Written By Thomas Perez. July 20, 2019 at 12:47AM. Copyright 2019. Updated 2020.
“That’s one small step for Man. One giant leap for Mankind”
These words were spoken on June 20, 1969 by Astronaut Neil Armstrong who supposedly was the first man to set foot upon the Moon during the hey-days of the Apollo missions (1969 – 1972) engineered by the United States – via the space agency called NASA (The National Aeronautics and Space Administration). As the 1st humans stepped onto the Moon, the whole world watched in awe as the event itself was supposedly seen live on country wide national and foreign television. This mission was allegedly the first of 6 manned missions to the Moon.
Here Are the Alleged Facts:
“The Apollo program was designed to land humans on the Moon and bring them safely back to Earth. Six of the missions (Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17) achieved this goal. Apollos 7 and 9 were Earth orbiting missions to test the Command and Lunar Modules, and did not return lunar data. Apollos 8 and 10 tested various components while orbiting the Moon, and returned photography of the lunar surface. Apollo 13 did not land on the Moon due to a malfunction, but also returned photographs. The six missions that landed on the Moon returned a wealth of scientific data and almost 400 kilograms of lunar samples. Experiments included soil mechanics, meteoroids, seismic, heat flow, lunar ranging, magnetic fields, and solar wind experiments.” (1).
For the sake of this chapter, I will cover only the Apollo 11 mission since that is the more popular one out of the other 5 missions due to astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin as being the first men to allegedly step on the Moon. Michael Collins stood in the command module. Here are the alleged facts pertaining to this particular mission as told to us by mainstream…
|Command and Service Module:||Columbia|
|Crew:||Neil Armstrong ,commander
Michael Collins, command module pilot
Edwin Aldrin, lunar module pilott
|Launch:||July 16, 1969
13:32:00 UT (09:32 a.m. EDT) Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39A
|Landing Site:||Mare Tranquillitatis (Sea of Tranquility)
0.67 N, 23.47 E
|Landed on Moon:||July 20, 1969
20:17:40 UT (4:17:40 p.m. EDT)
|First step:||02:56:15 UT July 21, 1969
(10:56:15 p.m. EDT July 20, 1969)
|EVA Duration:||2 hours, 31 minutes|
|Lunar Surface Traversed:||~250 meters|
|Moon Rocks Returned:||21.7 kilograms|
|LM Departed Moon:||July 21, 1969
17:54:01 UT (1:54:01 p.m. EDT)
|Time on Lunar Surface:||21 hours, 38 minutes, 21 seconds|
|Returned to Earth:||July 24, 1969
16:50:35 UT (12:50:35 p.m. EDT)
|Mission Duration:||195 hr. 18 min. 35 sec.|
|Retrieval site:||Pacific Ocean
13° 19’N latitude and 169° 9’W longitude
|Retrieval ship:||U.S.S. Hornet|
Moreover, here is a link showing original Moon landing footage as it happened 50 years ago that aired on CBS July 16, 2019 in celebration of Apollo’s 50th anniversary. “CBS News anchorled the network’s live coverage of the mission with unabashed enthusiasm and amazement. Tuesday morning, exactly 50 years later, CBS News replayed that coverage so you can watch how the history-making event unfolded in real time.” (3).
The only proposed manned Moon landing that was never accomplished was Apollo 13. Apollo 13 was to be the third mission to land on the Moon. However, “An explosion in one of the oxygen tanks crippled the spacecraft during flight and the crew were forced to orbit the Moon and return to the Earth without landing.” (4).
It is said that we can see the lunar rover and the U.S. flag on the Moon. But is this true? According to a Press Kit for the Apollo 16 mission. (5). “The flag is 125 cm (4 feet) long, and you would need an optical wavelength telescope around 200 meters (650 feet) in diameter to see it. The largest optical wavelength telescope that we have now is the Keck Telescope in Hawaii which is 10 meters in diameter. The Hubble Space Telescope is only 2.4 meters in diameter – much too small!” (5).
“Resolving the larger lunar rover (which has a length of 3.1 meters) would still require a telescope 75 meters in diameter.” “Even barely resolving the lunar lander base, which is 9.5 meters across (including landing gear), would require a telescope about 25 meters across. And in reality you would want a couple (or a few) resolution elements across the object so that it’s possible to identify it. (Otherwise it’ll look like a one pixel detection, not an image, and I don’t think people would be convinced by a couple pixels!) In addition, with a ground based telescope, you have to deal with distortion by the atmosphere as well, so you’ll probably want something considerably larger than 25 meters if you want a good, believable, image of the lander. We don’t have anything that big built yet! So there’s really no way to image equipment left behind by the astronauts with current telescope technology.” (6).
Moreover, “The Apollo descent stages left on the lunar surface are too small to be seen by Hubble, which can see objects as small as 60-75 yards, about three-quarters the length of a soccer field. The left-behind descent stages are only about the size of a small truck.”
Similarly, “These observations weren’t easy. The moon is a difficult target for Hubble because it moves across the sky faster than Hubble can track it and is very dim in ultraviolet light. The observations required steady, precise, as well as long exposures to search for the resources. In spite of these challenges, Hubble was able to image all of its targets, and early results show that Hubble can detect ilmenite at the Apollo 17 site from 248,000 miles (400,000 km) away.” (7).
