Did we land on the moon?

I can remember the night of July 20th 1969 sitting in front of my television in the early hours of the morning watching a grainy black and white image of Neil Armstrong climbing carefully down the ladder of the Lunar Module and stepping out onto the surface of the Moon, the first man to have done so. It was a magical, awe inspiring moment that I shall never forget. A man was walking on the Moon, 240,000 miles away, and I was watching it happen, live, on the TV that sat in the corner of my living room! Amazing! "That's one small step for (a) man, one giant leap for mankind". It certainly was. I felt privileged to be able to witness such a remarkable moment in history.

For a brief history of spaceflight leading up to the moon landings and schematics of the Apollo and Saturn V spacecraft see The journey to the Moon

There are however, some people questioning if that event actually took place. They are basing this on what they perceive as some discrepancies in some of the photographs from among the thousands that were taken by the Apollo astronauts, and for various other assorted reasons. They believe that the Moon landings were mocked up in a film studio and that the Apollo crews never left low earth orbit. I honestly think that this is so sad, the greatest technological achievement yet by the human race and these people don't believe it happened. Even sadder, they do not possess the understanding to realise that they are completely wrong and that their arguments are incredibly foolish, to put it mildly.

All the claims that it was a hoax are based on errors and ignorance.

The most surprising thing to me about this ridiculous claim that it was a hoax, is that some people actually manage to believe it was! How do they manage it? If it really was a hoax do you not think that the Russians at least would have been able to expose it? After all, the ONLY reason for going to the Moon was to beat the Russians to it, yet they have never once even hinted at the possibility that it was a hoax, they know it was real! That is why they gave up their own attempt after they ran into problems with their booster, it kept exploding on take off! There was no point in them continuing once they realised the Americans had beaten them to it. Nobody in the world had more reason to want to prove it was a hoax than the Russians. The Russians are not daft, they were closely monitoring the Americans every inch of the way, and were able to determine for a fact that the Americans did actually land on the Moon, much to their annoyance. If the Russians say the Americans landed on the Moon, and they do, then the Americans landed on the Moon. It's that simple.

Why do some people believe it was a hoax?

There are however, some people (not many) who do believe it was a hoax, but then some people are prepared to believe just about anything! Maybe it's because they saw the TV program "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?" It was shown In the States in February 2001 and later here in the UK. The programme points out 'errors' in the photographs, that there are no stars visible, that the flag waves in the 'breeze', and a host of other silly stuff. This joke of a show was so idiotic it is beyond understanding how it could fool anyone. It was in fact so bad that the Network, FOX, distanced themselves from the broadcast with a disclaimer admitting that "The theories expressed [in the show] are not the only possible interpretation." That's just another way of saying "This is a heap of manure even by our standards". For a full scientific explanation of every so called 'error' claimed by the programme, visit the following excellent site.Bad Astronomy: Bad TV.

Another reason why people may believe it was a hoax may be due to the efforts of a small number of people who make a living by selling books and videos 'exposing the hoax'. The trouble these people run into is that because it was not a hoax, they have to work very hard to make it seem, however tenuously, that it was. The consequence of this is that the claims they make are both idiotic and farcical in their desperate attempts to get you to part with your cash.

Before you are fooled into parting with your hard earned cash, check out my pages on two of the best known purveyors of unmitigated nonsense-for-cash-in the moon hoax business Bart Sibrel and Bill Kaysing Check out both of my pages for details of why the material they want you to buy is nothing but pure garbage.

These two jokers work VERY hard to get you to part with your cash, promising all sorts of 'proof'. It is only after you have parted with your cash and seen the 'proof' that you realise, too late of course, you have been well and truly done. Those of you that have already purchased their nonsense will know what I mean. If however you have seen their videos or read their books and still believe it was a hoax, then you have mistakenly stumbled onto the wrong site, this one is for thinking people who have a fully functioning brain. Goodbye, thank you for calling.


Let's now move on to explain why all the reasons people believe it was a hoax are wrong. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to see the obvious errors in their arguments. In most cases common sense is all you need. But first, let's get something out of the way.

Do I think hoax believers are stupid?

I am sometimes accused of treating hoax believers as if they are stupid. Let me say this here and now and clearly. I do NOT consider that ALL hoax believers are stupid, okay? Some, possibly, may be quite normal sensible people that have just got the facts wrong - they have been misinformed and do not happen to posses the knowledge or wit to realise it. This is perfectly understandable given the complex knowledge of physics sometimes required to understand what is really going on. Many hoax believers are ignorant of the facts, which is a different matter entirely to being stupid. However, when given the facts, a sensible person will see the logic of it, whatever the subject, and will either have the sense to accept the obvious, or perhaps have the wit to ask another more penetrating follow-up question in order to clarify a point. Fair enough. When the explanation then makes perfect sense and can no longer be challenged, when the evidence presented simply cannot be denied, the sensible person is left with no alternative but to accept that they were wrong.

If however, in this situation, they still insist that they are right, even in the face of incontrovertible evidence, then they shift from a position of being ignorant - they are no longer unaware of the facts - to a position of being stupid. I'm sorry if this offends but there is no other word for it. The dictionary says 'stupid - deficient or dull in understanding: showing lack of reason or judgement: foolish, dull, boring' So yes, many of the hoax believers that I deal with, the ones that send me very strange emails indeed, I do consider to be stupid, they perfectly fit the dictionary definition of the word. I do not consider them to be stupid because their questions may sometimes appear to be rather simplistic and show an alarming lack of even basic knowledge (that is often understandable as it depends on the level of education they have received) it is because they deny the answer and choose not to accept the logic of a given fact that is in reality inarguable.

