Bill Kaysing

The Faked Apollo Landings

The author of the site is Bill Kaysing, the man many will claim is the father of the moon hoax theory. Kaysing, now 81 (2003) wrote the book "We Never Went to the Moon" in 1974. He worked at Rocketdyne, a major aerospace contractor, from 1957 until 1963. He worked for Rocketdyne as a cataloger of their technical publications, and that was as close as he ever got to NASA. Rocketdyne manufactured the main engines for the Saturn spacecraft. Kaysing left Rocketdyne in 1963, before they started work on the Apollo project. Kaysing received his Bachelor of Arts in English in 1949 from the University of Southern California. Kaysing has, for the most part, made his living from perpetuating the fraud theory.

Kaysing's credentials to support his hoax claim are that he was a cataloger for Rocketdyne 40 years ago and has a degree in English.

In his book Kaysing introduces some of the classic conspiracy arguments such as the absent stars in lunar surface photographs. I think that tells us all we need to know about Kaysing's level of expertise.

He also claims the Apollo 1 fire and the Challenger accident were staged to silence the participants who were about to spill the beans. Do you really need to know anything else about Kaysing? Doesn't that say it all?

Kaysing attempted to sue astronaut Jim Lovell for slander in 1997 when Lovell called Kaysing's theories "wacky." The case was thrown out of court in 1999. To be fair to Kaysing, it has to be said that he was unable to challenge the decision because he had run out of money and was being evicted from his trailer at the time.


To give you an idea of the type of person Bill Kaysing is have a look at this:

An interview with Bill Kaysing by Nardwuar Feb 16th 1996. The following are extracts, the full transcript can be viewed at Nardwuar interviews Kaysing

Nardwuar: How much space stuff since 1959 has been real? What space stuff is real today? Did the Challenger blow up? Did NASA know it would blow up? Yeah, and you know why it blew up? Because Christa McAuliffe, the only civilian and only woman aboard, refused to go along with the lie that you couldn't see stars in space. So they blew her up, along with six other people, to keep that lie under wraps. I claim that Christa McAuliffe was murdered.

So when the Challenger blew up, it wasn't because of O-ring problems, it was because NASA murdered the people because they didn't want to go along with the gags? Well, Christa McAuliffe was a woman of great integrity, and she would not agree to say that you couldn't see stars in space.

So, Bill Kaysing, are you saying that Roberta Bondar, Canada's first women astronaut, never actually made it in space, 'cause she was on the Shuttle. Well, I'll tell you what - the Shuttle is a possibility. After all, it's low altitude. I haven't done a great deal of research on the Shuttle, but several people have said that the Shuttle is actually faked, also.

Did people see Apollo 11 take off? Well, yes, certainly.

So what happened, then, if they saw it take off? The rocket took off - if we didn't go to the moon, what actually happened when Apollo 11 took off? The Apollo 11 vehicle, or Saturn 5, was sent out of people's sight, and then it was jettisoned into the South Atlantic, where all of the six that were launched now reside. There were no astronauts, of course, on board. They were hidden away carefully, to be returned, allegedly in their command capsule, by being dumped out of a C5A transport plane. It was easy to do all of this, because they had total control of everything.

So they were not on the rocket when it took off, then? No, they were not.

How 'bout any actual atmosphere, like John Glenn in space, Yuri Gargarin - were they actually in space? I doubt it.

What I'm still curious about, Bill Kaysing, is that - did NASA kill those astronauts in 1967, (Apollo 1 fire) did they kill them on purpose because they knew too much? Or was it actually an accident that happened? No, it was no accident. They murdered them because, you see, I found out just recently that whenever NASA was in trouble they would call on the CIA No we all know that the CIA has and can kill anybody they want without any feeling of conscience whatsoever. So it's my feeling that the CIA was hired by NASA to very adroitly kill Grissom, Chaffee and White.


I think that's enough for anyone to be able to form an opinion about Kaysing's psychological state. The man is clearly unable to demonstrate a rational and balanced mind where it concerns NASA or spaceflight. Amazingly, Kaysing's site is referred to by hoax believers to support their arguments that it was a hoax. I think that tells us all we need to know about the way they think. How anyone could be so daft as to listen to a word Kaysing says is totally beyond me. The guy lives on a different planet.


The Faked Apollo Landings

Amazingly the site is a favourite of many hoax believers who constantly refer to it as if it were a reputable source of information. The sad truth is that it is so bad it is laughable, as you shall discover. It was hard to know where to start so I thought I may as well tackle the hoax points in the order they appear.

