Soar flares and the apollo mission

Deadly Radiation At and Past the Van Allen Shields

There is considerable evidence that the Van Allen shields, which start at an altitude of between 250 miles to 750 miles, protect us from deadly solar and cosmic radiation. (Italics and bold in the below quotes are mine.)

Herbert Friedman, in his book Sun and Earth, describes Van Allen's global survey of cosmic-ray intensity: "The results from Explorer I, launched on January 31, 1958, were so puzzling that instrument malfunction was suspected. High levels of radiation intensity appeared interspersed with dead gaps ... Explorer III succeeded fully, and most important, it carried a tape recorder. Simulation tests with intense X rays in the laboratory showed that the dead gaps represented periods when the Geiger counter in space had been choked by radiation of intensities a thousand times greater than the instrument was designed to detect. As Van Allen's colleague Ernie Ray exclaimed in disbelief: 'All space must be radioactive!'." Herbert Friedman later explains that "Of all the energy brought to the magnetosphere by the solar wind, only about 0.1 percent manages to cross the magnetic barrier."

The April 28, 1997 HST Update: Recommisioning Status Report states that the Van Allen radiation belts, between 200 and 500 miles high, "act as a thin, protective skin for Earth, trapping charged particles before they bombard our planet and harm us."

The Space Physics Textbook by the Space Physics Group of Oulu lists what high energy particle radiation in the radiation belts does and is:
"-it degrades satellite components, particularly semiconductor and optical devices
-it induces background noise in detectors
-it induces errors in digital circuits
-it induces electrostatic charge-up in insulators
-it is also a threat to the astronauts".

If it is a threat then why were not animal experiments beyond the Van Allen belts done first?

From http://www.ofcm.gov/nswp-sp/text/c-sec1.htm

"Today, we have far more knowledge of the space environment: from the turbulent surface of the Sun, with its continuous solar wind and periodic spewing of clouds of energetic ionized particles, to the protective boundary of the Earth's magnetic field, which provides a partial shield against deadly solar corpuscular radiation. The Earth's magnetic field is highly reactive to the onslaught of energy and pressure originating from the solar particles and fields."

From http://www.ofcm.gov/nswp-sp/text/d-sec2.htm

"...Besides being a threat to satellite systems, energetic particles present a hazard to astronauts on space missions. On Earth we are protected from these particles by the atmosphere, which absorbs all but the most energetic cosmic ray particles. During space missions, astronauts performing extra-vehicular activities are relatively unprotected. The fluxes of energetic particles can increase hundreds of times, following an intense solar flare or during a large geomagnetic storm, to dangerous levels. Timely warnings are essential to give astronauts sufficient time to return to their spacecraft prior to the arrival of such energetic particles."

The average orbit altitude of the space shuttle is 185 miles, below where the Van Allen shields begin. How were the Apollo astronauts protected against these deadly energetic particles and solar flares?

From http://www.geo.nsf.gov/atm/nswp/intro.htm

"... the sun ... occasionally ejects high energy particles that can be deadly to electronic components and biological systems..."

From http://ess.geology.ufl.edu/ess/Notes/040-Sun/primer.html

"The area between the Sun and the planets has been termed the interplanetary medium. Although sometimes considered a perfect vacuum, this is actually a turbulent area dominated by the solar wind, which flows at velocities of approximately 250-1000 km/s (about 600,000 to 2,000,000 miles per hour). Other characteristics of the solar wind (density, composition, and magnetic field strength, among others) vary with changing conditions on the Sun. The effect of the solar wind can be seen in the tails of comets (which always point away from the Sun)."

"Intense solar flares release very-high-energy particles that can be as injurious to humans as the low-energy radiation from nuclear blasts. Earth's atmosphere and magnetosphere allow adequate protection for us on the ground, but astronauts in space are subject to potentially lethal dosages of radiation. The penetration of high-energy particles into living cells, measured as radiation dose, leads to chromosome damage and, potentially, cancer. Large doses can be fatal immediately. Solar protons with energies greater than 30 MeV are particularly hazardous. In October 1989, the Sun produced enough energetic particles that an astronaut on the Moon, wearing only a space suit and caught out in the brunt of the storm, would probably have died."

Why would NASA subject people to this kind of risk?

Once you are past the Van Allen shields, for example between the earth and the moon, or on the moon, you would be subject to the full brunt of solar flares. The Van Allen shields protect us here on Earth from this deadly radiation.

One drawing showing the shield provided by the the earth's magnetic field is available at http://home.texoma.net/~linesden/cem/geomag/geomag.htm. In this SOHO illustration at http://sohowww.estec.esa.nl/bestofsoho/PAGE2/magfieldG_b.gif the white lines represent the solar wind, the blue lines represent the earth's protective magnetosphere, and the purple line represents the bow shock line.

However, even in low-earth orbit, below the Van Allen shields, an August 1972 event could have been life-threatening had there been a space walk in low-earth orbit at the time.

According to Interplanetary crew exposure estimates for the August 1972 and October 1989 solar particle events , "...estimates of human exposure in interplanetary space, behind various thicknesses of aluminum shielding, are made for the large solar proton events of August 1972 and October 1989. A comparison of risk assessment in terms of total absorbed dose for each event is made for the skin, ocular lens, and bone marrow. Overall, the doses associated with the August 1972 event were higher than those with the October 1989 event and appear to be more limiting when compared with current guidelines for dose limits for missions in low Earth orbit and more hazardous with regard to potential acute effects on these organs. Both events could be life-threatening if adequate shielding is not provided."

Apollo 16 was in April 1972 and Apollo 17 was in December 1972. Why would NASA proceed with Apollo 17 just after the August 1972 event and risk astronauts' lives?

The hulls of the Apollo spacecraft were ultra-thin. They would have been unable to stop any significant amount of radiation. The same can be said for the spacesuits.

A calculation quantifies the radiation risk associated with solar flares beyond the Van Allen shields.

From http://paperairplane.mit.edu/16.423J/Space/SBE/introduction/SpaceEnvironment.pdf

"Solar Flares are produced by 'storms' in the solar magnetosphere. These eruptions yield very high radiation doses within very short time periods (hours to days). There is a correlation with the 11 year solar cycle. The largest events occurring in the months following sunspot maximum. Solar flares are cataclysmic releases of energy resulting from processes that are poorly understood."

From http://www.pha.jhu.edu/~jaw/Seminar/jawsf4.html

"During a solar maximum, about 15 flares per day emit detectable X-ray energies."

From http://radhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/radhome/papers/seeca3.htm

"...(1964 for solar minimum and 1970 for solar maximum)."

So the Apollo missions, from 1969 to 1972, were occurring during a solar maximum, when there would have been peak numbers of solar flares per day!

Edward P. Ney estimates the radiation risks in an article titled The Sun Under Surveillance in the 1967 World Book Science Year: "We have rough estimates of what the moon travelers can expect, based on a few observations made during the last solar maximum in 1957. The most violent flares probably will produce exposures of 100 roentgens each hour and may hold this level for several hours". The terms roentgen and rem (Roentgen Equivalent Man) are interchangeable.

This level of radiation dose is confirmed by Space Biomedical Research Institute in Humans in Space:
"SOLAR FLARE
Very hazardous and intermittent but may persist for 1 to 2 days.
High energy protons travel at the speed of light so there is no time to get under cover.
Protected dose 10-100 REM/hr
Unprotected dose Fatal"

The Spacecast 2020 Technical Report puts the space weather radiation hazard to human life in perspective:
"...at geostationary orbit, with only 0.1 gm/cm2 of aluminum shielding thickness, the predicted radiation dose (REM) for one year continuous exposure, with minimum-moderate solar activity, is estimated to be about 3,000,000..."

At geosynchronous orbit, doses are "still low compared to interplanetary space due to geomagnetic shielding", according to Radiation Hardening In Space.

A radiation dose value from a low energy flare is provided from NASA Mooned America, p. 134: "On page 256 of 'Astronautical Engineering' there is a chart that shows the dosage of four different flares. On August 22, 1958 there was a low energy flare that could have been reduced to 25-rem with 2-cm of water shielding."

So, being conservative and using 25 rems per flare, we have 25 rems x 15 flares/day = 375 rems / day for the Apollo astronauts.

For occupational exposure dose limits, the International Atomic Energy Agency states that the "occupational exposure of any worker shall be so controlled" that the limit of an "effective dose of 50 mSv" "in any single year" "be not exceeded". 50 mSv converts to 5 rems.

How were the Apollo astronauts able to withstand 375 rems per day when the IAEA occupational exposure dose limit is only 5 rems in any single year?

Apollo Lunar Module Lack of Flame and Exhaust and Other Anomalies

Apollo Oxygen and Two-Gas Environment Problems

Apollo Internet Images and Videos with Anomalies and Inconsistencies

Various Other Apollo Image Anomalies

Radiation belt

Van Allen radiation belt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Van Allen radiation belts

The Van Allen radiation belt is a torus of energetic charged particles (plasma) around Earth, which is held in place by Earth's magnetic field. This field is not uniformly distributed around the Earth. On the sunward side, it is compressed because of the solar wind, while on the other side it is elongated to around three earth radii.

These processes creates a cavity called the Chapman-Ferraro Cavity, in which the Van Allen radiation belt resides. It is split into two distinct belts, with energetic electrons forming the outer belt and a combination of protons and electrons creating the inner belt. In addition, the belts contain lesser amounts of other nuclei, such as alpha particles. The Van Allen belts are closely related to the polar aurora where particles strike the upper atmosphere and fluoresce.

[hide]

[edit] Discovery

Prior to the Space Age, the possibility of trapped charged particles had been investigated by Kristian Birkeland, Carl Stormer, and Nicholas Christofilos.^[1] The existence of the belt was confirmed by the Explorer 1 and Explorer 3 missions in early 1958, under Dr James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. The trapped radiation was first mapped out by Explorer 4, Pioneer 3 and Luna 1.

The term Van Allen belts refers specifically to the radiation belts surrounding Earth; however, similar radiation belts have been discovered around other planets. The Sun itself does not support long-term radiation belts. The Earth's atmosphere limits the belts' particles to regions above 200–1,000 km,^[2] while the belts do not extend past 7 Earth radii R_E.^[2] The belts are confined to an area which extends about 65°^[2] from the celestial equator.

[edit] Research

Jupiter's variable radiation belts

An upcoming NASA mission, Radiation Belt Storm Probes (RBSP), will go further and gain scientific understanding (to the point of predictability) of how populations of relativistic electrons and ions in space form or change in response to changes in solar activity and the solar wind.

The RBSP mission is currently scheduled for 2012. The primary mission is scheduled to last 2 years, with expendables expected to last for 4 years. NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center manages the overall Living With a Star program of which RBSP is a project, along with Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO). The Applied Physics Laboratory is responsible for the overall implementation and instrument management for RBSP^[3].

Van Allen Radiation belts do exist on other planets in the solar system, whenever a planet or moon has a magnetic field that is powerful enough to sustain a radiation belt. However, many of these radiation belts have been poorly mapped. The Voyager Program (namely Voyager 2) only nominally confirmed the existence of similar belts on Uranus and Neptune.

[edit] Outer belt

Laboratory simulation of the Van Allen belt's influence on the Solar Wind; these aurora-like Birkeland currents were created by the scientist Kristian Birkeland in his terrella, a magnetized anode globe in an evacuated chamber.

The large outer radiation belt extends from an altitude of about three to ten Earth radii (R_E) above the Earth's surface. Its greatest intensity is usually around 4–5 R_E. The outer electron radiation belt is mostly produced by the inward radial diffusion^[4]^[5] and local acceleration^[6] due to transfer of energy from whistler mode plasma waves to radiation belt electrons. Radiation belt electrons are also constantly removed by collisions with atmospheric neutrals,^[6] losses to magnetopause, and the outward radial diffusion. The outer belt consists mainly of high energy (0.1–10 MeV) electrons trapped by the Earth's magnetosphere. The gyroradii for energetic protons would be large enough to bring them into contact with the Earth's atmosphere. The electrons here have a high flux and at the outer edge (close to the magnetopause), where geomagnetic field lines open into the geomagnetic "tail", fluxes of energetic electrons can drop to the low interplanetary levels within about 100 km (a decrease by a factor of 1,000).

The trapped particle population of the outer belt is varied, containing electrons and various ions. Most of the ions are in the form of energetic protons, but a certain percentage are alpha particles and O⁺ oxygen ions, similar to those in the ionosphere but much more energetic. This mixture of ions suggests that ring current particles probably come from more than one source.

The outer belt is larger than the inner belt and its particle population fluctuates widely. Energetic (radiation) particle fluxes can increase and decrease dramatically as a consequence of geomagnetic storms, which are themselves triggered by magnetic field and plasma disturbances produced by the Sun. The increases are due to storm-related injections and acceleration of particles from the tail of the magnetosphere.

There is debate as to whether the outer belt was discovered by the U.S. Explorer 4 or the USSR Sputnik 2/3.^{[citation needed]}

[edit] Inner belt

The inner Van Allen Belt extends from an altitude of 100–10,000 km ^[7] (0.01 to 1.5 Earth radii) above the Earth's surface, and contains high concentrations of energetic protons with energies exceeding 100 MeV and electrons in the range of hundreds of keV, trapped by the strong (relative to the outer belts) magnetic fields in the region.

It is believed that protons of energies exceeding 50 MeV in the lower belts at lower altitudes are the result of the beta decay of neutrons created by cosmic ray collisions with nuclei of the upper atmosphere. The source of lower energy protons is believed to be proton diffusion due to changes in the magnetic field during geomagnetic storms. ^[8]

Due to the slight offset of the belts from Earth's geometric center, the inner Van Allen belt makes its closest approach to the surface at the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA). The SAA is due to the fluid dipole being in a long term reversal process. The end result of this process is the Magnetic North Pole and Magnetic South Pole swapping locations. The process that creates the South Atlantic Anomaly is formally called Geomagnetic reversal.

[edit] Flux values

In the belts, at a given point, the flux of particles of a given energy decreases sharply with energy.

At the magnetic equator, electrons of energies exceeding 500 keV (resp. 5 MeV) have omnidirectional fluxes ranging from 1.2×10⁶ (resp. 3.7×10⁴) up to 9.4×10⁹ (resp. 2×10⁷) particles per square centimeter per second.

The proton belts contain protons with kinetic energies ranging from about 100 keV (which can penetrate 0.6 mm of lead) to over 400 MeV (which can penetrate 143 mm of lead).^[9]

Most published flux values for the inner and outer belts may not show the maximum probable flux densities that are possible in the belts. There is a reason for this descrepency : the number of spacecraft with instruments observing the belt in real time has been limited. The Earth has not experienced a solar storm of Carrington event intensity and duration while spacecraft with the proper instruments have been available to observe the event.

Regardless of the differences of the flux levels in the Inner and Outer Van Allen belts, the beta radiation levels are dangerous to humans.

Flux values, normal solar conditions
AP8 MIN omnidirectional proton flux >=100keV
AP8 MIN omnidirectional proton flux >=1MeV
AP8 MIN omnidirectional proton flux >=400MeV

[edit] Impact on space travel

Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as incoming ions may be as large as the circuit's charge. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.^[10]

Missions beyond low earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to four earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".^[11]^[12]

A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt. ^[13]

[edit] Causes

Simulated Van Allen Belts generated by a plasma thruster in tank #5 Electric Propulsion Laboratory at the then-called Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio.

It is generally understood that the inner and outer Van Allen belts result from different processes. The inner belt, consisting mainly of energetic protons, is the product of the decay of albedo neutrons which are themselves the result of cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere. The outer belt consists mainly of electrons. They are injected from the geomagnetic tail following geomagnetic storms, and are subsequently energized though wave-particle interactions. Particles are trapped in the Earth's magnetic field because it is basically a magnetic mirror. Particles gyrate around field lines and also move along field lines. As particles encounter regions of stronger magnetic field where field lines converge, their "longitudinal" velocity is slowed and can be reversed, reflecting the particle. This causes the particle to bounce back and forth between the Earth's poles, where the magnetic field increases.

A gap between the inner and outer Van Allen belts, sometimes called safe zone or safe slot, is caused by the Very Low Frequency (VLF) waves which scatter particles in pitch angle which results in the gain of particles to the atmosphere. Solar outbursts can pump particles into the gap but they drain again in a matter of days. The radio waves were originally thought to be generated by turbulence in the radiation belts, but recent work by James Green of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center comparing maps of lightning activity collected by the Micro Lab 1 spacecraft with data on radio waves in the radiation-belt gap from the IMAGE spacecraft suggests that they are actually generated by lightning within Earth's atmosphere. The radio waves they generate strike the ionosphere at the right angle to pass through it only at high latitudes, where the lower ends of the gap approach the upper atmosphere. These results are still under scientific debate.

There have been nuclear tests in space that have caused artificial radiation belts. Starfish Prime, a high altitude nuclear test, created an artificial radiation belt that damaged or destroyed as many as one third of the satellites in low earth orbit at the time. Thomas Gold has argued that the outer belt is left over from the aurora while Alex Dessler has argued that the belt is a result of volcanic activity.

In another view, the belts could be considered a flow of electric current that is fed by the solar wind. With the protons being positive and the electrons being negative, the area between the belts is sometimes subjected to a current flow, which "drains" away. The belts are also thought to drive auroras, lightning and many other electrical effects.

[edit] Removal

The belts are a hazard for artificial satellites and are moderately dangerous for human beings, but are difficult and expensive to shield against.

The physicists Robert P. Hoyt and Robert L. Forward proposed the concept HiVOLT (High Voltage Orbiting Long Tether) as a potential means to drain the radiation belt of high energy particles. The proposal involves deploying highly electrically charged tethers from satellites in orbit. Charged particles within the radiation belt encountering these tethers would be deflected by their large electrostatic fields onto paths that intersect with the atmosphere, where they would be harmlessly dissipated.^[14] Simulations have suggested that the inner belt could be drained to 1% of its natural electron flux within two months of HiVOLT operation.[

Fake moon landing

THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN TO PROVE, ONCE AND FOR ALL, THAT WE ARE NOT BEING TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT 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 update.

(CLICK ON THE FRAMED PICTURES TO VIEW THE FILM EVIDENCE.. ALL FILMS ARE IN

All pictures and Movies on this page are either copyright of NASA, Aulis or The Disclosure Project.

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 librarian/writer 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 belt!!!

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 at all.

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 not?

Another example 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?

One 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?

Answer: 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 astronauts.

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 East?

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 Crew Lie
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?

Apollo 13

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 asked, 'If 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!!!

RADIATION

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, I guess NASA just struck lucky!

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 colonists?
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 the list.

Vacuum and temperature NASA can handle; spacesuits and habitats provide plenty of air and insulation. Radiation, though, is trickier.

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 maladies.

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 Boston University

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.

By 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.

Right: The CRaTER telescope consists of silicon radiation detectors (red) mounted on detector boards (green), separated by pieces of "tissue-equivalent" plastic (tan). [More]

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 radioactive!

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."

Mitrofanov 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.

Right: 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.

RADIATION ARTICLE COURTESY OF NASA (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/11jul_lroc.htm)

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 environment.

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 background.

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 Shuttle.

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 were

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 surface!