If for example someone tells you that 2 +2 = 5, and you clearly and patiently show them by using four coins that 2+2 = 4, and they still argue that they are right, that you are an idiot, and that they have positive proof that you will be proven wrong, would it be unreasonable to assume that they must be stupid? It is an unfortunate fact of life that there are some people in the world that are undeniably stupid, we have all met them. I realise of course that this causes some people to call me arrogant - and many other highly descriptive phrases - so be it. If being unafraid to tell the truth, if knowing your subject well, if carrying out extensive independent research, if being able to reply to a question using facts and logic, all make a person 'arrogant', then fine, I am happy to accept - that by that definition - I am arrogant. I would rather be arrogant than stupid. But I repeat again, not all hoax believers are stupid - some are just ignorant of the facts but do have an open mind - but some hoax believers are undeniably incredibly stupid.

For an example of the many questions I receive from hoax believers see Are Moon Hoax believers stupid?

For a very brief explanation of the top twenty points raised by hoax believers Moon Hoax Believer's FAQ's

If you have had a bad day and just want a bit of a LAUGH, here it is. The REAL answers to Moon Hoax Believers FAQ's


Okay, lets get on with the hoax believer's arguments for why it was all a hoax:

1) The Apollo crews never left near earth orbit.

This is a ridiculous claim, that they never left near earth orbit, because if that had being the case, how do you explain the rather obvious fact that not one person noticed that the Apollo craft were still continuously orbiting the Earth, for periods ranging from 8 to 12 days, when they should have been orbiting the Moon? They would have been very easily visible to the naked eye, just as satellites are today every hour of the night. The Apollo craft were, by many magnitudes, the brightest and largest artificial objects orbiting the Earth, and would have been impossible to miss as only the Moon and Venus were brighter. Furthermore, they would have been moving so fast that they would have transited the night sky in about three minutes. Bright, fast-moving objects in the sky tend to attract lots of attention.

Do you honestly think that the entire world's radar systems, and visual astronomical observatories, let alone individuals, would have failed to notice them if they had stayed in Earth orbit? This would apply to all the manned missions that entered lunar orbit, Apollo 8 and 10 to 17, a total of NINE missions. And no one in the entire world noticed, not even once, they they didn't really leave Earth orbit? To suggest such a thing is ludicrous! No one would have been more over the Moon (sorry) to expose any American Moon hoax than the Russians, but they couldn't, they saw them leave Earth orbit, and tracked them all the way to the moon.

This argument alone should provide sufficient evidence to show that the Apollo crews did actually leave near earth orbit, but this will not be enough for the Moon hoax believers, they love a good conspiracy theory.

So here is the nail in the coffin!

This conspiracy is a conspiracy Jim McDade 4/1/2001. Extract from the Birmingham News.

Apollo 11 left for the moon on July 16, 1969. The crew consisted of Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Buzz Aldrin. Every single moment of the Apollo voyage was monitored by an international cadre of journalists, broadcasters, commentators, investigators, spies (from US "allies" as well as enemies) amateur and professional astronomers, amateur and professional radio engineers, television viewers and fifteen year-old me. Thousands stood outside in Hawaii to directly witness the third stage of the Saturn V moon rocket execute the long burn to raise its velocity from earth orbital speed to trans-lunar speed. Amateurs and professionals alike took time-lapse photos of the craft as it sped along the background of stars in the exact places where it was predicted to be by independent calculations. Bruno Stanek, a brilliant Swiss mathematician and space observer furnished me with the following eyewitness account:

  "In 1969/70, when I was an instructor at the Swiss Institute of Technology (pre-pre-PC era...), I solved the boundary value three body problem for my own personal enjoyment on our CDC 1604: fitting time of departure and arrival, orbital height and inclination of the respective lunar/earth parking orbits and approximate nodes (actually these were precisely determined mathematically because I did not get them from the usual NASA publications). Having x,y,z in five minute intervals, I transformed those to equatorial as well as topocentric astronomical coordinates and supplied the data to well equipped amateur astronomers. I remember mentioning my "project" during one of my live Apollo broadcasts on Swiss National TV and two promising responses reached me. One was a Mr. Seiler in neighboring Bavaria/Germany near Munich who took astro photographs through a 0.5-meter-telescope. He was successful: his long exposure not only showed the LM-CSM-combination at the right location - even the velocity vector proved itself by the right direction of the trace of the moving spacecraft on his film!"


2) Photographic 'evidence'.

Let's just take a look at some photographs that demonstrate how these errors arise. I cannot include them all, otherwise this page would take a week to load, but these silly claims come up time after time.

a) NASA forgot to paint the stars in the sky.

This is a classic, first started by Bill Kaysing 30 years ago. It's my all time favourite. It is very popular with the hoax believers, but I can't understand why though, it's so easy to prove for yourself. I think it tells us something very important about the way they think.

Look mum! No stars, NASA forgot to paint them in!

Buzz Aldrin on the lunar surface, 1969

The real reason is that when contrasted with the brightness of the astronauts and the lunar surface, the stars are just too dim to register on the photographic emulsion of the camera film. If the camera shutter were held open long enough for the stars to register, everything else would be over-exposed into a white featureless glare. You cannot have both visible on the one photograph, so the camera was set for the correct exposure for Buzz Aldrin and the lunar surface, not the stars. When standing on the lunar surface the astronauts could not visually observe the stars in the dark sky, because of the surface glare, they could only see them when standing in shadow. By the same token, if we take a photograph outdoors at night from a brightly illuminated surface, our photograph also would not show any stars in the sky.

It is not enough that the lunar sky is very dark, in order to see the stars you have to BE in a dark area yourself, and your camera. In 1967 Surveyor probes soft landed on the Moon and sent back amazing pictures of the surface. An image of the stars was required in order to learn the precise orientation of the probes. It took a three minute exposure before the stars became visible. The cameras used by the astronauts typically took images using an exposure time of 250th of a second. Not surprising is it that the stars did not register in the photos!