(1) The page begins with the following introduction. See if you can make sense of it because I'm damned if I can.

"I would like to suggest that if Man did go to the Moon during the missions, the Apollo films that we were told were filmed on the Moon are bogus and not the real footage. Evidence suggests that Man could not travel to the Moon's surface, but instead they had to stay in near Earth orbit within the safety of the Earth's magnetic field that would have protected them from the radiation that is emitted by the Van Allen radiation belt!!! (readers may note that in the NASA section of this web site, we feature the alleged communications picked up by Ham Radio operators and also show pictures of UFOs allegedly taken during the Apollo Missions - Some readers have written saying that we are presenting two different arguments here because if Man never went to the Moon how did they capture UFOs around the Moon on film?  Let me restate that I do not claim that they never went, I believe that the footage released by NASA that is in the public domain today is not the original films! If you look at the other Apollo page, the majority of the UFO pictures are also taken in orbit - Man didn't have to land to take these pictures!)"

So what exactly is being said here?

1) Man could not have gone to the Moon because it is not possible to survive passage through the Van Allen Radiation Belts.

2) The Apollo astronauts were not even able to leave near Earth orbit because of the VA belts.

3) They DID leave near Earth orbit AND pass safely through the VA belts AND go to the Moon because they took photographs of UFO's while in lunar orbit.

4) It was perfectly safe for them to be in lunar orbit photographing UFO's, but not safe to land on the surface.

5) They did land on the surface, but we are not seeing the real footage of the landings.

6) It must have been safe on the lunar surface because they did survive and come back to lie about it.

The most amazing thing is, HB's actually think this makes sense and cannot see anything wrong with it! Incredible!

This introduction demonstrates perfectly the level of intelligence and clarity of the rest of the site. Wild speculation, unsupported and incorrect theories, distortion of the truth, self contradictions, wrong information and a total misunderstanding of the technology and physics involved.

Having got just this far I fail to understand why any rational thinking person would waste their time by bothering to read any further, the man is obviously very confused. But then again, it is directed at hoax believers!


(2) The 'Missing Flap" video

The video shows an astronaut jump off the ground and salute the flag. A still photo shows the same scene but with a flap sticking up on the astronauts backpack that does not show in the video.

I originally thought that the still photo showing the raised flap was faked, but I now realise it is the video that is causing the confusion here. I was watching a BBC documentary about Concorde tonight, (BBC2 19th October 2003) a couple of days after first posting this page, and in it they just happened to show this very video clip of the astronaut jumping off the ground and saluting the flag. Lucky break for me they did! In the BBC video The flap can be clearly seen lifting up, as shown in the still photograph. So why is it not showing in Kaysing's video clip I wonder?

I think it's all down to careful editing. Kaysing's clip carefully starts AFTER the flap has flattened down again. You can make up your own mind.


(3) "Appears to be faked footage of the Earth" video

I fail to see what is wrong with it. The image is very blurred, as you would expect, but I fail to see how it can be used as evidence of a fake, that is ridiculous. Perhaps that's why it only says "appears to be faked" Look for yourself.


(4) "A transparency of the Earth that was stuck to the window?" video (THIS ONE IS BRILLIANT, I LOVE IT!)

The sheer absurdity of this claim is almost beyond belief! It claims that blue(ish) looking light coming through the window of the CSM is the globe of the planet Earth, but goes on to say that it is in fact only a transparency of the Earth stuck over the window, and not the real Earth. It's stuck onto the window to fool us into thinking they are halfway to the Moon when in fact they are only in low Earth orbit. It then goes on to say that you can see another Earth through another window, making two Earths, proving it was fake. Yep, that would do it. (I wonder why NASA released this video as it proves they were faking it?) It wraps up by saying that they were supposed to be half way to the Moon but couldn't have been because we can see the blue sky outside, (it was a transparency of the Earth a minute ago) so they must have only been in low Earth orbit.

I find the mixed arguments impossible to follow, but never mind, I'm sure it must make sense to him.

The craft was in deep space. It's black outside as it is in a vacuum, but the sun is still shining, as always, and we can see sunlight streaming through the two windows. The windows are made up of two layers of glass, which are treated with coatings, and when the sun hits them at different angles the light changes colour, it's called refraction and chromatic aberration, and in this case is recorded as blue(ish) by the video camera. The sun angle changes because the spacecraft was rotating to even out the heating effects from the sun. It is not 'two Earths' that we can see through the two windows, it is just sunlight shining through them and it is too strong for the camera to cope with from inside a dark cabin. You can see this over-exposure effect right at the start as the camera attempts to adjust. It is not surprising that you get the same effect through two different windows, it would be very odd if you didn't!

