16 May 2013

NASA Apollo moon landing faked 1

Each year that passes after the Apollo moon landings took place and we do not repeat this feat by returning man to the moon, shows that these missions were an anomaly rather than the new standard they were supposed to be.  

For example, why don't we just use the 1960's technology to go back to the moon and beyond, that seemed so easy from 1969 - 1972?  Why didn't the frontier of space really dawn for humanity as was promised during the 1950s and 60s?

Apollo missions 8 to 17 were the only manned missions to go beyond the Van Allen radiation belts surrounding the earth.

Before that, the only earth life to have penetrated that far were on the two Zond craft missions, Zond5 and Zond6, sent by the Soviets to the moon and back in 1968.

At the time, the Soviets claimed that the biological payload on Zond5, consisting of some turtles, worms and other stuff, lived and were recovered alive on earth.  Although for some reason the Soviet's own manned moon program never proceeded after that apparently successful test.

Remarkably, NASA didn't send any animals or other creatures of earth further away from low earth orbit, into the Van Allen belts and beyond, at all before humans went.  Humans were the first earth animals NASA sent into this new frontier.  That seems a remarkable gamble to take with human life.

The present sphere of activity for humans and other higher life forms from earth, such as dogs and turtles, is limited to 620km from the earth's surface.  That's as high as the space shuttle will take humans today.  (620km altitude for the Hubble repair is the record altitude for humans in space, after Apollo.)

It seems that such missions as Apollo that go above this height and through the Van Allen radiation belts and beyond are impossible given the deadly radiation that would be encountered.

Therefore, yes, this is yet another webpage that denies that the Apollo moon landings ever took place.  Ever since I read R Rene's NASA Mooned America I have been convinced that we never went to the moon.

This is the first post in a series on the topic.  In future posts I intend to go through all of the reasons for and against the Apollo moon landings as time allows.

There are several points commonly raised in defence of the landings, such as moon rocks, laser retroreflectors left on the moon, independent tracking and the fact that someone in the program or the Russians would have talked.

The list of anomalies against the official story is much longer, my own list numbering about 60.  There is even more to be found at places such as here: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7.  (Edit 27/5/2013 I removed the original link to 3 as I find the site to be doubtful.)

To break it up into smaller more manageable posts I start with the first two anomalies I see with the official story.


1)  Curvature of the moon too great

A 2.5m wide rocket nozzle projects a 25km wide shadow onto the moon Edit 20/5/13: Oops jumped the gun on that one.  On the low resolution version the nozzle looks like a shadow, but on the high res version the nozzle can be seen.  Still, the calculations on the curvature of the moon remain valid.

The following is a photograph taken over the moon of the landing site for Apollo 11.

This is the annotated version of the image from NASA:

A search for the Maskelyne crater can be performed in Google Moon.  Here are two images I obtained to show the scale of the Maskelyne craters.  Note the scale on the bottom left.  Keep in mind that the Google Moon images are oriented north and south as usual, while the Apollo moon image is looking to the west.

The Apollo 11 landing was timed to coincide with the Lunar dawn so as to accentuate the shadows of the craters to assist in navigation.  When the lit portion of the moon stops toward the top of the above photo, that is the terminator.

The shadows in the foreground are shorter than in the background.  Using the change in angle between the two, an estimate of the moon's curvature can be made.

"Boot Hill" is about 210km from the terminator near the landing site.  I use Boot Hill because I figure it's easier to judge the angle of the shadow than the nearby craters.

In the above photo Boot Hill casts a shadow that is at most 4km long.  The hill appears to be about 1.25km high.  That's an angle of 17 degrees.  And that's a low estimate -- a larger angle would make the moon's curvature more, and the moon's size even less.

If the shadow goes from 0 to 17 degrees over 210 km that makes the moon 4,447km in circumference, or 1,415km in diameter.  The Wikipedia page lists the moon's diameter as: 3,474km, or more than double the diameter depicted in this model of the moon.

And here's NASA building similar models prior to the moon mission (taken from Apollo Reality):

Expert NASA model makers craft their home grown versions of the moon.

2)   Rotating object just stops dead with no inertia
Example:  25:09 (link updated) from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xc61kv4aH0


You see at 25:09 of the above YouTube video link how the lunar ascent stage is rotating and then comes to an abrupt stop?

You can't make something all alone in space come to a dead stop like that.  It has to be done gradually with rockets.  To make something stop dead like that it must be attached to a much larger heavier object, but the ascent stage is all alone.

This looks, and more importantly physically acts, like a small model in a studio on earth, not like a space craft in space.


  1. Yes my NASASCAM website http://nasascam.atspace.co.uk was set up in the mid 1990's after the 30th anniversary of this saga, when I discovered the Apollo pictures were truly fake. Of course everyone now knows that the CIA forced NASA to fake the Apollo missions to instil pride in American people. http://apollotruth.atspace.co.uk

  2. Thanks for the comment.

    The fake moon landing was a huge propaganda effort, and I don't blame the astronauts involved, e.g. Neil Armstrong, for the hoax. They were part of something bigger, and I can appreciate that.

    It was a time when the show was more important than the substance. I heard a lot of people at the time knew/thought it was a hoax. I do blame people like President Nixon for the hoax!

    Today, with the internet, the pics and the vids, and what we know of the dangers of such things as space radiation, it's a wonder that anyone still believes it.

    In favour of the landing people mention a few paltry facts:

    1) Moon rocks. True, von Braun went on an expedition to Antarctica to get, you guessed it, actual moon rocks that fell as meteorites.

    2) retroreflectors Really, please? They were bouncing lasers and radar and even radio waves with human speech off the moon way before the retroreflectors were left on the moon. How can a tiny 1 foot by 1 foot reflector possibly make a difference at that distance?

    3) Independent tracking. I haven't looked into this enough, but I suspect that actual triangulation at the distance of the moon would be just about impossible especially at that time. The tracking dishes in..what was it..California, Madrid and Australia, were for picking up a signal not tracking.

    Amateur HAM radio operators also picked up a signal. The signal told them where the craft was. How's that tracking? And in any case tracking doesn't prove the craft was manned.

    4) photos and videos including latest LRO NASA picsAll the anomalies and problems in the original pics -- they create more questions than answers. As for the photoshopped LRO pics, a good vid from Jarrah White:


    5)It was too big, someone would have talkedNow we move away from evidence into pure speculation. The answer is easy: NASA was compartmentalised. But this is the real reason many don't accept it: it's just too big for them to believe. At the end of the day the evidence, which is overwhelming, doesn't matter: what's believable to them is all that matters.

    They're comfortable with their beliefs that we went to the moon and that's that.

    6)The Russians would have talked Why? Are the Russian like a goodie-two-shoes child who runs to mommy to tell every time Jimmy steals from the cookie jar? Why should the Russians say anything? If it was in their interest to "blow the whistle" they would. But I believe that the whole space race charade was a more useful propaganda tool then "blowing the whistle". I happen to think the Russian were lying about Gagarin and his low earth orbit. It was all just a sham.

    In fact I suspect that true space-going ICBM's are bogus as I argue in link below. Both sides were lying in the cold war. It was all one big hoax designed for domestic consumption.


  3. Also, APOLLOREALITY thanks for the link to your website http://apollofacts.atspace.co.uk/
    Probably the best site on the issue out there! Well done.