Back to HappierAbroad Article Index???????????????? Back to SCEPCOP Article Index

Conspiracy Trilogy Report:

Apollo Moon Hoax, JFK Assassination and 9/11 Truth

Over 70 Logical Arguments and Evidence Debunking the Official Stories

Winston Wu

(Note: This is an ongoing project that will be continually updated and revised. So check back regularly for new info, arguments and evidence.)

"Americans don't need to lie to themselves. That's what the government is for!" - Michael Rivero

"They must find it difficult...those who have taken authority as the truth, rather than truth as the authority." - Gerald Massey





Contents

Introduction. 8

Conspiracy Arguments and Evidence. 11

Section I: The Apollo Moon Hoax ? Valid reasons to doubt NASA?s historic manned lunar landings. 11

1. NASA?s inability to send men to the moon today means they could not have in 1969. 11

Only time in history where technology went backward by an extreme magnitude. 13

Clear signs of fakery in Apollo moon photos and videos ? Smoking gun evidence. 13

2. Shadow anomalies indicate secondary artificial light sources. 14

3. Astronauts lit up in shadows by multiple light sources. 17

4. Buzz Aldrin spotlight photo a smoking gun blunder 22

5. Indications of artificial backdrops used in Apollo images. 24

Distinct visible line separating foreground from background. 24

White carpet layer placed over dirt behind astronaut ? New discovery! 25

Stereoscopic parallax technique reveals stationary backdrop at close proximity. 26

6. Identical backdrops with different foregrounds and vanishing LEM... 26

7. Scotchlite glass screen visible in moon images after adjustment of gamma and contrast 28

8. Sun image on moon turns out to be light bulb in enhanced image. 28

9. Lunar rover with no tire tracks on either side. 30

10. Fake looking moon from orbit with giant shadow from command module. 33

11. Wires visible above Apollo astronauts in NASA footage. 36

12. Bootprints cannot be made in dirt or dust without moisture. 38

13. American flag fluttering on moon with no air or atmosphere. 39

14. No blast crater under lunar landers. 40

15. Slow motion movements and low jumps in 1/6 Earth gravity. 42

16. Van Allen Radiation Belts and solar flares would have been lethal to astronauts. 42

17. Smoking gun footage of Apollo astronauts faking a shot of being halfway to the moon. 44

18. Apollo space suits and cameras had no protective ability against extreme heat and cold. 44

19. Discrepancies about seeing stars from lunar surface by Armstrong and Collins. 45

20. Live video footage from Apollo contained cuts, jumps and edits. 45

21. Implausibility of docking with command module moving at 4000mph in orbit 46

22. Nothing new in technology works right the first time. 46

23. NASA director suspiciously quit just before Apollo program began. 47

24. NASA gave up just before they made it to the moon?. 47

25. Suspicious death of NASA safety inspector Thomas Baron. 47

26. Observatory telescopes theoretically able to see Apollo lunar artifacts but strangely silent 47

27. Apollo 11 astronauts looked guilty, sad and reluctant during Post-Flight Press Conference. 48

Apollo One tragedy may have been a warning to the astronauts. 49

28. Neil Armstrong?s string of bizarre behaviors since Apollo. 50

29. Other miscellaneous anomalies. 51

30. Why laser reflectors are not proof of manned lunar landings. 53

31. Why moon rocks are not hard evidence of manned lunar landings. 54

Giant impact theory contradicts moon rock evidence. 110

32. Why ham radio trackers do not constitute independent verification. 56

33. Why LRO images do not prove the Apollo lunar landings. 57

34. NASA claims to have lost its telemetry tapes of Apollo 11. 61

35. No real proof of astronauts landing on moon ? only emotion, patriotic pride and religious faith. 62

Common questions and objections. 62

How could so many people be in on a moon hoax conspiracy?. 62

Damning admission by Apollo Mission Control Flight Director 63

Why don?t more scientists recognize the moon hoax or speak out about it?. 63

Why didn?t the Russians call us out on the moon hoax?. 64

Conclusion ? The moon hoax is highly probable and likely. 65

Why the Apollo moon hoax matters today. 66

Why patriotic pride is a fallacy. 66

Section II: The JFK Assassination ? Voluminous proof of a Coup D?Etat 69

1. Zapruder film proves the fatal head shot came from the front and right 69

Has the Zapruder film been altered?. 70

2. Faked official autopsy photos contradict 100 percent of testimonials from doctors and nurses. 70

3. Implausibility of Oswald?s alleged three shot miracle. 71

4. No solid evidence for Oswald being the lone assassin. 71

Was James Files the shooter on the grassy knoll?. 72

Alleged photo of Oswald in the doorway when President Kennedy was shot 72

5. Fingerprint of LBJ?s hitman Malcolm Wallace found at crime scene. 74

6. Over 50 witnesses testify to shots coming from the grassy knoll 74

7. Massive cover up attempt logically proves a conspiracy. 75

Top secret assassination files locked away that even active Presidents are not privy to. 75

8. Mysterious deaths of witnesses and leads with crucial information. 75

9. Warren Commission investigation was unscientific, agenda-driven and whitewashed. 76

Fabrication of the single bullet theory through alteration of data. 76

Altered testimony of eyewitnesses. 79

10. Last official government investigation by HSCA concluded that a conspiracy existed. 79

11. Suspicious actions by the Secret Service and limo driver 80

12. Lee Oswald had no motive or gain in JFK Assassination. 80

Oswald?s girlfriend claims he was innocent and framed as patsy. 81

13. Jack Ruby had no motive or gain in killing Oswald. 81

14. Oswald?s connections to the CIA.. 82

15. Following the money ? Who had the means, motive and opportunity?. 83

Motives for killing JFK: Powerful Interests vs. Lee Oswald. 83

The Military Industrial Complex. 83

Lyndon Baines Johnson. 84

J Edgar Hoover, FBI director 84

The CIA.. 84

The Federal Reserve and Banking Elite. 85

The Mob. 85

The Oil Industry. 85

Lee Oswald. 85

What?s the verdict?. 86

16. Immediate after effects of the assassination reveal the intentions. 86

17. Power and authority in orchestrating the cover up. 87

Why Lyndon Johnson had to be in on it 87

How could so many be in on it? Wouldn?t someone have talked?. 88

18. Whistleblowers and confessions from insiders. 88

E Howard Hunt, CIA operative for Nixon and Watergate conspirator 88

Gerald Ford, former US President and Warren Commission member 89

Colonel E. Fletcher Prouty, Chief of Special Operations. 90

Madeleine Duncan Brown, mistress of LBJ. 90

Barr McClellan, attorney for LBJ. 91

Billie Sol Estes, legendary Texas wheeler dealer 91

Mob confessions. 94

Joseph Milteer tapes. 94

Judyth Vary Baker, girlfriend of Lee Oswald. 94

19. Assassination of Robert Kennedy for the same motives further corroborates them.. 95

20. No subsequent US President has dared to challenge the power network thereafter 97

Exposing lone nut propagandists and their modus operandi 98

Fallacies and false assumptions of conspiracy debunkers. 98

Why the controlled major media cannot admit to the truth. 100

Conclusion ? The conspiracy is a proven fact, not a theory. 101

Government denial does not turn fact into theory. 102

Implications: The end of the US Presidency and Democratic Republic ? Why it matters today. 102

Section III: 9/11 Truth ? A giant puzzle of discrepancies and implausibilities. 105

1. Skyscrapers cannot collapse asymmetrically from fire at near free fall velocity. 105

2. Collapse of Building 7 ? A huge smoking gun. 106

Larry Silverstein?s ?pull it? statement and insurance scam.. 107

3. Office fires not hot enough to melt steel 108

Black smoke indicates oxygen-deprived fire dying out 108

Fire deforms a building gradually and unevenly. 109

4. Hundreds of witnesses reported hearing explosions at the WTC prior to collapse. 110

William Rodriguez - Basement explosions pushing upward. 110

Barry Jennings - key witness, death and disappearance of. 110

Etienne Sauret?s tripod video of ground shaking prior to collapse. 110

5. Thermite and molten metal found in WTC rubble ? Scientific forensic evidence. 111

Thermal images from satellites showed heat spots for two weeks. 114

6. WTC debris hauled away to Asia before it could be scientifically examined. 114

7. Proponents of official story have all failed to explain the collapse features. 115

Official fire collapse theory explains 0 out of 10 features. 115

The Achilles heel of the 9/11 conspiracy debunkers. 116

2 Questions that will blow away any 9/11 conspiracy denier 117

Debunking Popular Mechanics? defense of the official conspiracy theory. 118

Modus operandi, red herrings, false claims and pseudoskeptic tactics. 119

Alternate theories on the collapse. 120

Dr. Judy Wood ? Directed high energy beams. 120

Dimitri Khalezov, former KGB ? Nuclear detonation explanation. 120

8. Aluminum planes cannot penetrate through steel frames. 121

9. Foreknowledge of Building 7 collapse by BBC and CNN.. 121

10. Mysterious power down in WTC before 9/11. 122

Testimony of WTC employees Scott Forbes and Gary Corbett 122

11. George Bush?s brother Marvin in charge of WTC security system.. 124

12. Hijacked planes could not have flown the way they were alleged to. 124

Statements from veteran professional pilots. 124

13. No visible debris of any planes at all four crash sites. 126

Pentagon crash site anomalies and discrepancies. 127

Hole in Pentagon was too small 127

No precedent for airline crash leaving no debris. 128

Disintegrated plane can?t leave holes in the inner rings. 128

What happened to the wings?. 129

Whole plane disintegrated yet left fingerprints?. 129

86 cameras around the Pentagon showed no plane. 129

Discrepancies from eyewitnesses. 129

Impenetrable airspace above Pentagon. 129

Unnecessary acrobatic loop to cover up 2.3 trillion missing dollars?. 129

Shanksville crash site anomalies and discrepancies. 130

Reporters said they saw nothing but a hole in the ground. 130

Government keeps changing their story. 130

Eyewitnesses who saw missiles and scattered wreckage over miles. 131

No plane theories. 131

Occult ritual theories. 131

14. Cell phone calls from hijacked planes not technically possible at flight altitude. 132

15. Impossible failure of NORAD four times on one day indicates stand down order 132

16. 9/11 Commission was a cover up, whitewash and failure. 135

17. Insider trading prior to 9/11 indicates foreknowledge of the event 135

18. Following the money ? Who had the means, motive and opportunity?. 136

Who benefitted from 9/11? After effects reveal intentions. 136

Motives, Means and Power: Osama Bin Laden vs. The Neo Cons. 136

PNAC expressed the Neo Cons? desire for a ?New Pearl Harbor?. 137

Historical precedent for staging false flag attacks and starting wars for profit 137

