Moon Hoax

NASA image AS11-40-5903 cropped from the bottom and the sides but not from the top

Moon hoax (or Apollo Hoax) is a view that no man really landed on the Moon in 1969–1972 during the Apollo programme. Some people (called here "Moon sceptics") say that the Apollo astronauts did not walk on the Moon, but NASA lied to the world by filming everything on Earth and fabricating evidence such as rock samples. Some Moon sceptics dispute also the authenticity of the Skylab orbital station.

Questioning man's way to the Moon is almost an absolute taboo in scientific circles. But in Internet, the combat between NASA defenders and Moon sceptics goes on, with public support for the latter growing. An official admission of a hoax would likely have the most grave consequences for NASA, the USA, and all people and organisations involved in space exploration worldwide. This would also challenge the future manned Moon and Mars missions.

Rationale

On 12 April 1961, the USSR sent the first man into space – Yuri Gagarin. Six weeks later, U.S. President John Kennedy promised a manned Moon landing by 1969 to win the battle of systems and impress the world with technical superiority:

“

Finally, if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take.

”

Moon sceptics say that NASA had to fake the Moon landings due to serious technical problems, insoluble for these eight years, which deadline however had to be met by all means. The USA could not afford to lose the Moon race. Bill Kaysing (see below) suggested that during the 1960s, they (NASA) said "if you can't make it, fake it". And in 2004, President George W. Bush gave not eight but sixteen years for a manned return to the Moon, albeit the technologies for it should have already been developed forty years ago.

Origins and history

The term "Moon Hoax" sprang up in 1835 from six consecutive New York Sun newspaper articles, written probably by the "Sun" reporter Richard Locke, about alleged discoveries of life on the Moon by astronomer Sir John Herschel through "a telescope of vast dimensions and an entirely new principle".

Since the twentieth century, the term "Moon Hoax" has been used only in regard to the Apollo Moon landings. Doubts about their authenticity appeared first in December 1968 when Apollo 8 was launched. And the almost perfectly executed odyssey of Apollo 11 seemed unreal to some who believed it to be a hoax, contrived for mere publicity.

The first book on the subject (Did man land on the Moon?) was written by the mathematician James Cranny in 1970.^{(2:52–3:03)} The suggestive scenes in the films Diamonds are forever by Guy Hamilton (1971) and especially Capricorn One by Peter Hyams (1978, about a hoaxed flight to Mars in a spacecraft that looks the same as the Apollo craft) gave a powerful boost to the popularity of the hoax theory, coinciding with the increased distrust in official U.S. reports after the Watergate scandal. And today, a sequel to "Capricorn One" is in the "deep development stage", said Navid McIlhargey, senior vice president with New Regency Productions in Los Angeles.

In 2006, the Apollo era slow-scan TV and telemetry data tape reels were declared missing. The question of what happened to the tapes "stuck in the craw" of the Moon doubters. And in 2009, NASA revealed that the tapes were erased.

Public opinion

There are entire subcultures within the USA and substantial cultures around the world that strongly believe that the Moon landings were faked. This notion is taught in Cuban schools and wherever else Cuban teachers are sent (Nicaragua, Angola, etc.).

Poll results

On 14 June 1970, Knight Newspapers conducted a poll of 1721 people in six U.S. cities and found that more than 30% were "suspicious of NASA's trips to the Moon" with the number rising to 54% in some Afro-American areas.^{(pp. 3, 5)} And on 4 November 2002, the Italian newspaper Corriere della sera reported that 68% of the non-white American population do not believe NASA. The following table lists a score of public opinion survey results. The "sceptics" column shows the percentage of people who doubt or deny that men walked on the Moon.

Closed access polls Organisation Year Country Age Sceptics Knight Newspapers, Inc. 1970 USA — 30% Gallup, Inc. 1976 USA — 28% Washington Post 1994 USA — 30% Public Opinion Fund 2000 Russia — 28% Fox TV 2001 USA — 20% Dittmar Associates, Inc. 2006 USA 18–25 27% Not specified 2008 USA — 28 20th Century Fox 2008 UK Adults 35±5% Not specified 2009 USA — 22% Engineering & Technology magazine 2009 UK 16–64 25%

Open access polls Source Year(s) Language Attendance Sceptics Spiegel TV 2001+ German ~5000 47% * Sparklit Networks 2002+ English ~7000 41% BBC 2003–2004 English ~20000 41% Alex Dantart 2007+ Spanish ~3000 53% PourOuContre.com 2007+ French ~1700 62% 20 Minuten daily 2009+ French (to be added) 46% Aftonbladet daily 2009+ Swedish ~75000 40% CNews.ru on-line daily 2009 Russian ~5500 49% Twiigs, LLC 2009 English ~1400 42% PlanetMars.org 2009+ English ~2000 37%

* German astronaut Prof. Dr. Ulrich Walter noted that the percentage of sceptics increased from 36% in 2002 to 44% just two years later.

NASA's response

Brian D. Welch (1958–2000), NASA's Director of Media Services (1998–2000), said in an 1997 interview with Sky TV News:^{(p. 68)(48:13–48:46)}

“

This is thirty year old stuff... I don't understand why we should spend the time to go after, do the research, to look up, to prove to people that we went to the Moon; in fact of matters we did go to the Moon.

”

When Fox TV aired Bruce Nash's film "Conspiracy theory: Did we land on the Moon?" in 2001, NASA added hoax theory rebuttal pages on their website. They also wrote "suggestions for science teachers" on how to refute the hoax claims using NASA's Lunar Sample Disk Kits.

In 2002, NASA hired their veteran, former rocket scientist, MSNBC News space consultant and analyst, journalist (and as it turned out later, China's Moon programme sceptic) James Edward Oberg (born 1944). For a fee of $15,000, his job was to write a book intended to challenge those who claim the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax. But NASA soon cancelled the project, declining to give the reasons for this. It is understood that the decision resulted from the bad publicity that followed the announcement of the project. NASA spokesman Bob Jacobs said criticism that NASA was displaying poor judgement and a lack of confidence in commissioning the book caused the agency to abort it. Others commented that making the Oberg's book an official NASA publication would actually give a certain credibility to the hoax theory. For example, then NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said:

“

The issue of trying to do a targeted response to this is just lending credibility to something that is, on its face, asinine.

”

After NASA's decision to cancel the book, Oberg said that ignoring the problem "just makes this harder" and stated that he still intends to write it as an unofficial publication, depending on successfully arranging new funding sources. He gave the book the working title of "A pall over Apollo". But as of 2009, no such book is known to have been published by him yet, albeit the influential Israeli newspaper Haaretz ("The Land") wrote that he did get the $15,000 from NASA. Moon sceptic Yuri Mukhin (see below) claims that Oberg had passed the text of the unreleased book for use by the voluntary NASA helpers.^{(p. 251)} Oberg had indeed announced that he will issue the book in an informal manner.