If it is so easy for hoax believers to spot this 'error' - and let's face it, to forget to put the stars in would have been an incredibly stupid mistake to make - do you honestly believe that not one single person involved in the 'hoax' wouldn't have noticed it either? Or is it just that hoax believers are all just so much smarter then all of them?

I have been 'informed' (now that's a joke) by hoax believers that NASA were unable to reproduce the stars in their correct positions as seen from the moon, (being much too complicated a task for stupid NASA to calculate) so rather than get it wrong and risk being found out decided to leave them out. Ho ho ho hohoho! This argument is soooo ignorant of the facts! The stars are much too far away for any difference to be visible over the tiny distance of 250,000 miles from the earth to the moon. Take a photograph of the stars from earth, then six months later take another photograph. In this time span the earth will have shifted the maximum distance from one side of its orbit around the sun to the other, around 186,000,000 miles. Only a couple of the very nearest stars will be seen to have shifted against the background stars (this apparent shift is due to parallax) and even then, the shift is very small and is only perceptible by comparing the two photos very carefully. (Parallax is the most accurate means available for measuring the distance to the stars, but is limited to those few stars that are very close to us). So, Nasa would only need to put up background photos of the stars as photographed from earth because that is exactly how the stars would look from the moon as well. This is known as research, and comes in very handy when attempting to argue a point.

Anyway, no need to take my word for it is there, I could be part of the conspiracy according to your way of thinking. (Wish I was, I would be getting paid for this.) Just pop outside one night and try to photograph the stars with a brightly illuminated person in the foreground. Try it, its easy enough to prove without the need of a massive conspiracy theory, just you and a camera is all that is required.

Case closed.



b) The Great Flag Waving in the Breeze hoax.

I just love this one, very nearly as much as the 'no stars ' one. Below is one of the pictures in question.

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin deploy a U.S. flag on the Moon in 1969

The flag is held out in the unfurled position by an extendable rod running through the top of the flag, so that it can be viewed unfurled, and you can see the unnatural rigidity this gives to the top of the flag in the picture. The rod creates the effect of a breeze blowing the flag into that position. Without the supporting rod the flag would just hang limply down and would not reveal the stars and stripes. Flags are designed to be blown into position by the wind on Earth, so the support was added to replicate this, as there is no atmosphere on the Moon. The rod is not extended the full width of the flag and it looks like a breeze is causing a ripple in the flag.

It has also been claimed that some video clips show the flag waving in the breeze when it was planted. Not so. The movement of the flag is only because when astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil. Without an atmosphere it takes a while for this movement to damp down. There is not one video clip showing the flag moving when the astronauts are not holding it, a fact never mentioned by the hoax believers.

Do you really think that an errant breeze blowing through the set causing the flag to wave in what was supposed to be a total vacuum would not have been noticed? Such an obvious fact could not escape the notice of an entire film crew, besides which they would surely have called upon the services of experts to oversee operations to guard against this very sort of 'error'. They would simply have done another take.

Case closed.



c) The cross hairs have been added after and go behind some objects

I must admit to being rather fond of this one as well, as it is such a totally pointless 'hoax' that I fail to understand why anyone can believe it was actually done. The most foolish aspect of this claim is that if the cross hairs were added after, how can they possibly be overlaid on the photo and appear behind some of the objects in the photo? Hoax believers are defeating their own argument with this one!

Cross hairs shown 'behind' objects.

The explanation: Extract from Moon Hoax Under the section 'Photography and Film'.

"The cross hairs on this photograph appear to go behind the objects in the photograph.  Does this suggest that the photograph is a faked 'pasted-together' image? (The cross hairs are included as an aid for linking a series of pictures together to create a panoramic view) 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."

The image below, a close up from a much larger photograph, shows how the cross hairs are not visible where they cross the brightest part of the background due to 'bleed over'.

Cross hairs shown 'behind' AND 'in front'

Why do you think NASA would want to add the cross hairs after? If they had somehow changed cameras and forgot to insert the etched glass plate that produces the cross hairs, they would have just ditched the photographs, not gone to the trouble of faking them in afterwards. It would be a hell of a lot easier just to do a re-take if the photographs were considered to be important enough. The photograph shown here can hardly be considered to be in that category, they are about as mundane as they come, so why fake it?

Case closed.



d) The same background appears in two different locations

This one I feel is especially stupid. Almost deserving of a special award for supreme ignorance and lack of even the most basic common sense. How anyone can take this claim seriously is beyond me, they must be the village idiot!

Photos taken by the Apollo 15 crew

The photos above are the two most commonly used in support of this truly pathetic argument. The poor confused hoax believers claim that as the Lunar Module is only visible in one photo, it must show two different locations where NASA used the same fake backdrop twice. Pardon me while I fall off my chair laughing!

I would have thought it obvious that it is only necessary to move a short distance to one side and then point the camera at the same hills to remove the LM from the picture while still keeping the distant background almost exactly the same. I say 'almost' the same, because even though the hills are far away, they do move just a little, as can be seen in the two photos. The hills we can see are in fact more than 3 miles distant from the Lunar Module 'Falcon'. The astronauts were only able to reach them to gather rock samples because they used the lunar rover to make the journey. By moving say 50 or 100 feet to one side, the distant hills 3 miles away will appear to alter hardly at all, but the LM will no longer be in the frame, and that is exactly what we have here.

The mountains we see above are the Apennine Front on the left side of each photo and Mount Hadley Delta to the right in each. Apollo 15 astronauts went up to those mountains and walked on Hadley Delta and collected many unique rock samples. How could they enter a fake backdrop?

The photo on the left shows a tree in the foreground on the left hand side. The photo on the right doesn't. The distant hills look identical thus proving that I have used the same fake backdrop in two different locations.