Understanding the mentality of the globalist power elites. 138

Why governments resort to lying in order to control people. 139

19. Problems and discrepancies with the 19 Arab hijackers story. 140

Some of the alleged hijackers reported to be alive. 140

Airport security video show alleged hijackers at wrong airport 140

Behavior of hijackers inconsistent with fanatical Muslims. 140

Hijacker passports found in incinerated plane?. 141

Flight manifest discrepancies. 141

Implausibility of hijacking airlines with box cutters. 141

20. Problems and discrepancies with the Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda fable. 142

FBI admitted that there was no evidence to link Bin Laden to 9/11. 142

Bin Laden denied involvement in 9/11. 142

Bin Laden confession tapes are suspicious and likely faked. 143

Bin Laden trained by the CIA?. 143

Al Qaeda does not exist as a terrorist group. 143

Close ties between the Bush family and Bin Laden family. 143

Conclusion ? 9/11 could only have been an inside job. 144

A new independent investigation of 9/11?. 144

A call for mass awakening. 145





Greetings. Welcome to my report on the evidence and arguments for conspiracies in three major events in US history. Conspiracies are a hot but growing controversial topic nowadays, both because they challenge our cherished beliefs that our government is our just protector, and because there is a growing distrust of authority in Western society and increasing number of dissidents.

That being said, those with entrenched establishment mental conditioning still have a knee jerk reaction or ridicule and automatic dismissal to the notion of "conspiracy theories". Dismissing something you know nothing about without researching it first is so common, even among intelligent educated people. But it is not logical to pretend to be an expert you know little or nothing about, or to automatically dismiss something without considering the evidence for it. Yet this act is commonplace.

Everyone thinks they are right in their own mind. As Eckhart Tolle wrote in "The Power of Now" and "Stillness Speaks", "We all harbor the mistaken belief that our thoughts = truth and reality." This is very true. No one is exempt from this fallacy. That's why we have to learn to keep an open mind and not harbor fixed rigid beliefs that resist change. As Darryl Sloan said in his book "Reality Check":

"The most productive mindset you can have is simply this: always, always, always have a belief system that doesn?t resist change. Go wherever the information leads you, without fear, because surely the truth is never something to dread." - Darryl Sloan, Reality Check

Thus, we must learn to follow the data and evidence, and derive logical hypotheses and conclusions from them, rather than taking on faith whatever we hear from establishment sources with vested interests. We are all brought up under the fallacy that "authority=truth" when in reality it is not. Truth is determined by evidence, data, and logical reasoning based on the evidence.

In this report, I will cover the major conspiracy arguments for three major events in US history - the Apollo Moon Landings, the JFK Assassination and 9/11, based on my years of research into them. I will present a plethora of easy-to-understand logical arguments and evidence for a conspiracy in these events, written for the average layman enthusiast. I will present them in a concise yet comprehensive manner. Altogether, they will show you why the conspiracy claims are not as crazy or farfetched as you think, but have a legitimate basis according to the rules and standards of logic and common sense. The arguments I will cover are not all the ones available of course, but they are major ones that I think are the most important for consideration.

Many books have been written about the conspiracies behind these events. But I am not here to write another book. Books go into extensive detail, more than what most people want to get into, which the average person doesn?t have time for. I know you must have a busy life - your time is valuable and so is mine. Many people are tired after working and taking care of their families, and just want to relax and unwind, so are not inclined to be flooded with a mass of details. Books are time consuming and tedious to go through. That?s why I am going to help you understand the conspiracy case in these events without having to read a whole book. Although this report may end up being book-length in size, most conspiracy books only cover one of these events, so in that sense you are getting a lot of core info from three books in one.

I will present these core arguments as concisely and comprehensively as possible, with links for further research, so that you can grasp the overall big picture of the case for conspiracy in these major events without having to read a whole book. Hopefully this will incite your interest to inspire you to do more research. At the end of each section, I will provide links, films and books to learn more.

While reading this, please try to keep an open and objective mindset rather than a knee jerk dismissive reaction. Try to remove bias, emotion and prejudice during your analysis of the points I'm going to present. Try to be like Spock or Data from Star Trek, purely logical and rational without emotion, ego or bias.

What?s interesting to note is that there tends to be a direct correlation between the amount of time a typical person researches this subject, and the tendency for that person to believe that there was a conspiracy and cover up behind these events and that we were lied to. In other words, the more time a person spends looking into this, the more likely that person doubts and disbelieves the official story. That is very telling and speaks volumes.

Now let me first say that I am not here to tell you what to think or what to believe. You don't have to agree with me or believe what I say. All I want is to give you arguments, evidence and points to consider that will get you to think and question more, rather than just believing whatever you were told pertaining to these historical events and taking it on faith. Just think, question and consider, is all I'm asking you to do. Remember that you can't really be free unless you learn to think for yourself and question authority.

Before we begin, let me explain why I will not use the common term "conspiracy theory" to refer to the arguments and evidence for conspiracy. Such a hackneyed term, often used by those with anti-conspiracy mindset, automatically labels conspiracy arguments as merely speculative and without evidence or basis, which is not true at all. It presupposes that the official version of events are facts whereas conspiracies are merely speculative "theories" or conjecture. Such a presupposition assumes that "authority=truth", which is demonstratably false (although "authority" would like you to believe that of course).

Thus, the use of this term by conspiracy deniers is a neurolinguistic form of mind control developed to trick your subconscious into believing that all conspiracy arguments are without merit and in the realm of speculation rather than fact. Such a misleading mind control tactic itself should tell you something: It is a red flag. After all, it is manipulative, so you gotta ask, why would truth need manipulation? Shouldn?t truth be self-explanatory? Therefore, I will not perpetuate this misleading term by using it here.

With that, let's begin.

* Note: Most of the films and documentaries I refer to in this report can be found on YouTube, Google Video or Vimeo. However, I've decided not to post URL's to them because YouTube has an annoying habit of constantly removing videos and making uploaders reupload them, which changes the video URL. Thus any YouTube URL's I post may become outdated. Instead, I will mention them by name so you can do a search for them on YouTube, Google Video or Vimeo to find the current versions.

* Note: Where possible, I?ve placed links above each image to where I obtained them, so that you can open them to view their full size.

* Note: Questions, comments or suggestions can be sent to me through my contact form at: https://www.debunkingskeptics.com/contact.php? You can also listen to my audio interview with Jim Fetzer about this report at: http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2012/11/winston-wu.html





"The bigger the lie, the easier it will be believed." - Adolf Hitler

??

Of the conspiracies I'm going to talk about, the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax is the one that gets the most ridicule and derision and is put in the same category as Holocaust Denial, which is a cheap discrediting tactic without merit. The Apollo Moon Landings of 1969-72 are seen as an accomplishment that is a pillar of American pride in being the first to go to the moon. They are like a sacred religion that is taboo to question. Anyone who questions it is assumed to be crazy.

So at first, you might think that any notion of the Apollo Moon Landings being a hoax are crazy and absurd, something that only nutcases believed. However, the fact of the matter is, you really can?t know if the Apollo moon landings were real unless you?ve been there. So all you can do it take it on faith that we?ve been there.

It?s only when you dig deeper, examine the evidence, and employ critical thinking with logic rather than emotion, that the facts begin to shock and disturb you. You begin scratching your head. Then, when you wake up and see the obvious, that your common sense was subdued all along by faith, emotion, pride and groupthink. Consider the following evidence, arguments and points, and you will realize that the moon hoax case is a lot more valid than you think. You will realize that the probability of one of the following two statements is very likely to be true:

A. The moon landings were a hoax and we never went there.

B. We did go to the moon but there is a dark secret surrounding it that caused us not to go back and led to the faking of at least some of the videos and photos of the moon.

So before you think that I'm crazy, please hear me out first. While doing so, I ask that you first put aside your patriotic pride and emotions so that you can be more objective in examining and considering the following arguments and reasons. Let's begin.

Let?s start with the strongest argument. First, here are some shocking facts that will leave you scratching your head:

? FACT: Every major technological accomplishment in history has been repeated well under forty years, all except one. Within forty years of Christopher Columbus setting foot in America in 1492, thousands of other Europeans had done the same. Within forty years of the Wright Brothers flight across the Atlantic Ocean in 1903, thousands of other people had done the same. Within forty years of Sir Edmond Hillary reaching the summit of Mount Everest in 1953, thousands of other explorers had done the same. And within forty years of Yuri Gagarin?s orbit of the earth in 1961, many others had done the same. Yet forty years after 12 men allegedly set foot on the moon in 1969-72, not a single person or country has done it, nor attempted to do so (including the Russians who were ahead of us in the space race). Does this not seem highly strange and illogical?

? FACT: Since the Apollo Moon Missions in 1969-72, which sent astronauts 240,000 miles to the moon and back six times, no one has ever gone higher than 400 miles above the Earth. Even the Space Shuttle missions have gone below that, remaining well under 400 miles.

? FACT: So far, 14 astronauts have died in Space Shuttle missions that went 200 miles above the Earth, yet during the Apollo program NASA allegedly sent astronauts 240,000 miles to the moon and back six times, with no loss of life at all? In other words: 200 miles = 14 casualties, 240,000 miles = 0 casualties. Does that seem odd? Would you buy that? Can you fathom the enormous difference between 200 and 240,000 and how big of a stretch that is?

If these don?tleave you scratching your head, then nothing will. What all this means is that inexplicably, NASA was able to send men 600 times farther in 1969 than it can today! How believable is that? Have you ever heard of technology going backward by such an extreme magnitude?! It?s totally illogical and nonsensical.

To give you an idea of the proportions we are talking about, picture this: The Earth is 8,000 miles in diameter and the moon is 240,000 miles away. That means that you?d have to line up 30 Earth globes to equal the distance to the moon (since 8,000 x 30 = 240,000). What this means is that in 1969, NASA could send men the distance of 30 Earth globes, but today, it can only send humans barely above the Earth under 400 miles! (If you have a model globe in your home, 400 miles would be about an inch above it.)