Furthermore, they claim, “new photos of several Apollo moon landing sites were released. … Showing extraordinary new details about three areas on the lunar surface that were visited by humans. The images include the sharpest views yet of tracks left by the astronauts and their lunar rovers.”
“The images look very spectacular, as you can see for yourself,” Mark Robinson, an Arizona State University, Tempe scientist, who is the principal investigator of Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter’s camera, (LRO) said in a news briefing today.”
“The LRO is a robotic probe from NASA in orbit around the Moon. The new views from the spacecraft’s narrow angle camera are only the third time that close-up pictures of the landing sites have been snapped and resolved by the unmanned spacecraft around the Moon. [See the new Apollo Moon landing site photos]” (8).
“In one image of the Apollo 17 landing site, the last tracks left by astronauts Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt on the moon are visible. The crisscrossing footprints can be easily distinguished from the tracks left by the astronauts’ lunar rover. “And, since Robinson is well aware of what the lunar rovers look like, he said he “can actually see, if you squint really hard – can begin to resolve the seats and the left wheels that are slightly turned to the left.” (9) (10).
Launched on June 18, 2009, the probe has made a 3-D map of the Moon’s surface at 100-meter resolution and 98.2% coverage (excluding polar areas in deep shadow), including 0.5-meter resolution images of Apollo landing sites. The first images from LRO were published on July 2, 2009, showing a region in the lunar highlands south of Mare Nubium (Sea of Clouds).
The total cost of the mission is reported as US$583 million, of which $504 million pertains to the main LRO probe and $79 million to the LCROSS satellite. As of 2019, LRO has enough fuel to continue operations for at least seven more years, and NASA expects to continue utilizing LRO’s reconnaissance capabilities to identify sites for lunar landers well into the 2020s. (11) (12) (13) (14) (15).
11. “NASA Probe Beams Home Best Moon Map Ever”. Space.com. November 18, 2011. Retrieved September 3, 2016.
13. Hautaluoma, Grey; Freeberg, Andy (July 17, 2009). “LRO Sees Apollo Landing Sites”. NASA. Retrieved August 5, 2009.
14. Garner, Robert, ed. (July 2, 2009). “LRO’s First Moon Images”. NASA. Retrieved August 5, 2009.
15. Harwood, William (June 18, 2009). “Atlas 5 rocket launches NASA Moon mission”. CNet.com. Retrieved June 18, 2009.
16. Clark, Stephen (June 18, 2019). “10 years since its launch, NASA lunar orbiter remains crucial for moon landings”. Spaceflight Now. Retrieved June 20, 2019.
The orbiter carries a complement of six instruments and one technology demonstration: Out of those six instruments, the LRO camera (LROC) uses a “Push Broom Scanner” (PBS). The PBS is a device for obtaining images with spectroscopic sensors. The scanners are regularly used for passive remote sensing from space, and in spectral analysis on production lines, for example with near infrared spectroscopy used to identify contaminated food and feed. The electromagnetic spectrum is the range of frequencies (the spectrum) of electromagnetic radiation and their respective wavelengths and photon energies. Examples of spacecraft cameras using push broom imagers include Mars Express’s high resolution stereo camera, lunar reconnaissance Orbiter Camera, NAC, Mars Global Surveyor, Mars Orbiter camera WAC?, and the multi-Angle Imaging SpectroRadio Meter on board the Terta Sa Tellite. (17) (18) (19) (20).
17. Vincent Baeten; Philippe Vermeulen; Juan Antonio Fernández Pierna & Pierre Dardenne (June 2014). “From targeted to untargeted detection of contaminants and foreign bodies in food and feed using NIR spectroscopy”. New Food magazine. pp. 18–23. Retrieved 26 June 2014.
18. Hoekzema, Nick. “Planetary & Cometary Exploration Cameras on Orbiters and Landers”. Archived from the original on 2014-02-02. Retrieved 2 February 2014.
19. Neal-Jones, Nancy (2014-01-29). “NASA’s LRO Snaps a Picture of NASA’s LADEE Spacecraft”. NASA. Retrieved 2 February 2014.
20. K. N. Burns; E. J. Speyerer; M. S. Robinson; T. Tran; M. R. Rosiek; B. A. Archinal; E. Howington-Kraus; LROC Science Team (25 August 2012). “Digital Elevation Models and Derived Products from LROC NAC STEREO observations” (PDF). International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XXXIX-B4, 2012 XXII ISPRS Congress. p. 483. Retrieved 2 February 2014.
The LROC has flown several times over the historic Apollo lunar Landing sites at 50 km (31 mi) altitude; with the camera’s high resolution, the lunar roving vehicles and lunar module’s descent stages and their respective shadows are clearly visible, along with other equipment previously left on the Moon. The mission is returning approximately 70–100 terabytes of image data. It is expected that this photography will boost public acknowledgement of the validity of the landings, and further discredit Apollo conspiracy theories. (21).
21. Phillips, Tony; Barry, Patrick L. (July 11, 2005). “Abandoned Spaceships”. NASA. Archived from the original on August 8, 2009. Retrieved August 5, 2009.
The following are the pictures they are showing us supposedly taken from the LRO.
Apollo 17 Again…
Additional pictures from Wiki via the LRO camera, showing the Moon’s lighted face, its dark side (far side) its North and South Poles…
Dark Side (Far Side)…
The South Pole…
Many were even given the opportunity to enter their names in a microchip in the probe. 1.6 million people signed up. The deadline for this opportunity was July 31, 2008.
