The journey to the Moon

Did Man Land On The Moon?

On the 25th May 1961 President John F Kennedy told Congress: "I

believe that this nation should commit itself, before this decade is out, to

the goal of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to

Earth."

Many people have expressed their amazement that not only was the

goal of landing a man on the Moon achieved, but that it was achieved in

only 8 years, as Kennedy said it should. This is however, ignoring the fact

that at the time Kennedy made his statement NASA already had in the

pipeline over nine different Moon landing flight plans in a project they

had named 'Apollo'. They were already designing a huge Moon booster

called 'Nova, that was to generate 40 million pounds of thrust, and were

1

already considering various methods for landing a man on the Moon. At

the the time of Kennedy's speech however, NASA were concentrating not

so much on landing a man on the moon but on just putting a manned craft

around it. Kennedy's speech changed all that.

Had NASA not been put under pressure to meet Kennedy's

deadline, they would have chosen a far different approach to land a man

on the Moon than the one used. It was originally hoped to do it stage by

stage using a permanent Earth orbiting station that would make future

flights a lot easier, but instead had to settle for a 'one time' system to meet

the deadline. With the new system going from launch pad, to orbit, to the

Moon and back, using disposable components, it was possible to achieve

within the time frame, but it meant each mission was a 'one off' and

contributed nothing towards the overall mission plan that could be used

by following Moon flights.

The mission to land a man on the Moon was not an 8 year period of

starting spaceflight from scratch and ending with a Moon landing.

Spaceflight began in 1957 with the first satellite placed in orbit and

developed from there.

Everybody can remember the night of July 20th 1969 when

everybody saw on television Neil Armstrong climbing carefully down the

ladder of the Lunar Module and stepping out onto the surface of the

Moon, the first man to have done so. It was a magical, awe inspiring

moment that people will never forget. A man was walking on the Moon,

240,000 miles away, and I was watching it happen, live, on the TV

"That's one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind". It

certainly was.

The NASA Apollo missions ran from 1968 to 1972 and they

claimed to send men to the Moon. Evidence and theories presented in this

paper suggests man has not

2

set foot on Earth’s sole satellite after all. However, the argument is

balanced by sound logic. If you want an article telling you about the

details of the Apollo programme then this report is not for you;

controversy, suspicion and theories fuel this piece.

So what do you think?

How can NASA have faked such a famous historical event? Well,

the information you will be presented with will answer that question.

Numerous pictures, diagrams and basic physics principles will be part of

the argument. Countering the argument is evidence explaining the truth

and simple facts. Having travelled the internet examining web sites

calling it all a hoax I then went to sites trying to preserve the authenticity

of the Apollo programme. The opinions differ greatly and this report will

find the middleground, balancing the ‘fake’ claims with ‘real’ assurances.

Evidence varies from a specific detail in a photograph to fundamental

laws of physics being broken.

Before we delve into the argument I must stress that in no way am

I forming an opinion in this piece, I am merely presenting what I consider

to be worthwhile evidence and theories. All photographs originate from

NASA. Some of the photographs contained within this document have

been doctored for the sole

purpose of highlighting specific things within the photograph.

Why is one astronaut's shadow significantly longer than the other

astronaut's shadow?

A simple question with a simple answer. If there is only one supposed

light source, the Sun, the shadows should be the same length.

Even taking into account the high probability that the astronauts

are different heights this does not bridge the shadow length gap. I can

hear you gasp all the way from here!

3

Here you can see the camera crosshairs that appear on the photos. There

is something on this photo that is particularly interesting.

Can you see it?

For the record one of the crosshairs inexplicably goes behind the bright

rod, which is zoomed in on for the eye's benefit. How and why can this

be? In a real photo an object merely reflecting light would not appear to

be infront of a crosshair on the camera lens.

This photo also has the infamous 'C' on the rock in the foreground. Surely

this is not due to nature, which is virtually unheard of on the Moon?

