On July 20/21, 1969, two men — Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin — made history by becoming the first two humans to set foot on the Moon. Regardless of the excitement and fervor that accomplishment caused at the time, in the years since there have been plenty of people who have tried to cast doubt over the achievement and they’ve used various arguments to support their claim that it was all a hoax.

I have never found any of these arguments convincing, however some of my friends do, and Mr Adam Ruff, one of those friends wants to make his case that the moon landings were an elaborate hoax. So I dedicate this thread to his efforts.

. . . . .

One of the core issues to be faced here is one of consensus, and if you are a “politically correct Truther’, meaning do you or do you not go along with all of the standard conspiracy theories. The Moon Landing Hoax has become one of these popular theories. Yes I have been chastised for using the term ‘conspiracy theorists’ myself, even though I readily admit that I agree with many conspiracy theories. But I use the term “theory” in its proper scientific sense. Should we fear being labeled ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ just because the mainstream has degraded the term? Not in my view. And it is also my view that not all conspiracy theories are equal. Some make sense and can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. While others are truly absolutely bat shit crazy; Judy Woowoo’s Dew, Nukes at WTC, No Planes, Video Fakery, Hologram Planes, Zapruder Film is Fake… and yes, very likely, the Moon Landing Hoax.

~Willy Whitten – 5/20/2015 – \\][//


165 thoughts on “MOON LANDING HOAX?

    • This doesn’t really address the light anomalies except perhaps the photos taken on the dark side of the LEM. I say perhaps because I am quite credulous about Armstrong himself being the second light source which is the explanation offered by these guys in the “SIMULATED” experiment. Other issues with the photos they didn’t touch such as the shadows falling in different directions. This video gives a run down on a few of those issues.

      Also getting back to the dark side photos of the LEM I do not believe even with really top of the line cameras today we would be able to see anything on the dark side because it would have been back lit about as badly as any scene could possibly be. Back lite washes out the darker areas in the frame like this demo photo of back lite problems.

      Now in this photo you would have had a similar situation where the camera man was in a position to reflect sunlight back onto the subject yet you can’t see any such thing because the back lit Sun is simply too strong. This camera is much more advanced than the one they supposedly had on the moon so frankly as a videographer and photographer myself I do not buy the explanation offered by the guys in your video above. The reflection off the astronaut would have been extremely weak compared to the light from the Sun which would have been overpowering to the camera sensor.

      • “Now in this photo you would have had a similar situation where the camera man was in a position to reflect sunlight back onto the subject yet you can’t see any such thing because the back lit Sun is simply too strong.”~Adam

        You have the sun directly behind your subject. The scene analyzed in the first video puts the sun to the left side of the angle of the subject (lander) – the shadows are falling to the right not towards the POV, like the golfer shot.

      • Watch your video again and you will see that Armstrong was in a similar position in relation to the subject as this cameraman is in relation to the golfer. The Sun would also have to be in a similar position for the claim in your video to be true because the claim is that Armstrong himself was the reflector that lit the subject. You can’t have it both ways. In other words if the sun was to the side then it would have reflected off the side of Armstrong and the light from that reflection would go back to the side and not onto the subject. So for Armstrong to have been the reflected “second light source” that accounted for why we can see the areas that should be black the sun would have to be directly behind the subject so that Armstrong could reflect it back onto him. Do you follow that admittedly difficult to visualize point?

      • “Armstrong was in a similar position in relation to the subject as this cameraman is in relation to the golfer.”

        Yes somewhat, but that isn’t the point I made.
        The position of the sun is the point I made. It is to Armstrong’s right, not directly in front of him. I disagree about the ‘bounce light’ acting like a beam, if Armstrong’s suit is glowing, being as reflective as we know it was (and the albedo calculations are explained clearly in the video); the light bounce would not be coherent, it would be radiant. That is the nature of light.

      • As per the video: Moon Landing Hoax Evidence #7 Multiple Light Sources:

        The photos in the videos are cropped and do not reveal that the shadows ‘appearing to’ run at differing angles are due to the shadows falling on dipping ground that is they are following the angle of a slope to the right of the astronaut, whereas the shadow of the astronaut is falling on more level ground just in front of him. It must be kept in mind that the surface of the moon is not a graded plane like a parking lot, it has many dips and shallows and rises.
        The issue of reflected light in the shadow side of the module is explained in detail in the video on the Maxwell program.

        If one studies the entirety of the photos from the moon, it will be noted that only a select few have been chosen to show “odd shadow angle anomalies” and the majority of the photos show clearly a single light source. This is evidence of cherry picking SEEMING anomalous photos from a choice of hundreds of others.

        Further, Multiple Light Sources Cause Multiple Shadows
        A shadow is a region where light from a light source is obstructed by an opaque object. It occupies all of the three-dimensional volume behind an object with light in front of it. The cross section of a shadow is a two-dimensional silhouette, or reverse projection of the object blocking the light.
        A point source of light casts only a simple shadow, called an “umbra”. For a non-point or “extended” source of light, the shadow is divided into the umbra, penumbra and antumbra. The wider the light source, the more blurred the shadow becomes. If two penumbras overlap, the shadows appear to attract and merge. This is known as the Shadow Blister Effect.
        If there are multiple light sources, there will be multiple shadows, with overlapping … light emitted or reflected from multiple source:

        But we do not see multiple shadows in the moon walk pictures, we see single angular discrepancies, which are explained by the contour of the landscape – not multiple light sources.
        The contour of the ground will change the angles of shadows drastically:


      • So let’s take a close look at another shot from the Apollo moon walks that is presented as proof of faking the shot on a sound stage with “multiple light sources”:

        Here we see what is apparently an obvious anomaly in the angle of the shadows in the foreground, and the angle of the shadow of the Lunar Module in the middle distance. Everything in this shot SEEMS to be correct but for the Module shadow, which appears to by falling directly to the right in this photograph.

        But the simple explanation is that the shadow of the Module is cut off by a rise in the landscape just forward of where it is standing. The way to tell this for sure is to look closely at the bright side of the Module, noting that it is lit at the same angle as the rocks in the foreground, and the hills in the background.
        There is simply no discrepancy in this photograph as to a single source of light.

    • If there is anyone who wishes to critique the video presentation on the Maxwell software, be my guest.

      However simply brushing it off as “just a computer simulation” is not sufficient. Make your critique specific, point by point, and explain where the error is in the calculations to develop the settings, or the context in which they were applied.

    • Albedo
      Albedo is the fraction of Sun’s radiation reflected from a surface. The term has its origins from the Latin word albus, meaning “white”. It is quantified as the proportion, or percentage of solar radiation of all wavelengths reflected by a body or surface to the amount incident upon it. An ideal white body has an albedo of 100% and an ideal black body, 0%. Visually we can estimate the albedo of an object’s surface from its tone or color. This method suggests that albedo becomes higher as an object gets lighter in shade. The data in Table 1 verifies this fact. Light toned surfaces like snow do have high albedos. Low albedos are associated with surfaces that appear dark colored to our eyes

    • “The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense.” — Dr. James Van Allen
      If you have not yet read the radiation primer, you are invited to do so.

      There is too much radiation in outer space for manned space travel.

      This general charge is usually made by people who don’t understand very much at all about radiation. After witnessing the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the tragedy of Chernobyl it is not surprising that the idea of radiation should elicit an intuitively fearful reaction. But when you understand the different types of radiation and what can be done about them, it becomes a manageable problem to avoid radiation exposure.

      It doesn’t matter how difficult or expensive it might have been to falsify the lunar landings. Since it was absolutely impossible to solve the radiation problem, the landings had to have been faked.

      This is a common method of argument that attempts to prove something that can’t be proven, by disproving something else. In this case the reader is compelled to accept the conspiracy theory and all its attendant problems and improbabilities, simply on the basis that no matter how difficult, absurd, or far-fetched a particular proposition may be, if it’s the only alternative to something clearly impossible then it must — somehow — have come to pass. This false dilemma is aimed at pushing the reader past healthy skepticism and into a frame of mind where the absurd seems plausible.

      The false dilemma is only convincing if the supposedly impossible alternative is made to seem truly impossible. And so conspiracists argue very strenuously that the radiation from various sources spelled absolute doom for the Apollo missions. They quote frightening statistics and cite various highly technical sources to try to establish to the reader that the radiation poses a deadly threat.

      But in fact most conspiracists know only slightly more about radiation than the average reader. This means only a very few people in the world can dispute their allegations, and the conspiracists can simply dismiss them as part of the conspiracy.

      The Van Allen belts are full of deadly radiation, and anyone passing through them would be fried.

      Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.

    • Reentry
      During the final phases of descent, some spacecraft—especially capsule-type manned craft—deploy parachutes, which lower the vehicle to a soft landing. The Apollo Command Modules employed this technique to make ocean splashdowns.


    • The Moon
      The Moon (in Greek: σελήνη Selene, in Latin: Luna) is Earth’s only natural satellite. It is one of the largest natural satellites in the Solar System, and, among planetary satellites, the largest relative to the size of the planet it orbits (its primary). It is the second-densest satellite among those whose densities are known (after Jupiter’s satellite Io).

      The Moon is thought to have formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago, not long after Earth. There are several hypotheses for its origin; the most widely accepted explanation is that the Moon formed from the debris left over after a giant impact between Earth and a Mars-sized body called Theia.

      The Moon is in synchronous rotation with Earth, always showing the same face with its near side marked by dark volcanic maria that fill between the bright ancient crustal highlands and the prominent impact craters. It is the second-brightest regularly visible celestial object in Earth’s sky after the Sun, as measured by illuminance on Earth’s surface. Although it can appear a very bright white, its surface is actually dark, with a reflectance just slightly higher than that of worn asphalt. Its prominence in the sky and its regular cycle of phases have, since ancient times, made the Moon an important cultural influence on language, calendars, art, and mythology.

      The Moon’s gravitational influence produces the ocean tides, body tides, and the slight lengthening of the day. The Moon’s current orbital distance is about thirty times the diameter of Earth, causing it to have an apparent size in the sky almost the same as that of the Sun, with the result that the Moon covers the Sun nearly precisely in total solar eclipse. This matching of apparent visual size is a coincidence. The Moon’s linear distance from Earth is currently increasing at a rate of 3.82 ± 0.07 centimetres (1.504 ± 0.028 in) per year, but this rate is not constant.

      The Soviet Union’s Luna programme was the first to reach the Moon with unmanned spacecraft in 1959; the United States’ NASA Apollo program achieved the only manned missions to date, beginning with the first manned lunar orbiting mission by Apollo 8 in 1968, and six manned lunar landings between 1969 and 1972, with the first being Apollo 11. These missions returned over 380 kg of lunar rocks, which have been used to develop a geological understanding of the Moon’s origin, the formation of its internal structure, and its subsequent history. After the Apollo 17 mission in 1972, the Moon has been visited only by unmanned spacecraft.

      Chemical composition of the lunar surface regolith (derived from crustal rocks)[40]
      Compound Formula Composition (wt %)
      Maria Highlands
      silica SiO2 45.4% 45.5%
      alumina Al2O3 14.9% 24.0%
      lime CaO 11.8% 15.9%
      iron(II) oxide FeO 14.1% 5.9%
      magnesia MgO 9.2% 7.5%
      titanium dioxide TiO2 3.9% 0.6%
      sodium oxide Na2O 0.6% 0.6%
      Total 99.9% 100.0%

    • Spaceflight
      Spaceflight, flight beyond Earth’s atmosphere. This article deals with the basic concepts associated with the launch and return of unmanned and manned spacecraft and their travel, navigation, and rendezvous and docking in space. For the development of space travel and discussions ofspacecraft and space programs and their contributions to scientific knowledge and human welfare, see space exploration. For the development and technology of rocket propulsion, see rocket. For details on rocket systems used to propel spacecraft beyond Earth’s atmosphere, see launch vehicle.

    • The following reasons have all been offered as proof that the Moon landings which began with Apollo 11’s touchdown on July 20 1969 were faked.

      1) When the astronauts are putting up the American flag it waves. There is no wind on the Moon.
      The flag is held up by a horizontal bar and simply moves when it is unfurled and as the pole is being fixed into position by the astronauts. The flagpole is light, flexible aluminium and continues to vibrate after the astronauts let go, giving the impression of blowing in the wind.
      2) No stars are visible in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon.
      The Apollo landing takes place during lunar mornings, with the Sun shining brightly. The stars are not bright enough in this light to be captured in the photographs.
      3) No blast crater is visible in the pictures taken of the lunar landing module.
      The landing module touches down on solid rock, covered in a layer of fine lunar dust, so there is no reason why it would create a blast crater. Even if the ground were less solid, the amount of thrust being produced by the engines at the point of landing and take off is very low in comparison to a landing on Earth because of the relative lack of gravitational pull.
      4) The landing module weighs 17 tons and yet sits on top of the sand making no impression. Next to it astronauts’ footprints can be seen in the sand.
      The layer of lunar dust is fairly thin, so the landing module sits on the solid rock. The dust, whilst blown away by the blast from the descent engines, quickly settles back on the ground and is under the astronauts when they begin their moonwalk.
      5) The footprints in the fine lunar dust, with no moisture or atmosphere or strong gravity, are unexpectedly well preserved, as if made in wet sand.
      The lack of wind on the moon means the footprints in fine, dry lunar dust aren’t blown away in the way they would be if made in a similar substance on Earth.
      6) When the landing module takes off from the Moon’s surface there is no visible flame from the rocket.
      The rockets in the landing module are powered by fuel containing a combination of hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide, which burn with no visible flame.
      7) If you speed up the film of the astronauts walking on the Moon’s surface they look like they were filmed on Earth and slowed down.
      The best you can say is: yes, a bit, but not really.
      8) The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt.
      This claim is largely based on a claim from a Russian cosmonaut. The short time it takes to pass through the belt, combined with the protection from the spacecraft, means any exposure to radiation would be very low.
      9) The rocks brought back from the Moon are identical to rocks collected by scientific expeditions to Antarctica.
      Some Moon rocks have been found on Earth, but they are all scorched and oxidised from their entry into the Earth’s atmosphere as asteroids. Geologists have confirmed with complete certainty that the Apollo rocks must have been brought from the Moon by man.

    • Hi there Dalia! Long time no see kimo sabe…
      moon rocket
      You are more than welcome to give your views here!

      Mr Ruff seems to be off to a slow start! Maybe you can give his side a boost!