Before the Alleged Landings:
Before the Apollo missions allegedly became a reality, there existed a cold war between the United States and the former Soviet Union. Both nations were in a nuclear arms race that saw each other racing for superiority in land, sea and air. This race eventually lead to the thought and fear of space itself being weaponized by one or the other. It was only a question of time as to who will beat the other to this accomplishment first. In short, the Soviet Union had beaten the United States in its race to conquer space first. This meant that they potentially had the upper hand over their western counter part; the United States.
In public, President John F. Kennedy made soaring speeches, proclaiming that going to the Moon would “organize and measure the best of our energies and skills.” But in private, he was a pragmatic politician more focused on Earthly concerns. “Everything we do ought to be tied into getting to the Moon ahead of the Russians,” he told NASA Administrator James Webb in a 1962 White House meeting. “I’m not that interested in space.” (23).
Many Moon landing denialists claim that NASA faked the landings to avoid humiliation due to the Russians beating us through Sputnik on Oct 4, 1957, to keep Kennedy’s promise of going to the Moon before the 60’s decade ended, and to ensure that it continued to get funding. NASA raised “about US$30 billion” to go to the Moon, and Kaysing claimed in his book that this could have been used to “pay off” many people. Another reason was due to the Vietnam War. An unpopular war. Moon landings, they say, was a good distraction to many who had lost their faith in our country. It was a boost for morale, so to speak, for American pride. (24).
Moreover, there were two notable events that took place: The 1969 Cold War: The Soviet submarine k-19 collides with the American submarine USS Gato in the Barents Sea. And the 1969 Vietnam War (1955 – 1975; U.S. involvement in 1965): In Washington, D.C., 250,000-500,000 protesters staged a peaceful demonstration against the war, including a symbolic “March Against Death.” (25) (26).
25. Ksysing 2002, p. 71
26. Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake?” American Patriot Friends Network (APFN). APFN.org. July 21, 2009. Retrieved November 25, 2008.
Now that the alleged facts have been presented and the plausible reasons as to our governments motives, I will now review the oddities that Moon landing deniers often cite in reference to elaborate hoaxes that often lead to tough questions that usually present a case for reasonable doubt. According to Moon landing deniers, there are 8 inconsistencies or objections. Each inconsistency has its own sub-divisions. Questions and sub-divisions that persist and shout, “forgery” and “fake.” They are as follows…
1. Photography and Film Oddities.
2. Mechanical Issues.
5. Missing Data.
7. Deaths of NASA Personnel.
8. Alleged Stanley Kubrick Involvement. The alleged Kubrick involvement is not covered in this chapter. It is covered in chapter eleven.
Mainstream Cites: According to “James Longuski (Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics Engineering at Purdue University Purdue), the conspiracy theories are impossible because of their size and complexity. The conspiracy would have to involve more than 400,000 people who worked on the Apollo project for nearly ten years, the 12 men who walked on the Moon, the six others who flew with them as Command Module pilots, and another six astronauts who orbited the Moon. Hundreds of thousands of people – including astronauts, scientists, engineers, technicians, and skilled laborers – would have had to keep the secret. Longuski argues that it would have been much easier to really land on the Moon than to generate such a huge conspiracy to fake the landings.” (27).
My Rebuttal: A rebuttal by Sibrel to this claim is that NASA had compartmentalized all of the work on the Apollo program. This would have allowed for only a small number of people to actually know the truth about faking the Moon landings. In other words, only the upper echelons, so to speak, was in on it, while NASA’s average worker was unaware of this. One only needs to watch the movie, Capricorn One’ to understand what Sibrel is/was talking about. (28) (29).
27. Longuski 2006 p. 102
28. Aaronovitch 2010, pp. 1–2, 6
Let Us Now Examine the first 3 Objections and Their Sub-Divisions:
Objection 1. Photography and Film Oddities:
A. If Neil Armstrong was first on the Moon, who filmed him on the ladder?
Mainstream Answer: “They simply mounted a camera on the Descent Stage of the Lunar Module and pointed it at the steps.” (29). Furthermore, “Cameras on the Lunar Module did. The Apollo TV Camera mounted in the Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA) of the Apollo Lunar Module gave a view from the exterior. While still on the Module’s ladder steps, Armstrong deployed the MESA from the side of the Lunar Module, unpacking, amongst other things, the TV camera. The TV camera was then powered on and a signal transmitted to the command module, which beamed the live signal back to Earth. This meant that upwards of 600 million people on Earth could watch the live feed with only a very slight delay. Similar technology was also used on subsequent Apollo missions. It was also filmed from an automatic 16mm movie camera mounted in a window of the Lunar Module.” (30) (31) (32) (33).
31. Steven-Boniecki, Dwight (2010). Live TV From the Moon. Burlington, Ontario: Apogee Books.
32. A Detailed Look at the Camera Gear Behind the Historical Apollo 11 Moon Landing”. petapixel.com. Retrieved March 11, 2019.
34. Teitel, Amy Shira (February 5, 2016). “How NASA Broadcast Neil Armstrong Live from the Moon”. Popular Science. Retrieved March 11,2019.
“The historic moment of Armstrong stepping on the Moon roughly six hours later was actually quite blurry as it was seen on TV. The shot came from a camera attached to the lander. But what many don’t know is that Aldrin was filming Mr Armstrong, too; he captured those monumental steps from above, while inside the lander, looking down the ladder at Mr Armstrong. Apollo fans and experts have long known about this angle.” (35).