Yes, their argument really is that stupid!

In reality I just walked forward a few yards and took the photo on the right while standing next to the tree. I even made sure I kept the foreground in both pictures, thus showing a change of location so I could not be accused of felling the tree!

If any hoax believers find this too difficult to follow, ask your older friends in the playground.

Case closed.


e) 'Wrong' shadows.

This is a general category and covers many photographs based on the shadows being 'wrong'.

This is a good one as well. It shows how easy it is to make wrong assumptions when looking at a 'problem' with tunnel vision instead of trying to understand what is really going on from a scientific point of view. This I feel is a concept that must be alien to Moon hoax believers.

Lots of the hoax claims rest on the belief that the shadows shown in the photographs are somehow wrong, that they indicate more than one light source because the object shown is illuminated from the front and the sides, and so on. This leads them to believe it is due to lighting mistakes on a film set.

The simple fact is that there IS more than one light source. The light does not come directly from the Sun and illuminate only the one object in question, as a narrow beam spotlight would in a dark room. It shines on the entire 'daytime' surface, just as it does here on Earth. Therefore it also illuminates the surface, the astronauts themselves, rocks, mountains, the Lander and all the other objects on the surface. The reflections from these various objects is why there is more than one light source, it is not because there was more than one spotlight used on a film set. It is also worth noting that on the lunar surface the reflected sunlight from the Earth is 68% brighter than that of the full Moon as seen from Earth.

You must visit this site, it's very good. Are Apollo Moon Photos fake?

It shows some of the photos in question with alongside little models of the scene appropriately illuminated. It is an ingenious and foolproof way of silencing the critics. Do check it out, its great, and worth a visit just to see the little models. Here is a sample from the site.

The model on the left replicates a photo that hoax believers show how NASA got it wrong. They claim the astronaut standing in the shadow of the lander should not be illuminated, but should also be in shadow. The model on the right shows that it is the reflected light from the surface that is illuminating the astronaut, by placing a dark sheet of paper over the surface to reduce the reflection. There is nothing wrong with the photo, its just showing it how it is, the astronaut being lit by surface reflection, which is a lot brighter than the surface of the Earth. It is not because they used too many spotlights in a film set.

If two spotlights were used this would create two shadows from each object so illuminated. None of the lunar photos shows more than one shadow. Think about it.

Case closed.

One final point regarding photographs. It has been argued that as all the photographs are so good, they must be fake! Just bear in mind that with thousands taken, NASA was able to select from the very best of them for public release. With that many to select from you don't really think NASA are going to include the ones that didn't come out too well. "And here's one that Buz Aldrin took of Neil Armstrong, its a bit out of focus and unfortunately cuts his head off". Also bear in mind that the dark room is where a lot of improving can be carried out if necessary simply by rotating and cropping.


So there you have it, the most commonly believed hoaxes shown not to be.

Personally I find the most surprising thing about the whole business is that hoax believers think that NASA, armed with a budget of billions of dollars and the best experts in the world, could make so many incredibly stupid errors that even the most novice, untrained, inexperienced amateur can spot them easily.

I think that basically, this is what this is all about. Hoax believers consider themselves to be very smart and all the experts at NASA incredibly stupid. This is the same hoax believers that didn't even think to try to photograph the stars themselves, because they just know its a hoax, no need to test it, they saw it on the internet. Oh yes, very smart.


3) Conditions on the Moon are different to the Earth.

All the other 'fake' photographs are explained just as easily with a little knowledge, and an understanding of how conditions on the Moon are very different to those here. With no atmosphere to scatter the light, things look a little odd on the Moon, we have a very black sky and a very bright surface. We see strong shadows everywhere, and our sense of distance is also fooled because there is no atmosphere to produce the familiar atmospheric haze that creates a distance perspective on Earth. Furthermore, with the gravity being only a sixth of Earth's gravity, things move and behave differently as well. It's hard to make straight comparisons, because we cannot, the Moon is just not like the Earth. We have to think differently when interpreting the images from the Moon, and that's what causes the problems, people are not allowing for those differences when looking at the lunar photographs. They are looking at them as if they were taken under normal Earth conditions, and concluding wrongly that there must be something wrong with the photographs. There isn't!


Scientific Errors

It isn't just the photographs that have misled the hoax believers either, it's also a lack of scientific knowledge. It's difficult to select a favourite hoax that makes the most ridiculous claim, because there are so many to choose from, but personally I think this has to be number one, its a beaut! I just love it to pieces.

4) The Moon rocks are just Earth rocks.

Here's the explanation of why they can't be Earth rocks. Extract taken from The Great Moon Hoax

"Moon rocks are absolutely unique," says Dr. David McKay, Chief Scientist for Planetary Science and Exploration at NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC). McKay is a member of the group that oversees the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility at JSC where most of the Moon rocks are stored. "They differ from Earth rocks in many respects," he added. Just as meteoroids constantly bombard the Moon so do cosmic rays, and they leave their fingerprints on Moon rocks, too. "There are isotopes in Moon rocks, isotopes we don't normally find on Earth, that were created by nuclear reactions with the highest-energy cosmic rays," says McKay. Earth is spared from such radiation by our protective atmosphere and magnetosphere.

Even if scientists wanted to make something like a Moon rock by, say, bombarding an Earth rock with high energy atomic nuclei, they couldn't. Earth's most powerful particle accelerators can't energize particles to match the most potent cosmic rays, which are themselves accelerated in supernova blastwaves and in the violent cores of galaxies. Indeed, says McKay, faking a Moon rock well enough to hoodwink an international army of scientists might be more difficult than the Manhattan Project. "It would be easier to just go to the Moon and get one."