NASA defenders

Nonetheless, with the advent of the Internet, unofficial websites appeared worldwide that aim to refute the sceptics' objections. Thus NASA's intention turned out to be carried out by others' hands, in an unofficial manner. So NASA evaded the initial promise and thus escaped responsibility, leaving the world public in a deep bewilderment.

Some of the most notable NASA defenders are:

• Prof. Dr. Harald Lesch, German astrophysicist.
• Dr. Michael Linden-Vørnle, Danish astrophysicist.
• Dr. Philip Cary Plait, American astronomer who runs the website BadAstronomy.com.
• Dr. Vladislav-Veniamin Friedrichovich Pustynski, native-Russian-speaking Estonian astrophysicist, lecturer, and teacher in Spanish of Jewish origin who defends NASA in various web forums under the alias "7-40" (or similar) and others. Pustynski is a member of the International Astronomical Union.
• Abduldaem Al-Kaheel, Syrian mechanical engineer, researcher in the Scientific Miracles of the Qur'an and Sunnah, author of forty books, and webmaster of the Kaheel7 website.
• Alberto Farid Char Bonilla, Chilean psychologist and amateur astronomer, webmaster of the Austrinus website.
• Alexander Yevgenyevich Markov, Russian engineer who collected a special library about the Apollo programme and Wernher von Braun and published a series of articles about them.
• Ali Murat Güven, Turkish journalist and columnist of the Yeni safak ("New dawn") conservative daily.
• Chan Kihung, Hong Kong Space Museum assistant curator.
• Guillermo O. Descalzo, Argentinean manager and rocket modeller, webmaster of the website of the same name.
• Igor Rurikovich Suslov, Russian doctor of physical-mathematical sciences of the Institute of Physics and Power Engineering in Obninsk.
• James V. Scotti, American astronomer from the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory of the University of Arizona.
• Jay Windley, American engineer who runs the website Clavius.org.
• Masashi Yokoyama, Hiroshi Yamamoto, Junya Terazono, and Tatsuya Honjo, Japanese NASA defenders of the Association for Sceptical Investigation of Supernatural (ASIOS).
• Matteo Negri, secretary of the Italian amateur astronomers group Columbia and webmaster of the Siamo andati sulla Luna ("We went to the Moon") website.
• Matthias Lipinski, German NASA defender and webmaster of the Apollo Projekt website.
• Neil Atkinson, English geologist and webmaster of the www.Apollo-Hoax.co.uk website.
• Paolo Attivissimo, Italian NASA defender and webmaster of the website of the same name.
• Pavel Gabzdyl, Czech astronomer.
• Robert A. Braeunig, American engineer, amateur astronomer, and webmaster of the Braeunig.us website.
• Ronaldo Rogério de Freitas Mourão, Brazilian astronomer.
• Svetoslav Dimitrov Alexandrov, Bulgarian NASA defender and webmaster of the Cosmos.1.bg website.
• Uwe Rexin, German NASA defender and webmaster of the Mondlandung website.
• Visanu Euarchukiati, Thai Astronomical Society deputy secretary.
• Vladimir Nikolaevich Pavlyuk, Russian aviation equipment engineer who defends NASA in web forums under the alias "Stary" (the old man).
• Yuri Donatovich Krasilnikov (physicist and programmer) and Vyacheslav Yatskin (programmer), Russian NASA defenders, authors (or mostly translators from English, according to Yuri Mukhin – see below)^{(p. 251)} of the 327 KB long Skeptik.net/conspir/moonhoax.htm article.
• The Maximum programme on the Russian NTV.
• The MythBusters, Australian TV programme (also translated on the Russian TV3 channel).
• The Wikipedia editors who put a great deal of effort into defending NASA, categorising the Moon hoax notion as "conspiracy theory", "pseudo-science", "pseudo-history", "denialism", etc.

In 2009, NASA spokesman John Yembrick wrote that "amateurs are stepping in and arguing on behalf of astronauts and scientists who are too professional to defend themselves."

Moon sceptics or "conspiracy theorists"?

Moon sceptics are often labelled "conspiracy theorists" (e.g. by Roger Launius, senior curator at the National Air and Space Museum at the U.S. Smithsonian Institution) but they disagree. For example, Bart Sibrel (see below) said:

“

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don't believe in aliens from outer space, and I grew up as a big fan of the Moon missions from age 8 to 14.

”

The Norwegian psychologist Floyd Rudmin writes that "conspiracy theory" is a powerful pejorative label, meaning paranoid, nutty, marginal, and certainly untrue. Its power is that it discounts a theory by attacking the motivations and mental competence of its advocates. By labelling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory", evidence and argument are dismissed because they come from a mentally or morally deficient personality, not because they have been shown to be incorrect. Calling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory" means, in effect, "We don't like you, and no one should listen to your explanation."

In past eras, other pejorative labels like "heresy", "witchery", and "communism" also worked like this. The charge of "conspiracy theory" is not so severe, but in its way much worse. Heresy, witchcraft, and communism at least retain a sense of potency, designating ideas to be feared. "Conspiracy theory" implies that the ideas and their advocates are simple-minded or insane. Such labels implicitly define a community of orthodox believers and try to banish or shun people who challenge orthodox beliefs. Community members sympathetic to new thoughts may shy away from them and join in the shunning in fear of being tainted by the pejorative label.

Besides "conspiracy theorists", Moon sceptics are also called "fringe theorists", "refuters" (assuming that they hold the burden of proof, which they, e.g. Alexander Popov, deny – see below), and "deniers" (associating them with the Holocaust deniers). And Julian W. Scheer (1926–2001), NASA's Assistant Administrator for Public Affairs (1963–1971) stated:^{(41:43–41:51)}

“

I would say that anybody who believes that we did not go to the Moon is an absolute nut.

”

Conversely, NASA defenders are called "NASA hiwis" and "Pro-Apollo nutters" ("PANs") by Moon sceptics Yuri Mukhin^{(p. 251)} and Sam Colby, respectively (see below).

The following funny theses are popular in the Russian Internet community:

The 4 theses of "Stary"

The 4 theses of "Gosh"

The refuters are unable to find in the universally accepted theory a single discrepancy that would permit a suspicion in falsification. The refuters do not understand anything in what they try to judge. The refuters are unable to make both ends meet even in the very grounds of their own theories. The refuters are forced to lie and fake, although they accuse their opponents and NASA in this all the time.