Here are two pictures depicting such…
My Rebuttal: If that is true, fine. It still does not necessarily mean that we went there. What we see could have easily been done in a studio. My only concern is that why would any conspiracy theorist even ask such a question when NASA already provided an answer as seen in the following picture. We can clearly see where the mounted camera was.
However, I would like to point out that the Sun over the horizon is very bright. Accounting for video feed exposure and other adjustments, why in blazes do the shadows cast an elongated reflection toward the left? By simple logic, we know shadows are cast upon the ground because a light source is illuminating from the other side. But the photos show shadows casting themselves toward the left.
Now take a look at are some of these GIF’s from NASA and Forbes depicting such…
Now I know many of you wil shout, “Hey, that third GIF is made up because it says so at the lower left.” Nice try, but not true. Observe the next GIF…It has the same thing. No one, nor did I, tamper with any GIF. It was just uploaded by someone else who got it from NASA or Forbes. Its just a different source.
Why am I showing these GIF’s, you may ask? well, that should be obvious. Do you see the oddities in these GIF’s? Besides the oddities of the shadows, the Moon’s surface can be clearly seen through the astronaut’s body. Amazing, I didn’t know spiritual phantoms were sent into space. How can this be explained? Answer: Matte and glass panel paintings.
“Matte paintings are one of the original VFX techniques used in filmmaking. Originally used in photography, matte paintings have evolved from painted glass panels to entire 3D digital worlds. A matte painting is often a painted glass pane that is used to show a landscape or large set piece. Matte paintings are either filmed on set, where they are framed to look like a physical set piece, or they are combined with live footage in post production.” (36). “It’s impossible to pinpoint the invention of the matte painting. Since the mid-19th century, photographers were experimenting with double-exposure to create composite images.” (37).
“Magician and legendary filmmaker George Melies used the matte painting technique in many of his films. In his 1898 film Un Homme de Têtes – Four Heads Are Better Than One. Méliès would use a glass pane painted black to create a matte. When shooting on film, the black matte kept light from reaching the camera. Since a portion of the film was not exposed to light, it would leave part of the frame empty.” “Méliès would then rewind the film and set up an opposite matte. By removing the original matte and blacking out everything else, the film would now fill in the blanks. The resulting sequence was absolutely astonishing.” (38). Moreover, “Using glass panes to create matte paintings become the standard for VFX backgrounds, but it required the camera stay still. Any movement would destroy the illusion. (39).
The following video is a demonstration of the matte technique.
Image: Georges Méliès and Georges Méliès via Wikipedia
Some films make heavy use of chroma key to add backgrounds that are constructed entirely using CGI. “Keying” is an important component to visual effects. Put the wrong screen behind an actor or object, for I.e., a spaceship; then parts of the actors clothing or ship model vanishes into thin air. You will be able to see right through certain parts of the actors body or spaceship; as if they were invisible.
“The Chroma Effect” – Chroma Key Tutorial. Boris FX. Archived from the original on 15 March 2005. Retrieved 11 January 2010.
If the foreground is a person then blue or green backing colour is recommended as these colours are not present in human flesh pigments. In fact, human skin colour is 70% red for all people regardless of race.
40. “The Keys To Chromakey: How To Use A Green Screen”. Videomaker. Retrieved 23 October 2017.
It would seem that some of the videos and photographs were filmed and taken in front of a matte screen or glass panel painting, while other videos and photographs were taken in an actual studio, upon simulated lunar surfaces. Perhaps, even upon actual locations guarded heavily by the military. Perhaps at Area 51? This is plausible, because Area 51 was established in 1947. The military began to utilize the area in 1955. “In 1955, the CIA chose the location, now run by Edwards Air Force Base in California, to test the Lockheed U2 reconnaissance plane—a history that certainly helped cement its storied associations with unidentified flying objects” (41). Which led to Lockheed’s lucrative contract with NASA.
B. How did they film the Apollo 17 lift off?
Mainstream Answer: “When Apollo 17 lifted off from the moon, a camera captured the movements of the spacecraft — even though nobody was left behind to, say, establish a lunar base. How was that possible? With a camera on the lunar rover that could be controlled — or even programmed — from Earth…the camera was available on Apollos 15, 16 and 17.” (42).
The following video, in general, explains how they were able to allegedly film the missions…
My Rebuttal: Again, this does not prove a thing, nor does it necessarily mean that a camera, which was supposedly located on the Rover a few yards away, was on the actual Moon. This could have been a prop set upon a large table made to look like the lunar land surface. And again, a conspiracy theorist should not be asking this type of question. It is a silly question. We should also remember that NASA continually received funding in the millions to continue with their Apollo missions. However, funding began to decline in the early 70s when no one was interested Moon activities. Many, if not all, came to the conclusion that our tax dollars would be better spent here on Earth than out there. Funding stopped. NASA lost a lucrative aspect of its agency. How can an agency bring back a consistent flow of capital and hence increase its budget intake? Answer: The Space Shuttle Programs. A guaranteed winner!
C. Why Are There No Stars In the Photos?
OK, we’ve all heard this one. But I believe my take on it is different. Denialists contend that NASA chose not to put the stars into the photos because astronomers would have been able to use them to determine whether the photos were taken from the Earth or the Moon, by means of identifying them and comparing their celestial position and parallax to what would be expected for either observation site.
