(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)

[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

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
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

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,

"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


[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
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


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
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)

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 balogna 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



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

#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'

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,
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
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 Bernadino, Cal., which had the largest movie studio in the

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



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
thepublic 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 theleft 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
indeep space.

The exposure would be clipped to the window and the Sun's
luminancewould 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
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
wereplied 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
bevisible 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) asmany 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
isstrange, 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
sunis 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... Sceptics 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,
therock 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'ssurface, so how can the stills camera take pictures that were brighter and
sharper than the movie cameras that were fitted with special lenses to
compensatefor 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,
butthis cannot be true when you view the evidence... The still pictures seem to
showthat 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 TVfootage 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 Aldrins right leg?
How can this be when the camera is attached to the cameraman's chest??? A fact
thatis 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
ifthe 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 tonote 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

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
theMoons 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
landingand 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
levelatmosphere, so why no sound and vibration? According to some sources the
astronauts could hear the thrusters charging, yet we cannot hear the immense
enginein 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
wesee 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
surfacebefore 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
themolten 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
dispersedmainly 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
notany 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
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 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
fieldis 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
timesto 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
dependingon 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
guessNASA 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 exachrome 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 thefilm 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
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

I possess an Apollo film documentary called 'Apollo: One Giant Leap For
Mankind' which features all of the Space missions from before the Apollo
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
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 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
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 sceptics who
said that if I could show 'official NASA footage' showing certain anomalies,
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
see below
3. If I could provide film footage of the LEM producing a flame on the Moons
surface (This would prove that the movie was not taken on the Moon because the
Moons atmosphere and vacuum would prevent such a flame).
That was the  challenge... and here is the evidence... Enjoy ;o)

One of the biggest debates between hoax theorists and sceptics concerns the
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

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
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
proves that the Apollo program was hoaxed!

The sceptics 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
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
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)  Sceptics 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
I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar
2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the
Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the
3)  There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's
10,000 pound thrust rocket.  Sceptics would have you believe that the engines
only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the 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
ascent of the LEM... just to prove the sceptics wrong!)
5)  Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from
between particles of dirt, dust, or sand.  The astronauts left distinct
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? sceptics
will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and
the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same
direction, not two or three different angles.
9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on
the ground in front of it?
10)  How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the
tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?
11)  In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts
lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death.  In reality,
of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would
rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere
into which to dump the heat build up.
12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when it was never, ever
tested successfully? Would you send a relative to the Moon in a vehicle that
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes
closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!
26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the
first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom,
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
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 artefacts 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
evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the
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?

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)
believe that NASA would fake the photos. Well, I have news for all the
sceptics and have reproduced below a little known picture from the Gemini 10
walk that NASA faked. The astronaut in the pictures is Michael Collins, who
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.
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
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
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

1 in 10,000...coincidence?
James B. Irwin (Apollo 15) resigned from NASA and the Air Force on July 1,
Don F. Eisele (Apollo 7) resigned from NASA and from the Air Force in June
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
US Department of Geology in Washington, as he was traveling there the
week after his discussion with Mr. Keysing. 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 Keysing that the people
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 highlycomplex 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 toMars. 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
formerastronaut 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
theMoon within 100 years....  I'm not holding my breath!!!

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
aboardApollo 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 moreWritten 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

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