The flyers' position is based on an absolute, religious faith in the Americans' landing, because they have no evidence and they are unable to stand up for their beliefs with facts and numbers. The flyers, being profanes in the subject themselves, have terrible complexes because of that, and try with all their might to shift the argument about the landing into a discussion about the opponents' personalities, thus trying to self-assert. In the course of the argument, they so much lie, cheat and dodge, and to hide all this – they first attack their opponents with accusations in cheating and faking, "finding" them even where they cannot be in principle. In the bottom line, the flyers cannot refute a single evidence of the affair produced by the conspirologists without speculations, faking and going into personalities.

Major Moon sceptics

Some of the most notable Moon sceptics are listed below.

Bill Kaysing

William Charles Kaysing (1922–2005), American writer who was head of technical publications at Rocketdyne (the company which built the F-1 engines used on the Saturn V rocket) from 1957 until 1963, when he became a freelance writer. In 1974, Kaysing published his book We never went to the Moon: America's thirty billion dollar swindle,^{(ch. 17)} starting the Moon hoax movement.

Kaysing (and others, including Sibrel – see below) claimed that, according to a Rocketdyne company report from the late 1950s, the chance of a successful landing on the Moon was calculated to be 0.0017%. Kaysing said in particular that the F-1 rocket engine used in the first stage of the Saturn V was too unreliable:^{(p. 9)}

“

On 20 April 1964, the [Department of Defence] (DOD) announced that the Air Force had 13 consecutive failures with the Atlas D, E, and F rockets... My point is this: if the Atlas couldn't achieve reliability after almost a decade of development, how could a far larger and more powerful rocket engine be successful?

”

Kaysing stated that the supposedly Moon-bound Apollo astronauts did not even go into orbit. He suggested a "coalition between governments at the highest level" to conceal, among other things, the Moon hoax.

Bart Sibrel

Bartholomew Winfield Sibrel (born 1965), American filmmaker and investigative journalist, created the following documentary films:

1. A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon (2001)
2. Astronauts Gone Wild (2004)
3. Apollo 11 press conference (2004)
4. Apollo 11: Monkey business: False photography unedited (2004)
5. Apollo One accident report (2007)

Sibrel says that "A successful manned mission to the Moon offered a wonderful, pride-boosting distraction for the near revolt of the citizens of America over 50,000 deaths in the Vietnam War", with lunar activities stopping abruptly and planned missions canceled, around the same time that the USA ceased its involvement in Vietnam.

In his film Astronauts gone wild, Sibrel asked nine Apollo astronauts to swear an oath on the Bible that they did go to the Moon, of which three did so. When Sibrel asked Apollo 11 Lunar Module Pilot Buzz Aldrin to swear such an oath, he refused. Sibrel called him "a coward and a liar and a thief" and got a punch in the face. The police investigated the incident but filed no charges.

Stanislav Pokrovsky

Stanislav Georgievich Pokrovsky (born 1959) is a Russian candidate of technical sciences and General Director of a scientific-manufacturing enterprise Project-D-MSK.

In 2007, he studied the filmed staging of the first stage (S-IC) of the Saturn V rocket after the launch of Apollo 11. Analysing it frame by frame, he calculated the actual speed of the Saturn V rocket at S-IC staging time using four different, independent and mutually verifying methods. With all of them, the calculated speed turned out to be at maximum half (1.2 km/s) of the declared one at that point (2.4 km/s). He concluded that due to this, no more than 28 tonnes could be brought on the way to the Moon, including the spacecraft, instead of the 46 tonnes declared by NASA, and so a loop around the Moon was possible but not a manned landing on the Moon with return to the Earth.

In 2008, Pokrovsky also claimed to have determined the reason why a higher speed was impossible – problems with the Inconel X-750 superalloy used for the tubes of the wall of the thrust chamber of the F-1 engine, whose physics of high-temperature strength was not yet studied at that time. The strength of the material changes when affected by high temperature and plastic deformations. As a result, the F-1 engine thrust had to be lowered by at least 20%. With these assumptions, he calculated that the real speed would be the same as he had already estimated (see above). Pokrovsky proved that six or more F-1 engines (instead of five) could not be used due to the increased fuel mass required by each new engine, which in turn would require more engines, and so on.

Pokrovsky claims that his Saturn V speed estimation is the first direct proof of the impossibility of the Apollo Moon landing. He says that fifteen specialists with scientific degrees (e.g. Alexander Budnik) who reviewed his paper, of which at least five aerodynamics experts and three narrow specialists in ultrasonic movement and aerosols, raised no objections in principle, and the specific wishes and notes they (e.g. Vladimir Surdin) did have could not change his results significantly even if followed. Pokrovsky compares his own frame-by-frame analysis of the filmed Saturn V flight to the frame-by-frame analysis of the filmed Trinity nuclear test (1945) done by the Soviet academician Leonid Sedov who created his own blast wave theory to estimate the then top secret power of the explosion.

See also author's note below. Pokrovsky's findings about the rocket speed were later confirmed by Alexander Reshnyak and Alexander Popov (see below).

Alexander Popov

Alexander Ivanovich Popov (born 1943) is a Russian senior research associate, doctor of physical-mathematical sciences and the author of more than 100 scientific works and inventions in the fields of laser optics and spectroscopy.

Helped by more than forty volunteers, most of which with scientific degrees, he wrote the book Americans on the Moon – a great breakthrough or a space afair? (Moscow, 2009). In it, Popov placed the burden of proof on NASA, and denied all Moon landing evidence, dividing it to five groups:

1. Visual (photo, film and video) material that can successfully be made on Earth, in cinema studios.
2. Obvious counterfeits and fakes, when visual material from ordinary space flights on Earth orbit is presented as Moon material.
3. Space photos, attributed to the astronauts but which by that time could already be made and were made by space robots, including American ones.
4. Devices on Moon (e.g. light reflectors) – by that time both American and Soviet automatic "messengers" had sent on Moon several tens of similar devices.
5. Unfounded, unprovable claims, e.g. for about 400 kg of soil, overwhelming part of which NASA keeps safe and gives only grams for checking.

Thus he concluded that the NASA claims on Moon landings are left unproven, and pursuant to science rules, in the absence of trustworthy evidence, the event, in this case the American Moon landings and their loops around the Moon, cannot be considered real, that is, having taken place. He also confirmed Pokrovsky's results for the speed of the Saturn V at S-IC staging time (see above), giving a still lower value of 0.9 km/s.^{(pp. 230–233)} Popov accused the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee of trading the 1970s Détente for covering up the U.S. Moon hoax and stopping the Soviet Moon programme.