Mainstream Answer: Instead of writing this particular answer. I decided to post the following mainstream answer in the video below…
NASA also claims; “Shadows on the Moon are complicated by reflected light, uneven ground, wide-angle lens distortion, and lunar dust. There are several light sources: the Sun, sunlight reflected from the Earth, sunlight reflected from the Moon’s surface, and sunlight reflected from the astronauts and the Lunar Module. Light from these sources is scattered by lunar dust in many directions, including into shadows. Shadows falling into craters and hills may appear longer, shorter and distorted. Furthermore, shadows display the properties of vanishing point perspective, leading them to converge to a point on the horizon.” (43).
43. Anthony, James. “Fly Me to the Moon”. Web Wombat. Web Wombat Pty Ltd. Retrieved November 25, 2008.
My Rebuttal: Neil Armstrong, first man on the Moon, while in cislunar space claims you cannot see stars from the Moon, even when the Sun is eclipsed. Others have claimed to have seen stars, which makes this idea even more thought-provoking. Further experimentation on angles and optics regarding star visibility would be interesting. I don’t know how much more neutral I can get. But someone might cite; “But being in cislunar space is not the same as being on the Moon.” (44). Not true. But don’t take my word for it, just listen to what Mr. Armstrong said/says. According to Armstrong they are both the same. Meaning that when you’re on the Moon or in a cislunar orbit you will still be unable to see the stars. But how can that be when you are in between two objects in space? The two objects will always eclipse the light from the Sun. So if your argument is based upon the astronauts not being able to see any stars due to the Suns bright lighted reflection upon the Moon, then how do you account for them not seeing stars when in cislunar orbit?
According to mainstream science, the Moon shines because its surface reflects light from the Sun. And despite the fact that it sometimes seems to shine very brightly, the Moon reflects only between 3 and 12 percent of the sunlight that hits it. The perceived brightness of the Moon from Earth depends on where the Moon is in its orbit around the planet.
On the day of the Moon Apollo 11 Moon landing, the Moon was in a Waxing Crescent Phase. A Waxing Crescent is the first phase after the New Moon and is a great time to see the features of the Moon’s surface. During this phase the Moon can be seen in the western sky after the Sun dips below the horizon at sunset. The Moon is close to the Sun in the sky and mostly dark except for the right edge of the Moon which becomes brighter as the days get closer to the next phase which is a First Quarter with a 50% illumination. See three pics below for our 1969 and 2019 calculations…
Photos of the Moon in 1st picture comes from…
2nd picture comes from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio. Via –
And the 3rd picture comes from
Moreover, if overexposure is the reason why we can not see stars due to the Suns light directly hitting the face of the Moon (the side that always faces the Earth) then why can we still not see any stars when on an orbital fly by to the dark-side via the Luner Reconnaissance Orbiter? Answer: Star mapping inconsistencies would present a huge problem for NASA when it comes to seasoned and amateur astronomers.
Moreover, according to mainstream, “The astronauts could see stars with the naked eye only when they were in the shadow of the Moon.” Fine, but that makes the case for the LRO not being able to see any stars the more plausible oddity. How can one see stars in the shadow of a waxing crescent Moon but cannot see any stars when orbiting in total darkness around the dark side of the Moon.
Where are the Stars? This is the dark side of the Moon. Again where are the stars? They should be shining like great beams of light…
Someone might cite, “Ah, but the picture showing the darkness of space is too small to prove anything. The stars must be there, we just can’t see it in this particular photo!” Really? OK, fine. Here is another photo…
But someone may still persist and cite, “Ah, the only reason why you can’t see any stars is because it is obvious that they overexposed the Moon’s image to show detail!” Really? OK, fine. But what about these photos? The Moon is clearly dark. There are no other light sources like Moon dust, Earth light, or astronaut suits reflecting light. Now I persist, where are the stars?
Now, in reference to all those Moon photos displaying the “junk” astronauts supposedly left behind on the Moon, could very well be a prop upon a large table with little miniature models. The camera is above, upon a dolly type elevated crane, simply taking photographs. In reference to the photos showing the Earth from the dark-side (far side) of the Moon, apparently moving, is nothing short of modern day film techniques done in a studio/warehouse. These are excellent explanations. I do not need to see the evidence to support this alternative, anymore than I need to see that an apple falling down will hit the ground. On this conjecture I will ask them for evidence as to the validly of their photos and videos. The holes punched into the supposed round “blue dot” as seen through fake Moon photos and videos are enough to cause reasonable doubt, and hence a re-examination into the astronomical sciences, its physics and its, often times, hasty conclusions and mathematical biases. An alternative view – the correct view – must be looked at with all diligence and with a researching unbiased mind.
Objection 2. Mechanical Issues:
A. The Lunar Modules made no blast craters.
Mainstream Answer: “No crater should be expected. The 10,000-pound (4,500 kg) thrust descent propulsion system was throttled very far down during the final landing. The Lunar Module was no longer quickly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the lander’s own weight, which was lessened by the Moon’s gravity and by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. At landing, the engine thrust divided by the nozzle exit area is only about 10 kilopascals (1.5 PSI).” (48) (49).