"I have here in my office a 10-foot high stack of scientific books full of papers about the Apollo Moon rocks," added McKay. "Researchers in thousands of labs have examined Apollo Moon samples -- not a single paper challenges their origin! And these aren't all NASA employees, either. We've loaned samples to scientists in dozens of countries [who have no reason to cooperate in any hoax]."

For further evidence that the Moon rocks are indeed rocks from the Moon, visit this site Moon Rocks through the Microscope


Another popular hoax theory, this time sounding more plausible than usual because it is difficult to verify without a very good understanding of the nature of particles and their effect on the human body.

5) Astronauts couldn't survive passage through the Van Allen radiation belt.

As this is a very complex subject I have wisely decided against attempting to summarise it here. You can either take my word for it that all the astronauts travelled through it with no apparent ill effects, or go to this site and study the full technical and scientific explanation yourself. The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon It explains in great detail why the hoax believers have got it all wrong (as usual) and shows scientifically calculated radiation dosage levels that the crews would have been exposed to. If you happen to be smart enough you can check the figures yourself. The Moon hoax believers however, believe that in order to survive, the astronauts would have required lead shielding ranging from 4 to 6 feet thick depending on which hoax site you happen to prefer. If that were the case, then the Russians would have discovered this and used it as an excuse for discontinuing manned exploration of space, but they didn't, and have never claimed it to be danger. Actual measurements taken from the Apollo missions show the radiation dosage for the astronauts to be between 1-2 rem, the equivalent of a couple of chest x-rays. See my page Van Allen belts


6) The spacesuits cannot operate their air-conditioning in a vacuum.

This one comes up on a fairly regular basis so I decided to include it. It seems to be a popular misconception that heat cannot be removed from an object in a vacuum. A little thought on the subject easily dispels this myth, for if that were the case how could we receive heat from the Sun? Radiation travels though a vacuum, this is an obvious fact. The system used by the spacesuits to shed surplus heat generated by the exertions of the astronauts is fairly simple in operation. The astronauts wear a garment that has water filled tubes running through it that is circulated around their body. The cool water absorbs the heat from the astronauts and is cooled down by the cooling unit. The cooling is achieved by spraying a fine jet of water over the cooling tubes which are located outside the space suit in the cooling unit and exposed to the vacuum of space. In a vacuum the water spray naturally rapidly expands, and in expanding is naturally rapidly cooled, and turns to ice on the tubes. The water passing through is cooled by the cold tubes and the heat given up by the water melts the ice and is lost into space as it evaporates. Simple. The astronauts are able to adjust the temperature control of their spacesuits according to their exertions.

The amount of water used is minute compared to the volume of drinking water taken on board to supply a crew of three for periods of a week and over. For more information on how spacesuits work visit the following site: www.howstuffworks


7) Why doesn't the Hubble Space Telescope provide proof?

This argument runs along the lines that as the HST can provide images of galaxies millions of light years away, why can't it provide images of a lander on the Moon, which is on our door step?

Bit of a funny question really, anyone with normal eyesight can see the Andromeda Spiral Galaxy easily with the naked eye, and that's over 2 million light years away, yet cannot see a lander on the Moon! As an amateur astronomer of some 40 years standing I have always understood why the HST could not provide images of the lunar landers on the surface of the Moon, but to get the correct figures I checked out the HST site at Hubble Space Telescope Its all down to the size of Hubble's main mirror, which is 2.4 metres. One of the factors of the worth of a telescope is its resolution, the smallest amount of detail it can see, and this depends on the size and quality of the mirror. Hubble's resolution is an amazing 0.048 arc seconds. This is how I calculate the minimum size object that HST can image on the Moon, in as simple a way as I could devise.

HST resolution = 0.048 arc seconds (formula for this is 116 divided by aperture in mm. = 116 divided by 2400)

Visual maximum diameter of full Moon = 31'40" = 1900 arc seconds (a fraction over 1/2 a degree)

Therefore HST can resolve an object on the Moon of (1900 divided by 0.048 ) = 1/39,583 of the Moon's diameter

Actual diameter of Moon = 3476 km

Therefore resolvable object size = 3476 km divided by 39,583 = 87 metres

As the landers are only around 9 metres across it is not possible for the HST to resolve them, they just wouldn't show up on any image of the area under examination. I emailed the HST site to make sure I had got my sums right, explaining why I needed it for this site, and their reply was as follows:

"You are correct. Hubble's resolution is good and can resolve objects and areas as small as 280 feet, (86 metres) which rules out the Apollo debris on the moon. Hope this helps!"

Yes it does! Thanks to the HST Office of Public Outreach.

PS. The current largest ground based telescope is the 10 metre Keck, far bigger than the HST and therefore has a far better resolution of 0.012. But this is a theoretical limit that cannot be achieved through an atmosphere, so the HST, being in the vacuum of space, is still number one.

HST maximum detail image of the 58 mile wide crater Copernicus. Imagine trying to see a lander!

Anyway, what would be the point even if the HST were able to image the landers? The good old Moon hoax believers would only claim the images were faked.


Enough of scientific errors, I cannot answer them all here, it would take a book, but a little research will always reveal that the hoaxers have got it wrong every time.

If you wish to check out further sites that debunk the Moon hoax theory, this one is very good on facts, with clear easy to follow explanations, with a host of photographs, and offers a good choice of further sites.The Moon landings were not faked


8) Why haven't we been back?

This one comes up on a fairly regular basis and is used by hoax believers to support their argument that we never went in the first place, because if we had then surely we would have gone back. There are a number of reasons why this has not happened, and it is necessary to know the reason for going in the first place, and the history behind it, to understand why.

On the 25th May 1961 President John F Kennedy told Congress: "I believe that this nation should commit itself, before this decade is out, to the goal of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth."