Yuri Mukhin

Yuri Ignatievich Mukhin (born 1949), Russian opposition politician, publicist, writer, engineer, former metallurgist, manager and inventor. He has written the books The Moon affair of the USA (2006) and The Moon affair, or Where were the Americoses? (2009) in which he examines the differences in the Soviet and U.S. lunar soil found out by Western researchers, refutes the arguments of the NASA defenders, and accuses the U.S. establishment for plundering the money paid by the American tax payers for the Moon programme. Mukhin states that the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee was blackmailed by the USA that if the USSR denounces the Moon hoax, the U.S. will denounce the Soviet partocracy before his people, revealing that Khrushchev had killed Stalin and Beria.^{(pp. 124–126)}

David Percy

David S. Percy, British TV producer and expert in audio-visual technologies and member of the Royal Photographic Society, is coauthor, along with Mary Bennett (see below) of the book Dark Moon: Apollo and the whistle-blowers and director of the documentary film What happened on the Moon? (2000). He is the main proponent of the "whistle-blowing", arguing that the errors in the NASA photos in particular are so obvious that they are evidence that insiders are trying to "blow the whistle" on the hoax by deliberately inserting errors that they know will be seen.

Other Moon sceptics

• Prof. Dr. Krassimir Ivandjiiski (born 1947), Bulgarian doctor of economics and professor in geopolitics and international relations. In 2008, his monthly analytical newspaper Strogo Sektetno published a series of articles on the Moon Hoax, based on the ideas of Alexander Popov (see above).
• Prof. Dr. Li Zifeng, Chinese geologist, member of the Society of Petroleum Engineers and the Petroleum Society of Canada.
• Prof. Dr. Takahiko Soejima (born 1953), Japanese political scientist and writer, member of the International Political Science Association, founder and president of the Soejima National Strategy Institute, and author of the book 1962–1972: Apollo 11 has never been to the Moon (2004).
• Prof. Federico Martín Maglio (born 1959), Argentinean higher educator and webmaster of the FMM education website.
• Dr. David Groves, British physicist and holographic computer image analyst who analysed some NASA photos. He said that he can pinpoint the exact point at which the artificial light was used in the NASA photo AS11-40-5866. Knowing the focal length of the camera's lens and having an actual boot, he and David Percy (see above) have calculated (using ray-tracing) that the artificial light source is 30 ± 6 cm to the right of the camera.^{(35:14–36:46)}
• Dr. Shrikant N. Devdikar, Indian doctor and webmaster of the Shriworld website.
• Dr. William L. Brian II, American engineer and author of the self-published book "Moongate: suppressed findings of the U.S. space program" (1982). He claims that "the film speed was adjusted to slow down the action to give the impression that the astronauts were lighter than they actually were".
• Alexander Garrievich Gordon (born 1964), Russian radio and TV host, journalist, actor, and film director. Author of the film The Americans haven't been on the Moon (1997).
• Alexander Valeryevich Reshnyak (born 1973), Russian engineer who confirmed Pokrovsky's results on the Saturn V speed (see above) using a method of his own.
• André F. Mauro (born 1964), Brazilian film director and writer, author of the book O homem não pisou na Lua ("Man did now set foot on the Moon"), and webmaster of the Show da Lua website.
• Anne Tonelson (died 2006), British stage actress who was living in Nashville and narrated the documentary film A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon by Bart Sibrel (see above).
• Arkady Velyurov, Russian webmaster of the Pepelatsy website.
• Aron Ranen, director of "Did we go?", co-produced with Benjamin Britton and selected for the 2000 "New Documentary Series" Museum of Modern Art, New York City, the 2000 Dallas Video Festival Awards and the 2001 Digital Video Underground Festival in San Francisco. He received a Golden Cine Eagle and two fellowships from the National Endowment for Arts.
• Bill Wood, American scientist with degrees in mathematics, physics and chemistry, and a space rocket and propulsion engineer who has worked with McDonnell Douglas and engineers who worked on the Saturn V rocket. He attended David Percy's documentary film What happened on the Moon? (see above).^{(17:20–18:15)}
• Borislav Lazarov, Bulgarian radio host, journalist and director of the documentary film To the Moon and back (2007).
• Charles T. Hawkins (born 1962), author of How America faked the Moon landings (2004, ISBN 978-0974940540) in which he presents the ideas of Sam Colby (see below).
• Clyde Lewis (Louis Clyde Holder, born 1964), American radio talk show host.
• David Cosnette, British webmaster of the Cosmic Conspiracies website.
• David McGowan (born 1960), American writer and contractor-constructor, "host" of the Centre for an Informed America (CIA) website.
• David R. Hook (1971–2006), Canadian comedian and musician, author of the music and lyrics of The Moon song.
• Gerhard Wisnewski (born 1959), German publicist and author of the films Die Akte Apollo ("The case Apollo", 2002) and Die Mond(f)lüge: Warum Menschen niemals auf dem Mond landeten? ("Why have men never landed on the Moon?", 2008), and the books "Lies in space. From the Moon landing to world domination" (in German) and its English version – "One small step? The Great Moon Hoax and the race to dominate Earth from space".
• Gernot L. Geise, German writer, author of Der größte Betrug des Jahrhunderts? Die Apollo-Mondflüge ("The greatest scam of the century? The Apollo Moon flights") and 5 other books on the subject.
• Henrik Melvang, Danish publicist, author of the video documentary film Afsløring Apollo ("Uncovering Apollo")
• Jack White, American photo historian and photo analyst known for his attempt to prove forgery in photos related to the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy.
• Jackie Jura, independent researcher and webmaster of the Orwell Today website.
• James J. Cranny, mathematician and author of the first book on the subject – Did man land on the Moon? (1970).^{(2:52–3:03)}
• James M. Collier (died 1998), American journalist, writer, and producer of the video-film Was it only a paper Moon? in 1997, in which he examines some mechanical issues of the Apollo Lunar Module, questioning its usability.
• Jarrah White, native Australian, director of the film series MoonFaker.
• Joe Rogan (born 1967), American comedian, actor, and long time summariser.
• John Lee, director of "Did we really go to the Moon?" and webmaster of the NASA moons USA website.
• Kevin Overstreet, American webmaster of the Bates Motel website.
• Leonid Valentinovich Batsura, Russian Himmash design house lead engineer and rocket engine specialist.
• Marcus Allen, British publisher of Nexus magazine said that photographs of the lander do not prove that the US put men on the Moon. "Getting to the Moon really isn't much of a problem – the Russians did that in 1959 – the big problem is getting people there."
• Mario Kienappel, German webmaster of the Esoturio website.
• Mary D. M. Bennett, British researcher and writer who coauthored David Percy's book Dark Moon: Apollo and the whistle-blowers and attended his documentary film What happened on the Moon? (see above).
• Peter Bown, senior school physics teacher and part time photographer in England.
• Philippe Lheureux, French author of Moon Landings: Did NASA lie?, and Lumières sur la Lune ("Lights on the Moon"): La NASA a t-elle menti!.
• Ralph René (1933–2008), American inventor, self-taught engineering enthusiast, and author of the book NASA mooned America (1994).
• Randy Reid, coauthor of Bill Kaysing's book We never went to the Moon (see above).
• Ronnie Stonge, British narrator of David Percy's documentary film What happened on the Moon? (see above).
• Sam Colby, webmaster of the NASA Scam website which, among the other things, provides information and photos of the site and the equipment said to be used for the hoax.
• Satsvarūpa dāsa Goswāmī (born 1939), Indian writer, poet and artist who founded the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, better known in the West as the Hare Krishna movement.
• Whoopi Goldberg (Caryn Elaine Johnson, born 1955), American actress, comedian, singer-songwriter, activist, and media personality.