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!

Bad Astronomy 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 wasn't used!

CONCLUSION 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.

Stewart Allen Roosa (Apollo 14) resigned from NASA and retired from the Air Force in February 1976.

Swigert resigned 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 in existence?

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!!!

UPDATE

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 !!! Click 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 Saturn 5.

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 already?

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!

1) Sceptics 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 the scam.

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?

3) There 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?

4) 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)

5) 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.

6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.

7) Why in most Apollo photos, is there a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background?

8) Why did 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 Moon).

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?

10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?

11) 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.

12) Who would dare risk using the LM on the Moon when a simulated Moon landing was never tested?

13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

14) 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.

15) 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 cars.

16) An astrophysicist 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?

17) 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.

18) 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.

19) How did 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.

20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapour discharges. They never did.

21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.

22) 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.

23) Why did NASA's administrator resign just days before the first Apollo mission?

24) 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 shielding!

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!

27) CNN issued 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."

28) In 1969 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.

29) If debris 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?

30) 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 truth.

China Fake Men In Space Reports

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 time-consuming business.

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!

Article By Andy Lloyd - October '08

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 11 Monkey 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!

'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 Publications.

(They can both be ordered by clicking the banners)

Please take time to look at the rest of our site or sign our guestbook

,

Flag with no shadow

Editor's Note: See also Further Findings.

Editor's Note: See also Further Findings.

An observation on the above study by Kees Nieuwland: A small feint yellow spot can be seen just above the horizon to the left of the steps. Increasing the exposure results in a full yellowish-round glare. What could this be? Another studio spotlight? It does not seem to be something attached to the steps – moreover, the steps should of course be invisible.

Editor's Note: See again Further Findings.

Lighting and shadow differences

Buzz height question

Editor's Note: The solar wind 'flag' is the solar wind composition experiment. The SWC consisted of a metal pole about 1.5 inches in diameter and 16ins long when collapsed. This extended to about 5ft and was allegedly inserted into the lunar surface to a depth of about 3ins (8cms). The foil was rolled up on a spring driven roller inside the tubing. Unfurled it hung from the pole and trapped particles of the solar wind during the EVA. Only the foil was returned to Earth. The pole remained on the 'lunar surface'. Compare with a disturbing buzz on next page.

Next Page

Back to Index

Apollo Investigation

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 11 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Is this the LM that really went to the Moon?
– – Close up view of the Apollo 11 Eagle

Editor's Note: This is a genuine Apollo 11 photograph, NASA file number AS11-40-5922, allegedly shot on the Moon. This picture was apparently taken just after a series of close ups of the LM's footpads. The adhesive tape used was more likely to have been a polyimide or Mylar¨.

Adhesive tape used on Apollo 15

Editor's Note: This is also a genuine NASA photograph, this time a close up of an Apollo 15 LM allegedly on the llunar surface. The adhesive tape may have been polyimide or Mylar¨.

'Buzz' different in various images . . .

Editor's Note: Accouterments is the American spelling. The 'wrist stripe' is the strap of the Omega manually-wound watch. This watch was supplied by NASA to be worn for time keeping purposes during every mission EVA. Each of these pictures was taken during the Apollo 11 EVA, and are from magazine number 40.

Next Page

Back to Index

Apollo Investigation

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 11 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Editor's Note: The solar wind composition experiment (SWC) consisted of a metal pole about 1.5 inches in diameter. This pole extended to about 5ft and was allegedly inserted into the lunar surface to a depth of about 3ins (8cms). Compare with Buzz height question on previous page.

Anomalies in Buzz exit sequence

Editor's Note: Of course both these photographs have always been available to researchers, but originally they had to be requested by number. In fact all published Apollo photographs are in the public domain. There are numerous other anomalies in this exit and descending the ladder sequence, see also Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers.

Use of tripod on the Moon? 1

Editor's Comment: It should noted that this study has used a cropped portion of images 5867 and 5868 to demonstrate the point being made. See also Apollo 12 exit from LM sequence: Use of tripod on the Moon? 2.

Camera height anomalies in Apollo 11

Next Page

Back to Index

Apollo Investigation

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 11 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Editor's Note: The solar wind composition experiment (SWC) consisted of a metal pole about 1.5 inches in diameter. This pole extended to about 5ft and was allegedly inserted into the lunar surface to a depth of about 3ins (8cms). Compare with Buzz height question on previous page.

Anomalies in Buzz exit sequence

Editor's Note: Of course both these photographs have always been available to researchers, but originally they had to be requested by number. In fact all published Apollo photographs are in the public domain. There are numerous other anomalies in this exit and descending the ladder sequence, see also Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers.

Use of tripod on the Moon? 1

Editor's Comment: It should noted that this study has used a cropped portion of images 5867 and 5868 to demonstrate the point being made. See also Apollo 12 exit from LM sequence: Use of tripod on the Moon? 2.

Camera height anomalies in Apollo 11

Next Page

Back to Index

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 11 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Editor's Note: See also previous study, a disturbing buzz.

Light from all sides

Editor's Note: The anomalous 'halo' around the photographer's shadow is a recurring effect in many Apollo photographs.

Two different views

Editor's Comment: Jack White says the text accompanying each of the above photographs was written by the NASA operators of the Apollo Image Gallery. Dave Greer pointed out that the editor of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, Eric Jones, has acknowledged he made an error when stating that the image in question was taken from Neil Armstrong's window, rather than Buzz Aldrin’s window, and has agreed to update the caption on the NASA web site accordingly (August 2006).

Eric Jones also mentioned that sometimes they would receive the occasional image that had been printed backwards. This was due to using scans from NASA photographic prints and there was always the possibility that a darkroom technician might accidentally print a photo backwards.

Next Page

Back to Index

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 11 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Whistle-blowers expose Apollo hoaxing

Editor's Comment: There is a strong probability that the anomalies in the continuity of these images were introduced DELIBERATELY – the work of whistle-blowing technicians, photographers and production people. These changes could neither occur on their own, nor are they 'accidents'. Please see Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers for background and context.

Editor's Comment: The usual definition of a panorama is that of a series of photographs, shot sequentially by standing and turning about 10 degrees for each shot, and NOT INTERRUPTING FOR OTHER PHOTOS. This does not seem to be the case for the Apollo imagery. These panoramas were never initially presented as 'approximate, or idealised composites', nor are they today. Consider the serious anomalies in the black 'sky' and shadow areas,

See also: Apollo16 file

Next Page

Back to Index

Apollo Investigation

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 11 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Next Page

Back to Index

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 11 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Next Page

Back to Index

Jack White's Apollo Studies – Hatch Anomalies File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Hatch Anomalies 1

Hatch Anomalies 2

Next Page

Back to Index

Jack White's Apollo Studies – Hatch Anomalies File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Hatch Anomalies 3

Hatch Anomalies 4

Next Page

Back to Index

,,

Hatch Anomalies 5

Hatch Anomalies 6
hatch anomalies 6

Hatch Anomalies 7

Next Page

Apollo Investigation

Jack White's Studies – General File B
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Editor's Note: These images originally appeared on apolloreality and are obviously from various sources. There is no way of knowing whether the moon models depicted here were those actually used to simulate Apollo aerial imagery. However, views of the LM flying over the lunar surface are questionable (see later study Apollo 16 LEM retouched). Therefore models like these would have been required for the purposes of creating faked still photographs and film animations.

Editor's Note: Please see comment above.

Why astronaut shadows are anomalous

Editor's Note: This concise, well-presented conclusion must put into serious doubt the authenticity of these Apollo photographs. And then by implication, the authenticity of the entire Apollo photographic record – no doubt fulfilling the intentions of those whistle-blowers involved.

Thanks to Dave Greer for highlighting that fact that the previous version of this study required clarification.

Next Page

Back to Index
Jack White's Studies – Apollo 12 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

'Sunlight' swaps sides during Apollo 12

Editor's Note: This concise, well-presented conclusion must put into serious doubt the authenticity of these Apollo photographs. And then by implication, the authenticity of the entire Apollo photographic record – no doubt fulfilling the intentions of those whistle-blowers involved.

Thanks to Dave Greer for highlighting that fact that the previous version of this study required clarification.

Use of tripod on the Moon? 2

Editor's Note: See a similar observation in an earlier study also exiting the LM: Use of tripod on Moon? 1.

Light direction anomalies

Next Page

Back to Index

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 12 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Identical lunar module – different scales

Editor's Note: See also later study on this finding: Wrecker on the Moon?

Suspect Surveyor lll in shadow

Editor's Note: The deep gloom of the crater in the lower picture is totally inconsistent with the upper photo, In addition, there is lens flare in the color picture which is very unusual as a result of side lighting. Moreover, it is highly unusual to see a perfectly circular lens flare – see also later study NASA do(o)med? Look in the sky Chapter 7.

Another miniature stage set?

Next Page

Back to Index

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 12 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Studio lighting reflects off black background

Editor's Note: This concise, well-presented conclusion must put into serious doubt the authenticity of these Apollo photographs. And then by implication, the authenticity of the entire Apollo photographic record – no doubt fulfilling the intentions of those whistle-blowers involved.

Thanks to Dave Greer for highlighting that fact that the previous version of this study required clarification.

Next Page

Editor's Note: This concise, well-presented conclusion must put into serious doubt the authenticity of these Apollo photographs. And then by implication, the authenticity of the entire Apollo photographic record – no doubt fulfilling the intentions of those whistle-blowers involved.

Thanks to Dave Greer for highlighting that fact that the previous version of this study required clarification.

Back to Index
Jack White's Studies – Apollo 14 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Double crossed during Apollo 14?

Editor's Comment: Please see previous study notes regarding reticules being added separately.

Editor's Note: Exactly the same conclusion was reached by Bennet and Percy in Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers.

Was Apollo 14 flag moved?

Editor's Comment: Research suggest that the flags in the Apollo photographs were added separately. Please see Jack White's Studies and also Further Findings.

Diverging shadow problem

Editor's Note: This anomaly was originally observed by David Percy. It is interesting to see another independent photographer arriving at a similar conclusion. Notice that the shadows of all the small rocks on the left of frame also extend in the same direction, not just those in the right foreground. Clearly the slight rise in the right foreground is not the reason for the direction of the shadow divergence.

For a more detailed analysis on the anomalous rocks in this photo please see: Serious shadow anomalies

Next Page

Back to Index
Jack White's Apollo Studies – Moon Sky File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

NASA do(o)med? Chapters 1-4

Editor's Comment: Please note that Apollo photograph AS15-82-11057 has no visible lens flare or any other artifact. But when adjustments are made to the contrast of the image as described above, a dome is revealed. Significantly, this anomaly is only in the black 'sky' area, it does not extend below the mountains.

Next Page

Back to Index
Apollo Investigation

Jack White's Apollo Studies – Moon Sky File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

NASA do(o)med? Chapters 5-8

Editor's Comment: Of course, any dissenters would say that for example in the case of AS12-49-7213 (bottom right) these pyramids, globes etc are distant objects on the real Moon. But as Jack White has shown with his earlier Apollo 12 study Conrad lowered to place on wire? there was no equipment on location on the real Moon either for the wiring of astronauts or for moving LMs around. See also further studies.

Next Page

Back to Index

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 15 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Editor's Comments: 1. The conclusion has to be that either the LM was repositioned or the backdrops were moved around, or both. See also Doing the twist during Apollo 15 below, and a later Apollo 16 study.

2. The usual definition of a panorama is that of a series of photographs, shot sequentially by standing and turning about 10 degrees for each shot, and NOT INTERRUPTING FOR OTHER PHOTOS. This does not seem to be the case for NASA. During his panorama research Jack White has found a number of anomalies, other than the visual problems he discusses within these studies. NASA still infers that these panoramas are the true representation of the lunar EVA sites. While NASA may wish to argue for poetic license in giving the public 'an idea' of the relevant lunar environment – these pictures were never initially presented as 'approximate, or idealised composites'. Nor are they today. Since it is quite obvious (from the similar conclusions drawn independently by both Jack White and David Percy) that these 'composite panoramas' are full of discrepancies, as such they CANNOT be considered the true record of their purported lunar locations.

Editor's Note: Another version of the Apollo 15 study: LEM does turnabout with same background. See comments above and Doing the twist in a later Apollo 16 study.

Same background - different spur

Apollo 15 - multiple use of sets and backdrops

Editor's Note: There can only be one LM in any given setting, see also the study below. It would appear that once again either the LM was repositioned, or the backdrops were moved around, or both. It is not a question of the background and setting varying depending on the camera viewpoint. In this case the LM is in a different position and orientation against the same run of backdrop.

Multiple use of sets and backdrops 2

Editor's Note: Of course although the backdrops match, the foregrounds are different. This was propbaly to help disguise the fact that the setting has been used for both a general scene, (photo AS15-82-11082) and an alternative setting for the LM (photo AS15-82-11057). It is highly likely that there was a finite number of backdrops available to the photographic team and that NASA failed to anticipate such meticulous analysis of the imagery.

Next Page

Back to Index Jack White's Studies – Apollo 15 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Editor's Note: Where is the flag? is a good question, but in the upper image the backdrop is nearer and square-on to the camera, whereas in the lower picture the backdrop is apparently further away. Notice also the height difference of the backdrops in relation to the LM. So there is something seriously awry with the continuity between these two images. See also Apollo 15 salutes.

Apollo 15 in a different light

Next Page

Back to Index
Apollo Investigation

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 15 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

With and without Hasselblad cameras

Apollo 15 – color or black/white?

Editor's Comments: The visor reflections do not match, neither is the lighting on the flag pole the same. The shadows of the astronaut do not match the profile of the astronaut (and since they are virtually the same poses, the shadows in both pictures should also be virtually the same.) There is a reticule over the right of the flag on the color picture 11863, but it is so faint it is barely visible.

Same backdrop – different scene

Editor's Note: The same mountain backdrops appear in various photos, irrespective of the foregrounds. Moreover, backdrops are moved around as is customary in theatrical stage work. And the LM cannot be in two different places at the same location. Finally, the flags are pointing in different directions in the two images. See also: Did we land on the Moon?

Whose footprint is this?

Editor's Note: This finding is no joke, it is very significant indeed. The devil is always in the detail.

For other findings concerning anomalous footprints please see Conrad lowered into place on wire? in an earlier study, and the last item at: Where we are now.

Next Page

Back to Index

Apollo Investigation

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 15 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

One or two Apollo 15 craters?

Editor's Note: The horizons are slightly different, as are the LMs – the length of the struts vary and the undersides of LMs are differently kitted out. The back and tops have minor differences as well. Although the LM 15 is apparently sitting lower into the moonscape this could be part of the scenic backdrop changes.

Jack's finding is significant and highlights the similarity in the composition of the two images. The same situation seems to apply to missions Apollo 16 & 17 – see later study.

Driving on the Moon?

Next Page

Back to Index

Jumping wires

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 16 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

crude retouching of lem

Editor's Note: Please see the study below and Apollo 16 LEM changes mid air in a later Apollo 16 study by Jack White.
And also see Further Findings.

––––– Crude retouching of yet another LEM
crude retouching of black 'sky'

Editor's Note: See also Further Findings.

Doing the twist – Apollo 16
doing the twist - apollo 16

Editor's Comments:

1. Compare a similar scenario in previous Apollo 15 study: Doing the twist.

2. The usual definition of a panorama is that of a series of photographs, shot sequentially by standing and turning about 10 degrees for each shot, and NOT INTERRUPTING FOR OTHER PHOTOS. This does not seem to be the case for NASA. During his panorama research Jack White has found a number of anomalies, other than the visual problems he discusses within these studies. NASA still implies that these panoramas are the true representation of the lunar EVA sites. While NASA may wish to argue for poetic license in giving the public 'an idea' of the relevant lunar environment – these pictures were never initially presented as 'approximate, or idealised composites'. Nor are they today. Since it is quite obvious (from the similar conclusions drawn independently by both Jack White and David Percy) that these 'composite panoramas' are full of discrepancies, as such they cannot be considered the true record of their purported lunar locations. See also later notes concerning Apollo 17 panoramas.

– – – Jump Salute 1 – more wired action?
jump salute 1

Editor's Note: This finding confirms Bennett and Percy's conclusions published in Dark Moon and
What happened on the Moon? For more on continuity anomalies during the "jump salute" please read:
Apollo Photo Anomalies.
Compare also Too precise for words! and Conrad lowered into place on wire? in earlier studies.

Next Page

Back to Index

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 16 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Jump Salute 2
camera on tripod

Editor's Comment: It should be noted that in the lower picture the astronaut is not in fact jumping. For more on continuity anomalies during the "jump salute" please see Apollo Photo Anomalies.

––––– rover - port or starboard

Editor's Comment: QUAD IV, the starboard side, was in fact the location for the Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA), a stowage bay. According to the record, the LRV was stowed on the port side, namely QUAD I. However, it should be noted that there were no still Hasselblad lunar surface photographs taken of the LRV in its stowed port-side position on any Apollo LEMs prior to unloading.

lem changes mid air

Editor's Comment: A distinctive feature of the Apollo 16 decal is the diagonal line across the US flag (as in the lower picture). However, this diagonal line (lanyard) is absent from the top image when the LM was allegedly in flight. See also previous study Computer reveals crude retouching of Apollo 16 LEM.

According to the Apollo record, the port side (QUAD I) was the location of the lunar rover (LRV), marked 'A'. In the lower picture the LRV has been unloaded. Some may question whether the difference in protrusion from the LM – when the two images are compared – is consistent with the considerable bulk of the folded LRV. In other words, there is margin for doubt whether the rover could have actually fitted into the 'bay'. No deep recess as such is visible. Please see following study. It should be noted that there were no still Hasselblad photographs taken of any Apollo LM on the lunar surface prior to unloading the LRV.

– – – Apollo 16 LEM anomalies
anomalies apollo 16 lem

Editor's Comment: These findings, taken together, suggest that the LRV was probably not flown on this LM. Moreover, the starboard stowage bay does not appear to be deep enough to accommodate the bulk of the MESA (see also later studies). If this conclusion is correct, then photographs of the LM must have been doctored, including moving the flag/US decal on the images.

This stowage problem could explain why no still photographs were taken before unloading the LRV, and together with the fact that footprints associated with unstowing the rover are mainly on the wrong side, loud 'whistles' can be seen, if not heard.

–––––The same photoshoot?
The same Photoshoot

Next Page

Back to Index

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 16 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Rover fender repair anomaly
fender anomaly

Same backdrops – different foregrounds
same backdrops - different foregrounds

Editor's Comment: See previous notes concerning all Apollo panoramas. NASA could not have foreseen that researchers would have the patience to make a detailed study of the backdrops and spot the fakery. The space agency has been rumbled, well and truly.

Frugal use of same props – again?
frugal use of same props

Editor's Comment: Only one major item is different – the US flag above the decal. No distinctive diagonal line (lanyard) accross the Apollo 17 flag. See also Apollo 16 LEM changes mid air, Anomalies with Apollo 16 LEM, and previous notes regarding the Apollo 15 study Just a coincidence.