If they really were only in low Earth orbit and wanted to show the whole globe to make it appear they were further away, then I am sure that NASA, armed with their massive budget, could have managed something a little better than sticking a silly transparency over the window!

Also, it should be noted that even in low earth orbit the sky would still be black, not blue.

It's so pathetic it's actually amazing that anyone can be taken in by it. It just goes to demonstrate how easy it is to lead the HBs by the nose because they are so desperate to believe. Why are they so desperate? What is their problem? Why don't they stop and think about it and see all the stupid flaws and contradictions in this one claim alone? Can't they think for themselves?


(5) Still cameras. "How could the film emulsion have withstood such temperature differences? "

This theory is based on the maximum temperature that the moon's surface reaches during the long lunar day. (The moon has a day that lasts for two of our weeks.) The 'mid-day' temperature on the moon is around 260 degrees Fahrenheit. That's very, very hot. Fortunately, no-one went to the moon to spread film out under the sun for two weeks. The lunar landings were done when the sun was low, within a day or so of local sunrise at the landing site so that temperatures were actually quite moderate, even after a full 3 days on the lunar surface. The temperature would stay pretty much constant throughout the time they were on the surface. The film also spent all its time either within the camera or within the lander. Unlike the moon's surface, both of these were designed to reflect as much of the sun's heat as possible.  So they never got anywhere near the temperatures that the surface reaches. The film in the cameras was also kept in magazines that provided some protection from the extreme temperatures even when left in direct sunlight. In a vacuum without an atmosphere to conduct heat, film inside the magazines it was carried in is quite well protected from the heat of direct sunlight. You also have to keep in mind that because there is no air, there is no ambient temperature and no convected heat on the moon. So if you are out of direct sunlight, and therefore radiated heat, you will be quite chilly. As the camera and lander were designed to reflect heat, the film wouldn't even pick up much conducted heat from them. So that's no convection, little radiation, little conduction. There are no other methods of receiving heat.


(6) Photographs: "Parts of the crosshairs have disappeared from the film. This is impossible unless the film has been tampered with. The crosshairs should be completely visible in all shots and not hidden behind objects in the pictures. The only solution must be that NASA has gone to the trouble of either airbrushing out certain objects in the film, or added them over the crosshairs! "

Please explain why NASA would "go to the trouble of either airbrushing out certain objects in the film, or added them over the crosshairs!" What purpose would it serve? Why not just remove or add the objects while still in the film studio in Area 51 where HBs claim the whole thing was faked up? It would be a hell of a lot easier - and foolproof - unlike the dodgy cut and paste job so cleverly spotted here by Kaysing!

The cross hairs on the photographs were produced by a glass plate within the camera, between the lens and film. They result in a black cross on the film because they block the light from reaching the film directly below them.  If, however, you are taking a photograph of a really bright white object, the over-exposed part of the film 'bleeds' into other parts of the film. This is particularly the case if the adjacent part of the film is black. This is exactly what is happening where the cross hair meets a bright, reflective part of the photograph. It occurs in a number of the Apollo photographs, but you only see it where the cross hairs seem to disappear behind a bright white part. You never see it happening anywhere else.

See my main page for further details.


(7) Photograph: "Why does this rock have a letter 'C' on it? There is also a 'C' on the ground in front of the rock... The use of the letter C on film props is well known by the people in Hollywood and is used to show where the centre of the scene should be."

The letter 'C' on the rock is not on the original NASA official print. It has been inspected by members from the .Bad Astronomy: Bad TV. site. It only appears on a few duplicates and is nothing more than a piece of fluff or hair that got into the equipment.

Do you honestly think that if it was a hoax that the pictures would not have been VERY carefully examined for errors before being released to the public? Do you not think that NASA would spot such obvious 'errors'? Or do you really think that only HB's have the intelligence and acute powers of observation to spot them?


(8) Photograph: "How can an astronaut cast a shadow several feet taller than his colleague who is standing a few feet away from him?" The author's explanation is "He is standing farther away from the arc light that is illuminating them both."

I must confess I do not understand the author's explanation. If he is right, and I agree that being further away from an arc light would produce a longer shadow on level ground, why is it the astronaut in the photo with the longest shadow is the one CLOSEST to the light source? He's got it totally the wrong way round! HE PROVES HIS OWN ARGUMENT WRONG!