48. Harrison 2021, p. 96
49. Plait 2002, p. 164
“Beyond the engine nozzle, the plume spreads, and the pressure drops very quickly. Rocket exhaust gasses expand much more quickly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably. To lessen this, rocket engines made for vacuums have longer bells than those made for use on Earth, but they still cannot stop this spreading. The lander’s exhaust gasses, therefore, expanded quickly well beyond the landing site. The descent engines did scatter a lot of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and many mission commanders spoke of its effect on visibility. The landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically, and photos do show scouring of the surface along the final descent path. Finally, the lunar regolith is very compact below its surface dust layer, making it impossible for the descent engine to blast out crate.”
“A blast crater was measured under the Apollo 11 lander using shadow lengths of the descent engine bell and estimates of the amount that the landing gear had compressed and how deep the lander footpads had pressed into the lunar surface and it was found that the engine had eroded between 4 and 6 inches (100 and 150 mm) of regolith out from underneath the engine bell during the final descent and landing.” (50) (51).
50. Plait 2002, pp. 163–65
51. Apollo 11 Preliminary Science Report” (PDF). NASA. 1969. NASA SP-214. Retrieved May 1, 2013.
My Rebuttal: None. This question, or observation, should not be a point of contention. But I thought that I should make mention of it for the sake of the reader.
B. No sign of scattered dust on the landing pads.
Mainstream Answer: “It was blasted away. Dust moved by a rocket exhaust in an airless environment such as the Moon doesn’t’ billow up around the spacecraft and then settle on it: it travels in straight lines away from the vehicle, unhindered by any air resistance, and therefore is unlikely to end up on the vehicle’s footpads…” (52).
“The Moon is airless, so there’s no atmosphere to carry the dust and allow it to form billowing clouds that then settle. The dust simply gets blown sideways and outward, racing roughly parallel to the ground and away from the landing spot, and then falls down at the end of its essentially rectilinear trajectory, without floating around. This effect is clearly visible in the footage of the Apollo lunar landings and lift-offs.” (53).
Moreover, “in a vacuum only the dust that is struck directly by the exhaust gets moved, and the exhaust expands very rapidly and just as rapidly weakens, so the displacement is very localized (on Earth, such a displacement has a broader action because the exhaust displaces the surrounding air, which in turn displaces dust, spreading out the effect).” (54).
My Rebuttal: Allow me to show you two very informative videos on Moon dust and how it interacts with people and mechanical devices…
Moon dust absolutely sticks to everything. It is like static. Learning that Moon dust went everywhere; from astronaut suits, onto their skin, fingernails, camera equipment, and onto their visors, to the point that it scratched them like sandpaper; but not onto the Lunar pad surfaces is beyond me. And since NASA admits that Moon dust was blown around the surface when in landing procedures, then that dust should have at least left a tiny bit, or something, even a morsel as they were Moon walking around and near it. But according to the following pictures below they are sparkling clean…
Moreover, the mainstream explanation is just plain wrong. They claim that “The dust simply gets blown sideways and outward, racing roughly parallel to the ground” and “there’s no atmosphere to carry the dust and allow it to form billowing clouds that then settle.” Moreover, the amount a gravity on the Moon is allegedly 1.62 m/s² that of Earth’s which is 9.807 m/s² the difference being 83.3% (or 5/6) less to be exact.
Point of contention; see the pictures below…
The 1st two pictures illustrates a car on a stoney surface. Note the projectile motion going STRAIGHT. Remember these are pebbles, not sand.
Now look at the pictures below. This time we see a vehicle on the sand creating what are called “Rooster Tails.” Rooster tails is a phenomenon that can only transpire on Earth due to our atmosphere…
More of the same Earthly phenomenon on a smaller scale…
Now compare these Apollo 16 photographs with the pictures above. Note: You can clearly see rooster tails were there shouldn’t be any. In the vacuum of space where there is no atmosphere this phenomenon should not be taking place. Moreover, sand on Earth is less denser than pebbles; and as such will exhibit rooster tail like effects. But on a dead body, like the Moon, this effect can NEVER happen. At best, like mainstream pointed out, the sand (Moon dust) will always travel in a straight line, like the car on the pebbled surface in the 1st two pictures above illustrated. But on the so-called lunar surface we don’t see that. Instead what we see are Earthly rooster tails, not traveling straight, but acting in accordance with Earthy phenomenon.
Rooster tails equal rooster tails on Earth. That is an Earthly location with a backdrop matte inserted in, edited, and then filmed (most likely before hand) and shown to the masses, for all to see. An 83.3% difference makes no sense at all when it comes to rooster tails. It is the Earth and nothing more.
C. The Lunar Modules weighed 17 tons and made no mark on the Moon dust, yet footprints can be seen beside them.
Mainstream Answer: On the Moon, it is said that the lander weighed about 17 short tons (34,000 pounds). “After expending fuel and oxidizer on its descent from lunar orbit, the lander weighed about 2,700 pounds. The astronauts were much lighter than the lander, but their boots were much smaller than the lander’s approximately 3-foot (91 cm) diameter footpads. Pressure is determined by units rather than Mass. And as such, it determines the amount of compression.” (55).
“In some photos, the footpads did press into the regolith, especially when they moved sideways at touchdown. (The bearing pressure under Apollo 11’s footpads, with the lander being about 44 times the weight of an EVA-configured astronaut, would have been of similar magnitude to the bearing pressure exerted by the astronauts’ boots).” (56). EVA (Extravehicular activity) is any activity done by an astronaut or cosmonaut outside a spacecraft beyond the Earth’s appreciable atmosphere. (57).