Next Page

Back to Index
Jack White's Studies – Apollo 16 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

lem views 90 deg different

Editor's Comment: The usual definition of a panorama is that of a series of photographs, shot sequentially by standing and turning about 10 degrees for each shot, and NOT INTERRUPTING FOR OTHER PHOTOS. NASA still infers that these panoramas are the true representation of the lunar EVA sites. These pictures were never initially presented as 'approximate, or idealised composites'. Nor are they today. Since it is quite obvious (from the similar conclusions drawn independently by both Jack White and David Percy) that these 'composite panoramas' are full of discrepancies, as such they CANNOT be considered the true record of their purported lunar locations.

NASA could not have foreseen that photo-analysis experts would make a detailed study of the backdrops (and the LEM positions in relation to these backdrops) to reveal the whistle-blowing fakery.

Uneven lighting on Apollo backdrop

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 17 File
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Mountain backdrop stretch?
mountain backdrop stretch

Editor's Comment: Jack White did the computer stretching to make the lower image 15% wider. When images A&B were made in the early 1970s a computer may have been used to stretch or compress. But the same result could have been achieved by either photo retouching, or by physical adjustment of the backdrop and the set.

The usual definition of a panorama is that of a series of photographs, shot sequentially by standing and turning about 10 degrees for each shot, and NOT INTERRUPTING FOR OTHER PHOTOS. This does not seem to be the case for NASA.
1) The number of photos in Apollo panoramas seem to exceed the number of photos listed as being shot for that 'scene'. Some panoramas use from 15 to 25 separate photos.
2) Panorama shots are OUT OF SEQUENCE. In one Apollo 17 panorama of 21 pictures, when the photos are listed in numerical sequence, the picture elements in the panorama ARE NOT SEQUENTIALLY NUMBERED, but interspersed with other shots numerically.
For instance:
Number A, photo 3 of 21 pan sequence
Number B, different photo
Number C, different photo
Number D, photo 6 of 21 pan sequence
Number E, different photo
Number F, photo 11 of 21 pan sequence
However, whether composed of one or many shots, NASA still infers that these panoramas are the true representation of the lunar EVA locations. While NASA may wish to argue for poetic license in giving the public 'an idea' of the relevant lunar environment – these pictures were never initially presented to the public as 'approximate, or idealised composites'. Nor are they today. Since it is quite obvious (from the similar conclusions drawn independently by both Jack White and David Percy) that these 'composite panoramas' are full of discrepancies, as such they CANNOT be considered a true record of their purported lunar sites.

Apollo 17 panorama mismatches

Editor's Comments: If both these panoramas are indeed depictions of the same location, features should correspond. For example, a 'new' or different hill is apparent to the left of the rover in the lower image – its 'arrival' cannot be due to the different lighting. See important notes under Mountain backdrop stretch? concerning Apollo panoramas.

Next Page

Back to Index

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 17 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Adhesive tape give-away
scotch tape give away

Editor's Note: For some it may be difficult to come to terms with the fact that on a project where "money was no object" NASA would use crudely-applied adhesive tape (probably Mylar® or similar) to secure the US decal. Surely a big time whistle-blowing gamble that someone like Jack White would reveal it to the world.

same lem, background changed

Editor's Note: This study is a close one to call, but the images are SO alike, considering the fact that they are from two totally different missions with differing conditions and 'terrains', one really wonders. The LM shadows are going to to be generally similar, but to achieve the same precise shadow details (for example see arrow) the lighting would have to be from exactly the same height and orientation to the LM on both missions. No doubt NASA never anticipated that researchers would analyse this material so closely.

Another trackless rover

Next Page

Back to Index

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 17 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Best trackless rover picture
best trackless rover

Editor's Comments: Regarding the rover's damaged fender, author Andrew Chaikin says: "Before the geology traverse, Cernan had accidentally caught his hammer on the Rover's right rear fender and before he realised it – most of the fender was gone. As a result the entire geology traverse was accompanied by a spray of dust that shot skyward and rained down on the two men." Then, the following day: "After repairing the Rover's broken fender with some maps, grey tape and clamps – a fix devised overnight in one of mission control's back rooms," this fender gave out finally on the way back to the LM [after the last geology trip].

However, with conspicuously absent tracks, all this sounds like pure fantasy if the rovers were never actually driven on the Moon. See also article Further Findings.

On way to final parking place

Editor's Note: According to the record, the Apollo 17 rover was finally parked several kilometres away from the LM. See also Final resting place for rover? below.

Final resting place for rover?
apollo hoax theory

Editor's Comment: Three more questions:

1) Why is the dish antenna pointed forward, when in the inset photo the dish is pointed backward?

2) Is the distance of the LM in this photo commensurate with the 4 ks from the LM indicated on NASA map of Apollo 17 stations? (See later study Same hill used many times.)

3) Why is the lighting so different in both these pictures? In the inset photo, the light source is from left of frame and the front wheel is in shadow, in the main photo the wheel is in a different position and not in shadow. In the main image the lighting is higher and onto the rear of the LRV. Therefore a) the rover has been moved between these images – except there are no tracks, as Jack White points out – and b) the lighting is from a completely different height in the 'sky.'

Next Page

Back to Index

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 17 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

earth not in consecutive photos

Editor's Comment: It is worth noting that there is an alignment on the horizontal lines despite the slight
change of camera position and rearward lean of astronaut. Was the Earth really in the photo,
or was it perhaps added in the darkroom?

Compare Study 'Earth Pasted'.

– – – Visor reflection anomaly
visor reflection anomaly

Editor's Comment: This finding does not tally with the recorded Apollo 17 TV coverage. Therefore this still image and the TV transmissions of this event cannot both be valid. Please see the DVD What happened on the Moon?
to make a full comparison betwen the two media. See also article Further Findings.

––

Visor reflection oddities

The case of the missing LEM
The case of the missing LEM

Editor's Comment: Once again, it is likely that there was a finite number of backdrops available to the photographic team to produce a large number of photographs and that NASA failed to anticipate such meticulous analysis of the imagery. See The skeleton in NASA's spacesuit and Exposing Apollo.

Editor's Note: Set designers messing up or whistle-blowing again? This study could equally have been titled The case of the reusable hill, because in the Apollo 17 TV transmissions Hill 'A' features prominently in two totally different panorama sequences.

Next Page

Back to Index
Jack White's Studies – Apollo 17 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

stagehands make mistake

Editor's Comment: Another mistake or intentional whistle-blowing?

Kubrick Set

Editor's Comment: More 'mistakes' or intentional whistle-blowing?

distant or close lem

Editor's Comment: Yet more 'booboos' or INTENTIONAL mistake-making? See also Exposing Apollo.

camera mount changes

Next Page

Back to Index

Apollo Investigation

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 17 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Same hill (H) used many times
Same hill use many times

Editor's Note: Exactly the same conclusion was reached by researcher David Percy in
What happened on the Moon? For more in relation to the Apollo 17 stations map,
please see also the Final resting place for rover in a previous Apollo 17 study.

– – – – – – – More serious anomalies
More serious anomalies

Editor's Comment: More 'mistakes' or intentional whistle-blowing?

How is this possible?

Editor's Note: Surely multiple use of sets and backgrounds can be the only answer.

Same backdrops over and over
same backdrops used

Editor's Comment: The inevitable conclusion must be yes.

– – –High view of rover in wonderland
High view of rover

Editor's Comment: Of course dissenters might say the main photograph was taken from a
convenient adjacent slope! Please see previous references to multiple use of backdrops and settings.

Next Page

Back to Index

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 17 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Apollo 17 LM disappears
Apollo 17 lem disappears

Mountain backdrops change again
Mountain backdrops change again

Editor's Comment: More 'mistakes' or yest more intentional whistle-blowing?

confused lighting

Editor's Note: This effect cannot occur with natural sunlight.

The proof is in the detail 1
The proof is in the detail

– – –– – The proof is in the detail 2

Next Page

Back to Index

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 17 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Three light sources used to illuminate the CSM
3 light sources on the CSM

Same CSM – different look
Same CSM different look

Next Page

Back to Index

Rover

Jack White's Mystery of the Apollo Moonrovers
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

moonrovers chapter 1

Editor's Comment: According to the record, the LRV was stowed on the port side, in QUAD I. Therefore the gold foil visible on the port side bay must be the gold foil subsequent to unloading the rover.

moonrovers chapter 2

Editor's Comment: Some may question whether the stowed LRV on the port side in the above image (AS16-118-18894, compared with AS16-116-18579 or AS17-140-21370 after unloading) is consistent with the considerable bulk of the folded LRV, as depicted in the BW photograph in Chapter 5 on next page.

Next Page

Back to Index

Jack White's Mystery of the Apollo Moonrovers
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

moonrovers chapter 3

Editor's Note: See also earlier Apollo 16 study: Computer reveals crude retouching of Apollo16 LEM. The point made by Jack White "...not a single photo of an LRV attached to the port side of a LEM can be located" may require clarification. It appears that he is referring to lunar surface photos of the stowed LRVs. The only photo of an LRV apparently on the port side of a LM is one depicted in flight against a black background AS16-118-18894. But as Jack White has demonstrated, the photograph is suspect because he has found that this 'in flight' image was retouched.

moonrovers chapter 4

Editor's Note: Although there was TV coverage of lowering the Apollo 15 LRV from the port side, which was somewhat lacking in detail, there were no Hasselblad still photographs of this operation taken on any of the Apollo missions.

moonrovers chapter 5

Editor's Note; The answer to 'What was in the package?' is that the starboard stowage bay, QUAD IV, was the location of the Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA). This is where a number of items were stowed. These are said to include camera lens items, geology tools, sample containers, communications equipment and so forth. Although there was lo-res, rather indistinct, TV coverage of lowering the Apollo 15 rover, there were no Hasselblad still photographs of this operation taken on any of the missions.

No doubt if there was the will, the unloading operation could have been halted for a few moments in order to photograph unstowing the LRV for posterity. Some may question whether the stowed LRV in the Apollo 16 image AS16-118-18894 in Chapter 2 on the previous page (compared with say AS16-116-18579) is consistent with the bulk of the folded LRV, as depicted in the above BW photograph.

Next Page

Back to Index

Apollo Investigation

Jack White's Studies – General File C
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

With and without extra lighting
with/without extra lighting

Editor's Note: The top image is the subject of further discussion in Apollo photo anomalies.

Color photos Vs gold foil

Editor's Note: This study was produced by Jack White to answer any detractors that might say the 10x8 prints in the above Apollo study were actually pieces of gold foil.

Overlay used to add US decal to lunar module
overlay used for decal

LEM black patch anomaly
LEM black patch

Editor's Comment: There is far more to this image than meets the eye. Regarding the black paper-like material that was added – it is obviously not a part of the LM, therefore it must have been an addition made during the photo shoot – no doubt by a whistle-blower. Was the purpose to draw attention to the LM itself, or perhaps to a situation the photographic team were unhappy about?

This 'black paper' anomaly does not appear in other photographs, and must have been added ON THE SET.The astronauts certainly had no reason whatsoever to add it, nor had they the material to add it while ON THE MOON. This photograph alone proves fakery, since it was added over the US decal. And hopefully the NASA Press Office has the answer as to what the object may be that is reflected in the helmet.

Next Page

Back to Index

Apollo Investigation

Jack White's Studies – General File C
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Editor's Note: It was researcher Bill Kaysing who first remarked that photographs should depict dust on the surface of all footpads. Bill reasoned that the descent engine would throw up quantities of lunar dust that would settle on the upper surfaces of the gold foil. "The insulation on the secondary struts of the LM was damaged by heat – but the primary struts were only singed – or covered in soot." Apollo 11 – The NASA Mission Reports Volume 3.

The NewScientist Letters to the Editor:
Missing moon dust
From George Tetbury
"In your article on moon dust you reveal that Apollo 11, 12, 15 and 16 experienced poor visibility while landing (28 May 2005 p.40). But we have photos of the feet of the lander standing on the lunar surface with not a speck of dust on them. If all the dust was blown away during the landing, Neil Armstrong's historic first step would not have left an imprint. What are we to believe?"
Glasgow, UK

Backdrops in a studio?
backdrops in a studio

nasa's open door

Editor's Note: Perhaps Jack White should have used the word PICTURE instead of IMAGE. It is well known that film manufacturers expose "images" of numbering and lettering using mechanical exposure through masks during manufacture. And a roll of film can be accidentally partially exposed to light during handling. Both of these may "create" images on the film, but neither creates a "picture". A picture can only be formed by a conventional light image passing through a lens aperture. An exception is the passing of X-RAYS through something, forming a shadowgram on film. The above discussion concerens the Hasselblad still photographs and not x-rays, accidental exposures, or manufacturers' markings.

End Note: Everyone expects NASA to behave with honesty and integrity, but in the case of Apollo, both qualities appear to be sadly lacking.

Next Page

Back to Index

Views

Apollo Investigation

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 12 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

2 mutually exclusive views

Identical lunar module – different scales
nasa moon landing hoax

one more for the road

Editor's Note: See also later study on this finding: Wrecker on the Moon?

Suspect Surveyor lll in shadow

Editor's Note: The deep gloom of the crater in the lower picture is totally inconsistent with the upper photo, In addition, there is lens flare in the color picture which is very unusual as a result of side lighting. Moreover, it is highly unusual to see a perfectly circular lens flare – see also later study NASA do(o)med? Look in the sky Chapter 7.

Another miniature stage set?

Next Page

Back to Index

Apollo Investigation

Examples of anomalies and inconsistencies in the Apollo photography

It is the opinion of Aulis, as well as expert photo analysts like Jack White BA, that the numerous inconsistencies in the Apollo photographs encode deliberate mistakes. Therefore the Apollo record may not be a true and accurate account of the manned landing(s) on the Moon. Evidence for these conclusions falls into a number of categories:

Background mountains located just metres away, not kilometres
Physicists and Professors of Mathematics conclude Apollo fakery
Use of multiple overhead light sources
Light direction anomalies (no lights were taken to the Moon)
Lighting units visible 'in shot'
Incorrect size of the 'sun'
Impossibly high camera positions
Fabricated scenes deploying photo compositing
Mutually exclusive images
Retouching/blocking out of unwanted background details
Lunar rovers that leave no tracks in the 'lunar' dust
Footprints in the 'lunar' dust not belonging to Apollo astronauts

Examples of the above are to be found on the various Apollo Investigation pages, here is a selection:

Photo compositing

Here are two photos of the flag allegedly taken during the Apollo 11 EVA:

AS11-40-5905 (left) and AS11-40-5886 (right)

Flag close ups from AS11-40-5905 (left) and AS11-40-5886 (right)

The same two images – the flag from the right photo mirrored/flipped for comparative purposes

The flags in these two shots are suspiciously similar. For example, compare the shadows just back from the leading edge of the flag – and there are numerous other points of correspondence. (We will address the matter of the differential heights of the camera taking these images a little later.)

These side-by-side comparisons reveal the startling fact that BOTH flags are billowing positively towards the camera. But these two pictures were taken on opposite sides of the flag. When photographing the 'front' and the 'back' one flag should be billowing positively towards the camera while the other should be billowing negatively away from the camera.

In other words, the areas of the flag that are convex (towards) the camera in one image must be concave (away) in the other. But this was not the case during this Apollo photography.

The frame grab below, taken with the data acquisition camera from the LM, provides a view of the flag correctly billowing away from the camera:

View of the flag correctly billowing away from the camera, taken from the LM

As image AS11-40-5886 (right) does not have the flag correctly oriented, the two pictures cannot depict truly reverse views of the same scene.

AS11-40-5905 and AS11-40-5886 – both images shown full frame

This finding suggests that the flags were added to the scenes afterwards, with the same side of the flag used in both pictures. This error in compositing may have occurred inadvertently – or even intentionally by whistle-blowers – totally disregarding the fact that each scene was photographed 180 degrees to each other.

To clarify further, it appears that the compositors deliberately inserted the flag into the scene billowing the wrong way – i.e. billowing/furling towards the viewer in both cases.

Another photograph taken on this same magazine of film – AS11-40-5874 on Mag 40 – reveals that the flag and pole in that image casts no shadow whatsoever – see also Jack White's study.

High camera positions

AS11-40-5903 as analysed by Dr David Groves

Returning to the differences in the camera height, we know from the famous picture AS11-40-5903 that the position of the camera above the lunar surface was at the same level as the line of the horizon extrapolated across the visor of the astronaut imaged in the photograph. The centre reticle is over the subject’s right ankle, indicating a camera position much higher than the Hasselblad chest-bracket level.

Dr Dr David Groves’ analysis of the camera height indicating that the photograph was taken from eye level and NOT from the chest bracket (full report see Dark Moon Appendix)

The photographer reflected in the gold visor is neither standing on an object/rock to give him extra height, nor is he holding the camera at eye-level.

David Groves has determined that the terrain does not undulate more than a few inches where the subject was standing, so the conclusion must be that the reflection in the visor (with the camera at chest height) is not that of the photographer of the main image.

AS11-40-5905 and AS11-40-5886

It would appear that the left picture (AS11-40-5905) was probably taken from around chest height, but that AS11-40-5886 was photographed from a far greater height.

AS11-40-5886 depicts a viewpoint that is far too high – the flag is mostly below the horizon. There is no elevated position in this location from which to take such a photograph with a chest-mounted camera. See also Jack White’s study A Matter of Perspective.

Conclusion: these are all faked photographs that happen to be on the same roll of film that allegedly commemorate mankind’s first landing on the Moon.

Extra lighting used on the Moon

There is clear, irrefutable evidence that lighting was used in the still photographs, yet no lighting equipment was taken to the Moon. Consider the sequence of pictures of Aldrin descending the ladder on the shadow side of the LM during Apollo 11. Dr David Groves and David Percy have analysed the ‘hotspot’ on the heel of Aldrin’s right boot and found that a directional light was used – apparently placed just to the right of the camera position. This finding regarding the location of the light source is supported by a process known as 'ray tracing' – see below. Full details of this analysis can be found in the Appendix of Dark Moon.

AS11-40-5866 (close up)

Serious shadow anomalies: multiple light sources

AS17-145-22172 example of multiple overhead light sources – cannot be sunlight

AS14-68-9486/7 LM shadow anomaly

To the casual observer the rock shadows in the lower right foreground fall in a different direction to the horizontal background shadow of the LM, due to the rocks being located on 'higher ground' in this part of the image. This conclusion would be correct, if there was a distinct rise in the right foreground level, it would throw the shadows in different directions to any shadows cast elsewhere on the relatively flat 'terrain'.

HOWEVER in this case, ALL the rock shadows fall on the same diagonal in the picture. For example, after close observation of the distant, central rocks (see enlarged image below) the shadows are unquestionably on the diagonal – these rocks are not on higher ground. The only exception to these diagonal shadows in this photograph is the shadow cast by the LM itself. THIS IS THE PRIME REASON WHY THIS IMAGE IS ANOMALOUS.

AS14-68-9486/7 (close up section) demonstrates direction of shadows

One possible scenario is that the LM's shadow was 'painted in'. In any event, the inescapable conclusion is that the entire scene was illuminated by artificial light sources because natural sunlight cannot result in shadows as seen in AS14-68-9486/7.

Moreover, if the 'sun' was out of frame to the left of the image, generating the LM's shadow, it could not result in lens flare in this photograph. It is the combination of factors that makes this image anomalous. Whilst the foreground rocks have dense shadows rendering part of these objects totally black, detail is still visible on the shadow side of the LM.