Look at the implications here: Today, NASA does not have the technology to go higher than 400 miles above Earth, and has indirectly admitted it by their actions (in not doing so) and words. In a press release, NASA stated that the Van Allen Radiation Belts that surround the Earth are too dangerous to send humans through and is trying to figure out how to solve this problem. See here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/31/us-space-radiation-idUSN3139657820080331

In a TV interview with journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994, NASA Administrator Dan Golden openly admitted that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit until they can overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He managed to say this without any mention of the Apollo missions 25 years prior, which supposedly went 240,000 miles outside Earth orbit. This doesn?tmake any sense given that none of the astronauts on the six Apollo missions allegedly passed the radiation belts with no problem and no sickness.

Obviously, by this admission NASA has shot itself in the foot. Logic would ask, if they can't figure that out, then how did they get astronauts through it six times in 1969-1972 without any casualties or sickness from radiation?! It's a huge discrepancy - one of those obvious things right under your nose that you don't notice unless someone points it out to you. Yet amazingly most Americans are too gullible to notice when NASA shoots itself in the foot. This can only testify to how deeply ingrained the brainwashing of Americans must be.

So if you buy the Apollo story, you?d have to buy that the Apollo Moon Landings were the first and only historical event in which technology actually went BACKWARD by an extreme magnitude! In history, when technological feats are accomplished, they get better, faster and more efficient in subsequent years. For example, when the Wright Brothers invented the airplane, every year after that planes got better and better. When Charles Lindberg made the first transatlantic flight in 1927, it was soon repeated afterward. And when cell phones came into the market, they got better and better thereon.

However, after the Apollo missions from 1969-72, it all went backward. We never went back again and neither did any other country. Nor did anyone even try to. It was very strange. At least the Soviets should have followed soon after, especially since their space technology was ahead of ours. Yet none have even tried. And NASA itself has nothing but excuses now when it comes to going back to the moon. What does that tell you? As they say, actions speak louder than words.

If the Apollo missions were authentic, then by now, there should be daily flights to the moon as well as moon bases. All this would be so if the moon landings were consistent with the rest of world history. But instead, it all went backward, which is totally implausible and a valid cause for suspicion, because this would be the first time in history that that has occurred. Ever since then, no one has been beyond 400 miles above the Earth.

The strongest argument here is that if NASA can't go to the moon today after 40 years of technological advancements, then it certainly couldn't have in 1969, plain and simple. There are many more arguments and evidence of course, which we will cover next, but this argument itself speaks volumes and contradicts the most fundamental logic.

See these great interviews with Bart Sibrel, producer of ?A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon?, where he makes this "technology can't go backward" argument eloquently:

http://werinctrl.com/tag/bart-sibrel/

http://www.erichufschmid.net/Interview-with-Bart-Sibrel-14Sep2006.mp3

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2009/08/bart-sibrel.html

What?s more, NASA could not even keep astronauts safe on Earth. During a test simulation on the launch pad for Apollo One in 1967, three astronauts died during a fire that engulfed the capsule and somehow locked them inside, which was never explained and seemed to be the result of foul play. Whatever the case, if NASA couldn?t even keep astronauts safe on Earth during a test simulation inside a stationary capsule that wasn?t even moving, then how could it keep them safe 240,000 miles away on the moon during a real mission?!

I used to assume that the Apollo Moon Landings were a historic fact, until I began seriously examining the photographic and video record. The sheer number of inexplicable anomalies and apparent impossibilities shown in some of these photos and videos can only lead one to the firm conclusion that they were not taken on the moon, as NASA has led us to believe.

Many of the Apollo moon images and videos show obvious and clear signs of fakery which indicate that they could not have been taken on the moon's surface. Photo experts bold enough to tell the truth, have stated this as well, such as David Percy of http://www.Aulis.com. Even the engineer who developed the Hassalblad camera engineer, used by the Apollo astronauts, said that he could not explain the discrepancies and anomalies in the Apollo images. (Though he probably suspects that the moon photos are fakes, he cannot just come out and say that because his company had a big profitable contract with NASA obviously.) Here are some main examples.

(Note: I?ve decided not to use the standard moon hoax argument about the stars not appearing in the photos because it is not a strong argument in that standard photos taken from Earth, day or night, also do not show stars. To capture stars in photos requires a sophisticated with the right aperture settings. However, in spite of this, admittedly it is strange that the Apollo astronauts did not bring cameras capable of filming stars with them, which would have been a wasted opportunity if the missions were genuine. Instead, in a later section, I will discuss the discrepancies regarding seeing the stars from the lunar surface.)

The shadows diverge and converge in many of the moon landing photos. Some of them even converge at perpendicular 90 degree angles. This cannot be if there is only one light source, the sun, as NASA alleges. Under the sun, shadows run parallel to each other. They do not converge or intersect. Thus, there must have been a second light source, such as fill lights used on a movie studio stage to balance out the lighting, since officially, the astronauts did not bring any other light sources with them.

Here are some example images:

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/14lightsource.jpg

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/12lightdirsurveyor.jpg

Apollo defenders try to cop out of this by claiming that the slant of the surface, angle of the sun and perspective of the viewer can cause shadows to converge or diverge. However, many of these shadows are on objects close to each other, and there is no indication that the sun is at an extreme angle. Most of the shadow anomalies were on fairly level surfaces, and even on those that weren?t, the slight slant was not enough to account for the distorted shadows.

Here is an even more bizarre anomaly. This US flag doesn?teven have a shadow at all! WTF?

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/11noflagshadow.jpg

In many Apollo photos of the alleged moon walks, the astronauts are seen standing in shadows while being clearly lit up and illuminated. This can only be possible if there was a second light source other than the sun. But officially, the astronauts did not bring any light devices with them, not even flashlights. This means that artificial lighting must have been used, such as on a movie set.

Here are some example images:

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5869HR.jpg

http://www.apollomissionphotos.com/apollo/as11405868c.jpg

http://beeskneesdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Apollo-12-Astronaut-Al-Bean-stepping-on-moon-Nov.-19-1969-Source-NASA-via-Wikipedia.jpg

Here is one of an astronaut with the alleged sun behind him, yet every detail of? his suit is visible when he should be a silhouette:

http://www.buckledcranium.com/images/articles/apollo/003.jpg

Similarly, in this photo, the sun is behind the astronaut and LEM, yet a secondary light sources appears to be coming from the other direction.

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/11wronglighting.jpg

There are even photos of astronauts? boots reflecting light with the sun is behind them, which can only be from fill lights coming from the side. There?s no way to refute that. See these example images:

http://www.clavius.org/img/bootspot.jpg?????????????????? ??????????????????http://www.clavius.org/img/bootspot-cu.jpg

??

Apollo defenders (such as Phil Plait, Jay Windley and the Mythbusters) claim that the astronauts are lit up due to the luminosity (albedo) of the moon's surface reflecting light onto them. However, this cannot be the explanation because:

1) The moon's average albedo (luminosity) is only between 7 - 12 percent, which is comparable to that of asphalt (used in cement freeways) on Earth. Thus it could not illuminate someone standing in a shadow from the ground up like a light bulb would.

See the albedo of various types of cement pavements here: http://www.pavement.com/Downloads/RT/RT3.05.pdf

Documented info on the moon?s average 7 - 12 percent albedo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

http://www.universetoday.com/19981/moon-albedo/

This Universe Today article above even acknowledges that the moon?s surface is not very bright.

?so, how does the Moon albedo compare to other objects in the Solar System? As bright as the Moon looks from our perspective here on Earth, the Moon?s albedo is actually pretty low. The object with the highest albedo in the Solar System is Saturn?s moon Enceladus, which has an albedo of 0.99, which means that it?s covered with very reflective snow and ice. The Moon is much more similar to a very dark object, like an asteroid. The darkest asteroids in the Solar System have an albedo of 0.06. That?s pretty close to 0.?

2) If the lunar surface were bright enough to light up someone standing in shadows, it would be glaringly bright like snow under sunlight (which is why skiers wear sunshades) or at least somewhat bright and glowing. But as we can see in the Apollo photos and videos, it was not. Instead, the lunar surface appeared rather dark and grayish. It did not glow at all.

3) In the Apollo videos, the astronauts descending the ladder are not lit up in the shade.

Therefore, this explanation by Apollo defenders does not hold water and is a false explanation. Moon hoax investigator and filmmaker Jarrah White exposed the fraudulent experiments conducted by the Mythbusters on this issue, which you can see on YouTube by doing a search for ?Moonfaker mythbusters? and ?Moonfaker Reflect on this?. Additionally, two Russian scientists also exposed the Mythbusters fraud, and ran tests proving that the photos of well lit astronauts standing in the shadows could not have been due to the albedo of the lunar surface. See their report here: http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters.htm

The famous photo of Buzz Aldrin standing in the spotlight is a giveaway in that he is being lit up in a spotlight from alleged sunlight while the ground around him is shrouded in darkness! How can the sun put a spotlight around a particular person like a stagehand pointing a spotlight on an actor or singer on stage?! This was obviously a major screw up, and NASA was reckless for thinking that no one would notice or that they could get away with it. In fact, it was such a blunder that NASA even tried to cover it up by brightening the rest of the surface in subsequent versions of it. Why would they do that if they had nothing to hide?

Here is the original version of it by NASA, which was released to newspapers in 1969:

http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/SMALL/GPN-2001-000013.jpg

Here is the edited version with the surface brightened up for the Lunar Surface Journal to hide the discrepancy:

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg

Apollo defenders can?t explain this at all, so they?ve resorted to deception by claiming that the edited version is the original. But Jarrah White proved unequivocally that the spotlight version is the original one by showing newspaper clippings from 1969 which showed that one in his YouTube video ?Moonfaker: Posing for Portrait?. So again, why would NASA alter the photos if they had nothing to hide?