Was the letter a marking put on the prop to remind stage hands where to

put it?

4

Also note the quite sudden change in direction of the tyre track marks.

Surely a buggy would be unable to turn that sharply?

The detail of the tyre marks upon closer inspection also yields doubt.

Only a moist area would be able to replicate marks so well defined. We

know that the Moon is not moist.

Who would have thought one photograph would arouse so much

contraversy?

We kick off with one of the most famous photographs of Edwin

‘Buzz’ Aldrin taken by Neil Armstrong (who is visible in the reflection

from Aldrin’s visor.

Figure 1

The debate rests on the assumption that the cameras the astronauts used

on the Moons

surface were fixed to their stomach region. Figure 2 shows exactly how

Armstrong would have been positioned.

Figure 2

So why in Figure 1 is it possible to see over the top of Aldrin’s visor and

see the top of his life support pack? From such a low position the camera

5

would surely be unable to take a photograph at this angle. It is physically

impossible for light to bend around the visor, as Figure 3 demonstrates.

Figure 3

The rational explanation for this would be that the cameras could be

detached from the space suit and held in the hand. Taking this into

account, it still looks like the camera is not held near Armstrong’s head or

even upper torso (Figure 1, visor reflection). There is the simple fact that

only one star is visible in photographs taken on the Moon: our very own

Sun. It is feasable to believe that with no atmosphere on the Moon it

would be even easier to see stars. Perhaps the team at NASA who may

have been simulating the Apollo missions forgot to design backdrops

with dots of light, or it may have been too complex to design. In their

defence, NASA argue that it would be impossible to capture the stars on

film. When taking a photograph of a close, bright object the exposure

time needed is very small (infact the exposure time on the Moon is less

than that on Earth due to the high reflectivity of surfaces). With a short

exposure time being used, the dim, distant light of stars would not form

an image on the film. A much longer exposure would be needed to see

the stars we can see easily with our eyes. Looking at Figure 4 you can

clearly see the footprint made by Aldrin (during the Apollo 11 mission).

6

Figure 4

Considering that there is no moisture on the Moon it is surprising that

there is so much detail. If the same boot made a footprint in dry sand the

shape of the bottom of the boot would not be held together as in Figure 4.

Chemically however this claim can be dulled down. There are known to

be silicates in the composition of the Moons surface. The presence of

such acts like a wetting effect when the molecules are moved closer

together (when the boot applies pressure to the dust) so when the force is

removed the shape holds5.

This sound explanation should be seen as a response that extinguishes the

argument

altogether.

One of the most inexplicable images taken on the Moon is up next.

Figure 5, shows the letter ‘c’ on the surface of a Moon rock.

Figure 5

This, hoax supporters believe, is inexplicable. How can a ‘c’ be present

on a rock on the Moon? It has got to be fake, perhaps a prop name for a

7

studio crew, who allegedly shot the whole Apollo programme from a

hanger inside the military base Area 51, Nevada.

Having done some more research into this topic I found some more than

useful evidence suggesting that the hoaxers have no case at all. One web

site explains the events very well by showing the original photograph,

which does not have the ‘c’ on the rock.

Figure 6

The explanation offered claims that the original was scanned and

published on the internet by NASA, only for it to have picked up a fibre

or hair (seen to be the ‘c’ on the rock). In fact, upon closer inspection it is

clear to see that it is not engraved on the rock9 . The story does not end

there however. I have personally spotted another ‘c’ in the photographs,

including the original photograph without the ‘c’ on the rock. Figure 7

shows a ‘c’ in the Moon dust (which I have circled).

8

Figure 7

If viewed from closely, Figure 5 also shows shows this other ‘c’. No

explanation of this ‘c’ is to be found. Having emailed one of the authors

behind the site [7] I received no response. This is quite alarming as there

are now two cases of the letter ‘c’ appearing, one of which is supposedly

explained, the other is ignored. What are the chances of an identical fibre

being on the photograph? Perhaps it was the same fibre but it moved from

the dust to the rock between being developed and being scanned. For the

record, this is the only simple photographical evidence that I have failed

to find an explanation for.