The fact of the matter is that the ground IS very uneven, it is the surface of the Moon after all, not a tarmac parking lot! If that can't be understood then no wonder HBs have problems interpreting photographs!

Just how dumb can this guy get? You will be amazed at just how dumb he can get! Read on!


At this point I have to say I have grown weary of answering each point as they appear on the site, so I have selected just a few more that I feel are typically bad.


(9) APOLLO 13

(A) "By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in space travel was beginning to diminish.  This could have been partly due to most of the previous Apollo 12 Mission having to rely mainly on an audio transmission, due to the camera malfunctions encountered. Was this a factor in the alleged near disaster on the Apollo 13 mission?  Were NASA trying to get back the publics attention and therefore guarantee the continued funding of the US Government?  On the 13th hour of the 13th day of the 13th Apollo Mission, disaster struck when an oxygen tank exploded."

This one is truly amazing in its inaccuracy! "On the 13th hour of the 13th day of the 13th Apollo Mission, disaster struck when an oxygen tank exploded.???" The entire mission lasted only 6 days, April 11th - 17th 1970.

(B) "The film here sees  the astronauts from the Apollo 13 just before they transferred to the LEM, the craft is supposed to be some 200,000 miles from Earth.  If we look out of the window we see blue? How can this be if they are in deep space??? Surely the windows should be showing black space, unless they are in near Earth orbit of course?"

This is the same argument as the author used before in item (4) Kaysing again does not understand why the sunlight coming through the window looks blue(ish) and is still convinced the sky would appear blue in low earth orbit, when it is in fact black. KAYSING REFERS TO THE SKY BEING BLACK IN ITEM (10) BELOW. HE AGAIN CONTRADICTS HIMSELF AND DOES NOT EVEN HAVE THE SENSE TO REALISE IT!


(10) "Sceptics say there are no stars in the black sky, (looking from the lunar surface) despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view.  The first man in Space, Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant".

This is the same guy who has on a number of occasions on his site used the totally incorrect argument that the sky in low earth orbit is BLUE. But for this argument its now black for Yuri Gagarin! He also said (above) in his interview with Nardwuar that he doubts that Gagarin went into space! So which is it Kaysing?

Yuri Gagarin was in a dark capsule in the darkness of low earth orbit space looking into an inky black sky and could see the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". No surprises there then.

The Apollo astronauts, on the surface of the Moon, were bathed in brilliant sunlight, the surface was bathed in brilliant sunlight, far brighter than mid-summers day at high noon on earth. They had to wear protective visors to prevent them from being dazzled by the sun. Is it any wonder that under such bright conditions they were unable to see any stars? Why do HBs have SUCH a problem over this very simple and obvious point? Is it simply because the lunar sky is black they think the stars should be visible, because that's how it works here? They seem to overlook the fact that here the sky is only black at night, after the sun has set, and consequently everything else is also black. But on the Moon the sky is black even during the day-time when the surface is bathed in very strong sunlight.


(11) Van Allen Radiation

"I have had numerous internet chats with skeptics who say that the radiation would not play a part in the missions because Man would have not been in the radiation belt for too long. My answer to that is, when Dentists or Doctors take X ray pictures they either leave the room or stand behind a sheet of thick lead to shelter from the radiation. Why did Nasa only use a small sheet of aluminium to protect the astronauts when they knew that the radiation levels in Space and on the Moon's surface would be many hundreds of times more deadly? "

Why does Kaysing think that Van Allen radiation is the same as X-rays? It's nothing like it. HB's seem to think its a mixture of X-rays and radiation from a thermonuclear bomb! Its nothing like that at all.

Because the Van Allen belts are in fact composed of high-energy protons and high-energy electrons, metal shielding is actually counterproductive because of the Bremsstrahlung that would be induced. Metals can be used to shield against particle radiation, but they are not the ideal substance. Polyethylene is the choice of particle shielding today, and various substances were available to the Apollo engineers to absorb Van Allen radiation. The fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls of the command module was likely the most effective form of radiation shielding. When metals must be used in spacecraft (e.g., for structural strength) then a lighter metal such as aluminum is better than heavier metals such as steel or lead. The lower the atomic number, the less Bremsstrahlung.

The notion that only vast amounts of a very heavy metal could shield against Van Allen belt radiation is a good indicator of how poorly though out the conspiracist radiation case is. What the conspiracists say is the ONLY way of shielding against the Van Allen belt radiation turns out to be the WORST way to attempt to do it!