  1. ‘Moon Hoax’ argument #1: The astronauts would have died from radiation exposure
    This is probably the most common ‘Moon hoax’ claim that I’ve seen: The astronauts would not have been able to survive the trip because they would receive a lethal dose of radiation, both from passing through the Van Allen radiation belts and from being beyond Earth’s magnetic field and on the Moon’s surface.
    . . . . . .
    “A simulation of the Van Allen radiation belts
    The truth is, for their entire trip to the Moon and back, the astronauts only received a dose equal to around one-tenth of one per cent of the radiation needed for a lethal dose (their total exposure was roughly 11 millisieverts and a lethal dose is at 8,000 millisieverts).

    The reason for this is that the harmful effects from radiation are based on strength of the radiation and the time of exposure. You’d need to spend nearly four months inside the Van Allen belts to accumulate a lethal dose. The astronauts passed through them in roughly one hour. As for their time spent beyond Earth’s magnetic field, where they were exposed to cosmic radiation, as I discussed back at the end of May, an astronaut could make a one-way trip to Mars and not receive a dose that exceeds NASA’s lifetime limits (and those don’t even come close to lethal levels).”~ Scott Sutherland

    • I would like to know where these calculations come from regarding the millisieverts they would have received? I would also like to know upon what measurements they based their claims of how strong the radiation actually is in the Van Allen belt and how wide the belt is? My understanding is that it varies in width and intensity but I may be wrong.

      • These calculations come Van Allen himself.

        “The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense.” — Dr. James Van Allen

        “Each astronaut wore a personal dosimeter. The accumulated dose for each astronaut was regularly reported to Mission Control over the radio.”

  2. I know there are some people who are going to insist the moon landings were a hoax unless they can fly up there and look at the landing sites themselves.

    I would just like to see a persuasive argument in favor of the hoax position. I have read all the rhetorical nonsense about Kubrick shooting the moonwalk on a sound stage. That argument reminds me of the bullshit from Simon Shack about ‘Video Fakery’ of 9/11. Some joker playing with the contrast in Photoshop, claiming you can see the “stitches in the front projection screen” from “Space Odyssey”. You can pop the contrast on any real shot of the sky and get the same effect from photographs you know yourself to be authentic.

    But one thing is sure, if I don’t get some persuasive feedback here pretty soon, I am going to loose interest in this trip myself.

    • Perhaps it is because I was so interested in astronomy as a youngster, and have studied it and space travel from an early age, that I have a fuller understanding of the science involved in this issue. And yes, I was very much interested in science fiction in the same era when growing up. Perhaps that is why I find it easy to distinguish between fact and fiction on these matters.

      Some may fault me for “trusting NASA” on this topic. It is not a matter of “trust” it is a matter of basic knowledge of physics, and astronomy. I think there are problems when it comes to NASA revealing what they have found in their space explorations as pertaining to ET’s. I do believe they are hiding what they have actually discovered on the Moon and Mars and perhaps elsewhere. This may be the key to why the Apollo missions were abandoned. There may have been extraterrestrial bases on the Moon, and these entities did not want human interference there.

      I think there have been findings of a past civilization on Mars as well. I think that this is a hot card politically for the governments of the world to expose. Yes I know this is speculation on my part, I will not pretend that I can prove it beyond reasonable doubt. But on the other hand I have found the arguments in favor of the hoaxed Apollo landings to be so flimsy as to be disregarded as hysterical thinking.

      • “Moon Base Clavius is an organization of amateurs and professionals devoted to the Apollo program and its manned exploration of the moon. Our special mission is to debunk the so-called conspiracy theories that state such a landing may never have occurred.”

    • KOAN
      noun, a paradoxical anecdote or riddle, used in Zen Buddhism to demonstrate the inadequacy of logical reasoning and to provoke enlightenment.

  3. OK I will make my first stab at this. One argument I have is that the lunar lander when it was coming down on the moon (allegedly) would have been firing its landing thrusters. According to the information I have the thrusters would have been putting out around 10,000 lbs of rocket engine thrust. So why is there no crater beneath the lander, why no huge dust cloud, and why is there no scorching visible on the ground where it supposedly landed?

    • Thank you Mr Ruff, we can take this concept into consideration:

      “Why is there no crater beneath the lander?”

      • Many more issues to get into as well but let’s start this off one at a time and see what happens.

    • Question: “Why is there no crater beneath the lander?”

      First, some numbers: The lunar module (LM) descent stage engine had a maximum thrust of 9870 ft-lb, but this was throttleable back to a minimum of 1050 ft-lb. Sounds like a lot. But, the diameter of the nozzle was 63 inches, which is an area of about 3120 in2. Dividing this into the force (thrust) and you have a pressure range of 0.4-3.2 ft-lb/in2, otherwise known as psi. This is equivalent to the metric 2760-22,100 N/m2. But let’s stick with psi.

      Anyone who owns a car probably knows that this is already significantly less than your tire pressure … by a factor of 10-100. When Apollo 11 landed, the thrust was down to about 1/3 of max, so down to around 1 psi.

      Now let’s look at the average adult footstep: The average non-American weighs around 150 lbs. The average human footprint is around 50 in2 (don’t believe me? do the math yourself!). Divide the first into the second and you have the average human footstep exerting a simple 3 psi.

      This is 3x larger than Apollo’s engines!!

      The very fact that the astronauts walking on the moon did not create “blast craters” underneath them should be explanation enough as to why the engine did not create a blast crater under it — the pressure was simply too low.

      The engines are cut before they land. During landing, there is a wire that extends beyond the LM footpads that, when it hits the ground, trips a “contact light” in the cabin so they know to cut engines. As soon as they do, the dust settles to the ground (accelerating at 1/6 Earth’s gravity) and land. Besides this settling allowing for there to be dust in the immediate vicinity, remember that there’s no atmosphere on the moon, so the lunar material was only disturbed where the engine exhaust actually impacted the surface. Step away from that immediate area, and it’s pretty much as if the LM descent never happened as far as the lunar surface material is concerned.
      ~Bad Science:

      • Well even with the thruster throttled back as you suggest it is still a considerable amount of air pressure and heat and must have kicked up dust wouldn’t you agree? So why is there no settled dust in the concave landing pads? They seem to be totally free of dust. Also no crater at all? Even under your “pressure” conditions which for this argument I will assume are correct. We are talking about a rocket engine which had to slow the decent of a very heavy object so that it didn’t get destroyed on hitting the surface. Even at 1/5th gravity it is still very heavy and would require real thrust. By the way why were the astronauts not able to take longer and higher strides on the moon? They should have been able to bounce 5 times higher and further with the same effort but what we see are normal length strides and normal height strides for an earth bound man running in a space suit. The footage appears to be slowed to half speed. If you double the playback speed you can see they move around like they are trotting or jogging here on earth.

      • Another serious question is how can we hear the astronauts so well during the landing when a rocket engine was firing underneath them in the sound range of 140 to 150 db? Their voices are not choppy from the vibration and buffeting and they do not seem to be under any stress at all despite the fact that this procedure is incredibly dangerous. Armstrong had to eject from a test LEM here on earth that was obviously very difficult to control. That LEM must have had some state of the art sound suppression built into it huh?

      • “That LEM must have had some state of the art sound suppression built into it huh?”

        It really depends on the frequency, or wavelength of the “note”, the attenuation settings on the mic, the nearness to the mouth of the mic, etc. The bass rumble of the rocket engines likely didn’t focus until several yards out from the sound source. And since the atmosphere is so thin there would be no reverberation to bring the sound back to the module.

        You have surely heard the bass rumble from auto’s with big time speakers. Inside the car itself the bass is not as overwhelming as it is from a few yards away from the travelling boom-box.

      • “Well even with the thruster throttled back as you suggest it is still a considerable amount of air pressure and heat and must have kicked up dust wouldn’t you agree? So why is there no settled dust in the concave landing pads?”

        Yes, we know it kicked up dust. But the dust would be blown out away from the blast, like from a blower aimed straight down, The dust, which does not float on the moon like it does in the atmosphere of Earth would have settled around the perimeter of the lander – there is some dust on the outer edges of the pads.

      • “The noise level of a rocket launch is about 140-150 dB.”~Adam Ruff repeating junk from Morgan Reynolds.

        Yes, but those are primary launch volumes from large rockets taking off on earth. It would be ridiculous to compare that energy in decibels to a small rocket capable of launching such a small package from the low gravity of the moon.

      • But the astronauts would weigh 5 times less on the moon so your calculations are wrong for the moon aren’t they? Also there is the issue of why they did not jump at least once 5 times higher than they could on Earth. There is also the issue of them not being able to successfully “land” the lander on Earth prior to the Apollo missions. Any way you slice it though they had to use considerable thrust to keep the lander from hitting the surface of the moon too hard. I do not believe the ground under the landing thrusters would remain so undisturbed. Also dust would have settled on the landing pads but we don’t see any.

  4. The Spoof
    “In that spirit, French filmmaker William Karel spins an elaborate tale of intrigue in Dark Side of the Moon, which you can see above. The 2002 film posits that the Apollo 11 moon landing was staged by none other than Stanley Kubrick. How else did the director get his hands on a super advanced lens from NASA to shoot those gorgeous candle-lit scenes in Barry Lyndon? The film is slickly produced and features an impressive array of interviewees from Henry Kissinger, to Buzz Aldrin to Christiane Kubrick. Some of the other people interviewed include Jack Torrance and David Bowman. If that’s not a tip off that the whole movie is fake, then the blooper reel at the end drives the point home. Only a lot of people didn’t get the joke. Conspiracy enthusiasts Wayne Green cited the movie as further proof that the moon landing was faked.”

  5. ““Well,” you now say, “what about all those cool Moon rocks? How did they get those? The Moon is, you know, the only source of Moon rocks, so doesn’t that prove that we were there?”

    By far the best place to find them is in Antarctica, where they are most plentiful and, due to the terrain, relatively easy to find and well preserved. And that is why it is curious that Antarctica just happens to be where a team of Apollo scientists led by Wernher von Braun ventured off to in the summer of 1967, two years before Apollo 11 blasted off. You would think that, what with the demanding task of perfecting the hugely complex Saturn V rockets, von Braun and his cronies at NASA would have had their hands full, but apparently there was something even more important for them to do down in Antarctica. NASA has never offered much of an explanation for the curiously timed expedition.”~McGowan – Wagging the Moondoggie, Part II
    . . . . . . . .
    Of course it would make all the sense in the world to have a good sampling of these “moon rocks” from Antarctica as comparisons against what is brought back from the moon. Which proves which then, the “control rocks” or the stones brought to Earth on purpose?

  6. “Despite all the promises, however, no such images have ever been produced, a fact that the ‘debunkers’ seem to conveniently overlook while forever rushing to announce that the hoax theories are about to be discredited.”~McGowan – Wagging the Moondoggie, Part II
    . . . . . . .
    May I call to your attention to the images above at:
    hybridrogue1 May 20, 2015 at 4:46 pm & May 20, 2015 at 4:50 pm

  7. Wagging the Moondoggie, Part III
    . . . . . .
    This is rhetorical bullshit!!! there is NOTHING HERE!!
    Seriously people, all of you who raved about this series — what bullshit!
    There isn’t even an argument to criticize here, he is not talking about the moon landings at all. He is talking about Vietnam and Tricky Dicky!! Well fuck! Don’t we already understand what bullshit that was???
    I haven’t found a single argument that has any substance and I am three chapters into this crap…

  8. “The issue that most of the Moon hoax and ‘debunking’ sites spend the most time on, by far, is the photographic anomalies. And that, I suppose, is to be expected, since with the original videotapes, telemetry tapes and blueprints all having conveniently disappeared, and with most of the Moon rocks missing and their legitimacy being unverifiable, there isn’t much else in the way of physical evidence to examine.”~Dave McGowan – Wagging the Moondoggie, Part IV

    ST. PAUL, Minn. — Houston, we have moon rocks.

    The Minnesota National Guard said Monday it found a few small fragments of the moon’s surface in storage in a state building in St. Paul. They’ll be turned over to the state Historical Society on Wednesday.

    The moon rocks came from the Apollo 11 moon landing in 1969, when astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first humans to set foot on the moon. Some of the rocks, pebbles and dirt they collected have gone missing after U.S. states and territories and 135 countries each got tiny samples encased in plastic. Authentic moon rocks are considered national treasures and can’t legally be sold in the U.S.

    Minnesota’s moon rocks disappeared sometime after then-President Richard Nixon gave them to the state, along with a state flag that was carried on the mission.

    Joseph Gutheinz, a University of Phoenix instructor and former NASA investigator who leads an effort to find missing moon rocks, said Minnesota’s discovery leaves 11 states, including Massachusetts, Texas and Wisconsin, missing their Apollo 11 moon rocks.

    He said the lunar samples from the first moon landing command high sums on the black market, and some have been stolen or otherwise migrated away from the public domain.

    “To a collector, it’s invaluable,” said Gutheinz, whose students have been looking for Minnesota’s moon rocks since 2002.

    He added, “Somebody in the National Guard there decided to do the right thing and rather than walk off with something that had a great value on the black market, said, `Hey, this doesn’t belong to me.’ ”

    The handoff to the Minnesota Historical Society will take place at an event with students at STARBASE Minnesota, a math and science program.

    Also see:
    The Moon Rocks are not all missing as McGowan tries to convince. Like many ancient relics & artifacts from the Earth’s past, the Moon Rocks are precious and demand huge prices on the black market of “private collectors”.

  9. “…but they would have had no clue how those things were going to be lit, and it’s the lighting, not the subject, that primarily determines the exposure settings.”~Dave McGowan – Wagging the Moondoggie, Part IV

    More bullshit from McGowan here. Of course the scientists would have more than a clue, knowing the albedo would be all they would need to make the calculations for general exposure settings.

    (The overall albedo of the Moon is frequently quoted as being about 7%. This is actually the so-called Bond albedo at visible wavelengths, which refers to the fraction of the total energy impinging on a surface that is reflected in all directions. It is a concept which is useful in studies of planetary enegy balance, but has little relevance to perceived brightness, which depend entirely on the intensity reflected in a specific direction. The NASA Moon Fact Sheet gives the Bond albedo of the Moon (presumably averaged over the entire solar spectrum, including non-visible wavelengths) as 0.11.)

