t going to blurt out, ‘Hey Houston, we got something
moving along side us and we don’t know what it is, can you tell us
what it is? We weren’t about to do that, uhh, cos we know that those
transmissions would be heard by all sorts of people and, uh, who
knows what someone would have demanded that we turn back because of
aliens or whatever the reason is…’ Houston, not knowing the
situation reported back that the S4B was 6,000 nautical miles away
from the Apollo craft. To this day, NASA have refused an official
explanation for the object.
Still Not Convinced?
Here's 33 things that need to be answered!
argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure
the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars
to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that
I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar
surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on
Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers
would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations
were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up
2) The pure oxygen
atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering
and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?
should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LM's 10,000
pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines
only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LM as it landed.
If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the
dust had been blown away?
Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack
of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from
the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the
footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)
Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between
particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints
all over the place.
Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became
fine on the five subsequent missions.
Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the
rough foreground and the smooth background?
so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell
you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the
Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same
direction, not two or three different angles and Earth shine would have no
effect during the bright lunar day (the time at which the Apollo was on the
9) Why did
one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground
in front of it?
How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the
tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?
In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts
lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death.
In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would
rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere
into which to dump the heat build up.
dare risk using the LM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never
Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity,
the highest jump was about nineteen inches.
Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing
appearance of very low
gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no
further between steps than they would have on Earth.
If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then
it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over
on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small
who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect
against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands
of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that
astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons
surface. Why didn't
the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount
of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar
radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have
sent 12 men there already?
The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should
have been fast leakage of
air since even a pinhole deflates a tyre in short order.
The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their
fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i.
speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked
like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.
the astronauts leave the LEM? In the documentary 'Paper Moon' The host measures
a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that
the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts
could not have got out of the LEM.
The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent
explosive vapour discharges. They never did.
During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.
With more than a two second signal transmission round trip, how did a
camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM? Gus Grissom,
before he got burned alive in the Apollo I disaster
A few minutes before he was burned to death in the
Apollo I tragedy, Gus Grissom said, 'Hey, you guys in the control center, get
with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic
communications over three miles.' This statement says a lot about what
Grissom thought about NASA's progress in the great space race.
Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?
NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just
months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate
transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all
those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could
"rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that
the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation
lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and
telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft
as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they
believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the
genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not
tens of thousands as it might first appear.
25) In 1998,
the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred
and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van
Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which
the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able
to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding
as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth
which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what
it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with
your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium
26) The Apollo
1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to
walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved
press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two,
from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself,
has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred
spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions).
Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in
the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!
the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more
dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly
went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known
as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons'
that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."
computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k,
and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of
the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon
landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again
once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's
the equivalent of a simple calculator.
from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today
through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine
probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts
left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LM go?
In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or
woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.
31) Film evidence
has recently been uncovered of a mis-labelled, unedited, behind-the-scenes
video film, showing
the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence
is shown in the video "A Funny Thing
Happened on the Way to the Moon!". and appears above in the 'Why Did Apollo
11 Astronauts Lie About Being In Deep Space?' section.
32) Why did the
blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if
this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?
33) Why did NASA need to airbrush out
anomalies from lunar footage of the Moon if they have nothing to hide? The
Apollo mission was meticulously planned, yet there were still flaws in the plan
which the public is being made aware of as time goes on. Unlike a simple game of
bingo where nothing is planned and no strategy is involved the Apollo
mission was thought out and at the time there seemed to be an answer to every
question that arose. As times change and more research is being done on the
mission the tables are beginning to turn and the public is starting to see the
China Fake Men In Space Reports
Did Man go to the Moon? It's a contentious
issue, considering how ridiculous the
question might first appear. Despite the
heaps of evidence available to us from NASA
personnel, TV archives and museums (not to
mention physically returned moon rocks),
there is still a grumbling doubt that the
whole thing might just have been made up.
The movie 'Capricorn One', where fictitious
American astronauts were removed from their
rocket and driven to a film set in the
desert to record their Moon landing, has a
deep and lasting resonance with me. It could
have been faked, even if the Apollo
astronauts really did actually walk on the
surface of the Moon.
Such doubt is compounded by the news this
week that China's official news agency
Xinhua published a long and detailed account
of the spaceflight of Chinese astronauts,
including dialogue, while the Shenzhou VII
rocket was still sat on the launchpad!
"First-level measurement arrangement! After
this order, signal lights all were switched
on, various data show up on row of screens,
hundreds of technicians staring at the
screens, without missing any slightest
changes...one minute to go! Changjiang No 1
found the target!"
Of course, this might have been the work of
an over-enthusiastic State journalist, whose
copy needed to read and re-read by the
Patriarchs who run China before release to
the joyous masses. Time may have been the
feature here, rather than a deliberate
effort to deceive. After all, in the absence
of a free press, Communist editing is a
But it highlights a deeper issue. How do any
of us actually know what goes on in space?
Only from what we're told, through official
space agencies. They control the news, and
so can control the truth.
Spacecraft and satellites can be tracked by
amateurs, whose telescopic equipment is
often highly advanced. But the fact that a
spacecraft is heading to the Moon might not
necessarily mean that anyone's actually on
board. The same applies to spacecraft
orbiting the Earth.
We can't be absolutely sure of anything that
goes on up there, unless we go up there
ourselves, like space tourists (a few of
whom have now made the trip courtesy of the
money-hungry Russian space agency). It is
only when ordinary folk make the trip to
space that this new frontier can be said to
be completely open, and transparent.
The Xinhua agency, which has sometimes been
accused of carrying state propaganda, took
down the story and blamed it on a "technical
error". How convenient!
Andy Lloyd - October '08
Written by Dave Cosnette. Updated February 10th, 2009
If you are interested in
obtaining more information about the Apollo missions and the anomalies that have
been uncovered here, why not click on the banner below?
Moonmovie.com has a great selection of thought-provoking DVDs that delve into
the Apollo missions and shows the viewer why the missions must be faked.
According to their investigations, all Apollo missions stayed in low-earth orbit
for the duration of the trip. Moonmovie.com have uncovered some mis-labeled,
unedited, behind-the-scenes footage from NASA that shows the crew of Apollo 11
clearly staging a shot of being half-way to the moon. This clip, shown in
'Apollo 11Monkey Business' and explained in 'A Funny Thing
Happened on the Way to the Moon', proves they did not leave low-earth
orbit. Other DVDs available
include Apollo Astronauts refusing to swear on the Bible that they went to the
Moon (and Buzz Aldrin punching the investigator!).
We can thoroughly recommend all the DVDs in the collection which we will be
reviewing over the next few weeks - so stay tuned!
PLEASE NOTE: A new updated version of this
article is now in the process of appearing at our new site
HERE. Over the
next few weeks, this 5 part epic will be added to the site. Part One is
available now - please click the link above after reading this article for the
'What happened on the Moon?'
and the book 'Dark Moon - Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers'
both authored by David Percy and Mary Bennett and available through Aulis
(They can both be ordered by clicking the banners)
Please take time to look at the rest of our site or sign our guestbook