The anomalies and the proof are, as always, in the detail. (Lens flare is discussed elsewhere in the Aulis Apollo investigation.)

Anomalous footprints

Among the out-of-place, tell-tale footprints here is an interesting example – no doubt carefully placed by a whistle-blowing stage hand in the hope that it would be noticed one day.

This detail is from an Apollo 15 photo AS15-86-11670

Side view of Apollo boot to show horizontal ribs

See also Big Boot Sighting Where We Are Now.

Mutually exclusive images

The following two images are good examples of what we consider to be multiple utilisation of foregrounds and backgrounds, probably to maximise the investment in studio settings. See also Exposing Apollo for more detail.

AS17-134-20437-20443 top and AS17-147-22494-22521 lower panorama

This policy of doubling-up on sets only becomes apparent when a number of individual images are combined to make a panorama, as above. Viewed singly, the elements of these montages look totally convincing.

The large mountain is undoubtedly the same in each case, as well as features 'B', 'D' and 'E'. The small crater in the left foreground is also common to both images. One might conclude that the LM, as seen in the top image, was physically uplifted and moved into the foreground prior to photographing the lower image, or the whole thing was put together in the NASA photo lab.

For more examples see Jack White's Apollo 12 studies and Apollo 17 studies.

Conclusion: these are all faked photographs and not a true and accurate record mankind’s visits to the Moon. Further examples of anomalies in the photographic record are to be found elsewhere in the Aulis Apollo investigation.

Aulis Online

This article is licensed under
a Creative Commons License

Jack White's Studies – Apollo 17 File
An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White
All studies © 2005/7 Jack White

Same hill (H) used many times
Same hill use many times

Editor's Note: Exactly the same conclusion was reached by researcher David Percy in
What happened on the Moon? For more in relation to the Apollo 17 stations map,
please see also the Final resting place for rover in a previous Apollo 17 study.

– – – – – – – More serious anomalies
More serious anomalies

Editor's Comment: More 'mistakes' or intentional whistle-blowing?

How is this possible?

Editor's Note: Surely multiple use of sets and backgrounds can be the only answer.

Same backdrops over and over
same backdrops used

Editor's Comment: The inevitable conclusion must be yes.

– – –High view of rover in wonderland
High view of rover

Editor's Comment: Of course dissenters might say the main photograph was taken from a
convenient adjacent slope! Please see previous references to multiple use of backdrops and settings.

Next Page

Back to Index
Further Findings

As time passes since the last days of Apollo, an increasing number of anomalies in the Apollo record are coming to light, thanks to the diligence of many researchers.

We include some of these new findings below.

The best 'trackless rover' photograph?

AS17-140-21354

This ‘trackless rover’ finding is from Kazimierz Ozóg, who lives in Poland. The above photo was taken from the LM window, showing the LRV and the flag. This picture, as well as similar photos (21352/53 & 21358) of the lunar rover (LRV) were allegedly taken during the Apollo 17 mission on the Moon.

AS17-140-21354

This series of photographs purport to be post EVA #2. Although this photo leads us to believe that the rover has been driven extensively (background tracks in shot) and suffered wear and tear (repair to right rear fender), looking at a closer view it is abundantly clear that there are no tracks immediately behind or under the vehicle generated by the arriving LRV. If the LRV had already been driven as implied by this image, why not?

It is also noteworthy that the right rear wheel has the benefit of additional illumination to bring out the detail of the right rear wheel tread, separating it from the wheel's own shadow. The technique of using close up reflectors and carefully-placed lights is used in automobile photography to make a vehicle look its best. No artificial lights were taken to the Moon during Apollo – but see studies at the end of this article.

AS17-140-21358

It could be argued that the astronauts moving around the vehicle may have partly disturbed any rover tracks – but there are none visible whatsoever – not even under the LRV. (See previous picture AS17-140-21354, and photo AS17-140-21358 above.)

Together with other examples of trackless rovers this finding suggests that the LRV may have been lowered into place for the photography. See also Jack White’s studies here and here.

Apollo 11 lens flares

Kazimierz Ozóg has also drawn our attention to an Apollo 11 composite image created by Ed Hengeveld – a space flight historian who lives in the Netherlands.

Apollo 11 LM – composite

We assembled our own version (above) from photo numbers AS11-40-5850, 5863-69 and 5935 – the latter being essentially the flare of the ‘sun’ – located just outside the image frame. The main part of the large flare in AS11-40-5935 was placed in a position to approximate the location of the 'sun'.

During the original photography of these individual Apollo 11 images, a variety of lens flares were registered. We have superimposed Kazimierz Ozóg's lines tracing three separate axes of these lens element flares. (Lens flare is the non-image forming light entering the lens in such a way as to reflect off the internal surfaces of the lens, thus causing the flare elements themselves to become incorporated into the image).

Does this composite reveal the differing directions of the various key light sources positioned at the time of photography to ensure the best-lit result for each of the individual shots? See also studies analysing the 'sun' later in this article.

A familiar Apollo 17 image

AS17-134-20384

However, the version shown below, enhanced by Kazimierz Ozóg, is not the image located in the Apollo Archive and the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, but can be found at another NASA website, it is catalogued there as GPN-2000-001137.jpg.

AS17-134-20384

For some reason the black area immediately surrounding the astronaut is a full, rich black, whereas the background to the flag and the earth has a much noisier, grainier black ‘sky’ – graduated in density.

In What happened on the Moon? it was suggested that it would have been difficult for a photographer to take the above picture. This conclusion was reached because in the Apollo 17 TV recording of the EVA, the astronaut appears unable to get down low enough to take this picture at such an upwards angle.

So is AS17-134-20384 a composite image? Was the flag superimposed over a picture of an astronaut, or an astronaut combined with a shot of a flag and its reflection? Jack White has also investigated this image.

Another example of ‘blacking out’, in this case crude black retouching around an object in an Apollo photo is shown below:

AS11-44-6581 LM supposedly in flight (enhanced)

Retouching any black regions (as in the above example) means making an area solid black. This is done sometimes to conceal the fact that different blacks might show up in a montage. It is also a technique deployed when unwanted objects in the background need to be concealed that may be faintly visible 'through' the black.

If done correctly, the technician should follow the edge of an object exactly. But if the subject contains fine detail, including flares and contact probes attached to the feet, as in the case above, it is easier and simpler to just ‘skirt around’ a section. See also studies by Jack White.

AS12-46-6726

And again blacking out – crudely executed – is apparent around the astronaut and LM in this Apollo 12 photograph (AS12-46-6726) to be found at http://grin.hq.nasa.gov and listed as GPN-2000-001317, see our enhanced versions below. Kazimierz Ozóg brought our attention to this example:

A close up of the area around the astronaut (see below) reveals in more detail crude retouching of the black ‘sky’. Note the un-retouched black to the right of his right leg – the un-retouched 'noisy' green zone.

Revisiting the Apollo 16 ‘Jump Salute’

A further anomaly regarding the ‘jump salute’ TV scene has been found by Apollo researcher Pascal Aauger who lives in France. After studying the sequence frame-by-frame, he has concluded that the astronaut remains suspended for 0.3 seconds before beginning his return back down to the surface, while the ‘lunar dust’ commences its fall back again after just 0.1 second.

see http://speedge.free.fr/nasa/jumpflag.htm

Therefore Pascal Aauger concludes that the astronaut stays at the highest point of his jump trajectory for three times longer than the dust.

He asks can there be a strange law of gravitation on the Moon that does not apply similarly to the astronaut and the dust?

Or did a wire aid the astronaut?

Apollo 11 anomalous footprint – and added flag?

AS11-40-5874

As we have pointed out previously in the Apollo 11 photos AS11-40-5874 and 5875 there is a single, clear boot print lying at 90 degrees across the boot tracks that lead out from the flag to the camera position (see also close up below).

This extra large boot print has 12 rib marks. The other astronaut boot marks in this picture have 9 rib imprints. There is absolutely no sign of any other prints made by this lonesome boot.

Without a companion, or any other prints lying in the same direction and in the same vicinity, it is very difficult to see how this anomalous imprint could have come about. Such an occurrence is more consistent with the single imprint of a support of some kind, perhaps introduced to carry out an adjustment on the set and placed in the 'wrong' direction. Even, more probable, intentional whistle-blowing.

Jack White has demonstrated in his study of the above scene that the flag in this image casts no shadow. But closer examination suggests the minimal disturbance around the base of the flag pole is inconsistent with it having been anchored into the surface.

Was the flag pole added to the photograph? Is this the reason why there is no shadow?

Apollo 17 anomalous imprint

AS17-145-22169

Henrique Marinho who lives in Curitiba-PR Brazil has pointed out another anomalous imprint or indentation visible on the above Apollo image.

AS17-145-22169 close up enhanced by Jack White

This bizarre imprint looks like a rectangular frame. (The same imprint is also present in the adjacent Apollo image, AS17-145-22170.)

Is this really the Sun?

AS12-46-6765

Kazimierz Ozóg noticed an interesting aspect of this photo from the Apollo 12 record. He considers that this is unlikely to be the sun, as surely it would be so bright as to burn out totally white. After darkening the image it appeared to him to be an artificial light source. See his enhanced study below.

AS12-46-6765 enhanced close up

This recent finding has very serious implications. It again suggests that the 'sun' in the Apollo photographs may not have been the sun at all, but a large, artificial light source. This possibility was first postulated in DARK MOON and the video production What Happened on the Moon? See also: Why is the Sun so Big?

And as a Post Script, Jack White has enhanced a further version (see below) from another image taken during the same Apollo mission.

AS12-46-6767

Stars

Why is the Sun So Big?

An Apollo 17 astronaut takes a panoramic sequence of still images on the Moon and photographs the Sun. The image below at left is from such a sequence:

but is this really the Sun? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and is this really the Earth above the flag?
The three small 'blobs' in the left picture are lens flares – the field of view (49.2° side, 66° diagonal) is exactly the same in each photograph.

These images were taken on the same roll (magazine 134/B) by a Hasselblad Lunar Surface Camera, fitted with a 60mm Carl Zeiss Biogon lens, photographed onto 70mm color film.

It is a fact that no matter whether viewed from the Earth or the Moon, the Sun appears to be virtually the same size in the sky. The reasons for this are twofold:

1) the Sun is approx 93 million miles away from the Earth and Moon;
2) the Earth and the Moon are relatively close together.

Therefore, as the Sun appears to match the size of the Moon to produce a total eclipse (when viewed from Earth), and as the Earth is 3.66 times LARGER than the Moon – when viewed from the Moon, the Sun must appear 3.66 times smaller than the Earth.

After enhancing the image from the panorama by adjusting the levels, more detail of the ‘sun’ structure is revealed.

AS17-134-20410 – close up section
(Please note: given the 'disappearance' of reticles/cross hairs against objects far less bright than the Sun, the reticles should not be visible in the above image. Moreover, the left hand reticle is doubled/distorted.)

Why does the 'sun' have a hot-spot in the middle of it?

It is very apparent that the brightness varies considerably across the disc. In fact it has a 'hot-spot' in the central area similar to those found in other Apollo images (see for example Further Findings). It is difficult to regard the ‘sun’ in this image as a photograph of the Sun as we know it.

Photos AS17-134-20384 and 134-20410 were taken only 26 frames apart. Working with the full areas of both pictures at high resolution, and without changing any relative sizes, we cut out the image of the ‘earth’ from 20384 and placed copies of it over the image of the ‘sun’ in 20410:

AS17-134-20410 and 134-20384 sun/earths combined – full width of combined images

AS17-134-20410 and 134-20384 sun/earths combined – close up

As previously stated, the Earth should appear several times LARGER than the Sun if these images really were taken on the Moon.

But, incredibly, in this imagery the situation is reversed. The ‘earth’ is not just smaller than the ‘sun’ – it is SIX TIMES smaller than the ‘sun’. A conclusion also reached by photo analyst Jack White.

The ‘earth’ may be the correct relative size for the scene depicted in 134-20384, but the ‘sun’ is most certainly far too large in 134-20410 and is therefore a very strange-looking Sun.

Some people may wish to argue that the hot-spot in the centre is actually the Sun. But even if this zone is considered to be such, it nevertheless extends well over the diameter of the 'earth' and is still at least four times too large.

AS17-134-20410 and 134-20384 – light source further enhanced revealing more central detail

In DARK MOON: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers we stated that the astronauts’ visors reflected exceptionally large light sources. Below are the two examples we presented to illustrate the point...

Frames from Apollo TV coverage

A convex (an outwardly curved surface) always considerably reduces the size of whatever is being reflected. If this large bright reflection was the Sun, given its distance from the Moon, it would be barely visible in a visor – nothing more than a tiny pinprick of light.

Yet in these examples the convex visors are reflecting a very LARGE ‘sun’ – which indicates the use of a huge artificial light source in close proximity.

So what might an exceptionally huge artificial light source look like?

The above illustration is how an artificial super-light might have been assembled from banks of smaller lights as we originally envisioned it back in 1995.

However, as there are now many more high-resolution Apollo pictures available for examination and analysis, and following enhancement of a number of ‘sun’ images, we suggest that the light source was probably more like this:

The light source may have been designed to be a large concave reflector with the primary source(s) placed centrally and deployed in such a manner as to produce a very broad, single source of light. The resultant shadows would inevitably be softer or less sharply defined than with true sunlight.

There are several possibilities as to how such a light source was constructed. A super-large lens array may have been used in the rig’s design to focus the light. Alternatively the light source might have incorporated lighting units that were the forerunners of today’s HMI projectors. Here is one from a long-established Hollywood manufacturer:

Originally designed for lighting deep into large musical sets, these parallel, controllable light sources have come full circle from the heyday of black and white musicals to their current day use for creating stunning parallel beam effects.

The New Type 8341 12,000 Watt 36" HMI MoleBeam Projector is designed to produce a streaming ray of light in daylight (5600º Kelvin). This unit projects a 36" parallel beam of light that can be spotted and flooded from -5º to +15º.

Whatever the actual construction of the Apollo super light rig, it appears not to have been perfect as an artificial sun. There are noticeable hot-spots (or brighter areas) around shadows where the photographer has the 'sun' immediately behind him. An effect that can be seen in the centre of many Apollo photographs – here is an example:

An Apollo photo with a hot-spot and 'fall off' in brightness towards the edge of the picture. Note also that all shadows converge to a point on the central axis of the image. See also the Apollo study Light from all sides.

So why is the ‘sun’ so big?

Because on a large set the lighting cannot be anything like as bright as the real Sun, a very large light source would have been necessary in order to obtain adequate coverage over the expansive ‘moonscape’. (The real Sun has an overall intensity that is so bright there are no such discernable variations in luminosity across the surface of the Sun’s disc, see also Jack White's studies.)

A rig – such as in the above illustration – would have required height adjustment capabilities to produce a variety of ‘sun’ angles, and the unit would have needed horizontal mobility as well.

If this was the type of light source used, is it any wonder that over the years many researchers have claimed that lighting in the Apollo photography is replete with anomalies and inconsistencies?

As the two images under discussion (134-20410 and 20384) were photographed so close together, it would be reasonable to conclude that taking the pictures just a few frames apart was an intentional exercise. An action planned by whistle-blowers to enable the future decoding of the way in which the Apollo images were actually created on the moon sets.

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

Aulis Online 2007

Jack Schmitt said: “Being there is the critical ingredient. That's what distinguishes a meaningful experience from one you've seen on television or in the movies or heard someone else talk about. I had tried to anticipate what it would be like for many years and particularly for the last fourteen months of training. But it was obvious that there was no way that one could have anticipated what it would be like to stand in the Taurus-Littrow valley, or in any spot on the Moon, see this brilliantly illuminated landscape with a brighter sun than anyone had ever stood in before, with a blacker than black sky, and the mountains rising on either side to over 6.500 feet. And then to top the whole scene off in this blacker than black sky was a beautifully, brilliantly illuminated blue marble that we call earth.”

For All Mankind By Harry Hurt III
Queen Anne Press

Apollo 17

On photo AS17-134-20425:
- The astronaut has his left fist lifted on the photo, but lowered on the shadow.
- on the shadow, between his two legs we can't see a lit interval, and yet we can see that his boots are separated.
- The way the astronaut is holding the brush, the shadow of its end shouldn't appear on the astronaut's suit.

On photo AS17-134-20426:
- The astronaut has his left fist lifted on the photo, but lowered on the shadow.
- the shadow of the multi-colored strip of the tripod appears like it was placed on another leg of the tripod than the one we see it's placed on.

On photo AS17-134-20383 we see on the extreme left a detail (circled in red) of the astronaut's helmet which is obviously different from the the same detail we see on AS17-134-30384.

The sun taken on the moon (AS17-134-20411) and the (real) sun taken in space (AS11-36-5293) have very different sizes.

The earth taken on the moon (AS17-137-20957) and the earth taken from the LCM (AS11-44-6559) have very different sizes.

Normally, like we see on these normal pictures, from the point of view of the moon, the earth should appear bigger.

So why does the earth appear so incredibly small in comparison with the sun, with the same lens (and even if the zoom was used on the photo with the sun, the difference would still be abnormal).

On photo AS17-134-20439 the astronaut has his left boot in the shadow, and on photo AS17-134-20440, the same boot is lit; yet:
- This boot has not moved between the two photos, we can see it by examining the artifacts which are around it.
- The attitude of the astronaut is exactly the same.
- The SEP transmitter is exactly in the same state and the same place.

On photo AS17-134-20439, the photographer seems to be this blurred white spot on the middle of the visor.
The problem is that, the way the astronaut is positioned on the photo, the photographer should appear on the right of the visor, and not on the middle of it!
In the visor we can also see the helmet of an astronaut very close; who is this alien astronaut?

The view of the left shows how the photographer appears on the reflection of the visor, and the view of the right shows how he should have appeared instead.

We here have two views of the astronaut behind the jeep, slightly in oblique, one taken close (AS17-140-21386) and one taken a little father away (AS17-140-21387)
the astronaut is a little farther away from the photographer than the jeep, and the flag still farther away.
When the photographer backs up, the relative size of objects must change as they are not at the same distance from the photographer.

Effectively, when we make a superposition of the two photos by adapting sizes and positions so that the astronaut of the two photos fits as perfectly as possible, the objects of the second photo (taken from farher away) which are farther than the astronaut appear bigger than the objects of the first photo, and vice versa the objects of the second photo which are closer than the astronaut appear smaller than the objects of the first photo, which is logical and the way it should be.
On this superposition we can see that, for the wheel, the umbrella antenna, and the camera, there are two duplicates, one big and one small; the small one (the one of the second photo) is after and on the left of the big one (the one of the first photo).
But you can see that the lateral shift is not the same for these three objects; it's the wheel which shows the biggest lateral shift (on the left), and the camera the smallest one.

Now look how the three objects, the wheel, the umbrella antenna, and the camera, are positioned relatively to each other:
The umbrella antenna is on the left and a little behind the wheel.
And the camera is at the same level, but on the left of the umbrella antenna, so more on the left relatively to the wheel.

