top of page

Apollo Moon Landing Hoax



The person who wrote this article wished to remain anonymous but we thank him for sharing this information with us. He continues to study further into this topic before exposing it to mainline media, but we are pleased to know that his work has been accomplished by using the program we promote Mindjet MindManager 2020. He simplified things by using two concepts in this software which led him to conclude that the first man on the moon was nothing but a lie.






The 2 concepts and his personal notes:


  1. - The moon landing was a hoax and we never went there.

  2. - 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.



Mind Mapping theories by "Anonymous"...


So before you think that I'm crazy, 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.


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


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 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't leave 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.


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't make 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.


The only time in history where technology went backward by an extreme magnitude



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.



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?!



The Fake Photos:

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 technique 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.)



2. Shadow anomalies indicate secondary artificial light sources


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 is an even more bizarre anomaly. This US flag doesn't even have a shadow!

The flag's shadow should be in the yellow box but bizarrely nowhere to be found.



3. Astronauts lit up in shadows by multiple light sources


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:

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:




















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:



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 as a light bulb would. this has been proven in other studies but I won't go into it now, the pictures speak for themselves if you have little logic.

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 Moonraker 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.


4. Buzz Aldrin spotlight photo a smoking gun blunder

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:



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

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 Moonraker: Posing for Portrait. So again, why would NASA alter the photos if they had nothing to hide?



4. Bootprints cannot be made in dirt or dust without moisture

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 a small dent in the sand. So this is a curious anomaly.


Images of footprints:



































5. American flag fluttering on the moon with no air or atmosphere


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:


You don't need to be an expert in anything to see this, as it is self-evident. So don't let 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 meticulously 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?.


18. Apollo spacesuits and cameras had no protective ability against extreme heat and cold


The spacesuits 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.



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


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't remember 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? the 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.



7. Nothing new in technology works right the first time


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 invested too much, and didn't want it all to be 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.



8. NASA director suspiciously quit just before Apollo program began


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.


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


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.


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 that 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 in-depth 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.


10. Neil Armstrong's string of bizarre behaviors since Apollo


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 the 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.


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.


11. Other miscellaneous anomalies


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