Carrying on with photographic anomalies, there are a number of

crosshairs (positioned just infront of the camera lens) that appear to go

behind some of the objects featured in photographs taken on the Moon.

Figures 8, 9 and 10 all show disappearing crosshairs suggesting poor

design by the team assigned to produce the Moon-like photographs

(possibly fakes).

9

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 10

There is also the explanation: the crosshairs are bled out by the highly

reflective (and

therefore bright) objects, which we know are extremely bright on the

Moon. The thin

remains of part of the crosshair can be seen in Figure 10. The fact that

only white objects ‘hide’ the crosshairs backs up the explanation because

white reflects very well. There is yet more photographic evidence. The

Moon backgrounds shown in Figures 11, 12 and 13 (pairs of

photographs) seem to have similar backgrounds (i.e. Figure 11: the two

photographs are similar).

10

Figure 11

Figure 12

The LM base in the photo on the right could not move so how has it

managed to disappear and consequently not be in the left photo? Also

where have all those rocks come from? Why are they in one photo but not

in the other?

Figure 13

Quite good, it seems, if you only have a limited number of backgrounds

to choose from.

It is a fact that each photograph in the pairs were taken at different

places on the Moon so how can the backgrounds be the same? Claims

that NASA had built a limited number of backdrops, thus having to reuse

them is a strong possibility. The defence here is that the camera position

11

in Figure 11 has changed slightly, demonstrated by the gigantic change in

foreground content and by slight changes in the background. You will

have to look closely to see these small alterations but they are there. The

defence for Figures 12 and 13 is virtually non-existent. It is possible that

a similar change of angle occurred in Figure 12 but to go from a rocky

landscape without the landing module (LM) to a flat landscape with the

LM is hard to believe. Surely there would be some gradual change in the

amount of rocks? Figure 13 is open to a hoaxer’s attack. It is a fact that

one astronaut and the top of the Moon buggy (Rover) are photographed,

then two astronauts drive for over two miles in the Rover and are then

photographed somewhere else on the Moon. So why are the foregrounds

identical in the two photographs? Can it be that the facts are wrong or did

NASA drop a clanger in claiming that these photographs show different

parts of theMoon?

The shadows in some photographs are interesting. They are not

parallel when perhaps they should be. If there is only meant to be the one

light source (the Sun) then shadows should not cross. An explanation is

that the Moons surface is not flat and it is the undulations which cause

shadows to collide. Another point is Figure 14. It demonstrates that one

astronaut’s shadows is longer than the other astronaut’s.

Figure 14

12

Even allowing for the distance between them and the astronauts being at

different heights, should the shadows differ that much?

This next piece of evidence does not seem to be well known but is the

most important.

Figure 15 shows what look to be evidence of a structure in the Moon sky.

Figure 15

The buttresses19 suggest anything but a plain region in space. Why

can this structure be seen? Well because it is there pretty obviously, even

though it should not be. This suggests two things: NASA secretly built a

protective roof to prevent the Apollo missions becoming endangered or it

was done in a film studio where a hefty backdrop would definitely need

13

support. The authenticity of the whole programme is being undermined

here as there is no rational reason why a shield structure appears. Surely

if NASA had really built a structure to protect their astronauts they would

have been proud of that fact and would have wanted to share it. You start

to get very deep if you were to argue NASA was covering up information

regarding their work on the Moon, instead of covering up the possibility

that NASA faked the Moon landings. Are NASA more at home on the

Moon than the world gives them credit for? Why are they hiding the

possibility that they have other projects on the Moon? Whichever the

more correct theory it does not bode well for claiming that there was just

a glassy structure in some photographs purely by coincidence and NASA

are not trying to hide anything at all. There does not seem to be any

explanation as to why these structures are apparent. Another thing, are

they glass-based to reduce the chance of them being spotted due to

transparency?

