(This article is up to you whether to believe or disbelieve -  I found some of the points valid some not so valid, we have to remember that DOA, NASA are at least 20 years ahead on what technology we know of so I am not pro or con either way -CJ )

[Without Proper Protection, Radiation Will Kill You!!!]

by byron lebeau 2005  (He died last year) PREAMBLE

[AS A Citizen of the untied States of America, I am NOT PROUD to have to present the suggested data in the below VITAL REVIEW, but I perceive it as NECESSARY ~~ just like I thought it was necessary to expose the income tax scam & its misdirected cousin, The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, (both of which were reflected many months ago on my websites.) NOW, as President Bush is announcing a "return" to the Moon, I feel it is ABSOLUTELY VITAL to see why we DID NOT GO TO THE MOON IN THE FIRST PLACE!

PLEASE! I beg your indulgence in this matter since I spent many hours researching the below book, as well as ancillary information. THANK YOU!]

There are three things that really stand out in my mind when I think about the MOON LANDING DECEPTIONS: the humble but devastating insights of former ROCKETDYNE employee, Bill Kaysing, and how he single-handedly ripped the mask off of NASA'S attempt to buffalo the American people (and indeed the world) about this most outrageous hoax; the inept non-specific blabber of NASA spokesperson and debunker of Kaysing, one, Brian Welsh, who was set in juxtaposition to Kaysing on the same broadcast and came across as nothing less than a buffoon; the complete and overwhelming data provided by Ralph Rene regarding the flimsy spacesuits vs. the utterly deadly VAN ALLEN BELTS & SOLAR FLARE activity that went on between 1960 and 1974, as presented in his self-published book, NASA MOONED AMERICA, but not fully appreciated on the above program since this data was not presented in any SPECIFIC way.

It is my intention to bring this deadly specific information to the forefront of the conscious mind of America, indeed the world because of its very importance!

DO NOT BELIEVE MY WORDS...BUT BELIEVE THE EVIDENCE OF THOSE WHO INTUITIVELY KNEW WHAT CAME DOWN OVER THIRTY YEARS AGO-AND STILL IS GOING ON TODAY! If you were not convinced by the FOX presentation a few years ago, perhaps, when you see the information that Mr. Rene has painstakingly presented in his book, you may be inclined to rethink your possibly misdirected attitude and read his book...since it makes the case for the MOON HOAX ever so clear and unambiguous. [The data is not "sexy" but the devil is in the details...and believe me, there is quite a DEVILISH DETAIL here!]


Ralph Rene cites a quote by Hitler in the beginning of his book that is often used by nefarious control-freak types to fool large groups of people, namely,

"The great masses of the people will fall victim to a big lie than a small one."

The linchpin, in my opinion, of the whole Moon deception, can be focused on the overwhelming data Ralph Rene presents in ONLY chapter fifteen of his excellently researched book, NASA MOONED AMERICA, and the chapter is simply called 'SUNSTROKE'...but firstly, who is Ralph Rene?

Rene, (according to the 'AUTHOR NOTES') is an ex-member of Mensa with an IQ in the top one half percent of the population. He is an inventor with two basic patents (without corporate help.) The author is also a self-taught engineer who has successfully designed beams, trusses, a mobile crane, boats, homes, factories, etc.... [cf. below website of Rene for additional biographical information.]


[I chose this chapter to review because ~ if this information is 100% true, then all the other lies and misdemeanors of NASA - fall neatly into place.]

Rene's premise is that NASA could not have gone to the Moon - PERIOD! This chapter (one of 18, plus 8 revealing addendum,) along with the Radiation Addendum, expose the truth of the NASA LIES, lies that incorporate the details about the Van Allen Belt & solar flares, and their deadly radiation. This data reflects the reason why Rene calls any astronaut who ventured into the Van Allen Belt and beyond ~ an 'astro-not!' [The author, though seemingly being flippant, is deadly realistic as the following data will soon reveal.]

To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques to disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA, unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]

Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data, one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the likes of -Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)

On page 126 of his manuscript, he actually secured 'MONTHLY COUNTS OF GROUPED SOLAR FLARES' (1967-1991) for reference. He notes that during 1968-1969, Apollo mission 8,9,10,11 & 12 "allegedly left the protection provided by the Van Allen Belt (shield) and entered lunar space.(p.126) On the same page, the author emphasizes that extremely powerful flares can randomly occur at any portion of the cycle....

FOR INSTANCE, from 1969 to 1972 there were 27,019 flares or 19 storms a day. Doing some calculations (p.127) ~ Rene concluded that Apollo 15 would have been bathed in 268 flares (an average of over 22 per day,( from July 26 through August 7 of 1971.