In many moon photos, you can see a distinct line between the foreground and backdrop, which consists of different textures on each side. This indicates that the background is ARTIFICIAL, as in a movie set. Here is a clear example from a famous Apollo photo of an astronaut saluting next to an American flag. Notice that the backdrop also looks like a wall that is just behind the astronaut, rather than actual scenery in the distance. And notice the distinct line between the dirt and the white layer behind it.

http://www.spacewallpapers.net/wallpapers/albums/Apollo/normal_A15FlagSalute.jpg

This line between foreground and backdrop is explained and demonstrated in the documentary ?Kubrick's Odyssey" by Jay Weidner of SacredMysteries.com, which you can see it on Vimeo. Weidner postulates that the legendary director Stanley Kubrick was probably hired to fake the moon landing photos and videos, due to his exceptional skills in these techniques, as demonstrated in his film ?2001: A Space Odyssey?. For an online analysis of this with examples, view or download this document: http://www.assassinationscience.com/HowKubrickFakedtheMoonLandings-1.pdf??

New Discovery! Here is a much larger version of the above image that I want you to open in a new window and click again to zoom in on and look at closely, because it contains a NEW SMOKING GUN that I discovered! If you look at the ground behind the astronaut?s boots, you can see the edge of a WHITE LAYER placed over the dirt! It appears to be some type of carpet, canvas or ledge. You can even see the edges and creases on it at the line where it overlays the dirt! In addition, you can see that the lunar rover tracks end where the white layer begins. This is a smoking gun I discovered but don't see mentioned on any other sites yet!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Scott_Gives_Salute_-_GPN-2000-001114.jpg

Here is a zoom up of the carpet layer:

Notice the distinct line between the white cloth layer and the dirt. The layer definitely looks like it was placed OVER the dirt. You can even see slight creases in it. Now why would they need to put a white layer over the dirt like that? Did the astronauts have plenty of extra room in that small LEM to bring unnecessary materials with them, such as cloth or carpet to lay out on the floor?

A technique known as ?stereoscopic parallax? also reveals that the backdrop used in the Apollo images is stationary and at close proximity to the astronauts, rather than far in the distance. For an indepth analysis using this technique with examples from Apollo images, see this page on AULIS Online: http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

Here are two images with the same identical backdrop with totally different foregrounds, as you can see. In one of them, you can see the LEM, but not in the other, which is an oddity since the LEM never moved after allegedly landing on the moon.

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS15-82-11057HR.jpg

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS15-82-11082HR.jpg

In fact, the scotchlite glass background screen used in front screen projection is visible in many moon photos when you adjust the gamma and contrast. (I guess the hoaxers in the 60?s didn?t count on people today having the technology to examine such photos) You can see some examples here: http://www.assassinationscience.com/HowKubrickFakedtheMoonLandings-1.pdf??

Here is another smoking gun that will make Apollo believers feel foolish and embarrassed. An Apollo image of the alleged sun from the moon?s surface turned out to be a big light bulb upon image enhancement! See images and enhancement below:

?

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/as12sunbulbrevise.jpg

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/11_14sunsetonmoon.jpg

In possibly yet another slip up by NASA are images of the 65 million dollar lunar rovers seen with no tire tracks on either end of it! Was it lowered down from above? It would seem that whoever directed this must have been in a rush on a tight schedule.

Examples:

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/tracklessrover.jpg

http://www.buckledcranium.com/images/articles/apollo/008.jpg

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo15LunarRover.jpg

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/NASA_Apollo_17_Lunar_Roving_Vehicle.jpg

This is an image of an astronaut with no footprints leading up to him or away from him:

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/12conradsdance.jpg

Here is a funny one. In this orbital photo of the moon that NASA claims was taken 95km above the moon?s surface, not only does the moon look like a fake model, but on the left is a giant shadow cast by the command module, which was only the size of a pickup truck. Thus the shadow?s proportion is way off! See below:

http://www.apfn.org/images/command%20module.jpg

Could this the moon replica models used in the Apollo photos and footage?

http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_6.html

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/%20apolloplaster.jpg

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/1%20plastershot.jpg

In some of the video clips of the Apollo moon walks, you can see wires attached to the astronauts, which flicker in the light a few times. This is considered smoking gun footage as well. To see them, go to YouTube and type "moon hoax wires". Here are some video stills of them:

http://i56.tinypic.com/25gdsow.jpg

http://i56.tinypic.com/535ys1.jpg





Now why would the astronauts need wires attached to them, unless they were in a staged movie studio?

The photos of the astronaut bootprints on the moon dirt should not be possible. Boot prints are only possible when there is moisture in the sand or dirt. But on the moon, there is no moisture. When one steps on dry sand - such as on sand dunes - no footprint is left and no ridges from the shoe or boot soles are embedded. All that?s left is small dent in the sand. So this is a curious anomaly.

Images of bootprints:

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/midres/a11_h_40_5878.gif

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/25/article-2193587-14B12791000005DC-36_634x513.jpg

In a number of Apollo videos, the American flag can be seen waving on the moon, which cannot be possible since the moon has no atmosphere and therefore no air. This is very simple. Apollo defenders try to dismiss it by saying that the flag only waves when the astronauts are twisting it while trying to plant it. They claim that the act of twisting the pole is what?s causing the flag to flutter. But that?s not completely true, which is evident from the Apollo video clips. In several clips, you can clearly see the flag fluttering even with little or no movement of the pole by astronauts. Here is an example from a gif clip:

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/17_simulationszentrum-Langley-Houston-d/032-flagge01-wehende-flagge-filmchen-moovie.gif

You don?tneed to be an expert in anything to see this, as it is self evident. So don?tlet them fool you.

There is also a clip from Apollo 15 of astronaut David Scott walking by a flag where you can see it move as he passed by. Apollo defenders claim that the astronaut?s elbow brushed against the flag. But Jarrah White meticulous analyzed this frame by frame and found that the flag moved BEFORE his elbow could have touched it. See his YouTube video ?Moonfaker the Flags are Alive?.

Under where the Lunar Lander (or LEM) landed there should have been a blast crater. But none of the Apollo photos show any craters under the LEM at all. Example image:

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/jt5048adbf.jpg

But the LEM needs to fire its thrusters as it descends, or else it will crash or tip over and be damaged, which would big trouble. Apollo defenders dismiss this by arguing that either the LEM turned off its engine and glided down without thrusters, or due to there being no atmosphere on the moon, the thrusters simply dispersed.

However, these explanations are nonsensical. If the LEM could just glide down like a parachute, then why did it have thrusters? Why did NASA?s own technical drawings show blast craters beneath the LEM? In the Apollo 11 landing footage, you can hear Armstrong saying that he turned off the engine after landing, not during the descent. And if the atmosphere dispersed the thrusters, then what good were they if they couldn?t perform their job of keeping the LEM?s weight steady as it descended?

Jarrah White meticulously lays out the math and science proving why the LEM had to produce blast craters under it if it were really on the moon in his YouTube documentary ?Moonfaker No Crater?.

Quite possibly, the hoaxers either forgot or decided not to put a blast crater under the LEM, and so had to continue doing that in all LEM photos to be consistent.

Further, the fact that in the photo of the LEM, no dust at all can be seen on the LEM?s footpad is nonsensical since it would have blown a dust cloud as it descended, in addition to creating a blast crater underneath. See this image of the footpad below:

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/AS11-40-5925HR.jpg

The LEM also showed to be highly unstable on Earth as it constantly crashed even months before the Apollo 11 landing. Even the slightest degree tilt caused it to turn and crash. Yet it seemed to work flawlessly on all six lunar missions?!

Here is another discrepancy that is right under your nose that you never realized. The Moon's gravity is 1/6 that of the Earth's. What this means is that if you were on the moon, you could move faster and jump higher. But in the moon landing footage, the astronauts are actually moving SLOWER than they would the Earth! (oops, must be a major screw up there by the producers, or else they were not able to simulate low gravity in the studio?) Go figure.

The Apollo defenders have no argument against this simple discrepancy except by saying that the astronaut space suits were so heavy that it made movement slow. However, even if that were so, in 1/6 gravity, they still should have been able to move faster and jump higher than if they were on Earth. Further, the dirt being kicked up in the video of the lunar rover vehicle should have been shooting up higher in 1/6 gravity as well, than if it were on Earth.

Now keep in mind, these are not just ?anomalies?. They are conclusive technical discrepancies which lead to the inescapable conclusion that the Apollo moon photos could not have been taken on the moon. Of that we can at least be sure of, regardless if anyone has been to the moon or not. For an extensive analysis by experts of the discrepancies in the Apollo moon photos, see the 3+ hour film "What Really Happened on the Moon" (available on YouTube) which features photography experts such as David Percy and others. The Fox one hour special "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?" is also a great, though shorter, introduction to the Apollo photo discrepancies.

For more anomalies, discrepancies and evidence of fakery in Apollo moon images, see this page: http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html

To see how Apollo defenders try to refute these photo analysis moon hoax arguments with cop outs, denials and obfuscations, see some of their websites below:

http://www.clavius.org

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

The Van Allen Radiation Belts that surrounds the Earth, starting at about 1,000 km above up to 60,000 km, would have been lethal to anyone passing through them. They were named after James Van Allen, the scientist who discovered them. He stated that they posed a great danger to humans passing through them and published this in an article in the science journal "Scientific American" in 1959. His findings were later confirmed by Geiger counters attached to space probes which passed through the Van Allen belts. In addition, beyond the radiation belts, the solar flares from the sun, which were at a high during the first Apollo mission, would have been deadly to the astronauts as well.

Later, when Van Allen went on NASA's payroll, he changed his mind and said that the belts were not that dangerous after all. But as you know, when you are on someone's payroll, your objectivity is compromised and you are required to do and say what your employer tell you. In other words, you now have a vested interest in your employer?s agenda. And in this case, Van Allen had to change his mind about the passability of the radiation belts in order for the Apollo missions to the moon to be plausible. What choice did he have? In any organization, if you don?ttow the party line, you?re out. (Anti-conspiracy people never seem to understand this, even though it?s common sense, as if it were over their heads) Regardless of Van Allen?s reversal, the hard evidence says otherwise - as the Geiger counter readout within the radiation belt indicated.

Today, NASA scientists use circular reasoning when they say that the Van Allen belts must not be that dangerous since six Apollo missions went through it with no problem. Either that, or they claim that if you pass through it quickly, then it will not harm you. Yet if the radiation belts go up to 60,000 km, one cannot pass through it that quickly.