People and organisations claimed to be involved in hoaxing

• Prof. Dr. Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun (1912–1977), claimed by Bart Sibrel, Ralph René,^{(p. 16, 54)} and Aron Ranen^{(part 5, 6:14–7:21)} to be complicit in the hoax by collecting samples to be used as the basis for "Moon rocks" during his trip to Antarctica in 1967.
• Dr. Robert Rowe Gilruth (1913–2000), former director of the NASA Manned Spacecraft Centre, Lunar Module chief designer in Houston (see Wernher von Braun's "right hand" Ernst Stuhlinger in at 38:09), and Apollo programme lead. Willy Brunner and Gerhard Wisnewski claim^{(p. 127)} that Gilruth "was the real film director of the Moon landing" ("war die engentliche Regisseur der Mondlandung").^(38:44)
• Colonel Frank Frederick Borman, II (born 1928), Gemini 7 and Apollo 8 flight commander who visited the USSR just before the Apollo 11 flight (as some sceptics say, to reconnoitre whether the Russians believed in the Apollo 8 orbiting the Moon and help decide if they can "swallow" a much larger Apollo 11 Moon landing hoax) and one of the Skylab programme managers.
• Donald Kent Slayton (1924–1993), NASA Chief Astronaut in 1968. Sam Colby and Clyde Lewis say that Slayton was one of the primary leaders of the hoax. He visited the film set of 2001: A Space Odyssey, in the UK, which he referred to as "NASA East".
• Douglas Trumbull, a visual effects designer on 2001: A Space Odyssey, is said to have lead the special effects team for the faking of the Apollo 11 and 12 missions.
• Michael J. Tuttle, claimed to have taken the job of producing fake photographs in 1994. Prior to the widespread availability of the internet, only a small subset of the photos currently in existence were seen. Sam Colby claims that many of the photos were created in the mid 1990s, and that Tuttle had admitted that to him.
• Stanley Jacques Kubrick (1928–1999) and his younger brother Raul are said to have produced much of the footage for Apollo 11 and 12. It has been claimed that in early 1968 while 2001: A Space Odyssey (which includes scenes taking place on the Moon) was in post-production, NASA secretly approached Kubrick to direct the first three Moon landings. In this scenario, the launch and splashdown would be real but the spacecraft would have remained in Earth orbit while the fake footage was broadcast as "live" from the lunar journey.
• Walter Leland Cronkite, Jr. (1916–2009), CBS journalist who Bill Kaysing says "was the father figure that NASA chose to essentially hype the whole project".
• William M. Thompson (1920–2002) who had written the following: "I was actually part of the team that created the faked Moon landings and I am ready to talk about them. I have physical evidence to prove that they were faked", to Sam Colby and the APFN.
• The Lookout Mountain Laboratory, claimed by David McGowan to have done the post-production on the Apollo footage after the official "deactivation" of the studio in 1969.