The only reason for making this declaration was in response to the USSR for having put the first man in orbit, Yuri Gagarin, because at the time of Kennedy's speech, the USA had only managed one small sub-orbital manned flight. The Moon landing project was not a scientific endeavour, it was a political decision to win the 'Space Race', as it was believed that whoever controlled space would gain an enormous military advantage. It also had very important propaganda value regarding Communism v Capitalism. The USA felt that it was extremely important that they overtake the Russians in the 'Space Race' and be the first to land a man on the Moon. This was a propaganda war at the height of the cold war. Nothing to do with science. See The journey to the Moon

Having achieved the goal of landing a man on the Moon in 1969, that was it, mission accomplished. The Russians had given up trying and now pretended that they never intended to send men anyway, only probes. President Nixon cancelled the Apollo project, and the last to go was Apollo 17. It had been planned to send Apollo's 18, 19 & 20, but the USA had other far more pressing issues, such as the Vietnam war for example. The American public had become bored with the Moon landings anyway and felt it was becoming a huge waste of money, and in response to the general apathy many TV channels did not even bother to give the Moon flights air time. (Remember the film 'Apollo 13'). Furthermore, photographs of American soldiers ducking bullets in a muddy trench in Vietnam while listening to the Apollo 11 astronauts walk on the Moon, was, to say the least, incongruous.

Although much of scientific value was learned about the Moon by going there, there is really not much point in going back, unmanned probes can do the job a lot better, faster, safer and cheaper. Why risk lives? NASA's budget today is invested in numerous projects, such as the Hubble Space Telescope and Shuttle flights to service it. The International Space Station, again serviced by the Shuttle, various probes to study the Sun, Mars, Saturn and other planets, comets and asteroids, and so on.

Going back to the Moon would be unbelievably expensive, and very little would be gained by it. Would the American public readily part with their tax dollars for such a pointless venture when they have other issues, such as health and welfare, unemployment, areas of poverty, a stock market collapse, an energy problem, pollution, crime, etc. (as do most countries I would add) not to mention a very costly war against the 'axis of terrorism'? What President is going to propose a massive investment in returning to the Moon, for no real reason, when there are so many more important issues that need addressing? It would be madness.

That's why we have not gone back. Its not because we have not been there, but because we have.


9) Why was manned space flight safer back then?

This question comes up every now and again, so I decided it was easier just to include it on the main page, even though it is pure nonsense.

It was never a 'safe' journey to reach the Moon, far from it. The Apollo 1 crew were all burned to death on the launch pad while only rehearsing a lift off, and the Apollo 13 crew were very lucky to make it back alive after being forced to cancel their Moon landing following a near fatal onboard explosion. This from a total of only 11 manned Apollo flights. You call that 'safe'? The Space Shuttle has suffered two major disasters in 113 flights, not a great record, but far better that the Apollo missions, even though the shuttle is forced to use a far more dangerous system of lift-off and re-entry. The truth is NASA were glad the moon missions were cancelled because they knew it was only a matter of time before they lost a crew. Better to stop while ahead.

The system of getting to the Moon was to use a huge Saturn V booster costing $185,000,000 that was used once only - simply to get the Apollo Command and Service Module into low Earth orbit and then boost it on its way to the moon- then it was thrown away! The Saturn V booster, complete with the tiny Apollo Module on top, stood 363 feet high and weighed 2,888 tons. The only part of this huge monster to return the crew to Earth was the tiny Command Module fitted with a heat shield. See The journey to the Moon This system IS a lot safer then using a re-usable Space Shuttle, but is impossibly expensive to use on a regular basis as the shuttle is today. The ONLY reason such a ridiculously expensive system was ever used in the first place was because it provided the USA with the quickest way to achieve a Moon landing before the Russians got there first.

The Space Shuttle is a marvel of engineering but does have to face problems the Moon landings didn't. The main problem is re-entry. It is not just a tiny capsule that is returning, as in the Apollo programme, but the entire Space Shuttle, and it not just the once, it has to do the same trip time and time again. When in orbit the Shuttle is travelling at a speed of 27,000 km/hr (app. 16,800 mph) and this speed has to be shed as it descends through the atmosphere. In the early days of space flight the Mercury capsule descended through the atmosphere much steeper than today's Shuttle, and much faster, with the result that it was much safer. This may sound odd but it's all due to the shockwave created by the space craft, and the blunter the capsule and the faster it moves, the farther away the shock wave occurs. A returning spacecraft does not get hot through friction with the atmosphere. A layer of air builds up in front of it, and between this layer and the surrounding atmosphere is the shockwave. That's where the heat is generated. Most of the heat of a Mercury (and Apollo) re-entry was swept away into the atmosphere.

Because the shuttle was required to be maneuverable during landing it had to have a delta wing which meant that the wing is much more exposed to the heat. NASA originally wanted the Shuttle to re-enter like the Mercury capsule, with its nose held high, but it's shape and size restricted it with the nose allowed no higher than 40 degrees to the horizon. As a result, the Shuttle would be subject to four times as much heat, for twice as long.

The shuttle re-entry procedure has always been dangerous, as is the lift off, strapped as it is to the External Fuel Tank and two Solid Rocket Boosters, with no means of escape for the crew in the event of an emergency.

Yes, of course the technology has improved over the last 30 years or so, but it's just not possible to compare a one-flight only Saturn V booster with a re-usable Space Shuttle. Two very different machines doing two very different jobs.

So the next time someone feels like asking "How come they did all those flawless trips to the Moon over 30 years ago but can't do anything today?" just pause for a minute and think about what you are saying. Now that WOULD make a change!

For a history of space exploration leading up to the Moon landings The journey to the Moon


10) But how can you ignore all that evidence that it was a hoax?