55. Orloff, Richard W. (September 2004) [First published 2000]. “Apollo by the Numbers: A Statistical Reference”. NASA History Program Office. NASA. ISBN 0-16-050631-X. NASA SP-2000-4029. Retrieved May 31, 2013. See Statistical Tables: “Selected Mission Weights (lbs)” and “LM Descent Stage Propellant Status”.
56. Rogers, William F. “Apollo Lunar Module Landing Gear” (PDF). Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. NASA. Retrieved May 31, 2013.
57. Wiki. Heiken 1991, pp. 475–476
My Rebuttal: None. This question, or observation, should not be a point of contention. But I thought that I should make mention of it for the sake of the reader. Moreover, one would literally have to go to the location and measure the alleged prints and their compressions. And that is impossible. Impossible for two reasons: One, they did not go. And two, it would be difficult to locate the original st design – and if we did, there really wouldn’t be anything to measure there.
Objection 3. Transmissions:
A. There should have been more than a two-second delay in communications between Earth and the Moon, at a distance of 400,000 km (250,000 mi). Moreover, typical delays in communication were about 0.5 seconds to 2.5 – 2.8.
Mainstream Answer: “Seconds is apparent in all the real-time recordings of the lunar audio, but this does not always appear as expected. There may also be some documentary films where the delay has been edited out. Reasons for editing the audio may be time constraints or in the interest of clarity.” (58).
“Claims that the delays were only half a second are untrue, as examination of the original recordings shows. Also, there should not be a consistent time delay between every response, as the conversation is being recorded at one end – Mission Control. Responses from Mission Control could be heard without any delay, as the recording is being made at the same time that Houston receives the transmission from the Moon.” (59).
58. Sarkissian, John M. (2001). “On Eagle’s Wings: The Parkes Observatory’s Support of the Apollo 11 Mission.” Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia. Collingwood, Victoria: CSIRO Publishing for the Astronomical Society of Australia 18 (3): 287–310. Bibcode 2001PASA…18..287S. doi: 10.1071/AS01038. Retrieved November 25, 2008. October 2000 website version, part 1 of 12: “Introduction.” Original version available from CSIRO Parkes Observatory (PDF).
My Rebuttal: The astronauts and Houston are communicating faster than the speed of light. There were no delays. YouTube user zelco321 was kind enough to upload recordings of the original live broadcasts of the CBS News Coverage of the 1960’s and 1970’s Apollo missions. There are several hundred CBS recordings on his channel. You can clearly hear that there are no delays. Here is one of them…You can can start at 6:01, if you like…
You can also go to the Lunar Surface Journal website from NASA. We see the same no-delay videos. (60).
See the 15 minute video for instance. It’s the third video clip down on the page. In many cases the astronauts and mission control are saying “Roger that,” “Copy,” and responding to each other’s questions immediately. The snippet from the original video “Houston, Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed.” “Roger that Tranquility, we copy you on the ground.” occurs at the 15:18 mark and is without delay. But someone might be quick to cite; “Responses from Mission Control could be heard without any delay, as the recording is being made at the same time that Houston receives the transmission from the Moon.”
Not true. We also see that the astronauts are clearly communicating with mission control without delay, and that mission control is communicating with the astronauts without delay. It cuts both ways. Each are saying “Roger,” “Copy That,” and answering each other’s questions almost immediately. So, so much for the theory of removing delay and video editing by NASA to accommodate for time. Additionally, the speed of light calculations do not account for the fact that Apollo 11 signals were allegedly received at a dish in Australia, which was then relayed to Houston on land lines (61), significantly slower than the speed of light as anyone who has made an international phone call across an ocean can attest), causing an even greater delay than 2.8 seconds.
Now, according to the narrative of NASA, President Nixon was able to communicate to the astronauts from 238,000ml away via a landline telephone. How was he able to do that so clearly when some people today can’t even get a cell phone signal properly? The answer to that line of skepticism is that NASA used what “Was actually a telephone-radio transmission. It would have been impossible to call to a radio channel directly by using a telephone.” (62). It is said that the transmission was made through what is known as the ‘S Band’ – utilizing 2.3 Ghz through a microwave wavelength. “Microwave wavelengths have frequencies ranging from about 1 billion cycles per second, or 1 gigahertz (GHz), up to about 300 gigahertz and wavelengths of about 30 centimeters (12 inches) to 1 millimeter (0.04 inches), according to the Encyclopedia Britannica.” (63).
They (NASA) did not use the VHF or the UHF bandwidth. However, Larry Baysinger; a radio amateur who worked for WHAS 840 AM radio, while using home-made equipment, was able to independently detect and record the transmissions from the Apollo 11 EVA using a home-made antenna. He was able to eavesdrop. “Baysinger’s wife and daughter watched the Apollo 11 landing on TV while Baysinger and Rutherford listened via Baysinger’s equipment. The signal on the home-built equipment came through approximately 5-10 seconds earlier than the signal on TV. Baysinger figures NASA or the TV network [I assume it was probably CBS] put in a delay in case they needed to edit out anything embarrassing.” (64) (65). If Baysinger truly picked up signals from the Moon, how did he do it using homemade equipment, utilizing the VHF bandwidth?
Before we answer our question above, let us take a look at the bandwidths in question; starting with the VHF.