The author finally received some information about solar flares, but coming through a book called, NOAA TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ERL-22, by J.A. McKinnon, an NOAA expert on solar flares. One can refer to Rene's book for details, but the bottom line:

"the sun can act as a formidable source of radiation." (p.128)

which is just what the Russians told NASA in 1963.

[cf. below remarks by Russian Cosmonaut at the end of this essay/review.]

As this chapter aptly reveals, solar flare activity was as predictable as ancient weather reports or...[Carry your umbrella at all times!]


1) Well, for starters, the outer skin of the LEM [Lunar Entry Module,] had "the thickness of heavy-duty aluminum foil..." as per John Wilford, Super Weight Improvement Program.(p.129)

2) Cosmic particles are dangerous, come from all sides, and require at least 2 meters of solid shielding around all living organisms, as per John H. Mauldin, who has a Masters in physics and a Ph.D. in science education. Furthermore, Mauldin states that the solar flares can give doses of hundreds of thousands of REM over a few hours at the distance from Earth. Such doses are fatal and millions of times greater than the permitted dose. DEATH IS LIKELY AFTER 500 REMS IN ANY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.


3) Surely the space suits were sufficiently protected? THINK AGAIN! says Rene. The TMG (thermal-meteoroid garment) was made of a dozen layers of ultra fine spun glass cloth, doped with silicon rubber, some aluminum threads & a coating of Teflon. [If this can stop particles up to 2 gigavolt (2 billion EV) than the author sarcastically adds how "easy" it would be to protect them in an atomic reactor where the particle energies are below 18 megavolts (18 million EV.) If they could [BUT THEY CAN'T!] they would be able to romp around in Three Mile Island's meltdown, still hot, reactor all day long in such a splendid garment. [Sadly, NASA's little lie is a tip-off for the BIG LIE A. Hitler uttered and cited at the beginning of this essay/review.]

4) HOW DANGEROUS ARE REMS? Well, Ralph Rene cites an interesting anecdote on page 130: the SST, (Super Sonic Transport) must lower course if the - get this - "millirems" (1/1000 of a rem) approaches 10! [It seems the elite who took this transport do not wish to take ANY CHANCES with even a few rays of radiation.] Of course, maybe they know something since 500 REM (according to McKinnon) cause 50% deaths within one month.(p.130) [cf. the various scale of this is also offered in Rene's manuscript on the same page.]

5) MORE REM DANGER: Rene read that even 170 REMS is dangerous & almost guarantees a cancerous future, but when he checked the source, he found that it was 170 milli 'rads' which is the equivalent of 170 REMS...[The source is indicated as footnote #15, which comes from 'POISON POWER,' "Gofman" & Tamplin, 1971, Rodale, p.126.] Rene muses, "No wonder the SST aborts its flight plan at 100 millirems." (p.132)

6) WHO GOT ZAPPED? 6a) During the Gemini 10 mission, Mike Collins allegedly received ".78 rads"(78 millirems) over 24 hours while under the Van Allen Belt umbrella, which is almost EIGHT TIMES what it takes for the SST to "streak for cover." (p.132) [If one were to peruse the opening part of NASA MOONED AMERICA, there seems to be a problem with the 'Mike Collins' pictures (faked, according to Rene,) going back to as early as July, 1966. Why? Maybe Collins was made of the "right stuff" - so much so - that he was immune to radiological poisoning?!? Obviously, Rene's astro-nots' RIGHT STUFF is nothing but bologna sliced really thin...perhaps!]

6b) A big flare during Apollo 16, (April 17,1972) where "Astro-nots Young, Mattingly & Duke, should have been fried, but, of course, they weren't."(p.133) They also allegedly spent nearly 20 hours outside the LEM in the searing sunlight [judged to be about 250 degrees F.-really HOT!!!] and radiation from residual flares.

6c) Drawing on the frequency of sun flares over a 25 year period [that encompassed the time frame of the Apollo missions,] there were, on average, 5391 flares per year or 14.76 per day. The Apollo astro-nots were in space for 85 days, subjecting themselves to about 1254 (actually 1485) flares. According to McKinnon (cited previously) ~ even a 1% probability would mean at least 12 SUPER DEADLY FLARES OF X RATED CAPACITY or OVER ONE PER MISSION!(p.135)



If solar flares can potentially give doses up to hundreds to thousands of REM over a few hours at the distance of Earth - and as mentioned previously - DEATH IS LIKELY AFTER 500 REMS in any short time...[then you do not have to be a Sherlock Holmes to perceive the BIG LIE!]