This is very simple to explain, there is no evidence. There are however plenty of crazy web sites claiming that it was a hoax, and some of these sites are run by people who actually make a living out of it, people such as Bill Kaysing and Bart Sibrel for instance. These people have no formal qualifications on space flight and know not much more about it than the average man in the street, perhaps even less! They are however very keen that you visit their web sites and buy their books, videos and DVD's. They are prepared to make the most stupid of claims if they think it will help boost sales. Often they will present things in such a way that they seem to make sense, but closer examination always reveals how the truth is very different.

Here is an example from Bart Sibrel's DVD and video. This one comes up fairly frequently, which is which is why I have selected it.

SIBREL: "After the Apollo 11 mission, Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin gave a press conference. When asked whether they remembered seeing any stars from the surface of the moon, Collins, who was supposedly in the command module the whole time, gave a wrong answer to a question he should not have been answering. .......I'm saying Collins blew it right then and there and I honestly cannot understand why there is even further discussion on the whole topic....."

Sounds convincing doesn't it! Truth is though this statement is so inaccurate it amounts to a lie.

Here is the relevant part of the transcript:

SIBREL: I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect? And secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?

ALDRIN: The first part of your question, the surface did vary in its thickness of penetration somewhere in flat regions. [...]

ARMSTRONG: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics [i.e., the lunar module's navigation telescope]. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

COLLINS: I don't remember seeing any.

(The First Lunar Landing As Told By The Astronauts: Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins in a Post-flight Press Conference, NASA EP-73, 1989 pt. VI)

As you can see, Sibrel DID ask about seeing stars, BUT it was 'stars in the solar corona' WHICH ONLY OCCURRED WHILE THEY WERE ON THEIR WAY TO THE MOON, NOT ON THE MOON. That is why Collins also answered the question. Solar corona photography had been taken from the command module during the translunar coast, in which all three astronauts participated. (Apollo 11 Preliminary Science Report NASA SP-214, 1969, p. 39).

It's by using editing tricks like this that Sibrel, and others, try to support their ridiculous claim for a hoax and thereby hope to sell a few more of their daft books, videos and DVD's.


What do I think?

The Apollo missions landed 12 men on the Moon, no doubt about it. The landings are matter of historical factual record and no amount of silly arguments can alter that. You may as well try to argue that World War II never happened. The so called 'fake' photographs are not fakes, it's just some people's mistaken interpretation of them that is the problem, the photographs themselves contain no problems. The Apollo crews did leave Earth orbit and did survive the Van Allen radiation belt. If you think you still have any problems remaining, then a visit to the sites I have put in links to should dispel them.

As a matter of interest, if you believe otherwise, how do you explain the Moon rock samples held in laboratories throughout the world? As explained above, they REALLY ARE Moon rocks, and cannot possibly be Earth rocks that have been faked. You could, I suppose, argue that every laboratory, university, research centre, geological institution, professional scientist, etc, throughout the world that has examined the Moon rocks, are so incredibly stupid that they have failed to spot that they are really only faked up Earth rocks? (This is ignoring the fact that they cannot be faked anyway). Or perhaps you prefer the good old standby that it is all part of a world wide conspiracy. (No, you're not paranoid, they really are all conspiring against you).

Or perhaps instead you think that a probe was sent to the Moon to bring back the Moon rocks? Well yes, that is possible, sort of, but not on this scale. Three robotic Soviet Lunar probes returned a total of about 3/4 lb. (301 grams) from three lunar sites in the 1970's. However, the Apollo crews from 1969 to 1972 collected a total 840 lbs, (382 kgs.) of rock and other surface material. One rock alone weighed 25 lbs. (11.7 kgs.) In comparison to the Apollo total of 840 lbs. the Soviet total of 3/4 lbs. is miniscule. Probes simply could not have returned that much material, (especially a single rock weighing 25 lbs.) and if they could have, it would have been the Soviets that achieved it as they were always way ahead in the field of robotic probes.

Below: (Left) Nick-named "Big Muley," this 11.7 kg (over 25 lbs.) Moon rock was the largest returned to Earth by Apollo astronauts. One side of Big Muley was peppered with meteoroid "zap pits."

Below: (Right) A close-up view of 1 mm diameter zap pits shows tiny craters lined with black glass surrounded by a white halo of shocked rock. (Remember, this cannot be faked!)


"Big Muley"


Do you really think that all those people spread across the globe and tuning into the broadcasts from the Moon, both professional and amateur alike, were unable to tell the difference in the signal from one based in Earth orbit to one 245,000 miles away? The transmissions could not be 'altered' to give that effect. I have received emails suggesting that this was if fact what happened, that the signals were 'faked' to make it appear that they came from the Moon. However, this could not be accomplished even today, let alone back in 1969.

Do you think Apollo 13 was just for fun, why fake that? Do you think all the thousands of photographs was faked? All the video was faked? Think just how many people would have to be involved in the cover-up, and they all kept quiet? Really!

Whatever arguments are presented claiming the Moon landings never happened, the fact is they did.

I have even been emailed to have it pointed out to me that as the 'Apollo 13' film was made in Hollywood, so could the Moon landings have been made in the Nevada Desert. This theory also clearly demonstrates that the 'Titanic' may not really have sunk either! Just how bad can some people's reasoning get? How on Earth do you begin to reply to this type of nonsense? I sometimes just despair at some people's mentality.

However, in reply to the person who emailed me to ask why I am so sure that the Earth is not flat, the answer is very simple. If it were flat then I'm sure that you would have been the first to fall off.

If anyone still believes it was a hoax after visiting the above web sites, please email me with your reasons why. If it makes sense I will not only publish it, I will publish a full retraction and admit to being not only wrong, but also stupid. I do NOT expect this to happen, but please feel free to try. Dated 27th December 2001.


Apollo 15 Landing Site Spotted in Images

Article taken from Space.com

WASHINGTON ­ Put aside those absurd claims the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax. Two scientists pouring over photos taken by a lunar orbiting spacecraft have eyed evidence of a touchdown. New research led by Misha Kreslavsky, a space scientist in the department of geological sciences at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, has found anomalies in the Moon's surface in the vicinity of the Apollo 15 landing site.