Footage filmed on one of the Apollo missions shows the Rover

being put through its paces on the Moon. As we know, the surface dust is

easily displaced so it would be shot out of the back of the Rover wheels

like a projectile out of a cannon. There is no atmosphere on the Moon

meaning that there are only two forces on the dust after it has been spat

out of the back of the Rover: the horizontal and vertical components from

the rear wheels and the other force being gravity. The horizontal

component remains constant as there is no other force to stop it

(Newton’s first law). The vertical component is initially against the

Moons gravitational force before the gravity takes over and the dust

upwardly decelerates before accelerating towards the Moons surface. The

forces behave in such a way that a parabolic shape should be formed by

the dust particles, as in Figure 16.

14

Figure 16

This parabolic shape is called a ‘rooster tail’ but it is not seen on

the footage. Instead there is a mess (‘Actual’ in Figure 16) which is

caused by particles colliding with an atmosphere (itself a collection of

particles). The process is much like Brownian motion and is easily

observed on Earth but should not be on the Moon. Despite this fact it is

still demonstrated on some footage released by NASA. The only

argument is that the dust particles collide with each other as opposed to

an atmosphere. But surely the dust particles would have roughly the same

velocity and be moving parallel to each other, having all just been ejected

from the back of the wheels? Apart from this somewhat fragile defence

the claims protecting the authenticity of the footage are rare.

The journey the Apollo craft took to the Moon is known to take

them through the Van Allen Belt. Made up of two high areas of radiation

approximately five hundred and sixty miles from Earth, it contains high

enough levels of radiation to cause problems for NASA and more

immediately the astronauts. Apparently, four feet thick lead walls would

have been needed to protect the crews. NASA have released documents

showing the amount of research they undertook which tends to suggest

they knew what they were doing when dealing with space radiation. I

found a particularly useful web site regarding the radiation, that expands

15

the research21 . NASA decided to surge the Apollo craft through the Van

Allen Belt to reduce the amount of radiation and as I write none of the

twenty one NASA astronauts to have been through the Van Allen Belt

has died as a direct result. The firm evidence has drawn to a close, but

what about the other theories surrounding the actions of NASA? It is fact

that NASA destroyed duplicate photographs and the FBI destroyed all

blueprints of all rockets and spacecraft that went close to the Moon.

Considering also the poor quality of film footage taken on the

Moon it is interesting why NASA and other US government agencies

acted the way they did. As Mike Bara concludes when referring to the

above actions, NASA was:

‘...essentially trying to confine the control of the visual record to

one set of prints that NASA could manipulate.’

But why would NASA do such a thing? If they had something to

hide then they would surely act as they did. Bara continues:

‘...it wasn’t to cover up that we never went! It was to cover up what

we found when we got there!’

So is the evidence collected in these pages and elsewhere merely

scratching at the surface? Mike Bara may be extremely suspicious of

NASA but he does have a point. Perhaps all these small niggly anomalies

are simply a smokescreen or diversion just to concentrate the controversy

at whether man has been to the Moon or not. NASA may have even

fuelled the fire to help deviate people’s eyes away from what NASA may

have found on the Moon. Figure 15 seems to be scratching at the surface

of a conundrum that NASA do not want people to see. It seems that man

did land on the Moon and was not ready for what he found. NASA could

not release the information so instead created an alternative set of Moon

landings which were fed to the public. Whether or not these dulled down

versions took place on the Moon or not is up for debate.

16

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 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 it’s at its worst

when the sunspot cycle is at its highest. And 1969 to 1970 was one of the

worst times to go, as this was the time where the radiation was at its peak.

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?

17

Why did none of the astronauts die or why didn’t they developped a

lethal illness such as cancer like the Russian astronauts did?