    AS16-123-19657: Long-exposure UV photo taken from the surface of the Moon by Apollo 16 using the Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph. It shows the Earth with the correct background of stars.

    AS16-123-19657: UV photo with some stars labeled

  10. “Legend holds that a dozen astronauts walked upon the surface of the Moon for varying amounts of time. The Apollo 17 astronauts alone were purportedly there for three days. For the duration of their visits, each of the twelve would have been treated to what was by far the most dazzling display of stars ever seen by the human eye. What they would have seen was many times more stars burning many times brighter than can be seen anywhere here on planet Earth.”~Dave McGowan – Wagging the Moondoggie, Part IV
    . . . . .
    Now here is the kicker after McGowan has run all of those speaking to the photography of the moon taken by the astronauts, he comes up with this zinger of bullshit. Just because there is no atmosphere, and therefore the sky is black, these shots were taken during daytime on the moon. Just like taking a picture of the sky on Earth at daytime the stars will not be visible at a shutter setting that will take a proper lit picture of an Earth shot at day. A landscape would be totally burned out in such a shot.

    • Stars are also never seen in Space Shuttle, Mir, International Space Station Earth observation photos, or even sporting events that take place at night. The light from the Sun in outer space in the Earth-Moon system is at least as bright as the sunlight that reaches the Earth’s surface on a clear day at noon, so cameras used for imaging subjects illuminated by sunlight are set for a daylight exposure. The dim light of the stars simply do not provide enough exposure to record visible images. (This effect can be demonstrated on Earth by attempting to view stars from a brightly lit parking lot at night. Only a few of the brightest stars are visible, and shielding the eye with one’s hands only marginally improves the view. Science fiction films and television shows do confuse this issue by depicting stars as visible in space under all lighting conditions. A photographic demonstration of how aperture and shutter speed can turn a lit background ink-black is here. The eye’s visual response is much the same.) Stars were seen by every Apollo mission crew except for the unfortunate Apollo 13. (An oxygen tank explosion in the Apollo 13 Service Module two days after launch prevented the crew from clearly seeing stars due to a haze of oxygen and water vapor surrounding the spacecraft.) Stars were used for navigation purposes and were occasionally also seen through cabin windows when the conditions allowed. To see stars, nothing lit by sunlight could be in the viewer’s field of view.[3]

  11. Section One – The Photographic Evidence

    “Percy is one of the primary drivers of this particular set of claims, but Collier and
    others have added to it. Let’s list a few of the claims one-by-one and address them.
    Issue 1 – The shadows don’t fall right in images taken on the Lunar surface, proving
    that there are are multiple light sources, like professional stage lighting using highpowered
    lamps. Since the Moon has only one light source, the Sun, these images (these
    people claim) “have to have been shot on a sound stage somewhere.”

    This one is usually based on images like the one above (taken from an Apollo 17
    TV transmission), that seem to show the shadows of the astronauts coming from different
    lighting sources. However, a logical approach to this problem reveals that there is nothing
    at all mysterious about either the shadows or the light sources. If, in fact, the shadows
    were cast by different light sources, wouldn’t each astronaut have two shadows, instead of
    just the one each we see here? Of course they would. Yet, in the images that the “Moon
    Hoaxers” cite, there is consistently only one shadow being cast, indicating that the Sun is
    (as it should be) the dominant light source.
    So, how to explain the seemingly divergent shadows in this image? If you look
    closely, you will see that the astronaut on the right is on a slight rise above the astronaut
    on the left. This has not only the effect of lengthening his shadow, but also if the slope is
    greater in one direction, say to the left of the astronaut on the right, it will tend to flow
    and elongate in that direction.
    Also at issue is the photographic equipment used by the astronauts on the lunar surface.
    Shortened wide-angle lenses, like the ones on the hand-held Hasseblad 70mm cameras
    used by the astronauts, will distort otherwise parallel shadows. Simply pull some outdoor
    photos from your own personal collection and see for yourself.
    In this one, the argument is that with his back to the sun, the astronaut’s suit
    should be as dark as his own shadow stretching out in front of him (see Apollo 16 image,
    above). Since there is no light diffusion in an absolute vacuum, NASA “must” have used
    reflectors or “fill-in lamps” to illuminate the astronaut for this photograph. The truth is,
    there is evidence of a “reflector” in this image — but it is the lunar surface itself!
    Obviously, the lunar surface is a fairly bright gray color. It is known, from the Apollo
    samples brought back and analyzed in Houston, to contain a LOT of glass beads, with a
    lot of reflective and refractive minerals in it. All of these materials tend to kick light
    directly back toward the source of illumination with very high efficiency, in this case the
    sun. This is one reason why the Full Moon is so much brighter (than other phases) in the
    night sky; the sun is “behind” the Earth. The effect of the sunlight hitting the lunar
    surface and being reflected back toward the sun itself creates a “backscatter” that fills in
    the astronaut’s bright white shadowed suit with excellent “fill-light.” And the fact that the
    shadow is so dark on the ground in front of him is proof of exactly the opposite of the
    claim being made by the “Moon Hoaxer” crowd. It shows that indeed, the astronaut is
    standing upright in a harsh vacuum, where his suit can “see” the illumination from the
    surrounding lunar landscape. By stark contrast (pun intended …), almost no light at all
    has seeped into the shadow — because it’s lying flat on the ground and cannot “see”
    anything but black space overhead! It is, as it should be, extremely dark and sharp.”~Michael Bara

    • Issue 4 – There can’t be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in
      the 250° temperatures.

      “Any normal film exposed to 250° would indeed melt at that temperature. There
      are only two problems with this Moon Hoax claim — this was no ordinary “Ektachrome”
      film, and it was never exposed to those kind of temperatures in the cameras.
      The 70mm film used in the Hasselblad cameras the astronauts carried was a very
      special transparency film designed specifically (under a NASA contract) for hostile
      environments like the Moon. According to Peter Vimislik at Kodak, the film would at
      worst begin to soften at 200° F, and would not melt until it reached at least 500° F. So, a
      worst case scenario of 250-280° F for a totally uninsulated, non-reflective camera would
      still be well within the film’s operational parameters. The film itself, in terms of its lightgathering
      abilities, was also quite amazing (in striking contrast to the uninformed claims
      of the debunkers). It was a special “extended range color slide film” called “XRC,” that
      allowed the astronauts to take perfect “National Geographic” quality pictures on the lunar
      surface, even though they were hardly experienced photographers.”~Michael Bara


  12. Issue 5 – The LM engine was very powerful. How come it did not leave a crater below
    the spacecraft? Why didn’t it kick up any dust when it landed?

    “The truth here is once again very straightforward. At all of the landing sites, the
    astronauts found that the Lunar surface had about a two inch layer of dust. Below that
    was pretty much hard pan. As you can see from the image below from Apollo 11, not
    only is the upper layer of dust blown away in a radial pattern (as if from a thruster?) there
    is also a small depression below the nozzle. Since the LM descent engine only made
    about 3,000 pounds of thrust (compared to a modern jet fighter which makes between
    18,000 and 22,000 pounds of thrust), this is pretty much as any engineer or geologist
    would expect things to look.”~Michael Bara

    • The Descent Propulsion System (DPS) or LMDE (Lunar Module Descent Engine) is a variable throttle hypergolic rocket engine developed by Space Technology Laboratories (TRW) for use in the Apollo Lunar Module Descent Stage. It used Aerozine 50 fuel and N2O4 oxidizer. This engine used a pintle injector, a design also used later in the SpaceX Merlin engine.

  13. “And yes, the Lunar Module does look like it’s a prop from a high school theater set.”~Adam Syed
    May 23, 2015 at 7:01 pm

    Yes, splendid observation; begin with “appearances” and develop a ground bias from the beginning.

    What would be the purpose of a sleek aerodynamic design for a craft landing on a planet with no atmosphere to speak of? A module for temporary use and simple practical purpose. The most practical aspects of the LEM were making it as lite as possible– thin tarp-like materials are perfect for such.
    All that the lunar landing module was for was a landing a take-off platform. It was just a frame for the landing pads. It didn’t need to support much weight (especially in moon gravity) and it didn’t need to be aerodynamic because of lack of atmosphere.
    Which also brings the point of thrust into the equation. As noted on the comments to do with why there was no crater; the thrust was not that strong, not like a jet engine for earth flight.

  14. Summation

    Well now I can say that I read through McGowan’s entire “Moondoggie” series. It merely confirmed my earlier impressions having read the first few chapters previously: It is junk; total junk and nothing but junk.

    McGowan may have an entertaining style of writing, but that is not of the essence – he never comes close to proving a single assertion he makes; THAT is the essence. If you want to be joked into buying the Apollo missions were faked by wisecracks, that is your choice.

    For myself I think McGowen has given you a load of trash with this series.
    . . . . . . .
    Born Too Late to Understand
    Dave McGowan was born in 1960. That puts some perspective on this issue, but even more on his total misconception of the Hippy Era. He was only 9 years old when the first Moonwalk took place. He was only 7 years old when Sgt Pepper’s was released, and the Summer of Love took place in San Francisco.

  15. Note R: “The letter ‘C’ appears on the rock. This is a designation by the props department.

    In 2001 Steve Troy of undertook a lengthy investigation. After obtaining transparencies from different sources connected with NASA, he failed to see the mark either on the masters used prior to 1997 or on the new masters. Yet the photos on official NASA web sites clearly show it. Following up with the Lunar and Planetary Institute (LPI) in Houston, they discovered that one of the prints in their collection was the source of the mark. At some point that print had been scanned and has since been widely distributed on the Internet.

    Troy and LPI officials studied the print under a microscope and discovered that it was indeed far more likely to be a hair or other fiber on the photographic paper onto which AS16-107-17446 had been printed. A secondary mark that appears to be a shadow is clearly visible under the top portion of the mark.

  16. “I followed your link but did not find your arguments. However, I had offered two current Nasa scientists and also friends of mine for 40 years a chance to argue against any of the points David has made in his “moondoggie” Posts. One replied that they had no arguments they could offer and have since gone silent. The other began reading the series and then stopped and never said another word. So it really comes down to believing or not believing. I believe David made the stronger case and I made observations beyond his own. It’s immaterial. Believe or don’t. it does not affect anyone..unless of course you are one of the uber wealthy currently buying tickets to live on Mars. Now that I personally believe, is “batshit crazy”~Craig McGowan

    Craig McGowan says: “So it really comes down to believing or not believing.”

    It has nothing whatsoever to do with “believing” – this is not a religious nor a metaphysical question, this has to do with science and reason in argument. Craig’s brother Dave McGowan has not made a reasonable argument; he has made a rhetorical argument that does not withstand critical scrutiny. Craig is offering personal antidotes that are essentially useless, unless he identifies his so-called NASA scientist friends.

    Personally I am sick of this kind of bullshit trying to be passed off as reasonable debate. It is also obvious bullshit that Craig McGowan cannot access this page. Do you copy Mr McGowan?

  17. Perhaps the truth of the matter is that the general public is incapable of distinguishing between bullshit and truth.
    Perhaps it is time to admit that the classification “Homo Sapiens” is the biggest joke of them all.


    • “Soviet cosmonauts have been quoted as saying radiation was a very grave concern.”~Conspiracists

      “And NASA officials have been quoted as saying essentially the same thing. Radiation is a very great concern, but there’s a vast difference between a “concern” and an insurmountable obstacle. The conspiracist argument relies on the radiation problem being insurmountable, and nothing said by either NASA or cosmonauts conveys the notion that these problems couldn’t have been solved.”~Clavius

      • Horseshit on the Moon Hoax:

        Frankly Craig, I don’t think there is any reason to continue this discussion on this thread.
        If the term “debunkers” is acceptable, while the term “Conspiracist” is verboten, then we will simply spin in a vortex of rhetorical semantics.

        I am a conspiracy theorist, regardless of the attempt to slur that term. I am not quailed by the term conspiracist. I am not quailed by the term debunker. I am interested in the substance of a proposition or a critique.

        So far I have encountered little substance but rather arguments over language on this topic.

  18. Amazing Dolls:

  19. Craig McKee
    August 20, 2015 at 11:26 pm
    “Of course not. But I don’t think we’ve established that your side of the debate represents the scientific view while mine does not.”
    . . . .

  20. So Willy, you’ve transplanted my comments over here with new responses? Hmmm, indeed. By the way, switching from Craig McG to me is bound to confuse some people.

    • “switching from Craig McG to me is bound to confuse some people.”~Craig McKee

      I went through and fixed that.

      “’ve transplanted my comments over here with new responses?”~Ibid

      In this one instance, yes. You haven’t made any scientific observations on this topic. Would you care to?

      The paths left by astronauts Alan Shepard and Edgar Mitchell on both Apollo 14 moon walks are visible in this image. (At the end of the second moon walk, Shepard famously hit two golf balls.) The descent stage of the lunar module Antares is also visible. (Credit: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/ASU)
      NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) captured the sharpest images ever taken from space of the Apollo 12, 14 and 17 landing sites. Images show the twists and turns of the paths made when the astronauts explored the lunar surface.

  21. “Sorry Willy, but at this point I’ve lost interest in communicating with you about this. I was very clear in my request, ie:

    “Willy, if you’ve really looked into the moon landing issue extensively, you know what the primary evidence is proving a hoax (even though you don’t find it persuasive). Can you name the top five reasons why so many of us believe the Apollo missions to be faked? If not, you have more studying to do.”

    That you would pretend to misunderstand a very clearly stated request, saying that you thought it was I who would provide the list, does not bode well for future discussion.

    You again are dishonest in replying to Adam Syed, in asking for context to the statement of the “challenges needing to be faced before man can pass through the Van Allen belts”. The context was already provided.

    I don’t suspect you to be an infiltrator or a paid NASA disinformation specialist, but you are behaving like one, and it’s simply tiring.”~Sheila – August 21, 2015 at 9:42 am
    . . . . . .
    Well now, I can understand why Shiela has “lost interest” in communicating with me as she was confronted with substantive information that she clearly does not want to discuss.

    This entire message from Sheila is spurious.

    First of all my first response to her “request” made it clear that I would rather her give me the 5 top issues “proving” a moon hoax. I also explained that I didn’t think there was any valid “Proof” for a moon hoax.