The astronaut is just behind the wheel, and slightly on the left of it.
The umbrella antenna is more on the right relatively to the astronaut.
And the camera is still more on the right relatively to the astronaut.
But when an object is between the astronaut and the photographer, the more he is on the right relatively to the astronaut, and the more he will be shifted on the left on the superposition of the two photos, before the photographer backed up and after, when we make the astronaut match on the two photos!

In order to illustrate this, I have made a little animation which might help you understand this concept.
On this picture, I have placed the astronaut who is photographed, and between him and the camera the jeep's wheel, the umbrella antenna, and the camera.
I have also drawn a Hasselblad camera representing the photographer.
The objects are positioned like they are on the apollo photo: The umbrella antenna is on the right of the wheel, and the camera is still more on the right.
The astronaut is behind the wheel and slightly on its left.
The two cameras are in the two positions that the photographer successively took the shots.
The distances are not exact, but it doesn't matter for this demonstration, because it is only about the order of the shifts.
I am going to take the picture from the initial position of the camera, and progressively magnify it till the camera of the initial position comes in superposition with the camera in its final position; I'll position the magnified picture so that the astronaut of this magnified picture is superposed with the one of the picture with the camera at its final position.
I will not adapt the sizes so that the astronauts of the two pictures have the same sizes, because it's a demonstration about positions and not about sizes.

And on the animation we can see two things:
- the pairs of the three objects of the jeep (the wheel, the umbrella antenna, and the camera) show a vertical shift which is quite close.
- But the pairs of these objects show a lateral shift (parallel to the horizontal of the photo) which is very different: This is because laterally they are not at the same distance from the astronaut; the camera which is the object which is laterally the farthest away from the astronaut shows the strongest lateral shift.

I also have reconstituted a little real demonstration in which I use various objects representing the Apollo objects.
In my reconstitution, the red chair can represents the astronaut, the stool represents the wheel, the musical score holder represents the umbrella antenna, and the box put on a table represents the camera.
The substitution may seem strange, but what counts in this demonstration is their disposition and not their nature.
I have disposed the objects like they are on the Apollo photo:
the stool (the wheel) is the leftmost object, the musical score holder (the umbrella antenna) is a little on the right of it, and the box (the camera) still more on the right.
I have disposed them like they were disposed on a jeep in little in oblique, and a ribbon symbolizes the edge of the chassis.
The chair (the astronaut) is behind the stool (the wheel) and a little on the left of it.

When I superpose the two photos, adjusting them so to obtain a match as good as possible of the two chairs (a slight difference of angle of view forbids to obtain a perfect match), we can see that:
- the stool shows a visible vertical shift, but only a little lateral shift on the left.
- The musical score holder shows a more important lateral shift on the left.
- And the box shows a still more important shift on the left.
This demonstration doesn't claim to give accurate shifts that we should see on the Apollo photo, but only to show that it's the camera which should show the most important shift on the left, and the wheel the least important one.
The box shows a clockwise rotation between the two photos, but it's perfectly normal, and comes from the change of angle of view created by the fact that I backed up obliquely; this rotation also exists on the Apollo photos, as I am going to show it to you.
On the second photo, the chair is a little shifted relatively to the stool comparatively to the first photo, but it's on purpose, to show that if I don't back up exactly in the axis chair-stool, it changes nothing concerning the order of the shifts in the superposition.

On the superposition made with the two apollo photos, the lateral shifts should be in the same order:
The camera should show the most important shift on the left (the one of the second photo, the smaller one), and the wheel should show the smallest shift on the left.
But we can see that it's the converse: It's the wheel which shows the most important shift on the left, and the camera the least important one.
The order of the shifts is abnormally reversed.
In fact I think that it's the umbrella antenna which has the correct shift, and the wheel which has a too important one, and the camera a not important enough.

If the wheel of the second photo is too much shifted on the left, it may mean that it has been artificially moved on the left before taking the second photo.

And effectively if the compare the wheels on the two photos, we can see that it has been moved away from the chassis; the bars are more out.

Conversely if the camera of the second photo is not enough shifted on the left, it may mean that it has been artificially moved on the right before taking the second photo.

And effectively we can see that the cable, which goes to the camera, is longer and has a different angle on the second photo, which proves that the camera has been moved away on the right.

In what concerns the camera, there's another anomaly we can see:
In reaction to the lateral move on the right of the photographer, the camera must normally show a clockwise rotation.
This is besides confirmed by the block of plugs I have circled in yellow which effectively makes a clockwise rotation.
You can also see this clockwise rotation on my real demonstration.
But normally the part of the camera I have circled in red should become shorter in reaction to the clockwise rotation....
...And it's the converse, it becomes longer, like the camera had made an counterclockwise rotation instead!
And the two loops of the wire of the camera, I have circled in orange, should normally have come nearer to each other in reaction to this clockwise rotation...
...But it's the converse, they have gone farther away from each other, like the camera had made an counterclockwise rotation instead!

I have had the idea to correct the position of the wheel and the camera on the second photo to put them back to the position they logically were before they moved them.

On this stereoscopic view, I show on the left the original second Apollo photo, and on the right this photo I modified to put the wheel and the camera back to the position they were before they moved them to take the second shot.

And this animation alternates between these two photos: It clearly shows how I changed the position of the wheel (to put it back on the right) and the camera (to put it back on the left).

Now, if I make a superposition between the first photo and my second modified photo, it gives this:

On this new superposition, we can see that the order of lateral moves is now respected: The wheel shows the smallest lateral move between the two photos, and the camera the biggest one, like on my real superposition.
This is what we should have logically seen: I have effectively put back the wheel and the camera to their correct positions, that is the ones they had on the first photo.

On this stereoscopic view, we see on the left the incorrect superposition of the wheel and the camera resulting from the fact they have moved them, and on the right the correct superposition after I have put the wheel and the camera back to their original positions.
Note that the camera has turned in the wrong direction: It has turned counterclockwise whereas it should have turned clockwise; on my corrected photo, I only corrected the camera's position, not its orientation which remains wrong (correcting its orientation would have been more complicated, I would have needed another view of the camera).

I have made a superposition with the photos AS17-140-21386 (left) and AS17-140-21390 (right).
I have rotated the first photo so to obtain a perfect superposition of the hills in the background.
This way, I obtain the same reference for the two photos, the same absolute orientation.

We can see that, on the second photo, the objects which are closer to the photographer have moved on the right relatively to the objects which are farther.
For example, the wheel has moved on the right of the astronaut.
This means that, between the two photos, the photographer has moved on the left.
If the photographer has moved on the left, then the pole of the umbrella antenna should have turned clockwise on the second photo (the rightmost one) relatively to the one of the umbrella antenna of the first photo (the leftmost one).
Moreover the pole of the left umbrella antenna is slightly turned clockwise relatively to the horizon line (the base of the hill); and the fact that the photographer has moved forward on the second photo (the right one) also makes the pole of the umbrella antenna turn clockwise.
Instead of that, you can see that the pole of the rightmost umbrella antenna has turned counterclockwise relatively to the one of the leftmost one.
The fakers really had a taste for contradictory rotations!

On photo AS17-145-22164 (left) we have a view of the lunar landscape.
On photo AS17-145-22165 (right) we have exactly the same lunar landscape, with the astronaut appearing on it.

When we make an animation with the two photos, we can clearly see the footprints the astronaut has left behind him; we can see that they are very spaced out, more than the pace we see him currently make on the photo.

If we take a close-up at the astronaut on AS17-145-22165, we can see that the end of the brush he is holding is above his knees on the photo, but close to his feet on his shadow.

On this close-up, we can perfectly see the astronaut knees, first by the change of angle of the shadow and second by a window which opens between the knees, due to the fact that he folds one of his knees.

Between photos AS17-145-22166 and AS17-145-22167 we can see none of the rocks moving relatively to the other rocks (I said relatively), except one: The big rock in the close foreground I circled in red moves importantly relatively to the other rocks.

On photo AS17-142-21714 we can see the tripod that we know to be of small size, and only two footprints separate it from the astronaut; this means the astronaut is quite close to the tripod; therefore he should look taller comparatively with the tripod.

On photo AS17-141-21608, the shadow of the fist is abnormally big comparatively to the shadow of the astronaut.

There also is a problem with the way a crevice of the rock facing (or almost) the astronaut appears on this visor.
I have colored in red this crevice on the photo and on the reflection of the visor, and we can see that the orientation of the crevice is completely changed on the visor; the fact that it appears deformed on the visor is normal, but the fact that it appears rotated is not, and can't be explained by the sphericity of the visor.

There is still something more strange: If we look attentively in the visor, we can see that the photographer has no backpack!
How long would he survive without his backpack!

On photo AS17-141-21607 the shadows have various incompatible directions.

Between photos AS17-140-21367 (left) and AS17-140-21368 (right) the (green) distance between two rocks in the vicinity of the jeep has slightly increased, which is coherent with the fact that the photographer has a little moved forward.
But the width of the jeep (red line), measured between its rear right wheel and its front left wheel, has abnormally decreased.

This animation is made with the photo AS17-140-21367 and the original photo AS17-140-21368; it shows the size of the jeep abnormally decreasing on the second photo.

And this animation is made with the photo AS17-140-21367 and the photo AS17-140-21368 I corrected to give the jeep a size compatible with the size it had on the first photo and the move of the photographer.

On photo AS17-136-20723, we see the sun through the umbrella antenna, and we see the spokes which are covered by the sun.
Normally, as the sun is very brilliant, we shouldn't be able to distinguish these spokes for they should be washed out by the sun.

On photo AS17-136-20743:
- The photographer's shadow is extending his left arm, and we can also see the shadow of his right fist; we can wonder how he managed to take the photo.
- The shadow of the other astronaut shows a weird bottleneck, and also seems too horizontal.

On this example taken outdoors (right on the stereoscopic view), we can see that, although I'm farther from the trashcan's shadow that the photographer is from the other astronaut's shadow on the Apollo photo, the trashcan's shadow is a little less horizontal than the other astronaut's shadow on the Apollo photo.

- On photo AS17-136-20758 we see the astronaut at the rear of the jeep.
- On photo AS17-136-20759 the astronaut is still in the same position at the rear of the jeep; the background has moved up, but the foreground has more moved up than the background, which means that the photographer has a little backed up; yet the astronaut looks a little taller than on the previous photo when he should look smaller instead!

On photos AS17-137-20976 and AS17-137-20977 we have two views of the jeep with rocks around taken from some distance; nothing abnormal at first view.

But when we take a close-up at the jeep on the two photos, we can see that there is a detail (I have circled in red) which changes between the two views.

On photo AS17-136-21069, relatively to AS17-136-21068, the astronaut has just pivoted; we can see the footprint (circled in red) he was making with his left foot on the previous photo.
This means that on the two photos the astronaut is at the same distance from the tripod.
The tripod, which has a relatively small size, is just a little farther from the photographer.
This means that the astronaut is not much farther from the photographer than he was on the previous photo.
So he should hardly look smaller, and yet he consistently looks smaller than on the previous photo.

On this double view, I give on AS17-136-21069 to the astronaut a size compatible with the one he had on AS17-136-21068 (on the latter he was a little folding his knees).

This animation is made with the photo AS17-136-21068 and the original photo AS17-136-21069 (incompatible sizes);

And this animation is made with the photo AS17-136-21068 and the photo AS17-136-21069 I corrected to give the astronaut a size compatible with the other photo.

- On photo AS17-138-21078 the solar panel of the camera is well lit.
- On photo AS17-138-21087 this solar panel looks much darker, and yet the lunar landscape appears as well lit, and even better lit than on the previous photo; yet there's nothing which could shade it, for it's in the front of the jeep.

On photos AS17-138-21160 and AS17-138-21161, we have two views of a crater taken from different distances, and on each of the views the directions of two rocks on the edge of the crater relatively to other rocks in the crater (red line and yellow line) are the same.

On photos AS17-138-21160 and AS17-138-21162, we also have two views of this crater; the first one is the same as on the previous double view, and the second one is taken from a distance intermediary between the first view and the previous second view (AS17-138-21161); as on the previous double view the directions of the rocks on the edge relatively to rocks in the crater were the same, and that AS17-138-21162 is taken from a distance intermediary between AS17-138-21160 and AS17-138-21161, we could expect that these directions be also the same on this double view...But they are very different!

On photo AS17-140-21354, relatively to AS17-140-21353, the photographer has moved a little on the right.
As a consequence the objects on the lunar ground have moved on the right relatively to the lateral reactors, and the farther they are, the more they move on the right (relatively to the lateral reactors).
On the ground we see an object I have circled in red; this object moves a little on the right relatively to the reactor.
Farther we find the jeep which moves twice more than the previous object because it is farther.
And still farther we find the flag which should have moved still more on the right relatively to the reactor, but it has moved as little as the close object instead!

On this double view I have corrected the position of the flag on AS17-140-21354 (right) to give it a coherent possible position it could have relatively to the position it had on AS17-140-21353.

This animation is made with the photo AS17-140-21353 and the original photo AS17-140-21354 (incoherent position of the flag on the second photo).

And this animation is made with the photo AS17-140-21353 and the photo AS17-140-21354 I corrected to give the flag a position coherent with the first photo.

The relative position of a rock which is before the jeep to the jeep is the same on photos AS17-141-21598 and AS17-141-21599; therefore the photographer has not moved between the two photos and the change of direction of the foreground can only come from a rotation of the camera around the horizontal axis and it should rotate the same way as the background.
Yet we can see that the directions of the jeep and the rock in the foreground rotate counterclockwise (yellow lines) while the direction of the hill in the background (red line) rotates clockwise; a new example of background and foreground rotating in opposite directions, the favorite of the fakers!

Look how the astronaut is holding the stick on AS17-143-21856, and how he holds it on AS17-143-21857; between the two photos he has importantly turned the stick, but the stick's shadow has not turned as much.

On photo AS17-146-22296, we see what looks an animal's head in the visor.

This pair of photos (AS17-135-20544 and AS17-135-20545) shows the jeep between two parallel jeep tracks which cross each other near the photographer.

The problem is that the right track shrinks on the second photo when the photographer backs up, whereas the left tracks grows to the contrary.

When we make an animation with the two jeep tracks, it makes a funny effect.
Is that an anomaly for as much?
Doesn't the left track have a reason to grow when the right one shrinks?

To study this I have reconstituted the jeep tracks with ribbons; the rucksack placed between the two ribbons symbolizes the jeep (the ribbons are loaded with stones not to be taken away by the wind).
Although this substitution may seem unorthodox, it will do for the demonstration.

On this first stereoscopic view, I'm outside the ribbons on the left of them; between the two photos, I just turn my camera.
When I draw a vertical line from the cross of the ribbons, this line doesn't hit the rucksack at all, but hits outside the ribbons, on the right of them.
We can see that we obtain the same effect on the two photos, so turning the camera changes nothing to it.

On this second stereoscopic view, I'm outside the ribbons on the right of them; between the two photos, I just turn my camera.
When I draw a vertical line from the cross of the ribbons, this line doesn't hit the rucksack at all, but hits outside the ribbons, on the left of them.
We can see that we obtain the same effect on the two photos, so turning the camera changes nothing to it.

On this third stereoscopic view, I'm between the two ribbons, but near the left one.
When I draw a vertical line from the cross of the ribbons, this time this line hits the rucksack on its right between the two ribbons.
We can see that we obtain the same effect on the two photos, so turning the camera changes nothing to it.

On this fourth stereoscopic view, I'm between the two ribbons, but near the right one.
When I draw a vertical line from the cross of the ribbons, this line hits the rucksack on its left between the two ribbons.
We can see that we obtain the same effect on the two photos, so turning the camera changes nothing to it.

When, on the Apollo photos, I draw a (yellow) line perpendicular to the horizon line (base of the hill) from the cross of the jeep tracks, this line hits the jeep on the two photos; so the photographer is between the jeep tracks on the two photos.
But we can also see that, on the second photo, this line hits the jeep more on the left; that means that the photographer has moved on the right.
If the photographer has moved on the right, as he is between the two jeep tracks, that means that he has got closer to the right track, and farther from the left track.
So in conclusion: The backward move of the photographer makes the two jeep tracks shrink, but his lateral move makes the right track slightly grow, and the left track slightly shrink.
The conclusion is that the left track has more reason to shrink than the right one, and should shrink a little more than the right track instead of growing!

So now this animation is not only weird but also abnormal!

On photo AS17-137-20957, we have a view of the lunar landscape.
On photo AS17-137-20960, we also have a view of the lunar landscape with a rock in the close foreground; in fact, if we look at artifacts on the left, we can see that the second view is included in the upper part of the first view.

In fact, if we look on the left of the big rock on the second view, we find a series of artifacts that we can also find on the upper part of the first view.
It means that in fact the rock of the second view is in full center of the first view!
It's even hiding one of the artifacts of the first view on the second view (the one I have circled in red)...and yet it's not visible on this first view!!!
After the invisible man, we now have the invisible lunar rock!!

I have taken the big rock on AS17-137-20960 and added it on AS17-137-20957 where it should logically be; of course, there is another part of the rock we don't see on the second view we could see on the first view, but I don't have this one, so I just represent the part which is available.

Between photos AS17-137-20981 (left) and AS17-137-20982 (right) the photographer has moved on the left; the vertical pole in the foreground should have rotated clockwise; in fact, it seems to have rotated clockwise, but it's not relatively to the horizontal of the photo it must rotate (for the latter can change with a rotation of the camera around the horizontal axis), but relatively to the horizon line (or a reliable reference line in the background); the (yellow) horizon line we see on the top of the photo rotates exactly the same way as the pole, which makes that in fact the pole has not really rotated relatively to the background.

The footprints on the extreme left (I have circled in red) don't rotate like they should.

On photo AS17-134-20460 (right), the lem and the flag move on the right relatively to the hills in the background, but artefacts on the left of the lem (I have circled in red) don't move relatively to the background.

On photo AS17-134-20464 (right), relatively to AS17-134-20463, the photographer turns his camera up; consequently the lem moves down on the photo, and the earth should follow the lem, but in fact the earth does not completely follow the lem, she moves up relatively to the lem; yet we don't see how the photographer could manage that, for, if he can move laterally, he can't move up, elevate himself in the air.

On this double view, I have corrected the photo AS17-134-20464 (on the right) to put back the earth at the position it should have had to be compatible with the photo AS17-134-20463, that is the earth keeping the same vertical position relatively to the lem.

This animation, made with the photo AS17-134-20463 and the original photo AS17-134-20464 shows the problem of the earth moving vertically relatively to the lem.

And this animation, made with the photo AS17-134-20463 and the photo AS17-134-20464 I modified, shows what we should have seen, that is the the earth keeping the same vertical position relatively to the lem.

On photo AS17-134-20469, it seems that the NASA used adhesive tape to fix the US plate; couldn't she have found anything better for this purpose.

Couldn't this plate have been fixed in a more efficient way, like a license plate?

On photo AS17-134-20478, the writing pad of the astronaut doesn't have the same orientation in the visor and on the photo.

In the visor, we also can see a strange grimacing alien face I have circled.

And finally we can also see the helmet of a third astronaut in profile quite close!