Deaths of key people involved with the Apollo program

In a television program about the hoax theory, Fox Entertainment

Group listed the deaths of 10 astronauts and of two civilians related to the

manned spaceflight program as having possibly been killings as part of a

coverup.

Why would NASA and implicitly America fake a Moon landing?

Motives:

Several motives have been suggested for the U.S. government to fake the

moon landings - some of the recurrent elements are:

1. Distraction - The U.S. government benefited from a popular

distraction to take attention away from the Vietnam war. Lunar

activities did abruptly stop, with planned missions cancelled,

around the same time that the US ceased its involvement in the

Vietnam War.

2. Cold War Prestige - The U.S. government considered it vital

that the U.S. win the space race with the USSR. Going to the

Moon, if it was possible, would have been risky and expensive. It

would have been much easier to fake the landing, thereby ensuring

success.

3. Money - NASA raised approximately 30 billion dollars

pretending to go to the moon. This could have been used to pay off

a large number of people, providing significant motivation for

complicity. In variations of this theory, the space industry is

characterized as a political economy, much like the military

industrial complex, creating fertile ground for its own survival.

18

4. Risk - The available technology at the time was such that

there was a good chance that the landing might fail if genuinely

attempted.

The Soviets, with their own competing moon program and an

intense economic and political and military rivalry with the USA, could

be expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to fake a Moon landing.

Theorist Ralph Rene responds that shortly after the alleged Moon

landings, the USA silently started shipping hundreds of thousands of tons

of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR. He views

this as evidence of a cover-up, the grain being the price of silence. (The

Soviet Union in fact had its own Moon program).

Proponents of the Apollo hoax suggest that the Soviet Union, and

latterly Russia, and the United States were allied in the exploration of

space, during the Cold war and after. The United States and the former

Soviet Union today routinely engage in cooperative space ventures, as do

many other nations that are popularly believed to be enemies. However,

this suggestion is challenged by the impression of intense international

competition that was under way during the Cold War and is not supported

by the accounts of participants on either side of the Iron Curtain. Many

argue that the fact that the Soviet Union and other Communist bloc

countries, eager to discredit the United States, have not produced any

contrary evidence to be the single most significant argument against such

a hoax. Soviet involvement might also implausibly multiply the scale of

the conspiracy, to include hundreds of thousands of conspirators of

uncertain loyalty.

The landing on the Moon started great controversies when the

conspiracy theories appeared and there are many unanswered questions

for the mankind. Here are few of them, some of these questions having

answers, too.

19

Why doesn't the Hubble Space Telescope provide proof?

This argument runs along the lines that as the HST can provide

images of galaxies millions of light years away, why can't it provide

images of a lander on the Moon, which is on our door step?

Why haven't we been back?

This one comes up on a fairly regular basis and is used by hoax

believers to support their argument that we never went in the first place,

because if we had then surely we would have gone back. There are a

number of reasons why this has not happened, and it is necessary to know

the reason for going in the first place, and the history behind it, to

understand why.

On the 25th May 1961 President John F Kennedy told Congress: "I

believe that this nation should commit itself, before this decade is out, to

the goal of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to

Earth."

The only reason for making this declaration was in response to the

USSR for having put the first man in orbit, Yuri Gagarin, because at the

time of Kennedy's speech, the USA had only managed one small sub-

orbital manned flight. The Moon landing project was not a scientific

endeavour, it was a political decision to win the 'Space Race', as it was

believed that whoever controlled space would gain an enormous military

advantage. It also had very important propaganda value regarding

Communism v Capitalism. The USA felt that it was extremely important

that they overtake the Russians in the 'Space Race' and be the first to land

a man on the Moon. This was a propaganda war at the height of the cold

war. Nothing to do with science.