Further, NASA has contradicted itself about that. In a press release, NASA said that they cannot return to the moon until they find a safe way to let humans pass through the Van Allen Radiation Belt. See here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/31/us-space-radiation-idUSN3139657820080331

Have they forgotten that they did it six times before between 1969-1972 without any astronauts suffering radiation sickness? Are people so gullible that NASA can shoot themselves in the foot like this and get away with it without anyone noticing?

NASA defender Phil Plait of BadAstronomy.com, tries to get around this by claiming that the Apollo missions circumnavigated around the radiation belts by going through the donut holes at the top or bottom. However, if that were so, then why did NASA issue a press release that said it had to solve the problem of the dangers of radiation to astronauts first? Why would that even be an issue?

Jarrah White?s FAQ page goes into more technical detail about the dangers of the Van Allen belts and solar flares beyond them:

http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html?

?First, as demonstrated by James Van Allen?s own findings, the radiation belts that surround earth would have been lethal to astronauts10, 11. It began in 1952 when James Van Allen & his team at the University of Iowa began launching Geiger counters into space aboard rockoons. Although these did not have enough lift to get into orbit, these experiments were able to detect radiation levels higher than what Van Allen had expected. Later in the late 50s and early 60s, his Geiger counters were carried aloft by the Explorer satellites and Pioneer space probes. Each time the spacecrafts entered the radiation belts, the Geiger counters would become continuously busy. They encountered protons and electrons with fluxes of 40,000 particles per square centimetre per second and average energies ranging between 1-100 MeV.

Before Van Allen began shielding his Geiger counters with a millimetre of lead, the instruments detected radiation with a dose rate equivalent of 312.5rad/hr to 11,666rad/hr for the outer belt and inner belt respectively [Fig-2]12. These instruments quickly became jammed by the radiation. Even to this day, the belts are so severe that satellites must operate outside the belts: geostationary satellites operating beyond the end of the outer belt (but still within the protection of the magnetosphere) and GPS satellites operating in the gap between the two belts. Meanwhile low earth orbit satellites like the Hubble must shut down some of their instruments during South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) transit. Even after Van Allen shielded his Geiger counters with lead, the results were still equivalent to 10-100rad/hr. He concluded that effective shielding of astronauts was beyond engineering feasibility available at the time, that even a rapid transit through the belts would be hazardous, and that for these reasons the two belts must be classed as an uninhabitable region of space that all manned space flight must steer clear of.

Even if we discount the Van Allen belt, there are still other dangers to consider. The sun constantly bombards the earth-moon system with solar flares. Regardless of whether these flares deliver x-rays or protons, or are minor or major, both are a hazard to humans. A major flare delivers in excess of 100rad/hr, a minor flare can deliver 25rad/hr depending on how many centimetres of water shielding is used. The minor flares of May 10th and July 15th 1958 for example, would have required 31gm/cm2 of water just to bring their dose rates down to 25rad/hr [Fig-3]. The Apollo capsule, with its aluminum honeycomb hull and outer epoxy resin ablator, was rated at 3gm/cm2 on the walls and 8gm/cm2 on the aft heatshield. The thicker portion of the spacecraft walls would bring the dose rate of such flares down to around 1,000rem/hr. The records show that 1400 of these minor flares occurred over all nine moon flights (Tables 1 & 2). NOAA?s Comprehensive Flare Index for Major flares, also reveals that thirty of the major ones took place during the Apollo missions. By any definition, these astronauts should have been as dead as spam in a can.?

In Bart Sibrel's documentary "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" (available on YouTube) unedited video footage is shown of the Apollo 11 astronauts faking a shot of the Earth from low orbit, while radioing to NASA that they were 130,000 miles from Earth, halfway to the moon. In it, you can hear the astronauts saying that the video camera was put up against the window. Yet something blocks the view of the alleged distant Earth, and a light structure can be seen moving in the corner as well, which isn't possible if the camera were situated against the window. And when the lights go on, we see the blue light outside, which means they were either in low earth orbit, or in the daylight blue skies of Earth. In fact, the blue light can be seen from two separate windows in the command module!

This is a huge SMOKING GUN in the Moon Hoax debate. Other moon hoax films such as "What Happened on the Moon?" and "Apollo Zero" also analyze this smoking gun footage. So you have to ask, why would they fake a shot of the Earth being far away if they didn't have to?

Further, during Sibrel's interview with Buzz Aldrin (the Apollo 11 astronaut) when he showed Aldrin this "smoking gun" footage, which Aldrin himself took, Aldrin indirectly admitted that he was right. He replied, "This is going to make you famous isn't it?" Now, why would it make him famous unless it was true? This occurred just before Aldrin punched him outside, which became an infamous event that made headlines in the moon research community. You can see this interview and Aldrin?s punch on Sibrel's film "Astronauts Gone Wild" (available on YouTube and MoonMovie.com) or on any shorter clips on YouTube by searching for ?Buzz Aldrin punch? or ?Bart Sibrel punch?.

In these informative interviews below with Bart Sibrel, he goes into more detail about the smoking gun footage and why he is certain the Apollo moon landings were a hoax.

http://werinctrl.com/tag/bart-sibrel/

http://www.erichufschmid.net/Interview-with-Bart-Sibrel-14Sep2006.mp3

http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2009/08/bart-sibrel.html

The space suits used by the Apollo 11 astronauts had no protective ability against the extreme temperatures on the surface of the moon. The blueprints of the suits did not indicate any shielding ability at all. And NASA refuses to allow anyone to examine the space suits or test them at high temperatures.

Due to there being no atmosphere on the moon to provide convection for heating and cooling, on the daylight side, which all Apollo missions landed on, temperatures are at 250 Fahrenheit and in the shade drop drastically to 250 below zero. Yet the astronauts had no sufficient cooling system, especially with the batteries they had, which were comparable to that of a car. Since the moon atmosphere is in a vacuum, they could not use air convection to cool off. So they would have needed a lot of power to radiate heat away from them, which would have drained what precious battery power they had.

Further, the Hassalblad cameras and film inside could not have withstood such temperatures to be seen today. Kodak has said that its film can only withstand temperatures up to 150F.

During the Apollo 11 Post-Flight Press Conference (which you can see on YouTube), Neil Armstrong said that they were not able to see the stars with the naked eye from the surface of the moon, to which Michael Collins looked at him and said ?I don?tremember seeing any? (even though he was allegedly on the command module in orbit and not on the moon?s surface, which was strange). Oddly, in the Apollo 11 Press Conference transcript, Collins? statement was attributed to Buzz Aldrin, perhaps in an attempt to cover for his slip up?

However, any professional astronomer will tell you that one can see stars from the surface of the moon much more vividly than from the earth, due to the moon's lack of atmosphere. Even Phil Plait of BadAstronomy.com stated this in a radio debate with Joe Rogan about the moon hoax. This is a huge glaring discrepancy in direct contradiction to what the Apollo 11 astronauts claimed, and has never been resolved. Perhaps it was a huge cock up by Armstrong and Collins during the press conference. Even NASA's chief public defenders such as Phil Plait are at a loss to explain it.

What?s more, Michael Collins later contradicted himself about not seeing the stars in his book ?Carrying the Fire?. On page 221, he wrote:

"My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady. Of course I know that a star's twinkle is created by the atmosphere, and I have seen twinkle-less stars before in a planetarium, but this is different, this is no simulation, this is the best view of the universe that a human ever had." - Michael Collins, Carrying the Fire, pg. 221

It would seem that the astronauts cannot make up their minds about whether they saw stars from the moon or not. Very suspicious, no doubt.

The live video footage of the Apollo astronauts could not have been live, as alleged by NASA. The videos that were broadcast showed jumps and discontinuities in the footage which could only have occurred through editing. One can see this by ordering the Apollo footage from Spacecraft Films, which claims to contain the unedited footage that was broadcast live to the world during the Apollo missions. This means that the scenes were pre-shot BEFORE the moon missions took place, which means that they were staged. So again, why would NASA stage the footage if it didn?t have to?

To see evidence and examples of this, see Jarrah White?s documentary ?Flagging the Gems? on YouTube. Jarrah?s Moonfaker website FAQ goes into this in more detail:

http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html

?The second smoking gun is the fact that the Apollo 10 telecasts were proven to have been pre-filmed and edited together. After every space mission, NASA releases a ground-to-air communications transcript covering everything the crew and capsule communicators (Capcoms) said during the flight. The company Spacecraft Films sells what they claim is complete and unedited television transmissions and 16mm reels from the Apollo missions. Jarrah purchased the Apollo 10 DVD set and compared the in-flight videos with the transcript. To his astonishment, Jarrah found numerous occasions in which the views of earth and even interior shots would cut from one angle to another and yet the audio would remain perfectly synchronized to the video with no signs of interruption when the video cut. So we know that the astronauts didn?t simply cut the camera and then begin rolling moments later.

The Apollo astronauts had only the one television camera hooked up to the S-band antenna, so these broadcasts should be one continuous shot with no edits - as per the false claims made by propagandists. Because these edits only take place during post production, not whilst the video is being recorded, it would not have been possible to cut and paste LIVE video. The only logical conclusion is that the views of earth were pre-filmed, edited together, and then sandwiched between the interior shots with the ground-to-air communications dubbing the video regardless of the edits. Transitions from these fake views of earth videos to interior scenes were pulled off by conveniently cutting the camera or blacking the scene from interior to exterior and vice versa, in one circumstance Eugene Cernan went as far as putting a piece of paper in front of the camera lens during this switch from exterior to interior!

By comparing the videos with the transcript, Jarrah also discovered that there were sections of video missing from the ?complete? Spacecraft Films DVD set. Jarrah knows these missing pieces of video exist, because in the transcript the Capcom confirms that the MSFN was ?receiving? them. For reasons unknown, Spacecraft Films omitted minutes of footage from Apollo 10 and then sold their DVD set to the world as ?complete & unedited.?

After Jarrah released his video covering this, ironically titled ?Flagging The Gems?, Mark Gray of Spacecraft Films flagged it for copyright infringement and had the video pulled along with Jarrah?s entire Youtube account. Gray?s copyright claims are fraudulent and thus he is guilty of perjury, because NASA?s in flight telecasts are PUBLIC DOMAIN. They are not copyrighted.?