    Second I do not consider a “request” to be a demand that I am obligated to fulfill on the terms of a “request”. I do not “pretend” to misunderstand anything. I clarified my position that it was up to her to make a list of what is in her opinion the “top five reasons why so many [..] believe the Apollo missions to be faked”

    As for my being “dishonest in replying to Adam Syed”, this is simply bullshit. I will repeat the first part of my comment to Adam Syed :

    >*Well Adam, what is the context of this statement? Do you think this statement necessarily means that they didn’t solve those challenges for the Apollo flights and presume this is an “admission” by a NASA engineer that the flights did not take place? That is what the title the person distributing this clip wants you to believe.

    The Orion missions are obviously going to be different than the Apollo missions. It is likely the missions will be tasked with spending more time in the Van Allen Belts. Each mission is obviously going to concern itself with the particulars of that mission.*
    . . . .

    Sheila remarks that, “The context was already provided.” And yes it was, the context of the statement in the video had to do with the “Orion missions”. That was my whole point, the NASA engineer on the video was NOT talking about the Apollo missions.

    The INNUENDO was made by the person who posted the video and made scurrilous remarks throughout, attempts to coax the viewer into thinking there is some “admission” here by NASA that there had been no previous flights through the Van Allen Belts. This is what I was pointing out to Mr Syed.

    NOW, I have already said I think it is futile to argue about this issue on the Truth & Shadows thread the argument broke out on. That would be hijacking the thread, and Craig says he is contemplating writing and article on the Moon Hoax subject at some point.

    I am however going to use any of the dialog that has been put there and may continue to be put there on this page. So if Sheila, Mr Syed, or Mr McKee would like to address the topic here they are invited to do so.

    However, I insist on arguments of substance on the topic itself. No more of these scurrilous innuendos such as this disingenuous closing remark from Sheila: “I don’t suspect you to be an infiltrator or a paid NASA disinformation specialist, but you are behaving like one..”

    If Sheila doesn’t expect me of such a thing, why would she mention it? Obviously she is insinuating such. I have studied and practiced argumentation for long enough to read the subtext of such rhetoric as this.

  22. Photo Analysis
    [The Hoax Promoters questions/comments will be in italics throughout – Clavis answers in regular font. If I have a comment it will be in bold]
    Figure 1, Note B:
    aldrin moon
    “If the sun is the only light source on the lunar surface, why is this shadow being cast on Aldrin’s space suit?”~Hoax promoter

    Clavius Answer:
    The shadow on the surface indicates that the sun is behind Aldrin and to his left. Armstrong says that Aldrin was standing in a shallow crater, and so we should interpret ground shadow information accordingly. We can be reasonably assured of the sunlight direction by examining the terminator on Aldrin’s roughly spherical helmet cover and the light falling on the PLSS (backpack).

    Fig. 1 is a GIF image reproduced from a conspiracist web site and has been color-enhanced, possibly to emphasize the shadow the conspiracist says should not be there. Fortunately the color enhancement reveals a distinct golden tint. Looking at the reflection in Aldrin’s faceplate (Fig. 1, Note D) we can see that the lunar module Eagle is near Aldrin and brightly illuminated.

    The golden aluminized Mylar insulation is designed to reflect about 50% of the light falling on it. This is done to reduce the amount of heat the various parts of the spacecraft absorb. Reflecting that much light means that the lunar module is very bright indeed, quite sufficient to cast a shadow, as well as provide the golden-tinted light seen to fall on the suit. The Apollo 11 photography provides other examples of this light spill from the lunar module.
    . . .
    Figure 1, Note C:
    “The lighting level fades from bright foreground to a dim background. On earth this is caused by the atmosphere, but on the moon where there is no atmosphere you should be able to see clearly all the way to the horizon.”

    Clavius Answer:
    It is true that atmospheric haze interferes with the transmission of light and often makes distant details hard to make out. But air and haze do this by scattering the light, especially sunlight. The result is to make distant objects appear brighter, not darker. That is why distant mountains and features are lighter in color. The horizon here is darker.
    The darkness at the horizon has a different explanation (see below) that has nothing to do with the presence or absence of atmosphere.

    • This picture does not pass the smell test on a few levels. First of all if the light source (sun) was slightly behind and to the left of the astronaut then there should be several spots on his right front area in complete darkness. At least from the camera sensors perspective the left side would have been an extreme hot spot totally washed out with too much light and the right side should have been black with almost no detail visible. Camera sensors even a very good camera sensor from that era simply cannot resolve such drastic differences of light and dark. Even a very sensitive camera of today with excellent low light capabilities could not capture this kind of clear image under those conditions. I do not buy it at all. The picture is way too good to be believable.,d.eWE&psig=AFQjCNHxMChfocQ6kYun1yxi95fqChC3fQ&ust=1455001052993226

      • I don’t know what you are talking about Adam. The photo you linked to is a black and white photo of a woman’s face. Is that really what you want me to look at? if so, why?

      • That photo shows what it should look like with one light source from one side of the subject and it shows that the dark side is completely black and you cannot see any detail. The picture of the astronaut is too good, you can see too much detail under very poor lighting conditions. I know you will say his right side was lit by the nearby lander reflecting on him but that does not wash for me. Quite frankly the picture of the astronaut looks like it was taken in a studio under perfect lighting conditions by a professional photographer. All the details that should be dark and indistinct or not visible at all are perfectly clear and crisp. Even with time and professional lighting technicians I doubt I could improve upon the resolution of that picture or improve upon the exposure. I do not think it is possible to take that photo under those conditions. I am sorry but my experience with photography tells me that this photo was taken under controlled conditions by a pro with a carefully lit set. No way you are pulling this off back lit by the sun.

      • That photo has the contrast popped for dramatic effect. It has zero bearing on any photographs from the moon.

      • Not true that is the effect of the lighting. Anyway old friend I am not going to convince you of anything. I just think the picture supposed to be from the moon is way too good to be true. The contrast from light to dark would wash out all the detail and make it a really bad shot. Not only that but the photographer would be essentially aiming almost at the sun (it would be to his right but still somewhat toward the front) in that shot which would make it even worse. Lens flair would have been a problem most likely. Remember the astronauts could not set the camera controls for proper exposures without great difficulty. They had bulbus gloves on and the camera was mounted on their chest so they could not look down at the adjustment controls. Trillion to one they could have gotten that shot. In other words no way in hell was that actually taken on the moon.

  23. The Saga Of the Lost Space Tapes
    By Marc Kaufman
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, January 31, 2007
    . . . . .
    Apollo 11 missing tapes

    The Apollo 11 missing tapes refers to Apollo 11’s slow-scan television (SSTV) telecast recorded in its raw format on telemetry data tape during the time of the first Moonlanding in 1969. The recordings were discovered to be “missing” after a team of retired NASA employees and contractors tried to locate the tapes in the early 2000s. The data tapes were recorded as a backup in case the live television broadcasts failed for any reason. In order to broadcast the SSTV transmission on standard television, NASA ground receiving stations performed real-time scan conversion to the NTSC television format. The moonwalk’s converted video signal was broadcast live around the world on July 21, 1969 (UTC). At the time, the NTSC broadcast was recorded on many videotapes and kinescope films: they were never missing.

    The search was sparked when several still photographs appeared in the late 1990s that showed the superior-looking raw SSTV transmission on ground station monitors. The research team conducted a multi-year investigation in the hopes of finding the most pristine and usable versions of the moonwalk. If the original SSTV format tapes were to be found, more modern digital technology could make a higher-quality conversion, yielding better images than those originally seen. The researchers discovered that the tapes containing the raw unprocessed Apollo 11 SSTV signal were erased and reused by NASA in the early 1980s. This was according to NASA’s procedures, as they were facing a major data tape shortage at that time.

    Although the researchers never found the telemetry tapes they were looking for, they did discover the best visual quality NTSC videotapes as well as super 8 movie film taken of a video monitor in Australia, showing the SSTV transmission before it was converted. These visual elements were processed in 2009, as part of a NASA approved restoration project of the first Moonwalk. At a 2009 news conference in Washington, D.C., the research team released its findings regarding the tapes’ disappearance. They also partially released newly enhanced footage obtained during the search. Lowry Digital completed the full Moonwalk restoration project in late 2009.

  24. Reposted from Truth & Shadows:

    ruffadam on August 22, 2015 at 2:57 pm
    “Well as to the moon landing hoax idea I will have to say at this point that I believe the moon landings were indeed a hoax. This is not a conclusion I came to lightly or based upon scant research. I looked into the issue in depth and I even started into a debate with HR1 about it which I admit I abandoned. I want to explain why I abandoned that debate and also express my respect for Willy. I abandoned the debate because I know Willy is extremely intelligent and very thorough and I know that I could not put in the time or effort necessary to offer a strong rebuttal to his arguments. I am weary from 14+ years of argument and debate about 9/11 and Sandy Hook and Boston and and and… So the truth is I just don’t have the energy to put up the argument Willy deserves and a half effort would surely not suffice.

    I will say this however about the moon landing hoax issue, it is surprisingly emotional for Americans old enough to have seen the events live. I find with my friends, one in particular, that it is a VERY touchy subject, even more so than 9/11. For him the moon landings are the greatest achievement of mankind and the crowning jewel of what America is all about. When I argue with him and present what I consider to be strong evidence of a hoax he reacts very emotionally to it and he even admitted to me that he doesn’t want to believe me no matter what I show him or say. It has been a long and ongoing point of contention between us and when I started getting into the debate with Willy I felt the same sort of strong emotions coming from him. This is not to say that Willy is offering an emotional argument because he isn’t. Willy is presenting what he considers to be strong evidence that the hoax arguments are bogus.

    What I am saying though to you Willy is that I believe you have a powerful emotional investment in the idea that man went to the moon. I think it is a source of pride for you and many many people. The arguments that the landings are a hoax trample on that pride and threaten to expose the person as a sucker or chump of some kind. So for me it is a lose lose to get into another argument about another conspiracy an perhaps alienate yet another friend. I do not consider your arguments to be emotional ones Willy, they are not, many of them are logical and rational arguments but I simply do not find them persuasive. For example the argument you presented for the astronaut himself being the second light source in the photos was a well considered argument however failed to convince me for various reasons. The bottom line is that I consider the photos demonstrating multiple light sources to be very strong evidence of a hoax that has not thus far been effectively refuted. I conducted my own experiments by the way after I watched the video you offered Willy and found that reflected light off the space suit would have been extremely weak compared to the Sun. So weak comparatively that it would not have been capable of casting a second shadow let alone a shadow just as dark and defined as one caused by the Sun. In my view the photos show two light sources of relatively equal strength.

    Anyway I don’t consider the photos to be the strongest evidence of a hoax but rather just one of many proofs that the moon landings were indeed a hoax.”

    hybridrogue1 on August 22, 2015 at 3:38 pm
    “What I am saying though to you Willy is that I believe you have a powerful emotional investment in the idea that man went to the moon.”~Adam Ruff

    First of all, thank you for your respectful attitude towards me in your response here.

    However I dispute the contention above. Rather than an emotional investment, I have a powerful intellectual investment in critical thinking. I have spent considerable time studying the sciences. And most importantly to this discussion – which I am entering here just this one time more to respond to Mr Ruff; is that the assertions I have encountered from the promoters of the Moon Landing Hoax are absurd. Every single assertion is mortally flawed and cannot stand up to critical evaluation.

    I will leave this topic now with that.

    • “I conducted my own experiments by the way after I watched the video you offered Willy and found that reflected light off the space suit would have been extremely weak compared to the Sun. So weak comparatively that it would not have been capable of casting a second shadow let alone a shadow just as dark and defined as one caused by the Sun.”~Adam Ruff

      Adam is misframing the issues of the video:
      Any reflective light would be weaker compared to direct sunlight. The point is not about creating a shadow. The point is the albedo of the reflection off of Armstrong’s space suit, which is radiant and lights up the shadow that Aldrin is in. The video on the Maxwell software did not address the creation of shadows, it addressed the issue of fill light in shadows.


  25. The definition of absurd:
    Absurd means utterly opposed to truth or reason: an absurd claim.

    Ridiculous implies that something is fit only to be laughed at, perhaps contemptuously: a ridiculous suggestion. preposterous implies an extreme of foolishness: a preposterous proposal.

    I have assumed thus far that it is understood that everyone commenting on T&S is simply stating their opinion. Do I have to give a preamble with everything I say there that; ‘this is only my opinion’? Okay, it is my opinion that all of the propositions in favor of a hoaxed moon landing are absurd. It is my informed opinion that this is so. I have not simply stated these opinions without a close look at each proposition I have investigated so far. And those propositions so far addressed seem to be the key foundations of the Moon Hoax assertion.
    Asking a question is not in itself absurd, assuming that the question has a logical foundation can be absurd. It is these baseless assumptions that I am critical of here. This is why I have advised that those bearing such assumptions take advantage of the tutorials offered on the Clavius site. But then to be confronted about the use of the term of “conspiracist” as so off-putting that these tutorials should be cast aside, really makes me wonder if the solutions to this controversy are honestly being sought.
    I have always found it profitable to grasp the counter argument of anything I am going to confront…et tu?

  26. “the “lack of funding” argument falls flat on its face in light of the fact that we’ve had seven unmanned Mars landings, not to mention the craft that has now gone past Pluto and outside the solar system.”~Adam Syed

    The fact is there have been extreme cuts in the NASA budget since Apollo:

    Since the end of the Apollo missions in 1973, the space agency’s budget has steadily declined from 1.35 percent of federal spending to less than 0.6 percent. A long-running annual drop in inflation-adjusted funds took a sharp downward turn in the past two years, as budget cuts, including mandatory ones ordered by Congress, trimmed almost a billion dollars from 2012 to 2013. The 2014 budget recovered some, but not all, of that cut.
    NASA budget
    The perceived national security threat posed by early Soviet leads in spaceflight drove NASA’s budget to its peak, both in real inflation-adjusted dollars and in percentage of total federal budget (4.41% in 1966). But the U.S. victory in the Space Race — landing men on the Moon — erased the perceived threat, and NASA was unable to sustain political support for its vision of an even more ambitious Space Transportation System entailing reusable Earth-to-orbit shuttles, a permanent space station, lunar bases, and a manned mission to Mars. Only a scaled-back Space Shuttle was approved, and NASA’s funding leveled off at just under 1% in 1976, then declined to 0.75% in 1986. After a brief rally to 1.01% in 1992, it declined to about 0.49% in 2013.