According to Rene, all 27 of the astro-nots who went to the Moon should be dead from radiation. [Shouldn't they?] If you are, however, the SUPER-skeptical type, I invite you read The Radiation Addendums. It's another eye-opener!

#1 (by James Miller,) one can begin to ascertain the truth about atomic chain reactions and exactly how radioactivity is produced, contradicting other lies of NASA. #2 (James A. Van Allen) also proves that the three hours it takes coming & going through this belt (which, of course, was named after him,) that each of the solar storms per day [14.77 cited previously] produces a minimum of 369 REMS, and unless one has at least two meters (6 foot) of solid shielding [unlike what the astro-nots had,] one would be committing suicide. (John Mauldin, ex-NASA astrophysicist) OF COURSE, NASA's spin doctors claim that men can live after 500 REMS and that space has very little radiation. (p.170)


IN Addendum #3, an expert on the Van Allen Belt, Dr. Frank Greening, proves (as deduced by Rene,) that even traveling within the Van Allen Belt, one could expect to receive enough radiation (coming & going) - that - "you would be dying upon reentry whether outer space contains radiation or is as radiation free as NASA claims it is. [The CASE SHOULD CLOSE RIGHT HERE...but Bush wants to go to Mars, so let me add one other Apollo 17 mission, at 12 days long was the longest flight made. With at least a million seconds in 12 days, at .32 rads/sec., the total exposure for each astro-not would be 320,000 rads. [WOULD YOU SIGN UP FOR BUSH's PLANNED MARS' TRIP?]

ONCE ONE SEES CLEARLY that flimsy space suits will kill you in deadly space (as the Russians found out,) then all the other pieces start coming together ~ like in a secret place called Mercury, Nevada,(p.17) as part of the secured site, the site of the double-cross, the site where the REAL action was taking place long before AREA 51 became a bone of contention for Ufologists!


1) Why no stars are ever seen in any of the NASA photos...

2) Why the flag was "flapping" in no ostensible atmosphere: NO WIND,  REMEMBER!

3) Why no blast crater was under the lunar lander: Hoisted from above? [Let's  not forget the "no dust" either on the landing pads, or Kaysing would never  forgive me!]

4) Why we see defined foot prints that can only be made with moisture!?!

5) Why all the hundreds of pictures were "picture perfect" even though the  astronauts (or astro-nots, as Rene would have it) could not even bend their  hands.

6) Why there HAD TO BE LIGHTING from other sources unless physics has changed  its properties! [This is so silly it is not even worth commenting on to the  serious researcher.]

7) Why one of the spokespersons from NASA (Brian Welsh, as shown on the Fox  Broadcast, DID WE LAND ON THE MOON? - said nothing of any value in trying to  deflect the valid criticism of researchers like Bill Kaysing & Ralph Rene.  Even the so-called "bad editing" could be easily seen as bad NASA editing,  drawing even more attention to their lies & cover up. [NOTE: Debunkers are  never to get into details since they can't; their function is simply to  deflect and dismiss and so bedazzle the ordinary Joe, (looking for guidance)  and leading him down the cul~de~sac of disinformation. Hey Brian, you fit  right in!.

BY THE WAY: the Russian Cosmonaut who knew better about the deadly radiation problem was mentioned by Bill Kaysing on the TV broadcast, and supported the Rene information of chapter 15 above: His name was Boris Valentinovich Volinov, and he feared that the radiation could come through the craft. [SMART GUY, just like Ralph Rene, former Mensa man!]

Incidentally, on a second TV interview of Bill Kaysing (technical writer for ROCKETDYNE from 1957-1963)~ done by a Ross Marshall (the 1995 production of WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON, which is also the name of Kaysing's book,) Bill discloses an interesting fact: He said that NORTON AIR FORCE BASE contained all the professional technological equipment necessary to pull off the STUNT AND DECEPTION OF LAST CENTURY. They are closed now, but back then, they were located in San Bernardino, Cal., which had the largest movie studio in the area.

AND lebeau IS NOT THE ONLY ONE WHO SKEPTICALLY READ THE BOOK AND CAME AWAY A BELIEVER IN THE ANALYSIS OF RALPH RENE...Below you will find a review by WAYNE GREEN, who, in effect, could find no fault with the 30 or so "gotcha's" that Rene pinned on NASA (Never a Straight Answer,) so I guess I am challenging every thinking tax-paying American to put aside his/her built-in prejudice in this matter and CRACK THE BOOK! It is the least you can do to convince yourself that 'crackpots' like lebeau & Green, Kaysing & especially Ralph Rene are OFF THEIR ROCKERS-OR- MAYBE THEY'RE NOT!?!