Having achieved the goal of landing a man on the Moon in 1969,

that was it, mission accomplished. The Russians had given up trying and

now pretended that they never intended to send men anyway, only

20

probes. President Nixon cancelled the Apollo project, and the last to go

was Apollo 17. It had been planned to send Apollo's 18, 19 & 20, but the

USA had other far more pressing issues, such as the Vietnam war for

example. The American public had become bored with the Moon

landings anyway and felt it was becoming a huge waste of money, and in

response to the general apathy many TV channels did not even bother to

give the Moon flights air time. (Remember the film 'Apollo 13').

Furthermore, photographs of American soldiers ducking bullets in a

muddy trench in Vietnam while listening to the Apollo 11 astronauts

walk on the Moon, was, to say the least, incongruous.

Although much of scientific value was learned about the Moon by

going there, there is really not much point in going back, unmanned

probes can do the job a lot better, faster, safer and cheaper. Why risk

lives? NASA's budget today is invested in numerous projects, such as the

Hubble Space Telescope and Shuttle flights to service it. The

International Space Station, again serviced by the Shuttle, various probes

to study the Sun, Mars, Saturn and other planets, comets and asteroids,

and so on.

Going back to the Moon would be unbelievably expensive, and

very little would be gained by it. Would the American public readily part

with their tax dollars for such a pointless venture when they have other

issues, such as health and welfare, unemployment, areas of poverty, a

stock market collapse, an energy problem, pollution, crime, etc. (as do

most countries I would add) not to mention a very costly war against the

'axis of terrorism'? What President is going to propose a massive

investment in returning to the Moon, for no real reason, when there are so

many more important issues that need addressing? It would be madness.

That's why we have not gone back. Its not because we have not been

there, but because we have.

21

Why they would fake it?

The Soviet Union had been making all the early advances and the

greatest progress in the great Moon race.

The Soviet Union launched the first man and the first women in space in

1961 & 1963 and were also the first to orbit the Earth.

With the above happening the US Government had to make some kind of

success with President Kennedy promising that the US would put a man

on the moon by the end of the 1960's.

Many people believe that NASA had released that it was not possible to

go to the moon with the technology available (Computer chips being as

powerful then as a modern washing machines chip) so they resorted to

faking the landing to ensure a

victory of the Soviet Union and keep the dollars coming in for real space

projects.

The Pictures

NASA have never offered any explanation whatsoever for the numerous

errors in the photographs, despite repeated questioning.

These errors include:

The Apollo 11 pictures show the ground in the distance being much

darker than the ground in the foreground, as if the Astronauts were

standing in a pool of light.

Several photos show evidence of extra lighting (as a professional

photographer would use fill-in lights) but no such lights were supposed to

have been used.

Some photos clearly show the light coming from "impossible" angles. In

one instance, Aldrin's boot is lit from below as he descends the ladder.

Some photos contradict the TV camera pictures of the same events.

Some photos of one astronaut taken by the other are clearly taken from

slightly above the eye level of the subject, but in his visor, the reflection

22

of the astronaut with the camera shows it being held at chest level.

The length of the shadows in the Apollo 12 pictures don't agree with the

angle which the Sun should have been at.

Some wide area photos show shadows pointing in different directions.

In the sound recording of the lunar landing, you cannot hear the sound of

the engines. As the astronaut calls out the remaining distance to the

surface, he is only a few feet away from a rocket engine which should

have

been producing 10000 lb of thrust.

The sounds

The major point which has helped convince me that the moon landing

was faked was the fact that when the control room asked a question to the

Astronauts the replies were instant with no delays. This seems strange as

even with technology in the 1990's there is a delay from satellite links

from the UK to the US. There is about a 0.7 second delay from London to

California so how is it possible for instant replies from the Moon ?

There is also evidence that when people go into space that there voice

goes tense although the Astronauts voices have been analyzed and found

to be normal, and 7/10 people said it sounded like someone reading from

a script.

When Houston are talking to the module you should not be able to hear

the responses at least when the module is landing and the infamous "eagle

has landed" quote, this is due to the noise that should have been created

by the rocket motor which generates several hundred thousand pounds of

thrust 20 ft below the astronauts. The noise would have completely

drowned

the vocals out.