    The American public believes NASA’s budget has a much larger share of the federal budget than it actually does. A 1997 poll reported that Americans had an average estimate of 20% for NASA’s share of the federal budget, far higher than the actual 0.5% to under 1% that has been maintained throughout the late ’90s and first decade of the 2000s.[23] It is estimated that most Americans spent less than $9 on NASA through personal income tax in 2009.[24]

  27. “The Van Allen belts are full of deadly radiation, and anyone passing through them would be fried.”
    . . . . .
    Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.

    The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth’s latitude — twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo’s translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.

    Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth’s equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.

    This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts.
    . . . . .
    We know the space shuttle passes through the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (SAMA), but since the shuttle astronauts have time in each orbit to recover, the effects are not felt as strongly. The Apollo astronauts spent around four hours at a single stretch in the Van Allen belts. [Mary Bennett]
    . . . . .
    This is exactly the opposite of the recovery principle. If the shuttle astronauts spend 30 minutes of each 90-minute orbit passing through the SAMA, that sums to an exposure of 8 hours per day. The human body does not recover from radiation in a matter of minutes but rather hours and days. The damaged tissue must be regenerated. If radiation exposure is more or less continuous over several days, such as in the shuttle scenario, the tissue never has time to regenerate before being damaged by continuing radiation.

    A short, intense exposure is safer than continuous or periodic exposure at lower intensity.
    Even though the outlying parts of the Van Allen belts contain more intense radiation than the SAMA, a four-hour passage followed by days of relatively little exposure offers a better recovery scenario than days of accumulated low-level exposure.

    The four-hour figure is reasonable, but somewhat arbitrary. Since the Van Allen belts vary in flux and energy, it’s not as if there’s a clearly demarcated boundary. It’s a bit like walking over a hill. If the slope gently increases from flat and level to 30° or so, where do you say the hill starts?
    . . . . .
    It would require six feet (two meters) of lead in order to shield from the Van Allen belts. The Apollo spacecraft had nowhere near this amount of shielding and so could not have provided the astronauts adequate protection.

    The “six feet of lead” statistic appears in many conspiracist charges, but no one has yet owned up to being the definitive source of that figure. In fact, six feet (2 m) of lead would probably shield against a very large atomic explosion, far in excess of the normal radiation encountered in space or in the Van Allen belts.

    While such drastic measures are needed to shield against intense, high-frequency electromagnetic radiation, that is not the nature of the radiation in the Van Allen belts. In fact, because the Van Allen belts are 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!
    . . . . .
    Official NASA documents describing the pre-Apollo studies of the Van Allen belts clearly state that shielding was recommended for the Apollo spacecraft, yet no shielding was provided. [Mary Bennett and David Percy]
    . . . . .
    “Shielding” does not always mean thick slabs of dense material.
    Commensurate with the common perception of radiation as an inescapably deadly force is the notion of radiation shielding as universally heavy and dense. Percy and others seem to rely on the notion that radiation shielding, if present, would have been very conspicuous — or prohibitively bulky.

    As discussed in the previous question, shielding against particles is not the same as shielding against rays. To say that the Apollo spacecraft did not provide adequate shielding is to ignore both the construction of the Apollo command module and the principles of radiation shielding.

    And it must be kept in mind that shielding was only one element of a multi-pronged solution for safely traversing the Van Allen belts. It was never intended that the shielding in the command module would provide the only protection for the astronauts. The shielding was adequate to protect the astronauts against the circumstances of the trajectory and exposure duration worked out by the mission planners.
    . . . . .
    NASA apologists come up with different numbers for estimates of the exposure in the Van Allen belts. This suggests they really don’t know what they’re talking about. [Mary Bennett and David Percy]
    . . . . .
    All the estimates we’ve seen lie within the same order of magnitude and generally outline a plausible method of computation. This stands in contrast to the conspiracist estimates which generally have no quantitative support.

    Computing the precise exposure for Apollo astronauts is very difficult. That’s why the astronauts wore dosimeters to measure the actual exposure. The factors involved in computing expected exposure analytically include:

    Exact trajectory. The Van Allen belts are not uniformly shaped. They have thick and thin spots. And the level of radiation is not constant at all points. Toward the center of the belt cross sections there is more radiation than at the edges. Most Apollo enthusiasts do not know the exact trajectory or how it relates to the location of the Van Allen belts. But they know that they don’t know this, and so they frequently do their computations assuming the astronauts passed through the densest parts, and therefore err on the side of overestimating the exposure.

    Exact velocity. Exposure time is very important to a correct computation of radiation dosage. Because the velocity of the spacecraft is constantly changing, the same ambiguity which governs the geometry of the trajectory also governs the rate at which it is followed. And most enthusiasts (and all conspiracists) lack the information and skill to precisely determine the velocity of the spacecraft during the Van Allen belt traversal, and therefore the exposure time.

    Exact energy and flux. In any given cubic meter of the Van Allen belts there will be a soup of particles at various energy levels and fluences. Energy describes the velocity of the particle, how far it will penetrate, and how much damage it will do if it hits something. Flux is the density of particles, how many of them pass through a given area in a second. Generally, the higher the energy the lower the flux. Low-energy particles (i.e., protons 30 MeV and below) can be ignored because they do not penetrate the spacecraft outer hull. But at each point along the trajectory through the Van Allen belts there is a different continuum of flux and energy. It requires a lot of mathematics to fully solve this system. And since some of the variables are hard to determine, they’re typically approximated.

    Probabilistic factors. Even should a high-energy particle penetrate the spacecraft hull to the interior, it will only cause problems in the human organism if it is absorbed in tissue. It is possible for the particles to pass through the body without colliding, in which case they are harmless. The human body varies in density. Particles are more likely to collide with dense tissue like bone. The amount of absorbed radiation is a statistical probability based on how much radiation is detected by dosimeters.

    To summarize then, a fully accurate analytical solution must first determine the exact trajectory of the spacecraft through the Van Allen belts. This will give a continuous function describing particle flux and energy at each point along the trajectory.

    At each point in the trajectory we will have a function giving flux per given energy level. So a 100 MeV proton will have, say, a flux of 20,000 particles per square centimeter per second at that point in space. But for other energy levels the flux will be different at the same point. The total irradiation inside a spacecraft will be the sum of all the fluences at energies capable of penetrating the hull and shielding.

    And at each point along the trajectory the velocity of the spacecraft must be determined so it can be known how much time the spacecraft spends at that point. This is multiplied by the conglomeration of fluences to arrive at a dose.

    This dose is simply the amount of radiation present. It must be converted to a meaningful value that describes its likely effect on human tissue. Again, energy and fluence come into play, because low-energy particles (but still high enough to penetrate the shield) are likely to accumulated in the outer layers of the skin and cause damage which is sloughed off harmlessly. High-energy particles are absorbed in the bones and internal organs, causing much greater injury.

    The procedure for analytically computing a radiation dose is simple enough in principle as outlined above, but of course is very difficult to actually carry out. This is why engineers generally don’t try to compute the dosage to any great degree of accuracy ahead of time. They are happy simply to arrive at an order of magnitude which provides adequate design criteria. The actual radiation exposure is always measured, not computed.

    So then was it measured on Apollo?

    Yes. Each astronaut wore a personal dosimeter. The accumulated dose for each astronaut was regularly reported to Mission Control over the radio.

      • Greetings Mr Syed,

        That is exactly what the Apollo missions did. If you are speaking to newer missions to come, such as the Orion: It depends on the goal of those missions; where they want to end up whether their may be reasons to remain in the VAB region for proper course adjustments, etc.

  28. New evidence has shown that the Van Allen belts are indeed stronger and more dangerous than NASA says. [Bart Sibrel]
    . . . . .
    Sibrel misinterprets the source article published by CNN. It was reported only that the Van Allen belts were slightly larger in places and slightly denser than previously understood. This is not a new reality, merely a refinement of existing figures. We are still studying the Van Allen belts and must occasionally revise our numerical models. The new findings have implications for the astronauts in the Alpha space station. Since these astronauts will be exposed to the fringes of the Van Allen belts for an extended period, it is prudent now to provide a bit of extra polyethylene shielding to the sleeping quarters. For transitory exposure such as in Apollo missions, the new findings add only a negligible hazard.

    Sibrel and others argue that NASA has under-reported the intensity of the Van Allen belts for many years as part of a cover-up. They argue that the real magnitude of the radiation is now being made known, and that it’s strong enough to have precluded a successful Apollo mission.

    Unfortunately that’s a very naive argument. The United States has never been the only spacefaring nation, nor the only nation ever to study the Van Allen belts. Canada provide valuable data to the Apollo project, and the USSR duplicated all the U.S. research, and may even have conducted more. For thirty years the same body of engineering data used to produce the Apollo spacecraft has been used by all nations in designing communication satellites, probes, and other devices intended to operate in and beyond the Van Allen belts. If this data had seriously under-reported the actual radiation present, the spacecraft engineered to those standards would all have failed prematurely due to radiation damage.

    This is a very important point since it involves the financial interests (to the tune of billions of dollars!) of countries with no special desire to protect the reputation of the United States. Had this data been seriously wrong, someone surely would have complained by now. Satellites are insured against premature loss, and the insurers want to make sure the spacecraft are engineered to the best possible standards. There is immense worldwide economic incentive to having the best available data on the Van Allen belts, so it’s highly improbable the the U.S. has been intentionally providing erroneous data to the entire world for thirty years.~Clavius

  29. “For ease of discourse, we have adopted the term “conspiracist” to refer to those who formulate or advocate a conspiracy theory. This should be carefully distinguished from “conspirator”, meaning someone who participates in an actual conspiracy.”~Clavius

  30. NASA Spacecraft Images Offer Sharper Views of Apollo Landing Sites
    NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) captured the sharpest images ever taken from space of the Apollo 12, 14 and 17 landing sites. Images show the twists and turns of the paths made when the astronauts explored the lunar surface.


  31. Alright I won’t say that the Moon landing hoax is ‘absurd’, I won’t call it ‘ridiculous’, I won’t even say that it is ‘ludicrous’, but I will say that it is total bullshit. grin

  32. Craig McKee
    January 5, 2016 at 4:09 pm
    “My only word on this subject is that I am very disturbed by the linking of it with the Apollo Moon missions. I have been seeing this a lot lately, and while I do not accuse you, Sherif, of being insincere, I suspect the sudden re-emergence of the flat Earth thing in general is a psyop designed to deflect people from the continuing exposure of the bogus Moon landings. Four months ago I did not even know people believed the Earth was flat. Now I’m hearing about it everywhere. I’m not a big believer in coincidences.”
    * * * * * * * * * * *
    Actually it is just a short leap from the science challenged mind that buys the “Moon Hoax”, to the moronic belief in a Flat Earth. No coincidence at all. It is a matter of knowledge of science or being illiterate of it and falling for such bullshit as both the Flat Earth model and the Moon Hoax garbage.

    None of the arguments for a hoax stand up to scrutiny. The idea is as mad as believing the Earth is flat.

  33. I am discriminating and careful in my research. While I have found totally convincing evidence of a systemic conspiracy to lead the human race into a future of utter feudalism, and totalitarian rule by a tiny elite. I continue to take each subject and topic in focus.

    As stated herein and throughout my blog, there are detailed reviews of history viewed through a forensic lens. When the moon landing hoax is examined in this way it is found to be a product of hysterical thinking and confirmation bias. While this is a charge leveled indiscriminately to “conspiracy theory” in general, as a conspiracy theorist myself I have come to this conclusion by detailed examination.

    • I have often offered the advice to my adversaries in debate to acquire this handy little jewel:

      A Rulebook for Arguments by Anthony Weston

      Hackett Publishing Company, Inc.
      P.O. Box 44937
      Indianapolis, Indiana 46244-0967

  34. Sherif Shaalan, who comments on Truth & Shadows from time to time, sent a comment to this thread several days ago asking what I thought about an article on “Northerntruthseeker” claiming NASA fraudulence.
    First off, I do not consider Mr Shaalan to be a sincere truth seeker, and his commentary is not welcome on HR1blog. But I will comment that after checking out the site he offered, asking my opinion of it, I will give one: This site is as bogus and full of bullshit as any other pseudoscience outlets that I have found criticizing NASA. There is nothing at all scientifically valid on the site concerning NASA.

    I will not give a point by point critique of any of the assertions made on the site, because it is all juvenile bullshit.

  35. Dave McGowan is dead. And apparently so are all of his works, as his website is down, seemingly permanently. Although many grieve the loss of these works, I do not. I always considered McGowan a quack and a charlatan.

    However, this is not to profane the dead, I have condolences to offer Dave’s family. And I do not find their grief inappropriate. I did not know David as a person, all I know are his works, which I find worthless tomes of balderdash.
    I don’t think “the powers that be” are in anyway delighted at the loss of McGowan or his manuscripts. I don’t think they care one way or another, as reasonable people never paid much attention to his junk anyway.


  36. The auto-da-fé of Truth & Shadows

    By Craig McKee

    I really want to see this film. But first it has to get made.

    Investigative journalist Massimo Mazzucco, producer/director of the five-hour 9/11 documentary September 11: The New Pearl Harbor, is now applying his considerable talents to another of the great deceptions of our time. In a new film called American Moon he will examine all the evidence that the Apollo missions were frauds.

    “If you realize what it means, that they were able to pull this hoax on the whole world in the 1960s, then you understand many more things they could be capable of, including 9/11,” Mazzucco said in an interview from his home in Italy.

    The same old song and dance, but this time coming from Mazzucco, who has garnered a certain amount of clout in the “Truth Movement”.
    This is full on BULLSHIT. I am cancelling my subscription to the Truth Movement. This is the final straw for me.


  37. Jimbo
    January 31, 2016 at 3:50 am A preview of Mazzucco’s film.

    “I tend to believe we went to the moon. Having read and reread Wagging the Moondoggie I know the circumstantial evidence that we did not go is compelling but for it to have been a hoax is harder to believe. For example I just watched a full video version of the news conference with Aldridge, Armstrong and Collins, Though they seem taciturn they did give some detailed answers to a variety of questions. Hear how specifically one of them describes the depth of the moon dust as they walked about. In the preview above Mazzucco chooses only the news conference section where they hem and haw a bit over whether they could see stars. They admit they couldn’t. Using my high school Spanish I heard where the Italian narration asks why they seem so nervous answering this. Who knows? Maybe they felt a little ashamed overlooking something they should have seen. But there was other stuff to see on the moon, no? And it may have been on Hybridrogue’s blog where I read how one can’t see stars from the bleachers at a brightly lit up night game either. I had never noticed this and I have been to many night games but it is true. You can’t.