On photo AS17-136-20710 (right), the photographer has moved on the right relatively to AS17-136-20685; the main rock should rotate clockwise relatively to the (yellow) reference line in the background, but it doesn't seem to comply.

On the photo AS17-138-21174, relatively to the photo AS17-138-21172:
- the direction of two rocks in the foreground rotates counterclockwise (orange lines).
- the slope of the hill in the background rotates clockwise (red lines).
A new example to foreground and background rotating in opposite directions.

On photo AS17-136-20695 (left), I show two holes of which the direction (the line joining them) shows a clockwise angle relatively to the horizon line.
On the second photo AS17-136-20696 (right), by examining the artifacts, we can see that the photographer has moved forward and on the right; consequently this direction should have turned clockwise, both by the fact that the photographer has moved forward and on the right.
But it's the converse it has turned counterclockwise relatively to the horizon line!

On photo AS17-136-20829, the jeep has ridden a relatively short distance, but the hill has abnormally gone up relatively to the umbrella antenna.
As the hill is quite far away, the fact of riding this short distance hardly changes the distance of the jeep to this hill, so the hill should appear at the same level through the umbrella antenna, since the astronaut is seated, and himself remains at the same position relatively to the umbrella antenna.
Except of course if the jeep was meeting a hole or a bump between the two photos, but we can see that there is none!
If the astronaut turns his camera up or down (around the horizontal axis), the umbrella antenna and the hill will both move, but they will move the same way, which means that the hill will remain at the same level relatively to the umbrella antenna.

On this double view, I have corrected the photo AS17-136-20829 (right) to give to the hill the same vertical position relative to the umbrella antenna it had on the previous photo.

This animation made with the photo AS17-136-20828 and the original photo AS17-136-20829 shows the position of the hill abnormally moving vertically relatively to the umbrella antenna.

And this animation, made with the photo AS17-136-20828 and the photo AS17-136-20829 I modified, shows the hill keeping the same vertical position relatively to the umbrella antenna, as it should have.

On the photo AS17-137-20979, we can see that there are no tracks behind the rear wheel of the jeep we see; this fact has been reported by Jack White, but Clavius claims that it's normal for the astronaut would have projected much dust which would have completely covered these tracks.
Even if the astronauts had covered the tracks with a little dust, a part of tracks should still remain visible.
Clavius can always try to delusively persuade us that the tracks have been completely covered with lunar dust projected by the astronauts, but he will have more difficulty to explain us why the knob If have circled has a reversed shadow on the fender!

The wheel's shadow informs us on the current orientation the sunlight.
The wheel's shadow seems a little longer than the wheel's height, so the sun must be a little lower than 45°.
And the wheel's shadow is a little in bias relatively to the perpendicular of the wheel, not far from perpendicular, slighly turned counter-clockwise.

I initially made the following correspondences between the elements of the device and the shadows we see on the fender and on the wheel.
I made correspond the knob circled in orange with the shadow circled in orange, and the element circled in yellow with the shadow circled in yellow.
The anomaly, as I was seeing it, was that the knob's shadow was on the wrong side of the cylinder's shadow.

But some people have replied me that there was another knob I had ignored, that I have circled in orange on this view, and, according to them, the shadow I have circled in orange would belong to this knob.
The problem is that, given the direction of the sunlight (almost perpendicular to the wheel, evidenced by the wheel's shadow), the shadow of this knob cannot have this orientation; the orientation of this shadow rather corresponds to the other knob (the one circled in red).
In fact, the shadow I have circled in orange can be neither the horizontal knob's one, for it does not have the good orientation, nor the vertical knob's one, for it does not have the good position.
And concerning the shadow I have circled in yellow, coming from the element I have circled in yellow, we can see that it is cut by a strip of the wheel, like this strip was coming over this shadow...But the shadow is not painted on the wheel, it comes over the strip, so it should also shadow this strip!

In this photocomposition, I show how the shadows should have appeared: I have taken the shadow of the knob on the fender, turned it a quarter of a turn clockwise, and moved it to the right place (i.e. a little shifted to the left relatively to the device, for the direction of the sunlight is slightly in bias).
We can see that this shadow roughly corresponds to the shape of the horizontal knob; it is slightly turned counter-clockwise relatively to the horizontal edge of the device, which is perfectly normal since the direction of the sunlight is slightly in bias relatively to the perpendicular of the wheel.
And concerning the shadow of the lowest element of the device, which appears on the wheel, I have shadowed the missing part on the strip to make it look normal.

In fact, there is an element of the knob's shadow which is not seeming to belong to the normal shadow of the horizontal knob; I initially thought it was an abnormal element of shadow they had added, when I realized that this element was in fact probably coming from the highest corner of the vertical knob; the rest of the shadow of the vertical knob is hidden by the shadow of the horizontal knob, mixed with it.

So you can now compare the wrong shadows of the device on the fender and the wheel they show us on the photo with the right ones I have corrected.

If we consider the two circled stones in the close foreground, they have moved on the right relatively to the crater; it means that the photographer has moved on the left; consequently their direction should have rotated counterclockwise, and it has rotated clockwise instead; note that the (green) horizontal line is the same on the two photos.

A crater (red line) in the foreground rotates twice more clockwise than the (yellow) reference line in the background; yet the lateral move of the camera doesn't participate to it, for the photographer has a little moved on the left, and this makes the crater rotate counterclockwise.
A new example or foreground and background rotating differently around the horizontal axis.

Photos AS17-138-21096 and AS17-138-21097 are two views of the lunar ground with a hole; the problem is that there is a stone (I circled on the top of the picture) which doesn't move correctly; it's too low on the second picture, it doesn't move like the rest.

This animation made with the two photos shows the wrong move of this stone.

On this double view, I have corrected the photo AS17-138-21097 (right) to give this stone a more plausible position.

And on this new animation made with the photo AS17-138-21096 and the photo AS17-138-21097 I modified, the stone seems effectively to make a more normal move, more in adequation with the rest.

There are also strange things on this view.
You may say it's my imagination but I find a dog's head on the spot I circled.

And on this other spot I circled, I see a cartoon animal.

You can always say that it just happens to look like them.

On photo AS17-140-21370, the shadow of the frontal parabolic antenna seems oversized comparatively to the lem's shadow.

This stereoscopic view shows the photos AS17-140-21388 (left) and AS17-140-21389 (right) of the mission Apollo 17.
The photo of the left seems to be taken farther than the photo of the right if we examine the tracks, holes, and footprints on the ground.
Of course, you can say that it just can come from the fact that the photographer has turned his camera down...but there is a sign which tells otherwise: we can see the top of the hills through the high gain antenna on the photo of the right, which we can't on the photo of the left.

I have superposed the photo AS17-140-21389 over the photo AS17-140-21388, adapting its size and orientation so to obtain an as perfect superposition as possible of the flags of the two photos, and we can see that we also have a perfect superposition of the astronauts and the high gain antennas of the two photos.
It would be perfectly normal if the photographer had not moved and only turned his camera...but in that case we would also have a perfect superposition of the hills in the background, and we don't: The hills belonging to the first photo are higher than the hills belonging to the second photo on the superposition; so the first photo has really been taken farther than the second photo, and thence the photographer and the high gain antenna have no reason to show a perfect superposition, since they are not at the same distance from the photographer as the flag!

On photo AS17-140-21388, the shadow of the flag looks really strange, as much in shape as in orientation.

On photos AS17-146-22414 and AS17-146-22415 we see two views of a very strange rock or clod of earth.

This animation made with the two photos shows the strangeness of this rock (or clod of earth).

The photos AS17-133-20329, AS17-133-20336 et AS17-133-20338 represent three views of the jeep surrounded by rocks.
Between each photo, the photographer backs up and shifts on the right.
We can see that the same group of rocks which surround the jeep in a circular way, and which can be seen on the three photos.
The jeep progressively shifts on the right relatively to these rocks because of the shift on the right of the photographer, for it is behind them.
I have circled an interesting double rock on each of the photos.

The sequence above represents the jeep on the three views.
On this sequence, we can see that the jeep progressively turns clockwise, which is normal and due to the move on the right of the photographer.

And this sequence above represents the double rock I have circled on each of the photos.
On this sequence, ce can conversely see that this double rock tends to turn counter-clockwise!

On photo AS17-140-21391, there is a shadow which crosses the one of the astronaut's shadow we can see in the visor and we don't see it at all on the photo (We should see it on the place I have circled it in red).

On photo AS17-147-22525, the lem can be seen on the extreme right of the visor; this photo is taken before the astronaut turns.

On photo AS17-147-22526, the lem can still be seen on the extreme right of the visor; yet this new photo is taken after the the astronaut has turned; the lem should have been pushed on the left on the visor!

On this stereoscopic view, I show on the right what we see on the reflection of the visor on the first photo, and, on the view of the right, I show what we should have seen on the reflection of the visor on the second photo: The reflection of the LM pushed more on the left toward the middle of the visor, and the reflection of the sun also pushed on the left, almost to the point of disappearing (perhaps even that it would have totally disappeared).

On photos AS17-147-22525 and AS17-147-22526, we see the jeep before and after she starts turning.
A part of the jeep's shadow is not compatible with the direction of the sunlight on the second photo.

On this double view I have corrected the jeep's shadow on the photo AS17-147-22526 (right).

On photo AS17-147-22527, the helmet of the astronaut seems to shade his lifted arm; but the way the arm is shaded is abnormal, it couldn't be shaded this way by the helmet in reason of the spherical shape of the helmet!

On this photo, there is a part of the jeep's shadow (I have circled in red) which is abnormal; on the photo of the right, I have corrected this shadow.

On photo AS17-134-20386, on the visor of the astronaut, the photographer's shadow (I have circled it in yellow) appears incorrectly oriented.
Indeed we can see the shadow of the astronaut who is photographed (on the visor's bottom); the direction of this shadow is quite different from the photographer's one.
Moreover we have the repetition of a gag we have already seen on another Apollo photo(AS17-134-20384): the photographed astronaut's shadow cuts the lower end of the flag (I have circled it in orange) in the visor, whereas it is not the case on the photo.

On photo AS17-134-20466, the stars of the flag look very strange.

I show you for instance a group of five stars compared with their normal disposition.
Even if a fold of the flag can cause a distortion of the stars, it doesn't explain everything: On the right, the star which is above two other ones should still be at equal distance from the two ones which are underneath, and the star which is on the extreme left is oversized relatively to the other ones.

On photo AS17-145-22173, there is a strange detail (I have circled in red) which appears on the shadow of the multi-colored strip of the tripod.

On photo AS17-136-20727, there is a strange thing which appears near the umbrella antenna and which disappears on the next photo.

On photo AS17-146-22345, the mudguard of the right rear wheel of the jeep looks obviously damaged.
Even on the moon, accidents happen!

On this close-up, you can better see the damaged mudguard.

On photo AS17-146-22367, the shadows look incoherent.

On the figure above, I prolong (by a red line) the visible part of the pole of the umbrella antenna till the projection of this pole on this line (which is logically the projection of the pole on the ground).
We first can see that the directions of the shadow of the pole of the umbrella antenna and the one of the wheel are then not parallel.
Moreover the ratios between the length of the shadow and the height of the object are not the same for the umbrella antenna and the wheel.

On the figure above, I now draw, from the projection of the base of the umbrella antenna, a (red) line parallel to the direction of the wheel's shadow.
This time, the ratios between the length of the shadow anf the height of the object are closer for the umbrella antenna and the wheel, but the new (red) line of the pole's shadow of the umbrella antenna does not follow the visible part of the shadow of the pole on one hand, and, on the other hand, it comes too high relatively to the pole; there is more distance between the end of the pole and the ground!
It seems in fact that the shadow of the umbrella antenna is shifted along with being ill oriented!

On photo AS17-146-20467, the jeep is larger relatively to the height of the umbrella antenna (and also the frontal camera) than on photo AS16-146-22367.

If we make a close-up on the astronaut's camera on the photos AS17-134-20385 and AS17-134-20387, we find details which change between the two photos; I have circled these details.

Why is the sun washing out the photo on AS17-136-20697 and not on AS17-136-20696, whereas it is not on AS17-136-20697 yet.

On photos AS17-134-20411 and AS17-136-20699, the sun has two different aspects; on the second photo, the sun has spokes he doesn't have on the first photo.

Here I show close-ups of the hills on the two photos.

To allow you to better see details, I have colored parts of the hill.
On each side of the main hill, we see two little hills before, that I have colored in pink and orange; on the second photo they are closer to each other than on the first photo; this can only mean one thing: On the second photo the photographer has moved away from the hill; but what's weird is that there is a little hill (I have colored in yellow) which appears on the left of the little hill on the right and which was not visible on the first photo; yet, logically, if this hill is visible on the second photo, it should also have been visible on the first photo for it would have been still less hidden on the first photo!

On photo AS17-147-22576, the tire of the front wheel looks strange and the one of the rear wheel looks very dark.

I have taken jeep's wheels from another photo and placed them on the jeep in the photo.

From AS17-146-22419 to AS17-146-22422 we have a series of very strange shadows:

AS17-146-22419

AS17-146-22420

AS17-146-22421

AS17-146-22422

Between photos AS17-147-22598 and AS17-147-22599, the direction of two holes we see in the foreground (red lines) rotates counterclockwise whereas the horizon (yellow line) rotates clockwise.
Notice that the photographer has moved a little on the right between the two photos, and that makes the direction of the holes turn clockwise, and thence doesn't contribute to the counterclockwise rotation of this direction.
A new example of foreground and background rotating differently...they can't help it!

There is a black object near the astronaut's shadow; when the astronaut's shadow reaches this object on the second photo, its appearance changes.

This stereoscopic view shows two views of the CSM on the photos AS17-145-22257 and AS17-145-22261.
I have circled some interesting views on these photos.

This stereoscopic view shows close-ups of the parts I have circled in red on the photos.
These parts contain the "UNITED STATES" plate.
On the first photo, this plate is lit, so it's normal that its background is white.
But, on the second photo, this plate is now in the shadow, so why is its background still white?

This stereoscopic view shows close-ups of the parts I have circled in orange on the photos.
On the second view, we can see that the shadow of the lateral reactors is shorter than on the first view; therefore they are receiving the sunlight more in front, and we could expect the conic top of the CSM to be better lit; but it's the converse, the shadow has unexpectedly gained some more of it.

There is an element I have circled on the first view which is close to the lit part, and which is lit; its extension is in the shadow.
On the second photo, this element is now in full shadow; yet its extension is now lit

The photo AS17-145-22272 is still more interesting.
On it we can see the CSM almost in front...almost but not quite, it's slightly in oblique in fact; therefore the conic top of the CSM should not completely hide the body of the CSM and we should be able to see a part of this body; yet this body is completely invisible on the photo, and it's a very clear incoherence.

I have represented a body for the CSM on this modified picture.
It may not be exact, but at least we see a SM under the CM on this picture.

This stereoscopic view shows on the left a view of the CSM in the photo AS14-66-9356, and, on the view of the right, the view of the CSM in the photo AS17-145-22272.
On the photo of Apollo 14, the CSM is a little less in bias than on the photo of Apollo 17, for, if we make the ratio between the shortest side and the longest side, this ratio is a little smaller in the photo of Apollo 17, which confirms that the CSM is a little more in bias in the photo of Apollo 17.
Thence if we can see the SM in the photo of Apollo 14, we should also be able to see it in the photo of Apollo 17...and yet we don't see it!

On photos AS17-137-20872 and AS17-140-21370 the shadows of the lem are different; obviously the sun is not shining on the same side of the lem on the two photos.

This stereoscopic view shows two close-ups of the ascending stage of the lem coming back to the CSM in Apollo 17 (AS17-149-22848 and AS17-149-22857).
They look quite different, but it may be explained by the difference of luminosity and orientation.
I have turned the one of the second photo around the vertical axis to make it closer to the one of the first photo.
The one of the second photo is also turned around the horizontal axis, but, unlike the previous orientation, I cannot correct this orientation.
There are clues to determine the direction of the sunlight:
- On the first photo we can see that the upper part of the lem's opening (which is in oblique) is completely shaded; it also shades a part of the lower part of the opening; that means that the direction of the sunlight on the first photo is not very far from the orientation of the upper part of the opening (if it was far from it, then the upper part could completely shade the lower part).
- On the second photo, the direction of the sunlight can be deduced from the shadows we see on the left of the lem; the direction of the sunlight is approximately along the yellow arrow I have represented.
The part I have circled in orange on the two photos, and which is well lit on the second photo, has an orientation which is such that it has no reason to be shaded on the first photo.
The same for the part I have circled in blue, and which is also well lit on the second photo: With the orientation it has, it has no reason to be shaded on the first photo.
On the photo of the right, the upper part of the lem's opening is more luminous than the lower part; yet, given the direction of the sunlight, the lower part is better exposed to the light than the upper part; and both are evenly lit; we might have expected them to be partially shaded.
The extreme left of the upper part of the lem's opening (circled in yellow) is less luminous than the rest; yet it is normally the part of it which is best exposed to the sunlight.
Finally, there is a shadow which prolongs into a black area (the part I circled in violet); when it goes into this black area, it should logically become black too.

Stanley kubrick

HE MOON LANDING HOAX….

“In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.” -ADOLPH HITLER”, 1925.
Hummm, even a scum of the earth dirtbag like Adolph Hitler knew how to manipulate the masses…

So you think America actually landed men on the moon? Well, think again. We have proof that the moon landings in the late 60’s and early 70’s were all a big lie!

To start with, keep in mind that there was only about 100 people involved in the moon landing hoax. Mission Control in Houston as well as most of the men and women who worked on this project nearly 40 years ago had no idea it was a fake. But how is this possible? Very simple. The power elite who put on this fiasco never let anyone see too big of picture. The thousands of people involved only had their small part to worry about. Mission control was in Houston. The launch site in Florida. The engineers, mechanics, computer programmers etc, didn’t have jobs that mixed with each other. So most people couldn’t figure out the whole thing amounted to a Hollywood production.

In, 1962, then President John Kennedy said he had a vision of America “putting a man on the moon and returning him safely” before the decade is out. Now, we don’t know if at the time Kennedy knew this was impossible or not but shortly after his murder in 1963, the best rocket scientists in the world involved with the project informed Lyndon Johnson that science is at least 30 years away from being able to accomplish such a task. The fact is…they were a little optimistic. Here we are nearly 40 years later and we still don’t have the technology to send a man to the moon and return him safely to earth. The powers that decided on this fraud concluded that if they couldn’t send a man to the moon and get him back safely, then what would they do is to have NASA fake the project then keep the billions of taxpayer money used to fund this operation for themselves. They then decided they actually could “fake” the whole thing for a fraction of the money they were being supplied. Here’s a site in Iceland where we found alot of the NASA fakes were made, (BELOW).

Here are some facts to keep in mind about the impossibilty of actually sending a human being to the moon: The moon is constantly being bombarded with “micrometeors” that travel at speeds of 20,000 mph. To keep that in perspective a rifle bullet travels at 800 mph. Remember the moon has no atmosphere to slow them down. If any astronaut or the Lunar landing module got hit with just one of those……even if it were the size of a grain of rice, that would be the end. Strange NASA wasn’t too concerned about this at the time, don’t you think?