The Radiation

An American author has researched and found out that he believes the

23

Apollo Spacecraft would have needed to be two meters thick to prevent

cosmic radiation from cooking the Astronauts inside.

Also in addition to the radiation protection for the astronauts similar

protection would be required for the films + cameras, NASA's official

explanation of how the films were protected was that the cameras were

painted with a coat of aluminum paint.

The most important question which has come out of this is what

are NASA hiding?

DID REALLY MAN LAND ON THE MOON?

Since the early 1960s and 1970s many scientists from Russia and

United States of America we both trying to go to the moon and they were

failing. Some of the scientists even died along the way. Apollo is the

machine they were using on their attempts to go to the moon. From

Apollo one up to ten they were failing until in 1968 when Apollo 11 from

the USA managed to reach the moon. That is were everyone was

introduced to Neil Armstrong who is the first man to go to the moon.

There is a great debate going on about the landing on the moon story.

Some people think that we did not go to the moon and some believe that

we did. There are some strong points which prove that we did not go and

there are still other points which are defending that we did. All the

evidence is collected from the videos watched and the notes collected

from the websites provided.

The evidence which shows that we did go is that there was a

strong competition between the Russians and the Americans about who

will get to the moon first and the Russians were failing so if the

Americans were faking the story the Russians as their major oppositions

would have proved them wrong a long time ago. The people who went to

the moon came back with a bag of the lunar rocks weighing 84 pounds

which they collected from the moon and those rocks were so different

24

from the rocks found here on earth. The rocks found on the moon have no

water trapped in their crystal structure and rocks found here on earth

contain substances such as minerals that are totally absent in moon rocks.

The hoax believers defended themselves by several reasons including

photos taken by the astronauts from the moon that do not contain stars in

the dark lunar sky and there is a temperature of about 250 degree Celsius

where the camera can melt at this temperature so how did they managed

to take a photo at that temperature, there is no breeze in the moon and the

USA flag was seen bending and ripping in the video how is that possible?

Lunar dust was going up and down in the video how that is possible

because there is no gravity in the moon. The whole story was faked in the

Nervada desert. According to the hoax believers National Aeronautics

and Space Administration (NASA) did not have the technical capability

of going to the moon, but they forced to fake everything because of the

pressure which they were given by the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

According to my opinion I dont think that neither the space-craft nor men

landed on the moon. The astronauts were interviewed and most of them

refused to testify, though there are few who did testify what was not

convincing is that Neil Armstrong himself also refuse to testify. I think

what was standing on their way to reach the moon was the reason that

they have to travel through the Van Allen Radiation Belts. The

micrometeoroids would have pierced them on their way to or from the

moon. If they really went to the moon I think they could have found

another things to come back with not only rocks the evidence is not good

enough. Besides looking at the video and reading the information from

the websites I just tried to look around the world itself and I can see that

the technology is improving every now and then and if this story was true

I think people could be visiting the moon everyday. I know it could cost a

25

fortune but people could strive to go to the moon. But it looks like since

Neil Armstrong no one has ever gone to the moon.

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.

26

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?

Opinions pro and anti the American Moon landing:

Man Did Land On The Moon

Why would such a huge organisation like NASA fake such a thing? They

would not attempt to trick the world into thinking man had landed on the

Moon because they would have been found out. Had they have faked any

of the Moon landings the advances in technology would have detected

something amiss by now. Besides, even today the vast majority of people

believe man has been to the Moon proving that NASA has not mislead

anybody.

The fact is that the world watched the Apollo shuttles take off from Earth

with the astronauts on board. Had NASA wished to fake the whole

programme surely they would not have even bothered sending men into

space?

27

What about all the photographs and films that NASA released during and

after the missions? It would have been an impossible task creating these

images and to such a high standard so as they could fool people. I am of

course only talking about the footage NASA chose to release. No doubt

there are an unspeakable number of photographic negatives and film reels

just stacked up somewhere, not good enough to be put on public display

but too important to be disposed of.