    And yes, tying the moon hoax with 9/11 truth does “hurt our credibility.”


  38. Lol….I love it! every crackpot who dared not post on T&S while I was there to counter their bullshit are swarming like locus, and it is only the beginning! Here we have ‘Dwil’ one of Fetzer’s “No-planes” crackpot mindbots:

    January 31, 2016 at 9:52 am
    “Jimbo- Non-events like the Apollo missions are, in large part, meant to test the Western-cultured populace’s threshold for its reliance on authority; how easily will the populace cede personal authority to people who have only their own interests in mind…”

    Now I get to watch the total meltdown of the credibility of Truth & Shadows__a rather bittersweet vengeance. But a satisfaction nevertheless. You’re such a dumbfuck Craig McKee!

  39. Anyone who has read the material I posted above knows that everyone of these points posted by Fetzer is absolute bullshit. Each one has been addressed and discarded as disinformation.
    * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

    James Henry Fetzer
    January 31, 2016 at 3:43 pm
    “Jimbo, I think this is one of those cases where those who have done little or no research tend to doubt those who reject the “official account”, basically because of their ignorance. You appear to be an example–not in relation to 9/11, Sandy Hook or the Boston bombing, but in relation to the moon landing. Yet we have a mountain of proof that we did not land men on the moon. Consider

    * we did not have the propulsion power necessary to escape Earth’s gravitational field

    * we did not have the computing power to calculate the trajectories for going or coming

    * we could not overcome then or now the problem posed by the van Allan radiation belts

    * we did not have the capacity to broadcast transmissions back to Earth from the moon

    * cameras were mounted outside the space suits, but are perfectly focused and framed

    * the backgrounds are as well focused as the foregrounds (via front-screen projection)

    * there are moon rover photos with no tracks in front or behind them (lowered by crane)

    * shadows are cast by multiple sources of light (but there should have been only the Sun)

    There are many more, where the astronauts behavior has been especially revealing. And once having claimed they could not see the stars, they were stuck with it. Moon has no atmosphere, so they would have been seen a points of light rather than diffused; but there would have been billions of them–it would have been the greatest visual display experienced by the eyes of man.

    But we didn’t go. And the most powerful proof–the moon rocks–were gathered when Wernher von Braun led an expedition to the Antarctic to gather moon rocks that had been dislodged from the surface of the Moon and caught in Earth’s gravitational field. So they were real moon rocks but they did not reach Earth by the mode of transportation claimed. Just do a bit more research.”
    * * * * * * * * * *


    • “Has the “pro-Moon side” offered anything new to prove the Moon landings took place?”~Craig McKee

      The “pro-Moon side” doesn’t need “anything new to prove the Moon landings took place,” — the scientific facts have been available from the time of the landings. It is only the bullshit from the “Moon-Hoax” side is incapable of grasping the science and reasoning on this topic.

      Craig McKee is a science challenged fool, who should never address topics wherein understanding the physical sciences is a necessity.

      • And an actual NASA scientist chimes in:
        Dwain Deets
        January 31, 2016 at 6:01 pm
        “I worked with very sharp people who programmed the Lunar Module computers. I don’t doubt that for a minute, but I do now question whether there were some things about the mission and their role in it, they had to falsify.”

        But of course Dr Knowitall Fetzer says Deets is “gullible”…the asshole.


      • Adam Syed – January 31, 2016 at 8:57 pm
        “Well articulated, dwil.”
        Of course now Syed has forgotten that ‘dwil’ has argued the ‘No-planes’ at the WTC, ‘Holograms’ and ‘Video Fakery’ right along with the Fat Rat Fetzer.
        And this whole bumble in the gumbo is ironic to the point of absurdity considering the denials made by Craig and his minions that they had any allegiance to such proposals in the very thread before this one:

        But now they embrace any and all who agree with this goofy Moon-Hoax jive, even though the same people have proven themselves disingenuous nut cases on all the issues of 9/11. This going along to get along ironic mindset is spectacular and blatant on T&S now. All the wacky wankers have found a new home for their wanking whacking.

        I am certainly glad to be no part of this nonsense any longer, and happy I pushed Mckee’s ejection buttons when I did! I wouldn’t associate with these crackpots again for large sums of money.

      • Hey Adam Ruff,

        How does it feel to find yourself tightly aligned with Fat Ass Fetzer and his cabal of wingnuts?

        Surely you recognize some of these characters, such as ‘dwil’ who argued for ‘No-planes at WTC’ – Nukes, Video fakery, Holograms, right along with the nutty professor.

        You know that this is just the beginning, there will be more and more jazz assed nutballs checking in on this one. You own these clowns and all their bagage now, just like McKee does.

        Good luck dood, I am glad I’m not in your shoes now.

  40. James Henry Fetzer – February 1, 2016 at 12:37 pm
    “Get over it! We did not go to the moon. It was an elaborate hoax.”
    . . . . .
    Thus sayeth the biggest charlatan on the Internet today. In every area of the research community, James Fetzer is considered a joke and a conman. And here he is given a platform of T&S. McKee has blundered beyond his worse nightmare allowing this travesty of reason to take place on his blog.


  41. I wonder if McKee has checked in to see what the reactions are of Ken Doc and his minions to this latest gaff of posting this Moon-Hoax article – with Jim Fetzer acting as his majordomo…. It will certainly be seen as hypocritical of Craig after all the brouhaha of the thread that immediately proceeds this newest one!

    I see it as hypocritical. I think Craig has totally lost his bearings.

    Too bad so sad, he’s had.

    • Craig McKee believes in things that he doesn’t understand, that is the sign of Superstitious Thinking.
      I was part of Truth & Shadows for a bit more than four years. In that time I have watched Craig struggle with scientific and technical issues, and buying into several severe pseudoscience con-jobs. His ignorance in basic physics hobbled him.

      On top of this he put his faith in Max Bridges for advice in science in technology, and Bridges himself is scientifically challenged and utterly irrational – or disingenuous, and led Craig astray into mazes of rhetorical bullshit.

      Craig eventually banned Bridges, but it really wasn’t because he had figured out that Bridges is a charlatan. It was a personal dispute between them. McKee cannot follow a scientific argument because he has steadfastly refused to study the subject of physics and structural engineering and other essential knowledge to thoroughly grasp those aspects of the 9/11 case.

      And Craig has never really caught on that Jim Fetzer is a charlatan and a mole that infiltrated the 9/11 truth movement as a disinformant. Fetzer doesn’t understand science either, he is a pretender and has been caught out over and again.

      I knew that Craig and several other of the regular commentators on T&S bought into the Moon-Hoax nonsense for a long time. But it never became an issue between he and I until quite recently. That is not the reason I left T&S however. The issue was Fetzer posting his bullshit freely on the last thread before the Moon-Hoax thread, the one to do with Ken Doc.Who had accused McKee in promoting nonsense like Nukes at WTC, No-Planes at WTC, Video Fakery, DEW, and Holograms. Craig allowing Fetzer to post his bullshit about Nukes and No Planes on that very thread, it made it seem very disingenuous to claim he did not promote those falsehoods. And although Craig complained that he made it clear that he did not believe those theories, it can hardly be denied that he was promoting them by allowing their propagation on his site. So it’s Craig’s own fault that people will interpret his allowing these things to be promoted colors him with that brush, no matter how much he denies it.

      But we come to the Moon landings issue itself, and that is really an incredibly elementary scientific proposition. And the reasoning used by the Hoax advocates is so utterly transparently ludicrous, it becomes more than simple scientific ignorance in Craig’s case — he is not a logical thinker either! Some of the argument for a hoax landing are so obviously bullshit that a 12 year old could see through them.

      At any rate, a disinformant like Fetzer knew right off the bat that Craig is a sucker, and now Fetzer has finally got him under his control. And although I have empathy for Craig’s situation, it is not my problem. Craig’s a big boy, and if he hasn’t learned to fend for himself, he has to accept the consequences.

      • On T&S, logic and proportion have fallen stormy deaths…

        And now Fetzer has posted this: Conspiracy Theory : Did We Land on the Moon …Video.
        Infotainment, the perfect medium for instilling disinformation in the gullible mind. This is actually a TV show from FOX network, one of the most blatant propaganda outlets. And this program has the oldest and most lame so-called “proofs” so far made. All myths spun by spurious rhetoric and unsound reasoning.
        Most of these issues are addressed in the upper portion of this thread. They are easy to understand if you simply pay attention, in the main, it isn’t rocket science, just thinking critically that shows what nonsense the pro-hoax arguments are.


      • That was 1124 wasted words Bridges. Words that will never see the light of day here. Now why don’t you fuck off an play dead again like a good little puppy.

      • I have been advised by Maxwell Bridges, aka Maxifucnanus, aka Maxitwat, aka, el Kabong; not to mention him on this site again. Of course this is my blog and I can say any fuckin’ thing I want here.
        It is quite the delight seeing Señor Fuckhead stewing in his own juices, plying his futile demands like a voice from a deep empty well.

        And don’t try to feed me any off your mealy-mouthed bullshit Max, I know for a fact that McKee banned you.

        Let me recommend two threads on this blog that address the psychosis of this anonymous bouncing lunatic calling itself, “Maxwell Bridges”:

        Viddy well, little brother!

  42. Mazzucco purchased from NASA all the television footage that was allegedly shot on the Moon (he estimates between 20 and 30 hours) and has gone through it all very carefully. He says the thing that was most clear to him is that the alleged lunar photography was all faked.

    “When you analyze all those endless hours you see so many things that are wrong. My problem is that it’s easy for me as a professional, as a photographer, to see where the problems are. The problem is how to make it convincing for those who are not, the general public.”~Mazzucco

    Mazzucco has spun that backward. It will be easy for him to convince the general public of this bullshit. The difficult part will be convincing those of us who understand photography, light and shadow, science, and technology; and who are capable of critical thinking.

    I think Mazzucco is in this for money. He has his tin cup out begging for donations to make this disinfotainment crap. And he had better hurry, there is only a short window for this moon-hoax bullshit to play out, It is close to the point of new photographic proofs of clearer and more detailed shots of the Apollo landing sites become available from recent and upcoming probes.

  43. MOON LANDINGS ‘FAKE’: What Stanley Kubrick’s family say about ‘hoax admission’ video

    RELATIVES of Stanley Kubrick have spoken out after a shocking video supposedly showing the movie legend make a deathbed confession that he helped NASA fake the moon landings emerged.

    In a statement released through a spokesperson, the family made it clear the film published on YouTube was a complete hoax, using an actor who was purporting to be the Clockwork Orange film director.

    The statement on behalf of his widow Christiane Kubrick said: “The interview is a lie, Stanley Kubrick has never been interviewed by T.Patrick Murray, the whole story is made up, fraudulent & untrue.”

    The two-hour film, said to be raw footage of an interview with the Clockwork Orange director, in March 1999, went viral just days after NASA announced it had found the crash site on the moon of part of the Apollo 16 Mission rocket.
    Also see:
    Dark Side of the Moon is a French mockumentary by director William Karel which originally aired on Arte in 2002 with the title Opération Lune. The basic premise for the film is the theory that the television footage from the Apollo 11 Moon landing was faked and recorded in a studio by the CIA with help from director Stanley Kubrick. It features some surprising guest appearances, most notably by Donald Rumsfeld, Dr. Henry Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Vernon Walters, Buzz Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick’s widow, Christiane Kubrick.
    The film uses four main types of elements:[1][2]

    Karel interviewed Kubrick’s widow, Christiane Kubrick, and his brother-in-law, Jan Harlan, pretending he was making a documentary on Kubrick, his film 2001: A Space Odyssey, the Moon or NASA, and asking intentionally vague questions. Karel also interviewed Vernon Walters, Buzz Aldrin, his wife and some NASA personnel, under the same pretext of making a bona fide documentary.

    He used footage of staff of President Richard Nixon, including Rumsfeld, Kissinger, Haig, Lawrence Eagleburger and CIA director Richard Helms, recycled from his earlier documentary Les hommes de la Maison Blanche [3] and edited in order to twist their words.

    Other “witnesses” are played by actors to make the connections between the sentences pronounced by “real witnesses” and make a credible story. Among many giveaways (mainly in the second half) that the entire film is a hoax in jest, these “staging” witnesses are named after characters in Kubrick and Hitchcock films, for instance an astronaut named “David Bowman” (2001: A Space Odyssey), a film producer named “Jack Torrance” (The Shining) or Nixon’s secretary called “Eve Kendall” (North by Northwest).

    Other elements appearing in the second half are “borrowed” from various documentaries that are mentioned in the end credits. These are the only parts of the film in which deceptive subtitling is used: Australie, la route de Tanami (Arnaud Mansir, Hervé Rébillon, 1999), L’archipel aux savants (Laurence Graffin, 1997), Philippine : la vallée des rizières éternelles (Patrick Boitet, Jacques Massart, 1994), Cambodge : Païlin, le refuge des criminels (Hubert Dubois, 1999), Chine : union furtive (Fang Wui Wang, 2000), Laos : les montagnards de l’opium (Eric Pierrot, 1997).
    Fictitious witnesses
    The names of the fictitious winesses and of the actors impersonating them appear in the end credits. Moreover, Arte (co-producer and original broadcaster of the film) accompanied the airing in France by a web site featuring a quiz[16] in which the player was led to guess in which films the characters having those names originally appeared. The following list reproduces the correct answers of the quiz.

    Jack Torrance is a fictional character in Kubrick’s The Shining, not a Hollywood Producer, and is played by David Winger.
    David Bowman is a fictional character in Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, not a real astronaut, and is played by Tad Brown.
    Maria Vargas (lead character in The Barefoot Contessa) is played by Jacquelyn Toman and is not Buzz Aldrin’s sister.
    Eve Kendall is a fictional character in Alfred Hitchcock’s North by Northwest and was not Nixon’s secretary (that woman’s name was Rose Marie Woods), and is played by Barbara Rogers.
    Dimitri Muffley is a play on the names from Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove (Soviet Premier Dimitri Kisov and American President Merkin Muffley) and is not a “former KGB agent.” He is played by Bernard Kirschoff.
    Ambrose Chapel is the name of a place in Hitchcock’s The Man Who Knew Too Much, not an “ex-CIA agent”, and is played by John Rogers.
    George Kaplan (mentioned by narrator) is a fictional character within a fictional character in the Hitchcock film, North By Northwest.
    W. A. Koenigsberg (“W. A.” stands for “Woody Allen”, as Koenigsberg is Woody Allen’s true name) is played by Binem Oreg.
    Read the entire article, it makes it very clear that this so-call documentary was actually a spoof.