After viewing the words of Bill Kaysing, and both viewing and reading the masterful work by Ralph Rene about our NON-MOON SOJOURNS, then seeing even more alleged deceptions on ABOUT OTHER EXECUTIVE BRANCH "INITIATIVES"~~ I finally said: ENOUGH! So the following is the stream that flowed from my soul, voiced in poetic just anger:

As the thread...

As the thread begins to loosen the noose grows tighter still the darkness scurries ever deeper yet the light begins to fill...

As the tapestry unravels the veil comes crashing down the evil-doers stripped quite naked in such fleeced unstately 'gown'...  

See  related article below


Faked Apollo Landing

"BY" David Cosnette 2005

(A note from the webmaster, I have seen this compelling piece of film and I am certainly convinced that it is genuine. LeBeau's above  observations are keen indeed as he hits the nail squarely upon the head!)

All pictures and Movies on this page are either copyright of NASA or Aulis Bill Kaysing was head 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!!! (readers may note that in the NASA section of this web site, we feature the alleged communications picked up by Ham Radio operators and also show pictures of UFOs allegedly taken during the Apollo Missions - Some readers have written saying that we are presenting two different arguments here because if Man never went to the Moon how did they capture UFOs around the Moon on film?  Let me restate that I do not claim that they never went, I believe that the footage released by NASA that is in the public domain today is not the original films! If you look at the other Apollo page, the majority of the UFO pictures are also taken in orbit - Man didn't have to land to take these pictures!)

But why would NASA and the United States bother to fake such an event and to what cause I hear you ask, well 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 is at the bottom of this article). Percy firmly believes that the Apollo footage was either faked or is 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 prerecorded and not live at all.

The first anomalous piece of footage I would like to discuss is from The Apollo 16 Mission of 1972. 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 who is standing in front of him 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 is taken 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 in 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 also 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 would take all of the photos on the Apollo missions. Jan Lundberg was the Manager Of Space Projects at Hasselblad from 1966 to 1975 and was 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 were plied 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.

Another very important factor to consider 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. 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 skeptic on the Bad astronomy skeptics 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 show 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 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 skeptics 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 maneuvers! 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 the 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. I'm told by skeptics 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... Skeptics say 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 Moon shots. Take the picture below 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 indeed at work on the Moon's surface, they would combine together and the shadows would fall accordingly, not at random points. Unless the skeptics are saying that Sunlight is falling in the middle of the picture and there  is Earth light at the forefront of the picture?

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. Its 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 also worked out that after analyzing 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.

The Apollo 12 suffered a camera 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 also 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. 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.

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? How do you explain why the 'Sun' having a halo around i t if the Moon has no atmosphere?

I think the picture below beautifully sums up the evidence of several light sources being used. Otherwise, how would you explain the portion on the right of the picture being in what can only be described as a 'spotlight'? You only have to look at the shadows cast by the Lunar Lander, flag and the cameraman to see that this shot has artificial lighting centered on the bright area... If this shot was lit by natural Sunlight the shadows would be falling in the same direction not 3 different ones! Even if you take a second light source (the Earth) into consideration, this would not explain why the flag shadow is not traveling in the same direction as the LEM's!  As stated earlier, two light sources would combine together and the shadows would still fall in the same direction... Even if the 'light spot' is in a crater the flag shadow would still travel from SW to NE as does the LEM's.

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 stayed up to see 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 can 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 several 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, he is also 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 Comms 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 an amazing feat of camera work if you consider that it was taken without any means of knowing that everything was in shot. No viewfinder, no one to tell you if everything is in shot. Isn't it also 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 no dust!

Why is there a lack of any engine sound on any of the films as the lunar lander is about to land on the Moons surface? After all, the astronauts are sitting on an engine that can produce 10.000 lb. of thrust and burning at 5000 degrees Fahrenheit of heat. Air inside the module was pressurized to 1/3 sea level atmosphere, so why no sound and vibration? According to some sources the astronauts could hear the thrusters charging, yet we cannot hear the immense engine in the background of any transmissions?

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  Fahrenheit of heat produced from the 10,000 lb thrust 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 skeptics state 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

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 supposed to be some 200,000 miles from Earth. If we look out of the window we see blue? 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.... they look similar to you?  

How could Astronaut Fred Haise state the crew aboard Apollo 13 could see Fra Mauro? At the time of the accident, Fra 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 Fra Mauro during the mission .