This one is incredibly funny! This is supposed to be the frogmen to rescue the Apollo men. Look at the fake “kite string” that is on top the the module. This is supposed to be the string that held the parachutes that brought the module to earth. I would think it would require heavy ropes for such a task. By the way, if this is same space module that brought the astronauts home then where is the area that they docked and climbed into the Lunar Module? Was it the same place? It had to be….but they also had to have the parachutes in the same place. So where are the parachutes in this photo? How was there room to get through the opening into the lunar module with the parachutes stored there? Also, look at the fake breathing respirators on their mouths so they wouldn’t spread “Moon germs” to the frog men. Okay, what about the “moon germs” that are inside the module? what about the “moon germs” on their body? Are those moon germs less threatening than what they might breathe out? Maybe since NASA can’t tell us how the Apollo men went to the bathroom for two weeks, We are thinking the frog men should have the gas masks on for any nasty stuff the Apollo men might have brought back! By the way, the “Apollo men” are on the rafts and have been for at least 10 minutes, what is the “frog man” still doing swimming in the ocean? Looking for the great white shark ? Or is he looking for a carp to eat tonight? Come on..AMERICA! Think about the B.S. these pictures are telling you!! (BELOW).

But look at the descrepancies, this is supposed to be the same suit folks!!! Look at the Spacesuit (RIGHT BELOW), This is what NASA says is the actual suit that Neil Armstrong wore on the moon. Now, Look at the same suit NASA claims was photographed with Armstrong with his individial pose. (BELOW LEFT) Check out the discrepancies with the oxygen chambers and the hookup to the helmet. Now, look at the boot (BELOW LEFT).Look at the tread on the boot. It looks nothing like the photo NASA said is the first “boot print” on the moon, (BELOW RIGHT). NASA eventually backtracked for this slip up and now claims the boots Armstrong wore on the moon were “jettisoned” before the LEM took off from the lunar surface and weren’t returned to earth…….SHUUUUUUURE they were!!

Now, Let’s take this even further. Here is Neil Armstrong on the moon, (BELOW LEFT). Is he wearing EITHER of the suits NASA claimed he was earlier? If not, why was NASA having people pay to see the suit he actually wore on the moon in the earlier photo? The suit is now on display at the Neil Armstrong Museum in Ohio.
Oh, here are the Apollo boys again, (BELOW). This time they are entering the Saturn 5 rocket to head to the moon. What? New shoes again? Guess these new yellow ones go with the green cheese on the moon. And a different space suit? New Headgear? How much room was there in that cramped space? Oh, by the way, You guys were in space or “on the moon” for nearly two weeks…how did you go to the bathroom? NASA never really told us that. Hummm, those space suits must have smelled good on the moon with no air to dissipate it!!!!

Another problem, other than the photographic ones, is deadly radiation,not only for the astronauts but the radiation would have fried any pictures they would have tried to take. It is absurd that NASA tried to pass off these so-called pictures from the moon. We’ll show you in a minute that all NASA’S pictures are fakes.

The moon casts a shadow here on earth and it is 250,000 miles away. For the surface to be that bright, it would be blinding to anyone. Forget about getting pictures to come out. However none of the fake photo’s the astronauts took back up this fact.

Neil Armstrong…the alleged first man on the moon, is now suffering from a mental illness because of being forced to live with this lie all his life. Strange that we never see any astronaut that walked on the moon talk in detail about their experience in public. Why don’t they? NASA will not allow them to do so. Before we show you the pictures which prove the moon landing was all a colossal hoax. We want to acknowledge photo analyst Jack White who went over thousands of photo’s from NASA. He’s an expert photographer and agrees these pictures are fake. Keep in mind each picture NASA put out has a code, like a social security number attached to it. It usually starts with the letter “A” and “S”. So, you can search NASA’S website, punch in the code and that particular picture will come up. The pictures have all been coded for decades so no one can doctor any of the pictures with out it being easy to check against the code. For instance this picture is coded in the upper left hand corner: AS15-88-11901. So you know it’s a real authentic picture put out by NASA and in this picture you can see the lunar rover was dropped into postion by a crane. There are no tire tracks left on the front or back of the vehicle. [CLICK ON PICTURES FOR LARGER IMAGES]

Now look at this next picture. It’s a picture of astronaut Buzz Aldrin taken in Mauna Kea Hawaii in 1969. If you look at the mountains behind him, you’ll see it’s the same mountain NASA used in faking the picture below it that was used in the Apollo 17 mission. Just look to the right side of the picture and you’ll see it’s the same mountain NASA photoshoped from the one behind Buzz Aldrin in Hawaii. By the way, I wonder what all the movie production vans are doing sitting behind him?

And, here’s the same fake mountain……..again. And again! Geez, guys! c’mon, you must get tired of using the same fake backdrop from Hawaii over and over again? Look at the center of the picture. You can see exactly where the movie set ends and the fake backdrop begins. Look for the same pattern on all NASA photo’s.

Now, I don’t know how NASA thought they could ever get away with this. Look at the decal on Apollo 15 that says “UNITED STATES” It’s put on with nothing but scotch tape. Must be the new re-enforced scotch tape that can take those 400 degree temperatures.

Here’s Astronaut Pete Conrad from Apollo 12. If you look in his visor, in the upper right hand corner you can see a reflection of a studio light. You can also see the “hotspot” the studio light illuminates on the ground also reflected in his visor.

BELOW LEFT: This is an absurd photo of the Eagle, the lunar module from Apollo 11 while on the moon. Look close. It is nothing but cardboard (which you can see buckling), black roofing paper, gold Reynolds wrap aluminum foil, curtain rods and masking tape along with electrical engineers tape……ridiculous!!!!!

Check out the “Mystery of the Moonrovers” second from the bottom on the right: Here’s a photo of Apollo 17 and the lunar rover. The picture on the top is BEFORE the lunar rover was unloaded and assembled. You can see it’s still packaged and has rubber bands around it. The photo at the bottom shows what it looks like AFTER they broke open the package and supposedly assembled the rover. The package kind of looks like a baked potato broken open. The problem is you can see tire tracks in the photo BEFORE they broke open the package and assembled the rover. [MAKE SURE AND CLICK ON THIS LARGER IMAGE]

BELOW RIGHT: This next NASA fake comes courtesy apollo 15. In most movie sets, the crew will take a picture of the set to try and frame it correctly before they start shooting with film. The same thing here. It’s just that some absent minded photographer forgot and left the polaroids on the leg of the lunar module…….dohhhh!

By the way, if you think the photos left on the lunar lander are just weird reflections from the gold Reynolds Wrap. (BELOW LEFT) Photo Expert Jack White shows you how you can tell the difference.

BELOW LEFT: These are two photo’s of the LEM from apollo 16. The top one taken from the command module on it’s way to the lunar surface and the one on the bottom was taken after it landed. The problem is the top picture shows that the lunar rover was to be unloaded from the RIGHT SIDE (R1) and then that just vanishes after it gets to the lunar surface and now seems to be on the LEFT SIDE (S2).

We think the photographers for Apollo 16 need to frame their phony pictures better. You can clearly see 6 studio lights at the top of the picture at “Lights, Camera, Action”.

BELOW: Here’s the lunar rover of apollo 15 leaving no tracks again which means it was put there from above…..most likely dropped into place from a crane.

Everyone of these pictures is of Buzz Aldrin from Apollo 11. Apparently he can’t figure out how he wants to dress. In some pictures his moon suit is tucked into his moon boots, in some they are not. In some pictures his gloves are white, in some they’re grey. Some pictures he has an antennea …and some he doesn’t. One picture shows him wearing a black arm band…and it disappears in others.

Look at this photo, (BELOW). It’s once again Pete Conrad from Apollo 12. Look in his visor. There are two astronauts reflected. How is that possible? That means there must be THREE astronauts!

(BELOW): These are all pictures of the lunar landing module of Apollo 11. Some on the moon, some in Lunar orbit and two just before it was put on the Saturn 5 Rocket. The last picture is just the ascent module without it’s landing base attached. But NASA says these are all pictures of the same module. Do they all look the same to you?

Objects which are heated cannot be cooled by space. In order for an object to cool it must first be removed from direct sunlight. Objects which are in the shadow of another object will eventually cool but not because space is “cold”. Space is not cold. Hot and cold do not exist in the vacuum of space. Objects cool because the laws of motion dictate that the molecules of the object will slow down due to the resistance resulting from striking other molecules until eventually all motion will stop provided the object is sheltered from the direct and/or indirect radiation of the sun and that there is no other source of heat. Since the vacuum of space is the perfect insulator objects take a very long time to cool even when removed from all sources of heat, radiated or otherwise.

NASA insists the space suits the astronauts supposedly wore on the lunar surface were air conditioned. An air conditioner cannot, and will not work without a heat exchanger. A heat exchanger simply takes heat gathered in a medium such as freon from one place and transfers it to another place. This requires a medium of molecules which can absorb and transfer the heat such as an atmosphere or water. An air conditioner will not and cannot work in a vacuum. A space suit surrounded by a vacuum cannot transfer heat from the inside of the suit to any other place. The vacuum, remember, is a perfect insulator. A man would roast in his suit in such a circumstance.

NASA claims the spacesuits were cooled by a water system which was piped around the body, then through a system of coils sheltered from the sun in the backpack. NASA claims that water was sprayed on the coils causing a coating of ice to form. The ice then supposedly absorbed the tremendous heat collected in the water and evaporated into space. There are two problems with this that cannot be explained away. 1) The amount of water needed to be carried by the astronauts in order to make this work for even a very small length of time in the direct 55 degrees over the boiling point of water (210 degrees F at sea level on Earth) heat of the sun could not have possibly been carried by the astronauts. 2) NASA has since claimed that they found ice in moon craters. NASA claims that ice sheltered from the direct rays of the sun will NOT evaporate destroying their own bogus “air conditioning” explanation.

Remember this. Think about it the next time you go off in the morning with a “vacuum bottle” filled with hot coffee. Think about it long and hard when you sit down and pour a piping hot cup from your thermos to drink with your lunch four hours later… and then think about it again when you pour the last still very warm cup of coffee at the end of the day.

The same laws of physics apply to any vehicle traveling through space. NASA claims that the spacecraft was slowly rotated causing the shadowed side to be cooled by the intense cold of space… an intense cold that DOES NOT EXIST. In fact the only thing that could have been accomplished by a rotation of the spacecraft is a more even and constant heating such as that obtained by rotating a hot dog on a spit. In reality a dish called Astronaut a la Apollo would have been served. At the very least you would not want to open the hatch upon the crafts return.

NASA knows better than to claim, in addition, that a water cooling apparatus such as that which they claim cooled the astronauts suits cooled the spacecraft. No rocket could ever have been launched with the amount of water needed to work such a system for even a very short period of time. Fresh water weighs a little over 62 lbs. per cubic foot. Space and weight capacity were critical given the lift capability of the rockets used in the Apollo Space Program. No such extra water was carried by any mission whatsoever for suits or for cooling the spacecraft.

On the tapes the Astronauts complained bitterly of the cold during their journey and while on the surface of the moon. They spoke of using heaters that did not give off enough heat to overcome the intense cold of space. It was imperative that NASA use this ruse because to tell the truth would TELL THE TRUTH. It is also proof of the arrogance and contempt in which the Illuminati holds the common man.

What we heard is in reality indicative of an over zealous cooling system in the props used during the filming of the missions at the Atomic Energy Commissions Nevada desert test site, where it is common to see temperatures well over 100 degrees. In the glaring unfiltered direct heat of the sun the Astronauts could never have been cold at any time whatsoever in the perfect insulating vacuum of space.

As proof examine the Lunar Lander on display in the Smithsonian Institute and notice the shrouded and encased cone of the rocket engine INSIDE the Lander which is attached above the rocket nozzle at the bottom center of the Lander. It is this rocket engine which supposedly provided the retro thrust upon landing on the moon and the takeoff thrust during takeoff from the moon. In the actual Lunar Lander this engine is present but in the film and pictures of the inside of the Lunar Lander that was “said” to be on the moon the engine is absent. Then examine the Lunar Lander simulator and you will see exactly where the fake footage was filmed.

It would also be a good idea for you to measure the dimensions of the astronauts in their spacesuits and then measure the actual usable dimensions of the hatch that they had to use to egress and ingress the Lander. Also measure the inside dimensions of the actual Lander and you will see that the astronauts (liars) could not have possibly left or entered in their suits through that hatch. Notice the position of the hinge of the hatch and then examine the Lunar Lander training simulator and measure all the dimensions noted above taking care to note the position of the hinge on the much larger hatch and you may become “illumined”… so to speak.

Here is a study by analyst Jack White. He has studied this moon landing hoax more than anyone. Here, he puts it to the math test to show the impossibility of what NASA is asking us to believe. I visited several official NASA websites to find HOW MANY PHOTOS WERE TAKEN on the surface of the Moon. Amazingly, NASA AVOIDS THIS SUBJECT almost entirely. Two days of searching documents and text were fruitless. But Lunar Surface Journal, one of the sites, lists every photo with its file number. So I undertook to make an actual count of every photo taken by astronauts DURING EXTRA-VEHICULAR ACTIVITY (EVA), the time spent on the surface out of the LEM.

Here is my actual count of EVA photos of the six missions:

Apollo 11……….. 121 Apollo 12……….. 504 Apollo 14……….. 374 Apollo 15……….1021 Apollo 16……….1765 Apollo 17……….1986

So 12 astronauts while on the Moon’s surface took a TOTAL of 5771 exposures.

That seemed excessively large to me, considering that their TIME on the lunar surface was limited, and the astronauts had MANY OTHER TASKS OTHER THAN PHOTOGRAPHY. So I returned to the Lunar Surface Journal to find how much TIME was available to do all the scientific tasks AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHY. Unlike the number of photos, this information is readily available:

Apollo 11……..1 EVA …..2 hours, 31 minutes……(151 minutes) Apollo 12……..2 EVAs…..7 hours, 50 minutes……(470 minutes) Apollo 14……..2 EVAs…..9 hours, 25 minutes……(565 minutes) Apollo 15……..3 EVAs…18 hours, 30 minutes….(1110 minutes) Apollo 16……..3 EVAs…20 hours, 14 minutes….(1214 minutes) Apollo 17……..3 EVAs…22 hours, 04 minutes….(1324 minutes)

Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes. Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.

Hmmmmm. That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon, REGARDLESS OF OTHER ACTIVITIES. (That requires the taking of ONE PHOTO EVERY 50 SECONDS!) Let’s look at those other activities to see how much time should be deducted from available photo time:

Apollo 11….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment, operate the TV camera (360 degree pan), establish contact with Earth (including ceremonial talk with President Nixon), unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, find/document/collect 47.7 pounds of lunar rock samples, walk to various locations, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 12….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment (spend time trying to fix faulty TV camera), establish contact with Earth, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations, inspect the unmanned Surveyor 3 which had landed on the Moon in April 1967 and retrieve Surveyor parts. Deploy ALSEP package. Find/document/collect 75.7 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 14….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack and assemble hand cart to transport rocks, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations. Find/document/collect 94.4 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 15….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 17 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions). Find/document/collect 169 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph.)

Apollo 16….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 16 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions, including new ultraviolet camera, operate the UV camera). Find/document/collect 208.3 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph.)

Apollo 17….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 30.5 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages. Find/document/collect 243.1 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph.)

Let’s arbitrarily calculate a MINIMUM time for these tasks and subtract from available photo time:

Apollo 11…subtract 2 hours (120 mins), leaving 031 mins for taking photos Apollo 12…subtract 4 hours (240 mins), leaving 230 mins for taking photos Apollo 14…subtract 3 hours (180 mins), leaving 385 mins for taking photos Apollo 15…subtract 6 hours (360 mins), leaving 750 mins for taking photos Apollo 16…subtract 6 hours (360 mins), leaving 854 mins for taking photos Apollo 17…subtract 8 hours (480 mins), leaving 844 mins for taking photos

So do the math:

Apollo 11…..121 photos in 031 minutes……..3.90 photos per minute Apollo 12…..504 photos in 230 minutes……..2.19 photos per minute Apollo 14…..374 photos in 385 minutes……..0.97 photos per minute Apollo 15…1021 photos in 750 minutes……..1.36 photos per minute Apollo 16…1765 photos in 854 minutes …….2.06 photos per minute Apollo 17…1986 photos in 844 minutes …….2.35 photos per minute

Or, to put it more simply:

Apollo 11……..one photo every 15 seconds Apollo 12……..one photo every 27 seconds Apollo 14……..one photo every 62 seconds Apollo 15……..one photo every 44 seconds Apollo 16……..one photo every 29 seconds Apollo 17……..one photo every 26 seconds

So you decide. Given all the facts, was it possible to take that many photos in so short a time?

Any professional photographer will tell you it cannot be done. Virtually every photo was a different scene or in a different place, requiring travel. As much as 30 miles travel was required to reach some of the photo sites. Extra care had to be taken shooting some stereo pairs and panoramas. Each picture was taken without a viewfinder, using manual camera settings, with no automatic metering, while wearing a bulky spacesuit and stiff clumsy gloves.

The agency wants the world to believe that 5771 photographs were taken in 4834 minutes! IF NOTHING BUT PHOTOGRAPHY HAD BEEN DONE, such a feat is clearly impossible…made even more so by all the documented activities of the astronauts. Imagine…1.19 photos every minute that men were on the Moon – that’s one picture every 50 SECONDS!

The secret NASA tried to hide has been discovered: The quantity of photos purporting to record the Apollo lunar EVAs could not have been taken on the Moon in such an impossible time frame. So why do these photos exist? How did these photos get made? Did ANY men go to the Moon? Or was it truly the greatest hoax ever?

It should be obvious. The moon landing was a lie. It was all a studio production. Parts where filmed at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, parts were filmed in Arizona and part of it in Hawaii. Parts of the lunar surface were filmed in Iceland and parts in a movie studio….