    • Mockumentary (a portmanteau of the words mock and documentary) is a type of film or television show in which fictional events are presented in documentary style to create a parody.

  44. Well, there sure hasn’t been much participation on McKee’s Moon-Hoax thread at T&S, very few of the regular commentators have posted. It looks like the commentary is stalled with fat-fuck Fester making the majority of comments there. (As of 9:19 PM 2/2/2016 my local time)

  45. Spaceflight

    Spaceflight, flight beyond Earth’s atmosphere. This article deals with the basic concepts associated with the launch and return of unmanned and manned spacecraft and their travel, navigation, and rendezvous and docking in space. For the development of space travel and discussions ofspacecraft and space programs and their contributions to scientific knowledge and human welfare, see space exploration. For the development and technology of rocket propulsion, see rocket. For details on rocket systems used to propel spacecraft beyond Earth’s atmosphere, see launch vehicle.

    During the final phases of descent, some spacecraft—especially capsule-type manned craft—deploy parachutes, which lower the vehicle to a soft landing. The Apollo Command Modules employed this technique to make ocean splashdowns.


  46. A strange hush has descended on T&S since David Hazan posted some troubling questions to Uncle Fester… hmmm. (5:20 on 2/3/2016 – my local time)
    This is my reaction to Apollo’s video’s (that he made himself):

    This moon-Hoaxer argument that NASA slowed the sequences and had the astronauts on cables defeats itself, as if the sequence is slowed down, dust kicked up on the surface, hangs in the airless atmosphere as if there were air. Which would be a bigger “give away” that the footage was shot on Earth, than this ludicrous argument. But one will notice in the actual moon jump sequence the dust does not “hang in the air” but falls very quickly…too quickly for there to have been an atmosphere.

    As a final point on this theory; one can take a video of ANYBODY leaping into the air; slow the video down and give the impression that the person is “floating in lighter gravity”.

    Then you can add a bunch of complex equations, all accurate as far as the film speeds you used and go into long explanations about all of this: But in the final analysis, all you have proven is that slowing down a video or film of someone leaping in the air, makes the motion last longer aka “slow motion”, which has been know for a century of moving pictures.

    All Mr Apollo has proven is that slowing the motion creates slow motion!

    There were aerials on their backpacks that glinted in those videos where they assert the wire was attached.

    As far as the sound; The vibrations would go through the hammer, to the gloved hand and resonate in the astronaut’s bones and be picked up in the mic. Anyone who knows how a tuning fork works would understand this.

    Also see:

  47. “Eternity isn’t some later time. Eternity isn’t even a long time. Eternity has nothing to do with time. Eternity is that dimension of here and now that all thinking in temporal terms cuts off. The experience of eternity right here and now, in all things, whether thought of as good or evil, is the function of life.”~Joseph Campbell

  48. Apollo Project — February 4, 2016 at 10:40 pm
    “The astronauts are working within an atmosphere, no need for hidden life support systems.

    What is relevant is the exact same speed factor used to reverse the slow motion lunar video is used to simulate lunar gravity with, surprisingly accuracy!”

    * * * * * * * * * * * * *
    This statement above is pure and simple “Circular Reasoning” — Again he hasn’t shown anything but slowing down moving pictures creates ‘slow motion’. He is likely intimating that the back packs on the astronauts were simply lite props. But that is pure conjecture and has little to do with slow motion.
    The answer to the riddle here is how quickly the moon dust drops while the astronaut is at full leap.
    The dust is as fine as talc, it would have hung in air if there were air. Thus there was no air, no atmosphere, which proves they were on the moon.

    “Talc (derived from Persian: تالک‎‎ tālk; Arabic: طلق‎ ṭalq) is a mineral composed of hydrated magnesium silicate with the chemical formula H2Mg3(SiO3)4 or Mg3Si4O10(OH)2. In loose form, it is the widely used substance known as baby powder (aka talcum).”~Wiki

    This is almost exactly what Moon Dust is, a dry silicate in a powdered form.

    • Apollo Project — February 4, 2016 at 11:05 pm
      “The dirt would seem to have been mixed with a fraction of oil.
      Some boot prints in the video appear with a sheen at certain angles, very well defined with a broad specular highlight.
      Very quickly the suit becomes dirty, with it sticking all over. The minute amount of oil would stop free floating “äir” borne particles.”
      Nonsense, the moon dust is a known quantity, it is a dry silicate dust, there is no “oil” in it.
      Silicate has a sheen, it is very much like powdered glass.
      I have seen no visual images of the spacesuits becoming dirty, with dust sticking all over.
      Mr. Apollo is pulling this shit out of his own ass.


      • And for my ‘secret admirer’ MF:

        It is not simply the speed the dust settles at, but the fact that it does not disperse and hang in ‘the air’ as it would in an atmosphere.

  49. More classic Fetzering:

    James Henry Fetzer — February 5, 2016 at 3:03 am
    “David, NASA is going to have “an explanation” for every anomaly. The challenge is to sort them out. This is a simple argument that they can respond to but (so far as I can see) not defeat–like the claim moon-walkers could not see a universe with boundless stars! We can even see them from Earth and the visibility from an atmosphere-less would be spectacular.

    Here is an interesting short video in which admissions are made from the International Space Station that we have never gone beyond low Earth orbit and, from a NASA engineer, that we are still working to solve the problem posed by the Van Allen Radiation Belts. With the passage of time, fewer and fewer players remember that we are supposed to have gone to the moon!
    * * * * * * * * * * * *
    “The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.”

    The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don’t appear in the pictures.
    . . .
    Fetzer again propagates the false claim that the spokesman for the Orion project “admitting that we have never gone beyond low Earth orbit because of the Van Allen Radiation Belts.” — This is utterly bogus no such “admission” is made. The person reposting the video of the Orion spokesman SPINS what the spokesman is saying, when it is obvious when seen in context that is not what the NASA spokesman said at all.
    . . .
    Notice as well that Uncle Fester, when faced with the facts about the silicate composition of moon dust, he has no answer to the last bullshit he came up with about the impression of the boot-print in the lunar dust being impossible. This is typical of the Fister to hand-wave and pretend he didn’t notice when he has been rebuked.

    * * * * * * * * * *
    PHOTOGRAPHY — From Clavius website:
    Photography on the lunar surface presents two problems. First, the sunlight is quite bright. The moon is roughly as far away from the sun as the earth, but there is no atmosphere to filter and subdue the sunlight. And along with this is the glare of the sun off the lunar surface.

    Second, the difference between light and shadow is more pronounced on the moon since there is no atmosphere to scatter the sunlight and make it more uniform.

    Fortunately neither of these problems is unsolvable. A brightly lit scene can be correctly photographed simply by using less sensitive film, and also by closing the aperture and using a faster shutter speed. In extreme cases you can also put a filter (sunglasses for cameras) over the lens to reduce the light entering the lens.

    But what about shadow? Well, objects lying in shadow on the lunar surface are not in pitch blackness. Light reflects from space suits, the lunar module, the dust around you. You can open up the aperture and lengthen the shutter speed if the subject you want to capture is in shadow.


    NASA Technology
    Did NASA have the technology to go to the moon in 1969? Conspiracists say no. We maintain they’re looking at the wrong things.
    Computer Technology in the 1960s
    Computer technology made some striking advances in the 1960s. Were they sufficient to build the computers used on the Apollo spacecraft?
    Space Suits
    What is it really like to work in a space suit?
    What is necessary to communicate with lunar spacecraft?
    Were the Apollo spacecraft as riddled with defects as the critics say?

  51. I continue to be shocked and amazed at the gullibility of people I had earlier taken as rather reasonable.
    Case in point is Shelton Lankford:

    Shelton Lankford
    February 5, 2016 at 8:18 am
    Just trying to get a life-size picture of pilots, even those with the “right stuff”, after watching the flying bedstead crashing in flames, nearly killing Niel Armstrong, concluding that no further testing or development is needed to ensure that the LEM is “go” for launch into an unfamiliar environment. After all, only their lives and the ultimate success of every one of the moon missions was riding on every landing and blastoff on the lunar surface going perfectly from that point. With balls like that, how did any of them ever get off the ground at all? If you have not watched Kubrick’s Odyssey by Jay Weidner you should. It does a pretty good job of deconstructing Apollo on its own. What was Stanley trying to tell us in “The Shining”?
    . . . . .
    However again a real NASA engineer corrects the record, which is what is what I understand the truth actually is:

    Dwain Deets
    February 5, 2016 at 12:15 pm
    To comment on the flying bedstead. That one, a trainer version, was modified from the research version developed and tested at the NASA center at Edwards AFB where I worked that went by various names through the years, but nominally Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC). The Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV) was very successful. The Lunar Landing Trainer Vehicle (LLTV) was managed by NASA Johnson Space Center (JSC). When the LLTV crashed, DFRC personnel experienced with the LLRV naturally wanted to help investigate the crash and offer recommendations, but JSC insisted on investigating it totally themselves.


  52. It is interesting for me to be arguing for the proofs of a conspiracy on one topic, the JFK hit. And at the same time arguing against a conspiracy on the topic of the Apollo landings. All in a days work!

  53. “It is fallacious to evaluate an argument on the basis of its source.”~Jim Fetzer @ February 5, 2016 at 2:19 pm

    This is a truncated argument, which would more properly read:

    It is fallacious to evaluate an argument EXCLUSIVELY on the basis of its source.

    In the case of Fetzer this is particularly relevant, as he has proved to be a consistently unreliable and fraudulent source.

    Beating dead horses that still gallop by spooky mechanisms also remains valid.

  54. Having just read the latest exchange between David Hazan and Uncle Fester, I only have a short comment;

    David makes a brilliant comment. The problem is of course in Fetzer’s reply wherein he puffs himself up as a teacher of Logic and Critical thinking. Which we all know is belied by his actual performance in argumentation which can be shown to break every rule of logic and critical thinking with a consistently that can only be seen as purposeful and willful. It is not that Fetzer doesn’t know the subjects, it is that he can spin the bottle rhetorically with some skill…but that is where his toe-jam sticks to his tongue.

    Fetzer still has not made a substantive argument proving the Moon-Hoax on that thread so far. All he has done is twaddle on about his opponents and boast of his critical thinking skills. Perhaps it is time he put those skills to the test. Perhaps he is hesitant as David is obviously a very intelligent individual, and Fetzer isn’t quite sure what bullshit tactics he can use with such an opponent.

    Maybe he can repeat the red hot capsule hitting the ocean and not causing an explosion of steam as he asserted before? Of course he knows it is common knowledge that parachutes were used in the decent stage in the atmosphere. So his argument is lost before he makes that one?

    Maybe he will try Mr Apollo’s stupid “oily moon dust” bullshit?

    Stay tuned folks, they aren’t even out of the starting gate on that thread yet, and it’s been almost a week since the article was posted.

    • An Oldie but Goody

      Jim Fetzer’s Campaign of Disinformation

      Comments? Please email: Clint Bradford

      Here’s a sampling of email messages I have received regarding the esteemed Dr. Fetzer.
      Careful, though…some are ugly…

      “By 1996, I had lost all faith in [Fetzer’s] integrity. He is a parasite, not a researcher. He tried to ride the medical evidence to fame, but was frustrated by his inability to use Harrison Livingstone. He went on to find others more easily manipulated, and picked Zapruder alteration as his new “cause.”~Martin Shackelford

      • The Zapruder Film is Authentic

        After being threatened with litigation on the telephone late one Sunday night by Jim Fetzer for publicly voicing my opinion that his compilation, Assassination Science, lacked basic scientific research methods…

        And after Fetzer’s – and others’ – attempts to discredit ANYONE who found faults with ANY poorly presented propaganda…

        I realized I was on the right track.

        It’s over, Z-Film alterationists.
        Messrs. Lifton, Fetzer, White, Mantik, Schaeffer – and Twyman and others – need to move on to other subjects to research. And all authors’ works need to be carefully scrutinzed, so that the duping of the public with their “The Zapruder Film is altered…” nonsense never occurs again.”~ Clint Bradford.

    • The LLRV Took a Short Hop for Mankind
      By the end of 1966, LLRV #1 had completed 198 missions and provided enough information that Bell was ordered to develop three advanced versions of the vehicle, known as Lunar Landing Training Vehicles (LLTVs). These, along with the original LLRVs, were used to train Apollo astronauts at the Manned Space Center (now Johnson Space Center) in Houston, TX.

      LLRV #1 flew for the last time on May 6, 1968, with Neil Armstrong at the controls. This was Armstrong’s 21st flight in the LLRV, as he and other astronauts prepared for an imminent mission to the moon. His previous 20 flights had been uneventful and during ascent there was nothing to suggest this trip would be any different. But that changed as he descended. Without warning, the flight controls failed. The vehicle did not respond to any corrective action and Armstrong was forced to eject. He landed safely; the LLRV did not. A propellant leak followed by loss of helium pressure in the attitude rockets was later determined to be the cause of the crash.

      After the accident, Armstrong didn’t fly in any of the lunar landing vehicles for more than year. Then, in June 1969, as his Apollo 11 mission approached, he flew several times in an LLTV. He logged 14 total minutes of simulated flight time that month before descending to the surface of the actual moon in the Lunar Module itself. He later stated that the successful Apollo 11 lunar landing would not have been achieved without the simulation training provided by the lunar landing research and training vehicles.

  55. “…think about how difficult it is to make an impression in dry sand. It won’t stick because of the absence of moisture. So how can boots make those well-defined impressions on the moon? They can’t!”~Jim Fetzer – February 4, 2016 at 4:45 pm

    Jimbo — February 6, 2016 at 12:32 am
    “Okay, so I have a small tub of Johnson’s baby powder. It’s powdery and dry. To simulate a notched boot sole I am using a plastic packet of two pills I use for my prostate. So I press the pill packets a few times into the powder and there are very distinct tracks in the powder. You may disregard what Fetzer sensei says and know that boot prints on the moon are entirely possible.”

    * * * * * * * *
    There you have it, a simple easy experiment anyone can perform at home that proves one of Uncle Fester’s bullshit propositions wrong.