Specific statements

More general

Statement of NASA and / or its defenders	Statement of Moon sceptics
Burden of proof: "Precisely because of human fallibility, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." (Carl Sagan) The burden of proof is on those who make such claims without any credible evidence to support them (i.e. those who deny the Apollo Moon landings).	"When scientists fail to require independent duplication of such an outlandish claim after over 30 years have passed, science is degraded to the status of being just another religion." (Bart Sibrel) The authenticity of a scientific discovery (manned flights to the Moon) should be proven by its author (the USA) and those who share its point of view (the defenders).
Keeping it secret: Too many people were involved with the project to keep a secret like this. More than 400,000 people worked on the Apollo project for nearly ten years, and a dozen men who walked on the Moon returned to Earth to recount their experiences. It would have been significantly easier to actually land on the Moon than to generate such a massive conspiracy to fake such a landing.	NASA engineering-technical personnel was about 13,000. Much fewer people were in the know, and there are examples in history for secrets known by a lot of people but kept for many years (N-1 rocket, cruiser Belfast crashes, Enigma machine message decryption, cargo vessel Rona sinking, operations of British submarines in Swedish waters accusing the Soviets, etc). The Manhattan Project employed hundreds of thousands of people and hardly a word was leaked out.(p. 19) If someone who attended the Apollo programme admits a hoax, he will lose his prestige and risks being declared insane or killed.(p. 423)
Denouncement by the USSR: With their own competing Moon programme, the Soviets could be expected to have cried foul if the U.S. tried to fake the Moon landings.(p. 173)	Even if the Russians did suspect the landings were not authentic, the act of calling the USA liars of this magnitude at the height of the Cold War could have instigated a war, and perhaps they thought it better not to chance that. Russia could have blabbed to the world that the Moon landings were fake, and probably would have done were Khrushchev in power, but the West would say they were jealous because the USA had beaten them to it. On 8 July 1972, the U.S. government announced the sale of about one quarter of the entire crop of wheat to the USSR at a fixed price of $1.63 per bushel. The market price at the time of the announcement was $1.50 but immediately soared to a new high of $2.44 a bushel. That's how the USA bought the silence of the USSR on the Moon programme.(p. 41) Since 1967, the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee has helped the USA while impeding the Soviet Moon programme by all means. The Proton rocket failure in September 1967 was a result of a diversion.(p. 172) The N-1 rocket failure in June 1969 was a result of in internal engine explosion caused by a foreign metallic object. In 1970, the USSR and the USA secretly agreed to hide from the public some circumstances of the latter's Moon programme. In 1974, the Politburo ordered the destruction of 3 ready-to-fly N-1 rockets. (The USA and Japan's NASDA bought and licensed their NK-33 engines a couple of decades later, and NASA will use them, marketed by GenCorp Aerojet as AJ26, in the Orbital Sciences Taurus II expendable launch system.) Since 1976, no Soviet space robot has flown to the Moon – the Politburo stopped their flights to prevent an Apollo hoax disclosure. And the 1980s Politburo led the USSR to a break-up. As a result, the Russian leadership cancelled the Energia rocket in 1993. All these actions were in favour of the USA.
1967 deaths: On the death of Virgil Grissom, Edward White, and Roger Chaffee (in the Apollo 1 fire), Edward Givens (on a car crash), Clifton Williams (on a T-38 jet trainer), Michael Adams (on an X-15 high-altitude experimental aircraft), Robert Lawrence (on an F-104B combat trainer), Russel Rogers (on an F-105 fighter), and Thomas Baron with all his family (at a railroad crossing) in 1967, the NASA defenders asked: Why remove the disagreeable along with the unique experimental aircraft or the first spacecraft prototype?	3 of the X-15 were built, and its last flight was a year later (in 1968), out of 9 service years in total. Apollo 1 was not the first prototype but had a serial number of 012.. For many years before and after 1967 both the U.S. and Soviet space industry had from 0 to 3 death cases per year. Only in 1967, a year before the first manned Apollo flight, there were 11 death cases.(pp. 41–49) The Apollo 1 crew was still alive for at least 15 minutes after the craft caught fire, because their autopsy found that they have managed to develop pulmatory oedema, which cannot happen if they had died earlier.(p. 95) Senior NASA astronaut and Apollo 1 commander Virgil Grissom was a sharp critic of the programme. "Quite a number of things are not in order with this spacecraft, he once said. "It's not as good as the ones we flew before." He publicly called the Apollo capsule "a bucket of bolts" and the spacecraft "a heap of old scrap". On 22 January 1967 (5 days before his death), he picked the largest lemon from his lemon garden in Texas, and intended to hang it on the Apollo spacecraft – as a symbol of failure. (In December 1966, a report made by Joe Shea noted that "At least 20,000 failures of all kinds had been logged, more than 200 of them in the environmental control system.")(p. 115) Grissom had received death threats earlier, which his family saw as coming from the space programme. "If there ever is a serious accident in the space programme, it's likely to be me", he said to his wife.(p. 39)(pp. 87–90) NASA quality engineer Thomas Baron died with his family a week after his 500-page report analysing the Apollo 1 incident was deposed before the Congressational committee, and the report vanished.(p. 94)
Jump height: Lunar explorers should be able to jump vertical distances up to 12 or 14 feet (4 ± 0.3 m) on the Moon, unencumbered with a spacesuit or other equipment, but will experience difficulty in maintaining their balance. However, falls from these heights under similar conditions are not likely to result in personal injury. The EMU (Extravehicular Mobility Unit, or the Apollo spacesuit) tested on Apollo 9 and used on Apollo 11–14 weighs about 85 kg fully charged.	Assuming astronaut's body weight of 85 kg, his total weight including the space suit would be 170 kg, so he could achieve jump heights of 2 m. But the maximum jump height shown by an Apollo astronaut was 0.42 m, which is 5 times less.