Moon rocks were brought back from the Earth's only satellite and they

are totally unique to the Moon. You could not find rocks here on Earth

that are similar in molecular structure. Once again, to create from scratch

a series of 'rocks' would be a near impossible task. This is of course what

must have happened if astronauts did not go to the Moon and bring rocks

back with them to Earth.

Man Did Not Land On The Moon

You only need to look at the selection of photographs of this website to

see that man never reached the Moon. There are too many errors and

strange anomalies for them to be ruled out as false claims. Do not forget

that there are plenty more photographs on the internet showing more

strange things that should not be on the photographs.

It is believed that the technology NASA possessed between the 1960s and

early 1970s (the time of the Apollo missions) was short of the levels

needed to get man to, on and back from the Moon. The level NASA had

has been compared to a modern day washing machine.

The Americans had reason to fake the Moon landings. The Soviet Union

held all the aces in terms of space exploration and that meant they had a

higher level of technology compared to America. During the Cold War

this was exactly what the United States did not want. Leapfrogging the

Soviets would raise the country's morale and allow the government to

fund technological advancements even more due to increased public

28

interest and support. It therefore made sense to hoodwink the American

people and with that the rest of the world.

There is an area of radiation called the Van Allen Belt which the Apollo

crafts would have had to pass through on their way to the Moon.

Suggestions that the levels of radiation are enough to cause serious

nausea and death after a few days would surely have scared NASA

enough not to allow astronauts into this danger zone.

The final point is quite a hard one to answer if you believe the Moon

landings were real.

Why haven't NASA or anyone else for that matter sent more manned

missions to the Moon? It has been 32 years and counting since man

apparently last put a foot on the Moon. With technological advances it is

even harder to understand why man has not gone to the Moon. President

George W. Bush recently announced plans to send astronauts to the Moon

but strangely enough he did not use the words 'again'. Instead he used

words like 'first' and seemed to subconsciously be referring to the fact

that the planned missions he has given the go ahead for were in fact the

first of this type. This surely means he was accidentally inferring that no

missions to the Moon had happened before. Interesting.

29

The Moon or a Studio in the Nevada Desert?

A bigger curiosity is the fact that a satellite image of the Area 51

revealed a lunar landscape with lunar craters? Could this be that the

actual Moon images are from the Nevada Desert in Area 51?

9 SPACE ODDITIES:

1.  Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon. In front

of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him about slicing

the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by uneven air flow over the ball.

The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.

2.  A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting

off the Moon.  Who did the filming?

3.  One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong

about to take his giant step for mankind. The photographer must have

been lying on the planet surface. If Armstrong was the first man on the

Moon, then who took the shot?

4.  The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a football. The

astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man, but were

seen freely bending their joints.

5.  The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't

America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth? The

30

PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily done with

magnesium flares.

6.  Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked on the

Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected in the

visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

7.  The flags shadow goes behind the rock so doesn't match the dark line

in the foreground, which looks like a line cord. So the shadow to the

lower right of the spaceman must be the flag. Where is his shadow? And

why is the flag fluttering if there is no air or wind on the moon?

8.  How can the flag be brightly lit when its side is to the light? And

where, in all of these shots, are the stars?

9.  The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have made

a bigger dent in the dust. The powerful booster rocket at the base of the

Lunar Lander was fired to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has

left no traces of blasting on the dust underneath. It should have created a

small crater, yet the booster looks like it's never been fired.

31

Bibliography:

1 http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

2 Troy and Bara, http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm

3 Drawn by Dean Buxton

3 http://www.lancs.ac.uk/ug/buxton/Moon pictures

5 http://www.lancs.ac.uk/ug/buxton/Apollo mission

6 http://science.nasa.gov/headlines

7 http://www.enterprisemission.com

32