Since the command module with Michael Collins in it was orbiting the moon at 4000mph, how did the LEM dock with it for the journey home? The odds of that succeeding seem astronomically small. No human pilot could navigate a dock with an object moving at 4000mph. If they had missed, they would have been lost forever. NASA has never explained this.

Anyone involved in engineering, computer programming, or technology development can tell you that nothing new in technology works right on the first try. Sending humans 240,000 miles to the moon and back safely is a harder task than you can imagine, rifled with unsolvable problems even today. So what are the odds that it all went right the first time without casualties?

Bill Kaysing, author of "We Never Went to the Moon" was an engineer at Rocketdyne, the company that built NASA?s rockets, and remarked that he was told that the chances of going to the moon and back safely was close to zero percent. There were way too many obstacles that could not be overcome back then, and even today.

Thus, it makes sense that rather than send three men to their deaths in space for the world to see, which would have been disastrous for them, it was better for them to fake it. After all, NASA had invested too much, did not want it to be all for nothing, and needed a reason to continue procuring funding and public support of their programs. Plus, they knew that the American people needed something to be proud of amidst the turmoil of the time with the Vietnam War, civil unrest, race riots, multiple assassinations of loved leaders (JFK, RFK, MLK) and the Cold War.

Socrates in Plato's ?The Republic? said that the state must concoct fables and myths because people need them as inspiration to boost morale. So that's what our elites do.

The director of NASA, James Webb, quit just days before the Apollo Program began, which is very suspicious. If you were the NASA director, would you quit just before the biggest moment of your career - unless of course something was going on that you didn't like and didn't want to be a part of. Gotta make you wonder.

A year before the Apollo Moon Landings, after a series of failures and disasters, the Apollo program was in shambles. NASA pretty much gave up and said that they weren't going to make it to the moon after all. Then suddenly a year later, viola! They get there with no problem? What the blazes? Is that conspicuous or what? It's very possible that they decided that rather than admit total failure, or letting the world see 3 of their astronauts die while trying to get to the moon in vain, they decided to fake it.

Further, during the space race, the Soviet Union was ahead of the US. They were the first to send a man into space, and theoretically should have been the first to reach the moon. But they gave up after realizing that it was just not possible to make it to the moon. So then what are the odds that NASA suddenly achieved it ahead of them for no reason? Not good obviously. Also, why didn't the Soviet Union land men on the moon after NASA did? Why did they let all the time and resources they invested into their space program go to waste? And moreover, why didn?t any other nation land a man on the moon since then, or even try? The whole thing smells awfully fishy and doesn't add up.

Thomas Baron, a NASA safety inspector, testified before Congress that there were many critical problems with the Apollo Space Program, which was in shambles, and may have posed a threat to ending it by convincing Congress to halt the Apollo program. A week after testifying, he was found dead in a car with his wife and stepdaughter, which had been hit by a train on the train tracks. It was ruled a suicide. But isn't that odd and too convenient? Why would a man commit suicide with his family by parking on a train track, just as he was posing a threat to NASA?s interests? Isn't that just a little too convenient? Also, the report he compiled disappeared and was never found. Gee, I wonder why. Nothing suspicious there, right? (sarcastic)

Astronomers at observatories have said that adaptive optics can be installed into the most powerful telescopes on Earth that would allow one on Earth to see the Apollo lunar landers on the surface of the Moon. Joss Hawthorn of the Anglo-Australian Observatory stated this in an interview with moon hoax researcher Jarrah White. Yet after these adaptive optics were installed, none of them have commented further on it. Why not? Have they failed to find any lunar artifacts and are afraid to speak out about it? Are they afraid of ending up in a precarious position between having to lie to keep the cover up vs. telling the truth and ruining their career?

Furthermore, the excuse given by NASA paid apologists, such as Phil Plait of BadAstronomy.com, about the Hubble Telescope, the world?s most powerful, not being powerful enough to see the Apollo artifacts left on the surface of the moon, simply doesn't hold water, and sounds more like a convenient copout excuse.

During the Apollo 11 Post-Flight Press Conference (which you can see on YouTube), the three astronauts, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins, all look uncomfortable with sad reluctant looks on their faces, as if they had been forced to do something against their will. Armstrong especially looked like he wanted to cry deep down. Watch his face during his introductory statements at the beginning of it. It was very odd for three people who just survived the trip of their lives being the first ever to step on the moon. In that position, I would have been ecstatic, wouldn't you? Yet they were anything but. They act as though they were being forced to lie and go along with a hoax under enormous threat and pressure against their will. Something is definitely not right about their demeanor. It just doesn?tmake sense.

You can see this for yourself. Go to YouTube and type ?Apollo 11 Press Conference?. There are multiple copies of it uploaded. Also search for ?Neil Armstrong guilt? to see various clips of Armstrong?s guilty facial expressions which further corroborate this. Here is a video still of their gloomy expressions during the Press Conference:

http://www.american-buddha.com/apollo11.15.jpg

Moon hoax conspiracists say that the Apollo 11 astronauts were probably under immense fear and coercion after the Apollo One fire tragedy in 1967, which took the lives of three astronauts - Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffe - who were slated to become the first to land on the moon. This unexplained tragedy, dubbed by NASA as an ?accident?, probably sent the other astronauts an unofficial message about the consequences of dissention.

The story goes that Grissom was reputedly an outspoken critic of the Apollo program and was too honest to cooperate in a hoax. A few weeks before he was killed, he called a press conference, told reporters that the Apollo program wasn?t going to the moon for at least 10 more years, and hung a lemon over the command module. So to silence him and send a message to the others, NASA put him and his team in a command module during a pre-launch test simulation and filled it with 100 percent pure oxygen so that a fire could easily engulf them all, which it did.

NASA has never been able to logically explain the Apollo One tragedy, or prove that it was an unintended accident. The incident simply made no sense. How can a fire start by itself? And even if it did, why would the astronauts be locked inside? Shouldn?t there have been an emergency release button for them to eject out of there during emergencies, or at least to open the hatch? Why were their remains found strapped to their seats during the fire? All of this is highly suspicious and smacks of foul play.

Moon hoax expert Bart Sibrel investigated this matter, spoke on the phone to both Scott and Betty Grissom and even obtained the official 500 report investigation of the Apollo One fire. After reviewing it, he found that according to the report, cyanide was placed in the capsule just before the fire. So the astronauts were likely killed before the fire started, and that?s why they didn?t get out. And the fire was set to cover up the homicide by cyanide. In fact, just before the fire started, the three astronauts were having trouble with their communication systems, which is why Grissom?s last words were ?How are we going to go to the moon if we can?t talk between three towers?? Could their communications have been deliberately jammed so no one could hear what was going on?

All of this is highly suspicious and appears to be deliberately planned, which is very disturbing. Grissom?s son, Scott as well as his wife Betty, have investigated the incident thoroughly and are certain that the fire was deliberately set off to murder the three astronauts. Upon investigating the capsule where the Apollo One fire occurred, Scott Grissom found a metal plate shoved behind a switch which caused the fire.

Further, if NASA could not even keep three astronauts from dying on Earth in a test simulation inside a stationary capsule on the launch pad, then how could it have kept astronauts safe on lunar missions 240,000 miles away? You gotta wonder.

For an indepth analysis of the Apollo One tragedy and its discrepancies, see Jarrah White?s documentary series ?Moonfaker Apollo One? on YouTube. Also see the 1978 fictional movie ?Capricorn One? (currently available on YouTube) about how NASA staged a fake landing on Mars. In it, the astronauts under coercion are shown with reluctant expressions on their faces when they are on TV, which is eerily similar to the expressions on the Apollo 11 astronauts during the press conference. The film?s producer, Paul Lazarus, said in the Fox Special ?Did we land on the moon?? that the film?s plot could be more fact than fiction in that the Apollo moon landings could very well have been faked in that manner.

Also see the James Bond film ?Diamonds are Forever?. In one clip, he enters a television studio where a moon landing is being staged, and drives a vehicle through the wall outside. You can see it on YouTube by searching for ?James Bond moon hoax?. It?s been said that the director, Ian Flemming, may have been trying to whistleblow the Apollo moon hoax in that film indirectly.

Neil Armstrong, the first man to step on the moon, has acted in a number of bizarre and peculiar ways since Apollo which are highly suspicious:

? He has rarely given any interviews since his 1969 walk on the moon. It's like he is not proud of it for some reason. Wouldn't you be proud if you were the first man to land on the moon? It doesn't add up and doesn't make sense and is awfully suspicious. He acts like he's ashamed of the whole event. Likewise, Michael Collins also refuses to give any interviews too. This means that 2 out of the 3 astronauts on the first moon mission refuse to be interviewed about it! What could be more suspicious than that?!

? In a rare 2004 interview on 60 minutes, he said that ever since he walked on the moon, he has never dreamed about it or even thought about it since then. Isn't that disturbing and downright creepy? He acts like the event was the worst moment of his life and wants to forget it. If you were the first man to walk on the moon, would you never give it another thought afterward?

? There are no photos of Armstrong on the moon. He refused to have any taken of him. Isn't that odd? Anyone who has reached the top of Mt. Everest is glad to have their photo taken to celebrate the achievement. So how can being the first to walk on the moon make a man not want a photo of him to commemorate? It's as if he sees this whole thing as a highly negative memory rather than a positive one. Doesn't make sense at all. You can't deny that.

? In a 1994 speech at the White House, he made a cryptic remark about "breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers". It was a very odd thing to say and didn't fit the context at all. What are these "protective layers" covering up the truth that he's referring to? Was he trying to tell us something?

? When Bart Sibrel confronted him and asked him to swear on the Bible that he walked on the moon, he refused and tried to change the subject by saying "Knowing you, that's probably not even a real Bible". That was a weird thing to say and sounded like something that someone carrying fear and guilt would say. There was no valid reason to suspect that Bart Sibrel was carrying a fake Bible, since anyone can get a real Bible.

? On video, his face shows signs of guilt. If you go to YouTube and type in "Neil Armstrong Guilt" you will see a number of them, including the 1969 Apollo 11 Press Conference one.