Lunar samples: Between 1969 and 1972, six Apollo missions brought back 382 kg of lunar rocks, core samples, pebbles, sand and dust from the lunar surface. Lunar samples are prepared for shipment to scientists and educators at NASA's Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility. Nearly 400 samples are distributed each year for research and teaching projects. All samples (split or intact) must be returned to the NASA Johnson Space Centre after being studied. There are plenty of museums, including the Smithsonian and others, where members of the public can touch and examine rocks from the Moon.	Unlike the Apollo lunar samples, their Soviet counterparts exhibit triboluminescence and non-oxidation, contain 6 to 9 times more Mercury (which should be uniformly distributed on the lunar surface), orders of magnitude more molybdenum, wolfram, cadmium and silver, and have 50 times lower thermoluminescence sensitivity. Also, A. Dollfus and E. Bouell of the Paris Observatory found that unlike the NASA samples, the polarisation of reflected light from the Soviet samples corresponds to that from the Moon surface.(pp. 141–152, 208–210, 216–224, 231–232) Geochemist Minoru Ozima of the Tokyo University discovered that the nitrogen-14 / nitrogen-15 isotope ratio in the Apollo lunar samples is very different from that in the solar wind whose blasts drilled these atoms into the lunar soil. The explanation is simple – the Apollo's soil was made on Earth.(pp. 467–470) In the 1990s, publications about lunar soil simulation started to appear. They could not have appeared earlier as this would raise questions about the Apollo programme.
Curating the samples: Carlton Allen, Astromaterials Curator Manager: "We in the Astromaterials Acquisition and Curation Office continue our core missions providing samples of extraterrestrial material to the international science and education communities and curating these unique samples for future generations."	Poor contemporary scientists. With their instruments, they can register every single atom in a substance, but they were denied trust. Poor future generations of scientists. In the 21st, and possibly in the 22nd century, they will of course lack such splendid crafts and rockets as Apollos and Saturn-Vs were in the 20th century. They will not be able to fly up the Moon and get fresh lunar stones. But NASA took care of them: it did not give the lunar stones to its contemporaries, and set them aside for them.
Light reflectors: On 21 July 1969, Armstrong and Aldrin left lunar laser ranging reflectors on the Moon surface. They reflect pulses of laser light fired from the Earth, helping measure its distance to the Moon with high accuracy. Apollo 14 and 15 also left each one such reflector.	The Apollo 11, 14 and 15 reflectors were left on the Moon by secret Surveyor 8, 9 and 10 unmanned probes that were not really cancelled as declared.
TV and radio signals received from the Moon: 20% of mankind at the time watched Neil Armstrong's first steps on the Moon. Three tracking stations were receiving these signals from the Moon simultaneously. They were CSIRO's Parkes Radio Telescope, the Honeysuckle Creek tracking station outside Canberra, and NASA's Goldstone station in California. They received the voice communication with and between the astronauts, and spacecraft and biomedical telemetry radio signals from the Moon too.	The TV and radio signals were emitted from Earth to the Moon and re-translated to Earth by the radio equipment of special secret Surveyor or Orbiter unmanned crafts.(pp. 196, 197) (27 of 61 U.S. space rocket launches in 1968 were secret, and 20 of 47 in 1969).
Tracking by the USSR: Unable to track Apollo flights due to incompatibility issues, in 1968 the USSR built in Simferopol (Crimea) a dedicated tracking facility with a S-band (13 cm) antenna with a diameter of 32 metres. To track the spacecraft on their lunar orbits, their data was needed. As it was not published, it was calculated based on the start and Moon arrival times of the Apollo crafts reported on U.S. radio. Apollo 8, 10, 11 and 12 from December 1968 to November 1969 were tracked, including voice communications of the astronauts with Earth, TV images, and telemetry data.	This was the only Soviet tracking facility. The fact that orbit data was calculated based on the start and Moon arrival times of the Apollo crafts reported on U.S. radio means that the USSR did not fix the fact of Apollos leaving Earth orbit for the Moon nor did it track their movement on the spaceway Eath – Moon. Because if they fixed and tracked, then no orbit calculation or using U.S. radio reports about the start and Moon arrival times would be needed. Thus the fact of Apollos leaving Earth orbit and the entire flight from the Earth to the Moon were left totally unconfirmed by Soviet means. Nor did the USSR track this in a telescope, as reported from the only Soviet facility capable of that – the Sternberg Astronomical Institute in Moscow.
Waving U.S. flag: Not every waving flag needs a breeze – at least not in space. When astronauts were planting the flagpole they rotated it back and forth to better penetrate the lunar soil (anyone who's set a blunt tent-post will know how this works). So of course the flag waved! Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples – no breeze required!	The backpacks, designed for one-sixth gravity, must have had the cooling systems removed, to allow for movement without falling over. With very near and hot studio lighting, that left one hot astronaut inside... The necessary mammoth amounts of air-conditioning were probably responsible for the air count... This rare clip [showing waving U.S. flag], attained decades ago, was never rereleased, with the inevitable increasing experience and scrutiny.(29:36–30:38)
Moon surface photos: Michael Collins used this map to mark the estimated [Apollo 11] Lunar Module locations given to him by Houston.	"Moon" surfaces like this have artificially been prepared on the Earth (Flagstaff, Arizona) in the 1960s, as Dr. Farook El Baz explained in the BBC film Moon (see also ). At 17:00 in that film, an experienced hand of a master superimposes a slight veil on a photo of this artificial surface to get a cosmic look.
LRO images: A set of recent still images was published by NASA on July 17, 2009. Taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission, these images show lunar landers, including that of Apollo 11, standing on the surface, science experiments and, in one case, astronaut footprints in a line between the Apollo 14 lander and a nearby science experiment. A month after LROC's first image of the Apollo 11 landing site was acquired, the LRO passed over again providing the [LRO Camera] (LROC) instrument a new view of the historic site.	Photos showing those objects can be made on a printed lunar surface photos with rough models of the objects added, or using a computer. Earth satellites can now reveal licence plate numbers on cars. Then why a satellite cannot provide much better images of the Moon which has no atmosphere?