136 – 138 MHz
This band was used heavily by many different types of satellites in the past. Today (2012), most activity is restricted to 137-138 MHz (which is the current allocation) and consists of meteorological satellites transmitting data and low resolution images, together with low data rate mobile satellite downlinks (eg Orbcomm)
144 – 146 MHz
One of the most popular bands for amateur satellite activity. Most of the links are found in the upper half of the band (145 – 146 MHz).
148 – 150 MHz
This tends to be used for uplinks of the satellites that downlink in the 137 – 138 MHz band.
149.95 – 150.05 MHz
This is used by satellites providing positioning, time and frequency services, by ionospheric research and other satellites. Before the advent of GPS it was home to large constellations of US and Russian satellites that provided positioning information (mainly to marine vessels) by use of the Doppler effect). Many satellites transmitting on this band also transmit a signal on 400 MHz.
240 – 270 MHz
Military satellites, communications. This band lies in the wider frequency allocation (225 – 380 MHz) assigned for military aviation.
399.9 – 403 MHz
This band includes navigation, positioning, time and frequency standard, mobile communication, and meteorological satellites. Around 400 MHz is a companion band for satellites transmitting on 150 MHz.
432 – 438 MHz
This range includes a popular amateur satellite band as well as a few Earth resources satellites.
460 – 470 MHz
Meteorological and environmental satellites, includes uplink frequencies for remote environmental data sensors
2.025 – 2.3 GHz
Space operations and research, including ‘deep space’ links from beyond Earth orbit. This encompasses the Unified S-band (USB) plan which is used by many spacecraft, and which was also used by the Apollo lunar missions. It also includes military space links including the US Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP). Many Earth resources (remote sensing) satellites downlink in this band.
2.5 – 2.67 GHz
Fixed (point-to-point) communication and broadcast satellites, although the broadcast allocation is only used in some Asian and Middle-eastern countries. (66).
As we can see above, the S Band uses the Ghz, while the VHF and UHF uses the Mhz format. “The differences between the two: One GHz equals one billion cycles per second whereas one MHz equals one million cycles per second. GHz is used to study the electromagnetic spectrum other than computing and radio transmission.” (67). “As a larger unit of measurement, GHz is 1000 times greater than MHz. Conversely, 1 MHz is 1000 times smaller than 1 unit of GHz.” (68).
But for more information on what Baysinger used and what he was supposedly able to accomplish see the link below. (69).
The S Band encompasses that of the VHF and UHF bandwidths. Since the MHz is 1000 times smaller than the GHz, it would be virtually impossible to receive a signal according to NASA’s narrative if it had truly been pinged from the Moon at 238,000ml away. If the account of Baysinger’s eavesdropping is true, it then came from the direction of the Saturn V command module ship nearing, or orbiting, the Moon, but not necessarily on the Moon itself – via its lunar module. However, and in all likelihood, Baysinger was able to pick up the signals because the astronauts were broadcasting from here; on Earth. Any spying by the Soviet Union in search of confirmation-al signals beaming from a distance of 386,000km couldn’t be truly successful concerning the validity of men on the Moon because there was no way for them to prove or disprove it. The only thing the Russians, other countries, and Baysinger himself had, was a radio signal and various radar devices.
Moreover, “Larry Baysinger recorded the VHF (Very High Frequency) signals coming from the antenna mounted on their PLSS (the “backpack”). Larry Baysinger did not record the Unified S-Band signals (which consisted of PM and wide band FM) coming from the LM’s antenna or from the erectable S-Band antenna. This is because the wide band FM signals carried audio and video, and required a very large antenna to detect which is not possible to do in a backyard with everyday home items. As for PM, that was used only during flight.” (70). For an official narrative of sorts see (71).
Hence, the distance of pinging from 386,000km was never proven by Baysinger by way of evidence, since Baysinger said himself that all that remains is the audio recording, and his word that it came from 386,000km. And while that was happening, the video feedback of the astronauts walking on the surface of the Moon could have been easily performed here on Earth prior to takeoff – giving the illusion of astronauts communicating from the Moon.
Appendix One: Recently, the Chandrayaan-2, developed by the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), supposedly took images of one of NASA’s lunar modules left on the Moon during the Apollo missions. Compare the images, as captured by NASA’s LRO (right image) and that of the Candrayaan-2 (left image). As you can see, they are obviously two images of the same area on the Moon, but they contain two completely different crafts sitting there. One them is lying. Or, both of them are lying. If the image on the right is true, then the image on the right is false. If the image on the right is true, then the image on the left is false. Again, one of them is lying. If they are both fake, then we can obviously conclude that the images are the results of manipulative photoshop software technologies.
Jarrah White, an Australian filmmaker, astrophysicist and geologist; with a Certificate III & IV qualifications with distinctions in Screen and Media at the Sydney Institute of TAFE NSW, Australia; and a BSc with a Major in Geology and a Minor in Astrophysics, completed in November 2017 and July 2019 respectively, has written an excellent article describing the discrepancies between the two images and the hoax of it all in the following link/citation. (72).
Appendix Two: Film Oddities.
Cameras are my “thing.” Hasselblad did an interview with someone doing a documentary. The chief designer of the Moon camera cracks a smile when asked how his camera took several of the “Moon” shots. It’s an interesting short video. Hasselblad can not explain the spot lighting. Social Media Blogger – Gary Mayo. (73).