? When a Aron Ranen, a guy paid by the state of Ohio to make a pro-Apollo documentary went to Neil Armstrong's hometown in Ohio to try to interview those who knew him, he was met with coldness as if everyone wanted him to leave. It was very bizarre and creepy, as if everyone knew a dark secret that they were trying to cover up, like something out of a Twilight Zone episode. Why would that be?! You can see this in Aron Ranen's film "Did We Go?" available on YouTube by doing a search for his name. You can also order his film here: http://www.moonhoax.com

? He said in the 1969 Apollo 11 Press Conference that they were not able to see stars from the moon's surface. Yet every astronomer knows that you can see the stars from the moon's surface more vividly than you can on Earth. This discrepancy has never been explained. Did he screw up when he said that? Furthermore, Michael Collins, who concurred with Armstrong during the press conference that he did not see stars, later contradicted himself in his book ?Carrying the Fire?, where he said that the stars he saw were very bright.

? Oddly, Armstrong and Aldrin have both stated that their memory seems to go blank when they try to remember what it was like being on the moon. This is very strange indeed. Some theorize that these astronauts may have been subject to covert mind control and hypnosis techniques similar to that of the CIA?s MK-ULTRA. If that?s so, then they may genuinely think that they?ve gone to the moon after all.

? Why can you hear the astronauts voices as the lunar lander descended? Its roaring thrusters at high decibels should have made their voices inaudible.

? The video footage was very grainy and low quality. Why use such bad quality video for the most historic event of the 20th century? Unless of course, you have something to hide. NASA claims that the footage was grainy because it was shot off a TV screen. But why? Why not stream the video to the public directly? Also, why didn't Apollo 11 use color video?

? How did the small LEM, which is about the size of a car or two, have enough fuel to go 240,000 miles to the moon and back? If it glided through non-resistant gravity, then how did they navigate it so accurately, with computers having the capability of a pocket calculator only? If they navigated it manually, then wouldn't the slightest degree off have gotten them lost?

? NASA's chief scientist Wernher Von Braun said in his book ?Conquest of the Moon? that a rocket ship the size of the Empire State Building would have been required to get to the moon and back, yet the Saturn V rocket that launched the Apollo astronauts were a lot smaller than that.

? How did the Apollo 17 astronauts launch off from the surface of the moon in the ascent module, while being filmed at the same time? Who was outside panning the camera up as it ascended? And how was that film retrieved and sent back to Earth? If the next Apollo mission retrieved it, then why wasn't it damaged from the extreme temperatures (250F) on the moon? Further, why was there no jet exhaust gas emanating from it when it took off?

? How is it that the LEM was unstable in Earth's atmosphere and kept crashing to the ground during tests, yet worked flawlessly on the moon's surface? You can see video footage of it crashing on Earth just before Neil Armstrong ejects to safety.

? How come NASA's technical drawings show a blast crater underneath the LEM, yet the moon landing photos show no such crater? Did they goof up during the production?

? How is it that the LEM on display and in pictures looks like a piece of crap made of tin foil and cardboard, totally incapable of traveling even on the Earth? Yet we are supposed to believe that it got to the moon safely and was reliable? Yeah right. See here:

http://www.aulis.com/jackimages/11flymetothemoon.jpg

? Why does a ?C? appear on one moon rock and another ?C? can be seen on the ground below it? Could this have been a marker designating the placement of a stage prop in a movie studio? Further, why was it airbrushed out by NASA in later versions of this photo? If the two C?s in the image were not made by humans, why airbrush it out? What?s there to hide? See Jarrah White?s YouTube video ?Moonfaker Rocks and Crocks?.

The laser reflectors left on the moon's surface, which are touted by Apollo believers are hard evidence of the Apollo Moon Landings, are not. First, lasers were already being bounced off the moon's surface before the Apollo landings were alleged to take place. The Dec 1966 issue of National Geographic reported that scientists at MIT were doing just that. In fact, radio waves were being bounced off the moon as early as the 1950's. Here is a screen shot of the article in that issue describing it: (for some reason, I am not able to embed it below)

http://s9.postimage.org/a10sw4qd9/National_Geographic_December_1966_p876_small.jpg

Second, laser reflectors were dropped on the moon by unmanned probes by both the US and Soviet Union. Here are two examples of Soviet unmanned probes leaving laser reflectors, as described by Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_2

Thus this argument is not hard evidence for the authenticity of the Apollo Moon Landings. For more info about the laser reflectors, see Jarrah White's FAQ: http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html and his YouTube videos entitled ?Moonfaker laser reflectors?.

The alleged moon rocks are not proof of the Apollo missions, as Apollo believers claim. First, meteorites from the moon have been found in Antarctica, where Dr. Wernher Von Braun went before the Apollo missions. So he could have possibly collected them for NASA, which then could have been passed off as moon rocks. Second, even if the moon rocks we have are really from the moon, we can't rule out that they were collected and retrieved by unmanned probes.

Third, the moon's chemical composition has been found to be not all that different from the Earth?s. In fact, their similarity has led scientists to formulate their "giant impact theory" (aka "whack theory") of how the moon was created out of a planetary or asteroid collision with the Earth. So scientists (or geologists) can't have it both ways. They can't say that the moon rocks are so similar to the Earth's that the moon must have come out of the Earth, while at the same time claim that the moon rocks must have genuinely come from the moon because their chemical composition is distinctly different from that of the Earth. They can't have it both ways by waffling like that. (See the Moonfaker FAQ below and Jarrah White?s YouTube video series about the moon rocks by searching for ?Moonfaker moon rocks?.)

Further, when the European Space Agency?s SMART-1 probe crashed into the Lake Of Excellence, a lunar maria region, it was reported that the minerals it kicked up were different from that of the Apollo moon rocks.

Also, since NASA does not allow any scientist who wants to examine their moon rocks to just come and take them, how can there be much independent verification of them?

In fact, the moon rock that the Armstrong and Aldrin gave to the Dutch Prime Minister turned out to be a piece of petrified wood. See these news articles about that:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8226075.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html

http://phys.org/news171006198.html

This incident has never been explained. Why would the Apollo astronauts give a fake moon rock to Holland? Or was it somehow switched in Holland? And if the moon rocks are fake, what does that say about the whole mission?

Moon hoax researcher and filmmaker Jarrah White asked Buzz Aldrin about the fake moon rock sent to Holland, but Aldrin had no explanation except that maybe they were switched. You can see this on YouTube by searching for ?Jarrah White meets Buzz Aldrin?.

Jarrah White?s Moonfaker FAQ goes into more scientific detail about the alleged Apollo moon rocks:

http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html

?Q: How were the moon rocks faked?

A: Apollo samples have a chemistry that can be matched fairly closely with terrestrial basalts and eucrites, a basaltic meteorite [Fig-4]. The same is true for the mineralogy: ?The minerals found in JSC-1 (lunar regolith simulant), plagioclase, pyroxene, olivine, ilmenite, and chromite, are also characteristic of many lunar basalts and mare soils (Figure 5). The compositional ranges of these lunar minerals generally overlap the ranges of their terrestrial counterparts.? Apollo samples and earth rocks have oxygen18 to oxygen17 ratios of around 5:3 per mil. Although Eucrites are generally slightly less than this, there have been exceptions in which their oxygen isotope ratios are the same as earth (DaG 872 being a good example [Fig-5, 6]).

The three groups of rock are as identical as three of a kind.

Additionally, some scientists such as John O?Keefe have also noticed similarities between lunar glasses and tektites, leading to theories that tektites are lunar in origin, not terrestrial13 (Table 3 & 4).

Because of the similarities in age, chemistry, mineralogy and oxygen isotope ratios, as well as the alleged lack of water in Apollo samples, this has led William Hartman to believe that the moon was formed when a mars-sized planet collided with the earth. All water was vaporized in the impact and the moon formed out of the terrestrial debris knocked off into space. To account for the similarities between Apollo samples and eucrites, some such as Ruzicka et al have proposed that the mars-sized planet had a eucritic composition14.

Clearly, NASA?s Apollo samples are a combination of terrestrial basalts, eucrites and tektites. Terrestrial basalts are plentiful, but the advantage of Eucrites is that they show signs of solar and cosmic radiation, which is absent in earth rocks. Things like ?zap pits? (micrometeoroid impacts) can be added by firing projectiles from high-speed multi-stage gas guns which existed at the time. To hide the fact that these Eucrites fell through the atmosphere, the first millimetre was chipped away to remove the fusion crust (the outer burned layer due to atmospheric entry). Contrary to what propagandists claim, removing of this layer will not subsequently remove a large portion of helium3 or other solar wind induced isotopes, because solar wind penetrates a few millimetres into the rock? not 1 micrometre as the propagandists claim. And while chipping away the fusion crust may leave traces of themselves in the rock, these tools are little different to the tools used by NASA to chip the samples into the tiny sugar-cubed pieces that they send to geologists. In short, if a geologist found traces of these tools, he/she would be unable to tell whether they got there through chipping off fusion crust or by chipping free the sub-sample from its parent body.

Q: How do you know the moon rocks are fake?

A: If Jarrah picks up a rock from the moon to analyse in a lab and then send up a probe to the moon to kick up plumes of dust for analysis via radio telescope, he expects to find the same chemical signatures and mineralogy. This assertion is supported by the lunar maria samples from Apollos 11, 12 and 17 being virtually the same above and below ground, the fact that NASA claims their Lunar Prospectors and Clementine spacecrafts indicated that the lunar geology is the same as Apollo throughout, and the fact that the vast majority of official lunar meteorites are the same as NASA?s samples. Yet when the European Space Agency?s SMART-1 probe crashed into the Lake Of Excellence, a lunar maria region, it was reported that the minerals kicked up were different to the Apollo rocks.

Likewise, although most ?lunar meteorites? can be closely matched with Eucrites, there are known exceptions in which the meteorites have gone on the record as being ?distinct from? or ?unlike any basalt from Apollo or Luna? ( Yamato 793169, Asuka 881757, Miller Range 05035, Dhofar 287, NWA 773). These include differences in chemistry and even oxygen isotope ratios. One such meteorite, Dhofar 280 [Fig-7], contains an iron silicide mineral Hapkeite [Fig-8, 9]. Which is believed to be formed through micrometeorite impacts with the moon [Fig-10], and due to billions of years of such bombardment, the mineral is believed to be common on the lunar surface. Yet Hapkeite has never been found in any of the Apollo samples.