Arrows B & C show recent impact sites. Arrow A shows a dark patch at the exact point

Apollo 15 landed

Apollo 15's lunar module, the Falcon, touched down at the Hadley-Apennine region near the Apennine Mountains on July 30, 1971. Falcon was the first of the piloted landers to carry enlarged fuel tanks, as well as tote along a Moon rover. Moonwalkers David Scott and James Irwin scuffed up the lunar surface during their over three-day stay. Using an electric-powered car, the twosome wheeled their way back and forth over the crater-dotted terrain for a total of 17 miles (27.4 kilometers).

Kreslavsky, along with research colleague Yuri Shkuratov of the Kharkov Astronomical Observatory in Ukraine, made use of images taken by the U.S. Defense Department's high-tech Clementine lunar orbiter. The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization's faster, better, cheaper Clementine probe circled the Moon in 1994, making use of a camera that snapped well over a million images in the ultraviolet to visible range. A set of Clementine images in the vicinity of the Apollo 15 landing site were intensively studied by Kreslavsky and Shkuratov. Their work was dedicated to help discern fresh impacts on the Moon, or to search for sites of recent seismic activity in the lunar crust.

The work and the techniques utilized not only proved useful in studying the lunar surface, but also yielded a bonus find. A small dark spot found in the Clementine images is not associated with any fresh crater, but exactly coincides with the Apollo 15 landing site, Kreslavsky told SPACE.com.

"This is a result of my processing 52 images taken by the Clementine spacecraft through a red filter, while the spacecraft went over the scene from the southern horizon through zenith to the northern horizon," Kreslavsky said. A diffuse dark spot can be seen exactly at the landing site, he said.

Using Clementine photos taken of the Apollo 15 touchdown zone, several anomalies can be seen. "All of them but one are related to small, fresh impact craters. The only one not related to any crater, exactly coincides with the landing site," Kreslavsky said.

The disruption in the structure of the lunar regolith is caused by the landing, Kreslavsky said. He contends that the alteration has been created by the lunar module's engine during touchdown.


It is not possible to convince hoax believers!

I do not think for one minute that the above picture of the landing site of Apollo 15 will go one jot towards convincing hoax believers, they will claim the picture is a fake (which it isn't) and that it does not reveal enough detail to be convincing (which is true). But what WOULD it take to convince them? Photo, TV and video evidence no, Moon rocks no, testimony from the Moon walkers themselves, no, reams of documented papers no, scientists from around the world no. etc. etc. What would?

Suppose that a prominent hoax believer was taken, at enormous costs to NASA, to the Moon and showed the old landers, would that do it? No, of course not, all the others would claim that he or she was bought off by NASA or was even working for them all along!

There is no way possible to convince these people, it just can't be done. Ask them what they would accept as evidence, and the answer, short of going to the Moon themselves, which as I have explained would be pointless as far as the rest of them are concerned, is nothing! If the Japanese go to the Moon and show images of the Apollo landers would that do it? No, they would claim the images are fake.

I can't help but wonder how these people manage to be so selective in choosing what they are prepared to accept when confronted with such a mass of evidence. How on Earth do they manage to accept other events that they have not personally witnessed?

Do they accept that JFK was shot dead? Why? Were they there at the time?

Do they accept that the Titanic sank? Why? Were they there at the time?

Do they accept that Hiroshima was destroyed by an atomic bomb? Why? Were they there at the time?

Hiroshima after the atomic bomb.

Do they accept that men walked on the Moon? No. Why not? Every argument they have put forward for not believing has been proven wrong.

If they can accept that Hiroshima was destroyed by an atomic bomb, and accept countless other historical events, based on eye witness accounts, photographs and documents, why not accept that men walked on the Moon? The sources of evidence are the same!


You'll find out in 2003!

September 8th 2002

Will this help? I doubt it somehow. Knowing how hoax believers think I am sure they will claim that any new images showing proof of the landings are fake!

Article extract taken from The Sunday Herald. (UK) 8th September 2002.

"Was it one giant leap for mankind, or was it all a big fake by Nasa? The world will soon find out - when the first commercial flight to the moon blasts off in an attempt to refute claims that the 1969 moon landing was a hoax.

Nasa has been plagued for 33 years by conspiracy theorists, crackpots and even respected scientists and writers who insist that Neil Armstrong never set foot on the moon and the whole Apollo mission was a stunt.

Now, however, the US State Department and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have given a California company, Trans-Orbital Inc. permission to send a probe to the moon. The launch is scheduled for June 2003, from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.

The TrailBlazer probe will map the surface and photograph the earth in the hope of marketing the images - and it will photograph the lunar landing site at the Sea of Tranquillity to see if the Eagle really did land.

Photographs should (unless a global conspiracy truly has been pulled) show debris from the landing, and lay rest the claims that the moon landing was filmed on a back lot in Nevada.

TrailBlazer will orbit the moon for 90 days, mapping the moonscape in unprecedented detail to a resolution as small as one metre. It will film the Earth as it rises over the lunar horizon. After its mission, TrailBlazer will crash-land on the moon, taking "barnstorming" videos all the way down."

by Neil Mackay



Trailblazer has been subject to a number of delays, as often happens with launches. The launch is now slated for this month, December 2004. For further information and updates visit the TrailBlazer web site at transorbital.net


What are your thoughts on the moon landings? leave your comment on the message board.

Moon landings

Did we land on the Moon?

Current Results


Don't know where Tranquillity Base is?

This image, even though only 72 dpi, can be downloaded and greatly enlarged. For more of my astronomical photographs see My astronomical photographs

Tranquillity Base

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