    Also see: 08A Spectrum of the Moon @

    • “Jimbo, My bet would be your talcum powder is loaded with moisture.”~Fetzer

      Obviously this assertion by Fetzer is complete bullshit. Talcum powder is used to keep a baby’s wet diaper from effecting the skin because talc acts as a barrier as it does not absorb moisture itself. Talcum powder is adsorbent; that is, it repels water, keeping it from your baby’s skin Uncle Fester knows this very well and immediately leaps to a new assertion:

      “why does NASA refuse to use the world’s most powerful telescope to look at the surface of the moon and see what’s there?”

      That technique is known as “changing the goalpost”

    • James Henry Fetzer – February 6, 2016 at 12:31 pm
      “David, Your position is incoherent. You tout SOURCES as IMPORTANT, but when I explain that I not only have excellent credentials as an author and a scholar, who has published books on all the subjects you enumerate and more–including JFK, 9/11, Sandy Hook, the Boston bombing, the moon landing and the Holocaust–you attempt to dismiss and to trivialize me.”
      So Uncle Fester resorts again to boasting about his credentials and presents a series of publications that are on inspection, nothing but speculative fiction, just like his position on this thread on T&S.
      Fortunately the informed reader is well aware of Fetzers MO as a utter charlatan.
      One cannot “trivialize” Fetzer any better than Fetzer himself.
      . . . . . .
      In other words these is typical Fetzerisms writ large. Worse, they are writ large on T&S.


  56. “The images are not from the Moon – none of them. Not from Apollo 11 to 17.”~Massimo Mazzucco


  57. Dwain Deets – February 6, 2016 at 12:17 pm
    “It’s misleading to call what Neil Armstrong flew a prototype. It was a totally different design, as it had to fly in Earth gravity. Think of it as a flying simulator, rigged up so it “handled” like the Lunar Lander was thought to have “handled” in Moon gravity. I use the term because test pilots refer to how flight vehicles “handle” by describing the handling qualities. Alternative, the term “flying qualities” sometimes is used in place of handling qualities.”

    • sockpuppet2012 — February 6, 2016 at 8:33 pm
      Your comment is full of falsehood due to lack of education and sloppy research…..see my comment above.

      By the end of 1966, LLRV #1 had completed 198 missions and provided enough information that Bell was ordered to develop three advanced versions of the vehicle, known as Lunar Landing Training Vehicles (LLTVs). These, along with the original LLRVs, were used to train Apollo astronauts at the Manned Space Center (now Johnson Space Center) in Houston, TX.

      LLRV #1 flew for the last time on May 6, 1968, with Neil Armstrong at the controls. This was Armstrong’s 21st flight in the LLRV, as he and other astronauts prepared for an imminent mission to the moon. His previous 20 flights had been uneventful and during ascent there was nothing to suggest this trip would be any different. But that changed as he descended. Without warning, the flight controls failed. The vehicle did not respond to any corrective action and Armstrong was forced to eject. He landed safely; the LLRV did not. A propellant leak followed by loss of helium pressure in the attitude rockets was later determined to be the cause of the crash.

      After the accident, Armstrong didn’t fly in any of the lunar landing vehicles for more than year. Then, in June 1969, as his Apollo 11 mission approached, he flew several times in an LLTV. He logged 14 total minutes of simulated flight time that month before descending to the surface of the actual moon in the Lunar Module itself. He later stated that the successful Apollo 11 lunar landing would not have been achieved without the simulation training provided by the lunar landing research and training vehicles.

      “The LM was too unstable to have landed on the Moon” can be scratched off the list of reasons why the Moon landing was a Hoax.”~Sockpuppet

      At least Sockpuppet is being objective there. Good for him!

      • 94 COMMENTS on the Moon-Hoax thread on T&S, and not a single solid argument supporting the hoax assertion. Absolutely nothing but bullshit from these clowns.
        No wonder Craig hasn’t said a word since the first day.


  58. “…if we have proof that moon dust is comparable to talcum powder, then images like boot prints are possible. But if that is indeed the case, the photos of moon rovers with no tracks in front or behind or between their wheels are further proof that they were lowered into place by a crane.”~Fetzer

    Fetzer, if he has any knowledge of the moon, would know that moon dust is a silicate comparable to talcum powder. It is a known factor, and if he wants to argue the landings he should already be aware of it.

    As far as Rover tracks, they will leave tracks in areas where there is dust covering the rock on the surface; but there are areas of bare rock as well. The modules purposely landed on flat rocky surfaces for stability, when they landed the rocket engines blew the dust away from the immediate area surrounding the module.
    That there are no Rover tracks in that vicinity is no mystery whatsoever.

    “Jimbo needs to get his head screwed on right.”~Fetzer

    Which means, Jimbo needs to stop making Fetzer look like the fool and charlatan that he is.

    “Lunar dust, being a compound of silicon as is quartz, is (to our current knowledge) also not poisonous. But like the quartz dust in the Hawk’s Nest Tunnel, it is extremely fine and abrasive, almost like powdered glass. Astronauts on several Apollo missions found that it clung to everything and was almost impossible to remove; once tracked inside the Lunar Module, some of it easily became airborne, irritating lungs and eyes.”
    Lunar dust, being a compound of silicon as is quartz, is (to our current knowledge) also not poisonous. But like the quartz dust in the Hawk’s Nest Tunnel, it is extremely fine and abrasive, almost like powdered glass. Astronauts on several Apollo missions found that it clung to everything and was almost impossible to remove; once tracked inside the Lunar Module, some of it easily became airborne, irritating lungs and eyes.

    • If you are going to argue about the Moon Landings, at least have some elementary knowledge of the Moon itself:
      Chemical composition of the lunar surface regolith (derived from crustal rocks)[40]
      Compound Formula Composition (wt %)
      Maria Highlands
      silica SiO2 45.4% 45.5%
      alumina Al2O3 14.9% 24.0%
      lime CaO 11.8% 15.9%
      iron(II) oxide FeO 14.1% 5.9%
      magnesia MgO 9.2% 7.5%
      titanium dioxide TiO2 3.9% 0.6%
      sodium oxide Na2O 0.6% 0.6%
      Total 99.9% 100.0%
      Also see:
      And this:

      • “If there is an element of fraud in a legal case that materially impacts that case, the entire case has no merit.”~Jim Fetzer

        The same is true for a personality profile and MO of an individual. Fetzer has a long history as a fraud and charlatan. He is a professional disinformant. His infamy is well known and understood by serious researchers.

        And again, the fact that Craig McKee has not grasped this is proof of how gullible he is, and how untrustworthy his naïve views are; they in fact can be termed superstitious, because he believes in things that he does not understand.

        The thread on Truth & Shadows addressing the Moon-Hoax crashed and burned. There was no substantive points made in favor of the proposition that the landings were faked. In the final analysis the page was an advertisement and plea for financing, a hawking with tin cup in hand. And I find that disgraceful.

    • Well…huh! It has been more than a week that the Moon-Hoax thread has been up on T&S, and nobody has made a convincing argument on any aspect of the claims that the Apollo landings were faked.

      So far just a lot of squabbling about peripheral matters and fat-rat Uncle Fester boasting about his credentials and how ‘logical’ his bullshit arguments are.

      Hahahahaha!!! Whatta freak show!

      Blither blather punkin’ lather
      Loose lip dribble chunky splatter
      Hoisted by an ass pike highly
      Brain a frying o’so dryly
      Humor fumin’ squatting smiley
      Take your screams and slip them slyly
      Past the gates of sane refrain
      That open to eternal pain


  59. “The emergence of tyranny therefore begins with challenges to a group, develops into general feelings of insecurity and inadequacy, and falls into a pattern in which some individuals assume the role of “father” to the others, who willingly submit to becoming dependent “children” of such persons if only they are reassured that a more favorable outcome will be realized. This pattern of co-dependency is pathological, and generally results in decision making of poor quality that makes the situation even worse, but, because the pattern is pathological, instead of abandoning it, the co-dependents repeat their inappropriate behavior to produce a vicious spiral that, if not interrupted, can lead to total breakdown of the group and the worst of the available outcomes.

    In psychiatry, this syndrome is often discussed as an “authoritarian personality disorder”. In common parlance, as being a “control freak”.
    ~Jon Roland in an essay, Principles of Tyranny

  60. The moon hoax was thought up in Wolkenkuckucksheim. The simple fact is you cannot prove the Apollo Landings were hoaxed, because the landings actually took place.

  61. Now Uncle Fester has turned the logic tables around on Sockpuppet:

    “Stop playing the sock puppet and give us some proof that we actually did go to the moon.”~Festzer

    No no no!! It is up to Uncle Fester to prove that they DIDN’T go to the moon. He is the one making the assertions, he is the one that has to defend his assertions.
    And he presents himself as a “professor of logic”!!!

    At any rate Sockpuppet had just given this information, which Fetzer does not acknowledge, instead repeats his bullshit about no Rover tracks

    “The five F-1 engines equal 160,000,000 horsepower, about double the amount of potential hydroelectric power that would be available at any given moment if all the moving waters of North America were channeled through turbines”
    . . . . . . . .

    On the lack of Rover tracks near the module:

    The landing sites were all chosen to set down on stable flat bedrock. The dust in the area around the lander would have been blown away by the entry rocket for quite a distance beyond the craft. So the solid rock was exposed sans dust layer. Obviously the Rover would not leave tracks in the solid rock but only after leaving the immediate vicinity of the lander. There are many photos both movies and stills of Rover tracks. In fact they can be seen in contemporary photos of the landing sites from more modern flyby craft and lunar satellites.

    • “Sure enough their photo matches the NASA photo thus “busting” the myth. However, in the filming of the guy taking the photo the white astronaut is black, shaded by the lander as conspiracy theorists contend. BUSTED! lol”~Jimbo

      But that is not how the sequence ended is it? No, after adding in the contours of the lunar landscape they showed how a low ridge just in front of the lander had cut off part of the shadow — meaning the original photo from the moon is indeed correct.

      I went into this issue above by my own reasoning. One point that makes the shadow anomaly a false appearance is to closely examine the hottest spot on the lighting on the lander. Compare that angle with all of the other objects near and far in the photo, and you will see that the light is hitting at the same angle throughout the entire picture.

      This verifies by a second analysis that there was a ridge cutting off part of the lander shadow.

      But most important is the fact that, dual light sources create dual shadows NOT shadow angle anomalies.


  62. “I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.”
    – Voltaire

    Well McKee’s Moon-Hoax article on T&S did a belly-flop. They didn’t prove squat or make any convincing points. And that is because the whole lunar landing hoax concept is based on BULLSHIT.

  63. Jimbo asks,
    “Having visited this and other debunking sites I am more and more convinced that the evidence of a hoax isn’t there but have your read Wagging the Moondoggie? The two pro-hoax arguments that still irk are the ones at the heart of McGowan’s essay, how it would be have been impossible to do with the primitive technology of the times and why no one has returned in all these years. Riddle me this, Willy: The battery power to cool and heat those space suits, run the little car, etc., isn’t that sort of efficient battery life eluding us still? And why haven’t we gone beyond low earth orbit since then?” (2/11/2016)
    First of all Jimbo, this is not a “debunking site”, for the most part this is site is dedicated to Conspiracy Analysis and Forensic Historical Analysis.

    You ask if I read ‘Wagging the Moondoggie’, I will reply by asking did you read this thread? Because if you have read this thread, I make it clear that I read McGowan’s bullshit as I was constructing the commentary of this thread. And it pissed me off that so many people had urged me to read McGowan’s nonsense. And my commentary as to why this is so is already on this page.

    You asked about battery life on the moon rovers, asserting that with, “isn’t that sort of efficient battery life eluding us still?”

    I don’t know what kind of cars you have been driving, but I have been driving cars since the 60’s and the batteries in my cars have lasted in the general range of 2 to 3 years. So I am curious as to the presumed “mystery” of this aspect. The rovers used solar cells to recharge the batteries.

    The general assumption that the technology of the 1960’s was “primitive” is preposterous. Primitive compared to what? Compared to 21st century technologies? We have come far technologically that much is certain, however the technology was very advanced in the 1960s even compared to the 40’s and 50’s.
    Technology advances exponentially. So to compare the advances made since the 1960’s to now needs a larger perspective of comparison, I suggest studying technology from the steam engine forward to get a sense of the subject.

    I have already addressed why the “we haven’t gone back in all these years”. It was simply due to defunding, see;

    One more thing Jimbo, you may be curious as to why I did not moderate your comment and make it public.
    It is simple, and I have explained this before; this is NOT a Forum style website. It is not meant to be a place for arguments between others or myself. It is my personal journal in a public setting. So very few have been granted posting privileges on HR1blog. Moderation is a pain in the ass I need not bother with.

    I will give you some advice Jimbo – read before you ask. If you have anymore questions and expect answers to them, be sure they are not already covered above.

    Good luck, \\][//

  64. The “Truthers” say that “9/11 is the litmus test,”
    – And true that is, it is the litmus test of those who will be stuck arguing the minutia of 9/11 for the rest of their lives while the world goes to hell in a hand-basket, unnoticed by their hypnotized asses.

    At this time, having flopped on the Moon-Hoax issue, T&S has fallen back to relitigating the Pentagon event – seemingly the only firm argument that McKee and his boys have in their pocket. A forever war that ends nowhere.

  65. This new character that Sockpuppet is arguing with is actually ‘Tamborineman’ a T&S participant from several years ago; a real friggin’ fruitcake! I know who he is from the topic and that he posted this metaphysical bullshit on Pilots under his original name when his articles came out there. Why Pilots? I have no idea, other than that they let him publish his tripe there.

  66. Fetzer once again proves he doesn’t know jack-shit about science:

    James Henry Fetzer — April 3, 2016 at 6:33 am
    “You have been played by a master of the game. There is no atmosphere on the moon. They should have seen billions of stars as points of light, not twinkling (which is caused by scattering of light in the atmosphere) but brilliant and awe-inspirits. They were sheepish because they blew it on this point and have had to live with the consequences. Research on the moon landing hoax is every bit as legitimate as research on the 9/11 hoax. You need to be a bit more discriminating.”

    Now see:

  67. I just have to say one more time, you have to be a real dumbfuck to deny that the Apollo lunar landings took place. The argument that it was a hoax has absolutely no merit whatsoever.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s