See my page Van Allen belts for full information


(12) "Lets move onto the famous picture of Buzz Aldrin that shows the LEM,  Neil Armstrong and landing site in the reflection of his visor. One of the strange things with this picture is that the reticule that is supposed to be in the middle of the picture actually shows up at the bottom of Aldrin's right leg? How can this be when the camera is attached to the cameraman's chest??? A fact that is easily verifiable by the reflection of the cameraman in the visor."

This is yet another example of Kaysing contradicting himself. It is NOT a "reticule that is supposed to be in the middle of the picture", we can all very clearly see that it is one of the crosshairs that Kaysing himself refers to in item (6) above. This is just so pathetic I simply can't believe the man's stupidity in presenting the argument. (He even doesn't seem to realise that even if it was supposed to be in the middle of the picture darkroom cropping would change that. Is this guy dumb or what?)



(13) "Why did they (listed below) all resign from the 'successful' Apollo Program? "

* James B. Irwin (Apollo 15) resigned from NASA and the Air Force on July 1, 1972.

* Don F. Eisele (Apollo 7) resigned from NASA and from the Air Force in June 1972.

* Stewart Allen Roosa (Apollo 14) resigned from NASA and retired from the Air Force in February 1976.

* Swigert resigned from NASA in 1977

Why did they all resign from the 'successful' Apollo Program? Perhaps the fact that Apollo Program ended in 1972 may just have something to do with it.


(14) "Why hasn't anybody spoken out about the cover-up?"

"They have. Bill Kaysing got in touch with his friend, a private investigator from San Francisco called Paul Jacobs, and asked him to help him with his Apollo anomalies investigations. Mr. Jacobs agreed to go and see the head of the US Department of Geology in Washington, as he was traveling there the following week after his discussion with Mr. Keysing. He asked the geologist, 'Did you examine the Moon rocks, did they really come from the Moon.?' The geologist just laughed."

And he is SURPRISED a geologist laughed at him? And this is PROOF of a cover up? Good God! Who wouldn't laugh? See my main page for full details of why Moon rocks just CAN'T be faked.


(15) "If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen."

Oh dear! Why does Kaysing think "it would be visible today through a powerful telescope". See my main page why it can't even be seen by the Hubble Space Telescope, let alone any ground based telescope. The best detail that Hubble can see on the Moon - and Hubble is the best we have - is objects no less than 280 feet across (86 metres). None of the Apollo debris is more than 9 or 10 metres across, at the very most.

Kaysing doesn't even bother to check the facts, he just keeps making silly and wrong assumptions.



The astronaut has a very hard time trying to keep the flag still as it blows in the wind..."

This particular video is most probably the most ridiculous video claim made by Kaysing, and that is saying something!

It shows an astronaut trying to push the flag pole into the surface by twisting and turning it and generally wriggling the pole about in an effort to penetrate the lunar soil. It is obvious that it is not proving to be an easy task. The flag is held out in the unfurled position by a rod that runs along the top of the flag, it is very easy to see how unnaturally rigid this makes the top of the flag, but without it the flag would just hang straight down and would not be easily recognisable as the Stars & Stripes.

All this twisting and turning of the pole naturally causes the flag to move about as well, and with no atmosphere on the Moon to create air resistance the movement takes longer to damp down than it would on Earth.

Kaysing claims it is a strong wind blowing the flag! And he honestly thinks that NASA were faking the whole thing and were so incredibly stupid they didn't notice a gale blowing through the studio and blowing the flag all over the place while they were pretending it was shot in a vacuum??? Words fail me!


I think this goes to the heart of the problem. Kaysing seems to think that he is one hell of a super smart genius, who, with the cold logical precision of his super powerful brain, has discovered errors that the best brains in the world failed to spot while they were 'faking the landings'. He obviously just doesn't realise how crazy his pathetic arguments really are and fails to see his own errors and contradictions, some of which I have pointed out here. He is obviously not very bright.

This also applies to many HB's. They seem to honestly think that they are all super smart, so super smart in fact that they can see all these 'errors' that the rest of us can't because we are all so dumb and are taken in by the hoax. They, like Kaysing, just can't seem to understand that their arguments are all very foolish and inaccurate and that it makes them look extremely silly, to say the least.

Even when presented with explanations that show their arguments to be wrong, as I have done here, they will still carry on regardless. Their tiny little minds are snapped tight shut, they only see what they want to see.


See also my page on Bart Sibrel

Return to Did we land on the Moon?


Contact me: EMAIL

It is not always possible to answer all emails, but all will be read and noted. Thank you.

Search this site

Book details page: "Science, the Universe and God"

Return to Home Page