Further evidence that the samples are faked can be found even without comparing them to the real stuff. Contrary to what NASA and propagandists claim, the rocks contain water within the same ranges as their terrestrial cousins [Fig-11, 12]. * Any water deposited in the equatorial region of moon by comets or solar wind, or any water not vaporised by the alleged giant impact, should have been vaporised in the vacuum of space and >100C daylight temperatures. They also contain water or air induced minerals and secondary oxides that would only have been present if the samples were exposed to an atmosphere [Fig-13]. These include ferric iron oxides [Fig-14]. Sample 66095 is only one notorious example of such oxidation. The majority of Apollo 16 rocks also contain abundant rust. Other samples show ferric iron to total iron ratios that are comparable to terrestrial rocks that underwent two days of heat treatment in evacuated quartz tubes [Fig-15]. Some geologists acknowledge this ferric iron, yet others dismiss it - attributing it and the water to terrestrial contamination!

* The range for water in terrestrial basalts is between 150-10,000ppm (see 13 & 15), Fig-11 & Fig-12 together clearly illustrate water contents for lunar rocks within those ranges. Alberto Saal recently confirmed the presence of around 46ppm of water in lunar glass spherules, and estimated that they contain contents within the terrestrial rane of 240-750ppm.?

The argument that ham radio operators were tracking the Apollo missions all the way to the moon and back isn't what it seems either. These independent trackers have admitted that they were not able to track them all the way. Most of them were only able to receive whatever NASA transmitted to them anyway. And further, they did not have the technical capability to track the Apollo craft all the way out for 240,000 miles. For more on this, see Jarrah White's YouTube video series ?Moonfaker Apollo Ham Sandwich?.

MoonMovie.com?s FAQ on this issue explains:

http://moonmovie.com/faq.htm#trackingspacecraft

?What about tracking the Apollo spacecraft?

No individual or group, other than the U.S. Government, can attest to having tracked the Apollo spacecrafts all the way to the moon and back. Apollo claims to have communicated on radio frequencies not allocated to radio hams. Was this done simply for national security, or to totally minimize any independent verification by a curious public? At best, the few radio hams who claim to have picked up Apollo transmissions can only attest to having picked up signals whilst the craft was on or near the moon, and if they were lucky a handful of signals on the return trip home - but nothing that can't be pulled off with an unmanned craft and in some cases "moon relay (bounce)".

One such Ham operator, Paul Wilson, was quoted to saying: ?The moon is always in view of ...NASA's primary tracking stations... , but not so for the amateur. Some of the most exciting events and transmissions from the Apollo mission always seem to occur when the moon is below the horizon for the continental United States astronomer!? If that weren't enough, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) effectively policed what these individuals could and could not reveal to the public. ?Important! FCC regulations prohibit disclosure of the content of communications not intended for the public. Thus, it is illegal to inform the press or any other third party of the content of any information directly received from the Apollo communications link.? How can radio hams be regarded as independent verification when the FFC restricts what little of their data they can release to the public??

The LRO (Lunar Reconassiance Orbiter) photographs showing pixels and dots which NASA claim are of the Apollo lander, rover and tracks, and hailed by Apollo believers as proof of the Apollo Moon Landings, are not proof of anything. Anyone can fake a few dots and lines in an image. Come on now. To cite that as proof is a desperate grasp at straws.

Take a look at a few of the LRO images yourself. Here are some links to them:

http://moonfaker.com/images/faqs/397621main_ap17_1st50km_4release.jpg

http://moonfaker.com/images/faqs/444024main_apollo15_LRRR_HI.jpg

http://moonfaker.com/images/faqs/399165main_lroc_apollo12_1_HI.jpg

Gee I guess that?s all the proof I need to believe that the Apollo missions were real (sarcastic). Not! Come on now. Do you honestly see any ?proof? in the images above? Anyone can draw grey lines, even with a pencil, or create dots and pixels on an image using even the cheapest photo editing program. You can even do it in the free Paint program that comes with Microsoft Windows.

Furthermore, since NASA has already faked so many Apollo moon photos (as conclusively shown earlier), why wouldn?t it hesitate to fake a few dots and pixels in the LRO images, which anyone with a computer could do? If someone has engaged in mass fraud and hoaxes before, the likelihood of them doing it again is very high of course.

For a detailed meticulous point by point analysis of them, see Jarrah White's YouTube video series called ?Moonfaker LRO?. Here is some of his analysis on the LRO images on his FAQ page:

http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html

?Q: What about the Lunar Reconassiance Orbiter photographs which show the lander, rover and tracks?

A: The important point to consider is that LRO is a 100% NASA-run project and hence NASA could have altered the images prior to releasing them. In fact a close examination indicates this to be the case. For example, in some cases the Lunar Rover and Surveyor 3 probe shows as being black [Fig-22, 23, 24], despite their many bright and reflective surfaces [Fig-25, 26, 27] and with the sun overhead. In the one case when Surveyor 3 did appear, its white boxes appeared to be aligned east and west, not north and south as seen in the Hasselblad still-pictures [Fig-28].

There are even anomalies that contradict previous landing site photos. Prior to LRO, the most commonly cited images were pictures of the Apollo 15 landing site taken by NASA?s Clementine spacecraft and JAXA?s SELENE spacecraft [Fig-29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36]. These images showed what they described as a bright ?halo? within a 150metre radius around the landing site. This ?halo? was attributed to dust that was disturbed by the engine exhaust during touchdown. NASA, propagandists and scientists at large have insisted that the disturbance caused by the engine should be easily seen from orbit. David Scott & Jim Irwin even claimed to have seen it themselves after their alleged departure from the lunar surface. But by comparing these Clementine & SELENE images with the newer LRO imagery, Jarrah discovered that the ?halo? was nothing more than the sunlight sides of some giant impact craters [Fig-37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42]. The alleged lunar module is not even within this halo, but on the outermost edge of it. In fact the halo exists in the pre-Apollo photos taken by Lunar Orbiter [Fig-43, 44, 45]. The total lack of a visible soil disturbance is one of the most conclusive pieces of evidence that the ?artefacts? were added into the LRO image.

Further, the way the LRO operates is suspicious. The images are transmitted in an encrypted format which means nobody that eavesdrops on the signal can decode it. Why encrypt a picture of something that isn?t secret? NASA then holds on to the images for a few days before releasing them to Arizona State University, who then reframes and annotates the images before making them public. Why the delay? For some reason NASA doesn?twant any 3rd party to view a live transmission.

Finally, the LRO images are of very poor quality. The LRO operates at an altitude of 50km and returns images of resolution 0.5 metres/pixel. And the images have an odd striped pattern that reduces the quality further. Equivalent earth-imaging satellites return better resolution from much higher up. The privately owned GeoEye-1 satellite for example has perfectly resolved cars and even individual people at 0.5 m/pixel, in colour, through an atmosphere, and from an altitude 14 times higher up than the LRO [Fig-46, 47]. If NASA had installed a similar camera (which they can afford!) we would be seeing a resolution of 3 cm/pixel and this would allow us to see the hardware in great detail - assuming that it?s there. We would also be able to see the landscape in great detail and compare it to the Hasselblad images. Since the landscape had never been photographed at that resolution prior to the Apollo missions, a match between the two sets of images would provide a good test of Apollo?s authenticity.?

Believe it or not, NASA officially claims to have lost the Apollo telemetry tapes too, which were contained in 700 boxes. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11_missing_tapes

When Ron Howard wanted to make an IMAX film about going to the moon, he asked NASA for the original telemetry tapes so that he could make high quality versions of them for the IMAX screen. That?s when NASA claimed to have lost them. After an alleged search, NASA announced that they had been erased.

How could NASA lose 700 boxes of important tapes of mankind?s greatest alleged achievement? It?s more likely a lie or excuse. Anyone can tell you that something is "lost" if they don't want you to see it. Obviously, they didn?t want to people seeing that footage at high resolution on a big screen, because fakery would have been more visible.

Apollo defenders claim that this is due to government incompetence (since to them, the most unlikely explanation is better than accepting any conspiracy or cover up). However, if they were that incompetent, then how could they have achieved the extraordinary difficult task of going to the moon? They can?t have it both ways.

What reason is there to believe that we went to the moon anyway? If you think about it, there?s simply no way at all that you can know if the moon landings were real, unless you?ve been there yourself. If you believe it, you are taking it on FAITH. Yet in spite of this, people treat this issue like a sacred religion that is taboo to question. It?s purely emotional and faith-based, not logical.

The fact is, we really don't have any real proof that we went to the moon, but we do have a lot of evidence to the contrary, as given above. There is no independent corroboration of it other than from NASA. All the alleged evidence by NASA has been refuted and shown to not be proof after all. The only reason people believe it is because they were told to believe it, and because everyone else believes it, and of course due to patriotic pride of America being the first to land a man on the moon. But of course, authority does not equal truth, and neither do official announcements, so this is not a reason to believe. Nothing that Apollo defenders bring up stands up under scrutiny, as we've seen. Thus, the reasons for believing in the Apollo missions are emotional, not logical. Without real evidence that stands up to scrutiny, belief in the moon landings becomes a religious faith,? not one based on evidence, facts or logic.

See the FAQ pages linked after the conclusion section for answers to more arguments that Apollo believers commonly bring up. Below, I will go over a few of the common questions and objections that people often bring up.

Now in case you are wondering the typical newbie question: "The Apollo program involved 400,000 people. How could so many people be in on a conspiracy? Wouldn't someone have talked or blown the whistle?" The answer to that is simple, and addressed in many moon hoax FAQ pages (see conclusion section for a list). I will put the answer in my own words:

First, not a lot of people needed to be in on it, only a few at the top. Most people working for any large organization do not know all the agendas and secrets that are going on. The whole project was very compartmentalized. Everyone was on a need to know basis, and assigned to do a specialized task. The parts and pieces they were working on could have been used for any classified project beyond their knowing. Only the few at the top would see the big picture and be privy to what's going on.

Second, large numbers of people can keep a secret. For example, the Manhattan Project that developed the Atomic Bomb involved over 100,000 people who all kept it a secret before it was publicized. And the Secret Soviet Space program, which has now been declassified, involved thousands of people who all kept it a secret as well. And as you might know, the CIA and NSA contain thousands of operatives and staff who all keep their agency's activities a secret. Large numbers of people can be controlled by fear of imprisonment, death, and guilt for betraying their associates. History has proven this, so it is possible.

Even groups of civilia