APOLLO FACTS

Facts surrounding the Apollo missions from Apollofake.Bravehost.com. Every other question you might have about the Apollo fraud should be answered here or above: Courtesy NasaScam.com—

FACT: Neil Armstrong is now suffering with mental illness. A direct result of him putting his name forward as the foundation stone for the biggest lie in history. OR it could be that he has become paranoid by the overwhelming number of web sites, exposing him as a liar.
FACT: Rumor has it that Apollo 12 astronaut Pete Conrad was going public about the fake Moon landings on the 30th anniversary back in July 1999. He was killed in a motorcycle accident one week before the 30th anniversary.
FACT: It takes the space shuttle 66 hours to reach the International Space Station which is a mere 185 miles above Earth. NASA claim Apollo 13 was 55 hours into it’s duration from lift off when it encountered a problem at a distance of 200,000 miles from Earth. Sheesh.
FACT: On his web site, world celebrity Uri Geller states that NASA’s Apollo Moon pictures have been crudely faked, and asks WHY? Uri however is friendly with Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell, so we may ask WHY does he not ask Mitchell himself why the photo’s were faked?
FACT: President Lyndon Johnson made certain Apollo files classified, with a declassification date of 2026. This is so those involved in the Apollo scam would be long dead and gone, and no one alive to blame. One need not wait 18 years for the truth behind Apollo, as it is already well known.
FACT: In the early 60’s NASA officials, realizing that a manned Moon landing was totally impossible before 1970, met in secret behind closed doors. It was at that meeting they agreed upon a decision to fake Apollo 11, in the hope they would get to the Moon later on, and then shroud the earlier faked pictures for genuine Moon pictures. The reality is they never succeeded with any mission.
FACT: Arthur C. Clarke referred to Apollo 11 as a “Hole in History”. Historian A.J.P. Taylor referred to it as “The biggest nonevent of his lifetime”.
FACT: NASA had not perfected the lunar landing craft in time for Apollo 11. In 2008 they are still trying to get a rocket to land and take off again, 40 years after Apollo was supposed to have done just that.
FACT: Film footage taken inside the capsule of ALL Apollo missions, shows a light blue haze, and curvature of Earth through capsule window, when they were supposedly half way to the Moon, and in the blackness of space. This proves that capsule was only in Earth orbit.
FACT: Moon pictures on NASA’s web sites are fake, with backdrop scenes pasted. The pictures reveal a black line penciled in where background meets daylight sky, which was blacked out completely.
FACT: The LM used on latter missions, was the same spec as the first mission, ie, no modifications. It would have therefore been impossible to carry the rover vehicle to the Moon in the same confined LM, even if it collapsed into a more compact form.
FACT: The lunar rover had inflatable tires which would have exploded if pre-inflated, and there was no air on the Moon to inflate them. Pro Apollo NUTTERS claim the rover had solid wire mesh tires. Yes the rover in the museum had these fitted in the mid 70’s when they realized pneumatic tires could not have functioned on the Moon. NASA have had 40 years in which to clear up the plainly obvious mistakes within the Apollo program. Each time some one brings up a query NASA correct it and say nothing, ie, they cannot say why the anomaly was there in the first place. Anyway I have pictures of the rover supposedly on the Moon and it has the SAME tires AND tire valves as the one they used at KSC. In other words it is the SAME one. Early close up pictures of the rover on Internet have CHANGED since the blunder was exposed on this web site.
FACT: It would have been impossible to have a water cooled space suit on the Moon, when outside temperature was already at boiling point of water, there would be no where for the heat to dissipate.
FACT: The LM was suspended from a huge traverse crane based at Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia, and was gently lowered at the same time it traversed over a mock Moon surface created beneath it. Check picture on REALITY site, and Channel 4 video “As it Happened” .
FACT: Trainee astronauts were also suspended from this huge traverse crane in a horizontal position to simulate reduced gravity. Check picture on REALITY site with the NASA web site picture of Harrison Schmitt tripping up. The unusual high backward leg swing is identical in both pictures.
FACT: Film footage allegedly taken by Apollo 8 as it supposedly circled the Moon, is the SAME film used for the Apollo 11 mission, except that film is reversed and run backwards, look for “tadpole like” mountain range. What NASA did was to film the mock lunar surface at LRC, traveling in one direction, then reverse camera, and film surface traveling in opposite direction, as shown in video’s.
FACT: Film footage showing Apollo missions allegedly circling the Moon, was taken by a rail mounted camera which slowly moved toward a rotating plaster paris model of the Moon.
FACT: James Lovell was reading from a prewritten script in the simulator when he did the voice over for the above film, and referred to the Moon as being “essentially gray, no color, looks like plaster of paris”. The recording was made long before the mission. Listen carefully on headphones, as he tries hard to suppress himself from laughing. Why otherwise would someone on such an important mision find it so comical? The answer is because it was indeed plaster of paris he was referring to, hence the smirk on face of Michael Collins after the remark.
FACT: Anyone who believes the Moon landings must be “essentially green”.
FACT: Michael J. Tuttle who composed the fake Moon pictures, used mountain background scenes from the astronaut training sessions in Iceland, and other places, to paste on the genuine simulation pictures. He also digitally composed the 360 degree panoramic shots of fake Moon landing sites for use by NASA. His URL speaks for itself. The majority of NASA’s fake Moon landing pictures were taken/composed in the mid 90’s, AND NOT in the late 60’s as many are led to believe. This was because suspicion was aroused at the time regarding the limited number of photo’s available. NASA had to do something rapidly because of the onset of the Internet.
FACT: The Saturn V rocket had shed 97% of its weight upon reaching Earth orbit. The remaining 3% was the space capsule placed in Earth orbit.
FACT: Earth is 250,000 miles from the Moon, yet reflected sunlight from its surface is strong enough to illuminate the darkness on planet Earth. Anyone hovering above surface of Moon would be blinded by the high intensity light reflected back.
FACT: In the mid 60’s, Alan Shepherd was removed from ALL space missions due to vertigo and meniere’s disease. No one in such a poor state of health would be assigned to such a dangerous and complex mission. He was not even on the Apollo 14 mission, which in itself was only in Earth orbit.
FACT: Alleged Moon rock is basalt rock found here on Earth. NASA made it radioactive by “baking it” in a radiation oven. If it is genuine Moon rock, then it was brought back by a scoop and return probe.
FACT: The monitored radio/data signals were either transmitted from Earth and reflected back by bouncing signal of the Moon, or were transmitted via a leased channel. If a valuable source of monitoring equipment was left on Moon, then it would be used today, and not shut down in the 70’s.
FACT: In a TV interview with journalist Sheena McDonald back in 1994, the NASA Administrator, Dan Golden, (alias Dan Dare), openly admitted that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, until they can overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He managed to say this without any mention of the Apollo missions 25 years before, which supposedly went 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit.
FACT: Neil Armstrong has NO momento’s or photographs whatsoever from his alleged Moon mission, however he has plenty from his test pilot days. There are no photographs of Armstrong supposedly on the Moon, because Armstrong, knowing the saga was fake, refused NASA permission.
FACT: In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2008 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 computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k memory.
FACT: When Apollo astronauts were not in space, they were manning mission control communication for other Apollo missions, this was to limit the number of persons in the know. There were in fact two communication links to every Apollo mission. First was launch control who dealt with communication at lift off, and reentry, however once in Earth orbit communication was handed over to the limited few astronauts manning mission control. Check it yourself on film coverage released at the time. Collins, Duke, Aldrin, Lovell, Shepherd, Schmitt, Cernan etc, are all there on various missions. Lovell himself admitted that there were two communication links to the astronauts.
FACT: It would have been impossible for the astronauts to get from the Lunar Module to the conical space capsule, as this section was occupied by the 3 large reentry parachutes, which ejected from the conical end.
FACT: In 2008 NASA does not have the technology to land a man on the Moon, and return them safely. It may be possible in the future, but such a feat is still many, many years away.
FACT: Buzz Aldrin believes he has suffered brain damage as a result of his trip to the Moon. He knows darned well that he never went anywhere near the Moon, and so could not have suffered brain damage in the way he alleges. Aldrin was the only Apollo astronaut who went public, and talked about the Moon landings during the 70’s and 80’s. The guilt, remorse, and stumbling over awkward questions put to him by the media, have put an intolerable strain on him. His psychological damage is the result of keeping it bottled up for 40 years, instead of getting it off his mind. In Aldrin’s book “Return to Earth”, he makes a remark that all 6 of them have been made to look fools. Make of this what you will.
Q: What about Moon rocks brought back by astronauts, it’s proof the landings took place?

A: No it is not, and this is the most common tactic used by NASA and PAN’s, but proves nothing. NASA were manufacturing simulated Moon rock, long before the Apollo missions, this is proven in an abstract published in 1966, 3 years before Apollo 11. This simulated Moon rock is reconstructed from basalt, and meteorite samples discovered in Antarctica. It is simulated Moon rock that is dispatched to universities around the globe as being the real thing. These simulated Moon rocks are, of course, totally different to any rocks found on Earth, and they were meant to be that way. This is why geologists claim they cannot be found elsewhere on Earth. No of course not because they are manufactured by NASA to be totally different to Earth borne rocks. NASA manufacture the simulated Moon rock and Moon dust so cheaply they do not even charge for it, other than transportation costs.
Q: Why don’t they point the Hubble telescope at Moon to view the artifacts left behind?

A: Hubble is owned and operated by NASA, the one’s responsible for faking in the first place, so there is no chance there. In order to cover up for NASA, their paid informers, (PAN’s like Phil Plait from Badastronomy), claim that Hubble cannot resolve down to view the landing sites, but how much resolution do they need? Hubble will in fact resolve down to 50 meter’s on the Moon’s surface, which is more than enough to view the artifacts supposedly left behind. NASA do in fact have very high resolution pictures of the Moon, but do not inform the media because the first thing people would ask is to see the artifacts left behind from Apollo, and, as to be expected there is nothing there.
Q: What about the hammer and feather experiment, how could they achieve that in Earth’s gravity?

A: This is another ridiculous claim made by PAN’s, but again, proves nothing. The film is shot in poor lighting, as well as being a very poor quality black and white fuzzy film, and as the experiment is performed so far away from the camera, it can easily be fabricated. I would like to point out that magicians like David Copperfield have performed far greater feats, (optical illusions), within a few feet of a live audience. One of his stunts involved himself being cut in half by a rotating saw blade, then the two sections of his body were moved to opposite ends of the stage. If PAN’s believe the hammer and feather experiment was real, do they also believe that David Copperfield was sliced in two by a rotating saw blade?
Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but relay on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
Q: What about the laser reflector left on the Moon by astronauts, from which they can calculate the Moon’s distance from Earth?

A: In 1946 scientists in the USA managed to bounce a radio signal off the Moon’s surface, and were able to calculate the precise distance of the Moon by the reflected radio signal. In the early 60’s NASA realized they could perform the experiment more efficiently, and accurately by using a high powered pulsed laser beam. In this scenario the laser beam is reflected back to Earth in the same way as Sunlight is reflected off the Moon’s surface towards Earth. On May 9 1962, (over 7 years BEFORE Apollo 11 supposedly landed on the Moon), a high powered pulsed ruby laser was successfully aimed at the Moon, and reflected back off the Moon’s surface to provide an accurate measurement of the Moon’s precise distance from Earth without any reflector being on the Moon’s surface. There is no laser reflector on the Moon, and never has been. NASA are using the same method today as what they were using back in 1962 before astronauts supposedly landed on the Moon. Incidentally NASA plan to use an even higher power laser on Mars to calculate distance. Have astronauts placed a reflector on Mars to bounce the beam back?
Q: Why did the USA fake the Moon landings, was it to fool the then Soviet Union?

A: No they weren’t done to fool the Russians, does anyone believe the Russians would be so stupid to fall for a con like that? Russia were more advanced than the USA in space technology, and knew at the time of Kennedy’s speech that it was impossible for manned space travel to the Moon and back. The landings were faked purely and simply to convince Western civilization that the USA were better in space technology than the Soviet Union, because the Western world had lost faith in USA capabilities, and the USA could not be seen as the ‘weaker link’ at such a crucial period in time. There was no SPACE RACE as claimed by NASA, who incidentally coined the phase. Russia had no intention whatsoever of sending men to the Moon because they knew it was impossible.
Q: Was Richard Nixon behind the fake Moon landings.

A: Although Nixon was president at the time of the Apollo missions, he was not directly responsible, even though he knew, or should have known, they were fake. The planning and preparation into faking the Moon missions began way back in the early 60’s, and hence Lyndon B Johnson was the president with the most inside knowledge of the Apollo program.
Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldn’t someone have spoken out.

A: Pan’s claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him it’s for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to “keep mum”. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program in the APOLLO FEEDBACK section.
Q: Why didn’t Russia cry foul over the fake Moon missions.

A: Yet another tactic used by PAN’s that the landings were genuine. However they are basing this fact on how Russia poked fun at failures within the USA space industry in the early 60’s, during the Kennedy/Kruschev period. Kruschev was always poking fun at their failures, and referred to Alan Shepard’s 15 minute space flight as a mere ‘flea jump’ to what they (Russia) had done. However when Kruschev stepped down in 1964, the new Soviet leader, Brezhnev, never poked fun at the USA, and Russia just got on with their own business. What many people don’t know however is that the Moon landing was portrayed as being fake in both Russian newspapers, and many other newspapers around the globe at the time, however those stories were suppressed from the Western media. Remember Russia was a very secretive country back in 1969. Russia could have blabbed to the world that the Moon landings were fake, and probably would have done if Kruschev were in power, however Western countries would simply say they were jealous because the USA had beaten them to it. Russia however had a far better plan in mind, and in order to understand how it would work, one needs to understand the way in which Communist ideology worked back in the 1960’s. At that time the Soviet Union assumed Communism would go on forever, and they never anticipated that it would collapse 20 years later, after all it had been going for over 50 years. Their solution to NASA’s fake Moon missions was to sit back and say nothing, safe in the knowledge that in the not to distant future, Western civilization would eventually wake up, and discover that the USA government had lied to them. This would then turn many people against the USA government as they, (the Western media), would feel cheated, made to look fools, and would no longer be able to trust them. This is exactly what the then Soviet Union expected to happen, ie, for the Western media to turn against an authority, that they could no longer trust. If Russia were still a Communist state, its leaders would be laughing their socks off now at the way the USA government was being slagged off by its own citizens. You only have to look at comments on the APOLLO FEEDBACK page to realize how many are turning against the USA government for spreading untrue propaganda, when in reality it was 100% fake.

FACT: Deadly radiation in space beyond the magnetosphere, make space travel impossible. Scientists have not yet found a way to protect astronauts from this deadly radiation. The moon landing lie is another illuminati signature fraud. It’s not by chance we see that number 11 pop up again with Apollo 11 proving once again this was carried out by high ranking elitists. Remember the bible says in the last days there will be a “huge delusion” covering the planet. The fake moon landing is just another one of a long line of illuminati lies we have been exposing. Pass this information along to someone else you know who is a skeptic*

http://www.firetown.com/blog/2011/03/21/my-husband-directed-the-fak...

Comment

You need to be a member of One Vibration to add comments!

Join One Vibration

Comment by Rachael on December 1, 2011 at 7:08am: I doubt if real frog people even want to be a part of their fake film ;) Seriously though, I am really not surprised at all.

Comment by Steven Burnand on June 27, 2011 at 5:32am: Excuse the couple of typos, I am using a blue tooth keyboard that misses out the occasional letter! :O)

Comment by Steven Burnand on June 27, 2011 at 5:27am: Hi Guy, taking the other dimensions into account, things makes sense and MUCH about our you-me-verse is revealed.
The Matrix is externally controlled by the code (the spelling) and the spelling spell binds people who don't understand the mightiness of the pen to be programmed by their inner dialogue.

Little to nothing is said in the schooling about the inner dialogue and the way it affects beliefs and attitudes.

Its also not mentioned about logic being a meta system that is embedded above the spoken word and that logic was originality introduce for use with slavery and commerce.

In other words area of deception.

Those in know at tat time used Socratic dialogue and the advice of the Sophist, to make their decisions as sources are more in tuned with 4D.

The right hemisphere of the mind works in and with 4D, up to recently this side of the brain was made taboo by most religions.

The language of the right hemisphere is little understood as it contains no gaps and works with the big picture as opposed to the language of the left, having gaps and working with parts.

The 4D geometry (Bobs Book an OV Group) shows the real component of the 4th dimension is a direction in space and its no surprise that intuitions have a sense of direction. 'That feels 'right' many will say, being totally unaware of their reference to the 'right' side of their brain.

I did some research back to the root of Hebrew and this language refers to the right and right brain as being as one. The learned of those times understood he deception of the left hemisphere.

The Mayans understood we are creature of two worlds and our brains reflect this. The Yin side is spherical and works in now time (no time) and the Yang side is illusory and Cartesian (there are NO straight lines in nature) and uses the the past and the future for reference.

The most effect way to enslave, is to use the imaginary boundaries created by the divisional nature of the left hemisphere and reinforce this with logic.

Shutting down the conciousness of the right through fear and a chattering monkey mind (constant internal dialogue) seals the imaginary prison doors shut.

The seventh Vail and enigma is the quietening of the inner dialogue and the reawakening of the right hemisphere that is in 'direct' contact with 4D and our higher states of being.

I am, I said, I am said I and no one heard, not even the chair.

Comment by Guy St Hilaire on June 27, 2011 at 4:26am: Some very good observations Steven.I have to agree that yes we are living only on the 3rd dimension,simultaneously with other dimensions that we are not aware of.

Comment by Steven Burnand on June 27, 2011 at 3:34am: Hi Butterfly magic, its the scale of these illusions and level of lies that are taking place and the lack of awareness of the amasses, that I find intriguing? Surly I am not alone?

With all the evidence on 9/11, there are still people that believe fully in the lies.

As Richard says, its compartmental lies, that go through many generic levels.

My fields of research are psychology and perception.

A psychological condition that applies to an individual can equally apply to a group, so its possible to have social/cultural neurosis, psychosis and schizophrenia. The cold war being one such example being neurosis, bordering on psychosis with a few.

My take on the structures on the Moon and Mars is, 'why spend so much time air brushing out moon rocks?'

There appears to be an arrogance from some of the academic community, saying our generation is the peak of human development.

My research points to FAR more advanced cultures way back in the distance past.

I have shared the 4D maths with many leading the way, in forbidden archaeology and they have found exact copies of the maths dating back hundreds and thousands of years.

What is coming to light now, is the evidence of a dumbing down, both socially and technically, that has lasted for thousands of years!

Christopher's great article, being one recent example.

This is going sound odd, although I will share here anyway as most people on this forum are of an open mind. The visitors that Sitchen and other spoke about influencing our social technological advancements, may not have left and have been with us all the way along?

A species that understood how to work with 4D maths would understand dimensional travel. This would be necessary for travelling the vast distances of space.

They could be in the same space us right now and pop in and out of our reality at will. They would be totally undetectable when in another dimension as our instrumentation are tuned into our dimension. This could explain a lot of ghost sightings.

The revelations are coming in faster and faster as the quickening (condensation stage) and 9th phase comes into being. What ever will be next?

Comment by Debby on June 26, 2011 at 8:59pm: Fantastic Job,Ty

Comment by Shoshana Feinstein on June 26, 2011 at 5:46pm: wow Christopher bless you for all you time and dedication.

Comment by aka Michael-Philip: Rothermel on June 26, 2011 at 4:34pm: I very much appreciate this common sense diatribe.

Comment by aka Michael-Philip: Rothermel on June 26, 2011 at 4:32pm: Technology for protection from the cancer causing cell phone and computer radiation is now available. Contact Me if You are interested via, insync.mybionic@yahoo.com . "Proton Alignment Resonance Technology" http://insync.mybionicfamily.com

Michael Rothermel

Comment by Steven Burnand on June 26, 2011 at 1:28pm: Here is an interesting link from Red Ice Radio

Did we land on the moon?

Prologue

jueves, 25 de noviembre de 2010

Moon Landing Hoax Proof Van Allen Belts

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario

Deadly Radiation At and Past the Van Allen Shields

Van Allen radiation belt

Contents

[edit] Discovery

[edit] Research

[edit] Outer belt

[edit] Inner belt

[edit] Flux values

[edit] Impact on space travel

[edit] Causes

[edit] Removal

You need to be a member of One Vibration to add comments!

Mi musica

Mi gente

My people

Seguidores

Datos personales

My people

Mi gente