How did NASA recreate the effects of weightlessness???

Some skeptics will ask, ' 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 skeptics cared to double the speed of the film, they would see that the astronauts don't act any differently to how they would on Earth!

Lets take a look at some footage that seems to show astronauts suspended by a thin wire. In fact, if you look closely, you will see the light reflecting off the wires above the astronaut. Watch how the astronaut seems to be almost jumping on the spot to turn around in the next sequence, its rather similar to the practice rig used in training here on  Earth... In the last sequence of this footage, see how the astronaut who has fallen over, gets up. He stands up without putting his hands on the ground, or the other astronaut helping him... just like a puppet on a string!!!

Many skeptics will probably say 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 Radiation plays a big part in space travel. Solar flares could have affected the astronauts at any time. A 170 rem 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 skeptics 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 aluminum 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? 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 aluminum 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:

'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 skeptics 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? HJP Arnold is an astronomer and keen photographer, an expert on space and astro photography and was the assistant to the Managing Director at Kodak during the Apollo years. He has also 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 extachrome 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 any 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 also 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?

One For The Skeptics

Over the past few months I have been having a debate with several members of the 'Bad Astronomy' website. 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 also goes into detail on other anomalies that show up on space footage that they think is easily explained. During my time debating on their site, I was issued several challenges by skeptics 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 that, 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 skeptics concerns the nonappearance 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 left. 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 skeptics reading this article could perhaps explain why the movie to the right shows light suddenly increase when Armstrong is at the bottom of the lander 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!

Still Not Convinced?... Here's 32 things that need to be answered!

1)  Skeptics say there are no stars in the black sky, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view.  The first man in Space, 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.

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 LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket.  Skeptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

4)  When the LEMs were supposedly leaving the Moon, they should have produced a large bright exhaust flame from the rocket propellant.  Instead, zero exhaust. (I have turned this one around and have found evidence of a flame on one ascent of the LEM... just to prove the skeptics wrong!)

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)  In most Apollo photos, there is 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? skeptics 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.

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 fiberglass 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 LEM on the Moon when it was never, ever tested successfully? Would you send a relative to the Moon in a vehicle that had never been driven before?

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 traveled 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.  Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation?

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 tire 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 'PaperMoon' 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 vapor discharges.  They never did.

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

22)  With a more than two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM?

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

24) Another overlooked intriguing fact is that 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 aluminum 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).

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 maps the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artifacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LEM go?

30) In the year 2002 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 mislabeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, dated by NASA three days after they left for the moon. It shows 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!".

32) Why did ALL of the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?

CONCLUSION Lets try and put this all into perspective.

Could NASA really have faked the Moon landings? Many people have written to me and questioned my accusations of how NASA could fake the Apollo missions. The majority (most of which are Americans) cannot believe that NASA would fake the photos. Well, I have news for all the skeptics and have reproduced below a little known picture from the Gemini 10 Space walk that NASA faked. The astronaut in the pictures is Michael Collins, who was later to be part of the Apollo 11 mission, and the first picture (1) is of him practicing his Space walk within a high altitude airplane. When Collins finally achieved the Space walk, NASA released several pictures of the event. One of which is picture 2. If you look closely, you'll see that the picture is in fact picture 1. reversed (see picture 3) and a Space background has been added. If NASA has the bottle to release pictures such as these, why do you think they wouldn't fake the Apollo missions?

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. 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. 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 traveling 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 Kasing 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? 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. 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??? 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 (Editor of UFO Magazine UK) has 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. An86% success rate.

Since Apollo, twenty five simple, unmanned craft with increasingly higher levels of technology have attempted to fulfill their missions to Mars. Only seven succeeded.


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 were 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 Written by Dave Cosnette. Updated March 30th, 2003 If NASA faked the Apollo footage, where is the REAL FILM? I have uncovered some photos that were allegedly taken by Apollo Astronauts of UFOs and the transcripts of the alleged transmissions made by the Astronauts relating to UFOs. CLICK below to see the evidence!

A great film that addresses the hoax evidence of Apollo called 'Paper Moon' is viewable for free over the net at

For anyone who would like to investigate further into 'The Apollo Hoax', I would thoroughly recommend purchasing the video' 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.

It's up to you the reader to believe or not believe this story - I personally do not know.


All rights reserved Byron Lebeau  ( He has passed away)


|Back to MAAR Main| |Chit-Chat Corner Page One| |Chit-Chat Corner Page Two

|Chit-Chat Corner Page Three

All rights reserved MAAR - Malevolent Alien Abduction Research 2005 Disclaimer