Flight-specific

Statement or document of NASA and / or its defenders	Statement of Moon sceptics
What is the flapping object flying across? Snoopy (the Apollo 10 Lunar Module) rose up from the Moon to join Charlie Brown (the Command Module).(20:59–21:01)	(to be added...)
"Flight" over a Moon globe? [Stuart Roosa] It's 2001 type stuff. That old moors just growing magnificently fast, and it's just filling up that hatch window... and you're drifting into the shadow. 04 06 54 42 LMP ([Apollo 10] Lunar Module Pilot) [Eugene Cernan] "Okay baby." 04 06 54 47 CDR (Commander) [Thomas Stafford] "2, Okay, 12, 10" 04 06 54 53 LMP "8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1" 04 06 55 O1 LMP "Burn." 04 06 55 02 CDR "Okay. Okay, it's burning down." 04 06 55 05 LMP "Burning? Okay. Got 60 to go; 34 to go; 100 to go; 78 to go, 50 to go; 20 to go; stand by, Tom."(p. 218)(6:57–7:29)	The ring-shaped structure gets dark in 11 seconds, but the terminator (the border between the light and darkness) on the Moon moves only 70 m for such a short time, whereas the distance to the horizon for an orbit height of about 110 km is about 600 km. 70 m vs. 600 km is a too great discrepancy. And why it suddenly gets lit up shortly after that? All this is explainable if we assume that NASA used their huge Moon globes for filming.
Prevention of destruction or of reconnaissance? On 16 July 1969, from 8:00 to 9:00 EST (Apollo 11 was launched at 8:32), near the Cape Canaveral Space Centre, 7 Soviet trawlers with reconnaissance equipment on board were met by 15 U.S. surface ships, 7 submarines and an unspecified number of P-3 Orion-type maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft with electronic warfare equipment on board, of U.S. Second Fleet. 12 minutes before the Apollo 11 launch, all U.S. coastal, ship and aircraft radio jamming equipment was switched on full power and then switched off 4 minutes after Apollo 11 reached Earth orbit. The operation was justified by an alleged danger that the Soviet ships can try to radio-jam the Saturn V electronic equipment and thus destroy the flight. The danger was later recognised as non-existent, and the $320 million spent on the operation as wasted.	To destroy the rocket would be suicidal for the Soviets as it would equal to declaring a nuclear war. The real reason why the Soviet reconnaissance was suppressed was to not let it receive the Saturn V telemetry data, which would reveal the non-conformance of its real speed and altitude to the declared values and that the flight goes not proceed as declared.
1000 page TV scenario: Astronomer Richard West of the European Southern Observatory (ESO) who commented the Apollo 11 Moon landing at the Danish TV says that they had a manual of 1000 pages or so where it was exactly described what the astronauts had to do at what time (in at 9:21).	How can it be relied that everything would go in accordance with the 1000-page instruction manual, when every detail was done for the first time? But if it was a play, then an instruction (or scenario) is absolutely necessary. If the actors don't strictly follow the instructions of the director, the show will inevitably fail.(p. 179)
Famous shot of Aldrin "walking on the Moon": Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, [Apollo 11] lunar module pilot, walks on the surface of the Moon near the leg of the Lunar Module (LM) "Eagle" during the Apollo 11 extravehicular activity (EVA). Astronaut Neil A. Armstrong, commander, took this photograph with a 70 mm lunar surface camera.	The face shield (right) shows inconsistent ground lighting, left side spot lit. Ground hotspot around astronaut (top left) but dark horizon, unlike sunshine. Rock in the distance (left) front lit, while astronaut is back lit. Rock shadow should be parallel to astronaut's. Dark side of astronaut fully lit, but no flashbulb, while his shadow is solid black.
Splashdown: At 13:35 P.M., as the [Apollo 11] command module with its human passengers and its cargo of Moon rocks sped on a north-easterly course 80 [nautical] miles above the Gilbert Islands, it slammed into the atmosphere and streaked like a flaming meteor toward a soft landing in the water below. Fifteen minutes later the command ship's three parachutes lowered it gently, at 21 [nautical] miles an hour, into the Pacific 950 [nautical] miles south-west of Hawaii, 2.7 [nautical] miles (5 km) from its aiming point and 13.8 [nautical] miles (25.6 km) from the [aircraft] carrier Hornet, the recovery ship. Man's first expedition to another world was over. President Nixon watched the recovery from one of the Hornet's two bridges. He caught a glimpse of the spaceship's fiery re-entry into the atmosphere, but shared in the disappointment of the crew and millions of television viewers when the craft splashed down out of sight of the ship. [Apollo 11] capsule was first righted by flotation bags.(left photo)	If Nixon could see the spacecraft's entry into the atmosphere down its sloping trajectory, the sky must have been exceptionally clear, assuring direct visibleness of hundreds of kilometres. Then the craft descending on three huge parachutes at only 25 km should have been noticeable too: aircraft carrier's bridges are 40–50 metres above sea level, corresponding to a horizon of 20–25 km, so the high flying parachutes would be visible. But only a helicopter and the capsule were filmed, without even its parachutes.(left photo) And if the splashdown accuracy was only 5 km, why was not the ship at the aiming point but stayed 25 km away? Finally, even today Soyuz spacecraft's landing accuracy (50–60 km) is an order of magnitude worse than the average of 4 km Apollo could achieve back then, which makes such high accuracy unreal. All issues vanish if we assume that the crew did not fly but the capsule with it was dropped in advance far enough (25 km) from the ship. Craft entry into the atmosphere can be imitated by a ballistic missile with a suitable head surface material to produce enough fire.(pp. 254–257)
18-day quarantine: As [Apollo 11] astronauts in special isolation suits watched, frogman scrubbed the capsule down with disinfectant.(right photo) Apollo crew waved as they entered quarantine trainer aboard Hornet. The astronauts then settled down for an 18-day quarantine to make certain their contact with the Moon had not contaminated or infected them in any way.	What bacteria can there be on the Moon, tilled already for several milliards of years every 27 days now by space cold of –150°C, now by Sun heat of +150°C, and irradiated by streams of radiation from the Sun flares? Do Earth medics have such sterilisers? And why scrub the craft down with disinfectant if it had flown through the atmosphere in a cloud with a temperature of several thousands of degrees on its return? And, if lunar bacteria do exist and are so hardy, then what quatantine, and what disinfectant can help against them? But if there was a hoax, the quarantine was important for its success. The black [gas] masks on the astronauts' faces helped them avoid unwanted sights by the welcoming people (and questions from the press during the whole quarantine) while getting used to their most important role (Moon flight stories), having ensured 3 weeks later that the world public opinion had already believed the Moon landings. It did, so next Apollo crews had no quarantine.
TV camera failure? The [Apollo 12] colour television camera provided satisfactory television coverage for approximately 40 minutes at the beginning of the first extravehicular activity. Thereafter, the video display showed only white in an irregular pattern in the upper part of the picture and black in the remainder. The camera was turned off after repeated attempts by the crew to restore a satisfactory picture. In the process of moving the camera on the lunar surface, a portion of the target in the secondary-electron conductivity vidicon must have received a high solar input, either directly from the Sun or from some highly reflective surface. That portion of the target was destroyed, as was evidenced by the white appearance of the upper part of the picture.	However the camera is not securely locked into position, and then for over a period of time the camera changes its view as you can see. And as you can hear, everyone thinks it's all very funny.(0:45–1:37) But as the fixing on its stand is not tight enough, the camera is slowly drooping and this fact is demonstrated by the changing images captured over a period of time.(2:14–2:18) (At that time – 116:16:02 – Alan Bean says that he hit the camera on the top with his hammer.) It would not have been possible to see this differential imaging if the camera have really been destroyed by being pointed for a while directly into the Sun – the official reason for its failure.(1:20:19–1:20:52)
A studio photo? This view of the damaged Apollo 13 Service Module (SM) was photographed from the Lunar Module/Command Module following SM jettisoning.	The rear side of a spotlight is clearly seen on the top right edge of the photo. When brightness and contrast are increased, a halo due to reflection of its light by dust is seen. So the photo was made in a studio.
Apollo boilerplate found by the USSR: In early 1970, the Soviet Union had recovered an empty Apollo capsule and returned it to the Americans a several months later. The capsule was identified at NASA as the BP-1227 training capsule lost a while back.	It was on the night of 11–12 April 1970, the night after Apollo 13 was launched, and it was its capsule and not BP-1227.
The solder ball "bug" in the LEM: Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14): "Our next major problem was the well-known one of the solder ball in the abort switch, which happened just two hours before we were scheduled to go down to the lunar surface, and we noticed as we were on our last circuit of the Moon before starting down, while checking out the lunar module and getting ready, that the abort light came on in the lunar module. And that was a surprise. It shouldn't do that."	Harry Hurt explains what happened after the mission: "Only after their return to Earth did they learn that the bug illuminating the Abort light was a loose solder ball in the wiring." How did NASA discover that drop of loose solder after the [Lunar Excursion Module] (LEM) was dropped back onto the Moon? I'm really beginning to believe that the CIA resurrected Merlin the Magician and gave him a job with NASA as the assistant to the Wizard of Oz.(p. 117)
The Galileo's experiment was made by Apollo 15 astronauts to prove that they're on the Moon. (Apollo 15 TV camera frame rate was 20 fps.)	More than a half of the frames in the NASA (.mpg) film are repeated, and after removing them, the acceleration it was taken under was calculated as 9.5 ± 2 m/s2. The experiment may have been filmed at NASA's Space Power Facility (SPF) vacuum chamber. Also, the same experiment was conducted in a London studio without a vacuum chamber and with the same results in the film What happened on the Moon?.
Composite photo? A view of the Apollo 15 Command and Service Module from the Lunar Module.	If it were an actual three-dimensional scene, the spaceship would be 69 miles above the lunar surface – which would, I would think, make it difficult for a portion of that lunar terrain to obscure part of the ship's S-band antennae assembly.
Shrink-wrapped photo on Moon surface? Charlie [Duke, Apollo 16] put a picture of the Duke family – Charlie, Dotty, and sons Charles and Tom – on the surface and took several pictures of it. This image is the best of the series.	But why did Charles Duke have it shrink-wrapped in plastic? First of all it would puff up and lose its seal or burst in the vacuum when the lunar module's atmosphere was removed. Then there is the question of what would happen when Duke placed it on the Moon's surface at 100°C. Would he succeed in photographing it before it melted and became ugly and deformed?(pp. 158, 159)
Lifted by a wire? Charlie [Duke, Apollo 16] has dropped the hammer. He tries to bob down to get it but loses his balance and lands heavily on his hands and knees... Charlie wants John [Young] to push back on his head so he can rotate his torso up and over his knees. Instead, John goes to Charlie's left side and holds out his hand... Charlie takes John's hand and rises, albeit awkwardly.(0:54–1:20)	David Percy comments: "The astronaut is getting up with the wire taking the weight, relieving him of five sixths of the Earth's gravity. A magic trick? No, just the help of a wire man."(2:06–2:36)
Docking in lunar orbit: 177:38:58 [Thomas] Mattingly (Apollo 16): "Okay, about 5 feet." 177:40:37 Mattingly: "Doesn't look like it. I don't have any barber poles (stripped indicators' output; means it's all OK). There we go. Took a couple of extra blurps to get you. Okay. Are you free?" 177:40:52 Mattingly: "Okay." 177:41:00 Mattingly: "Okay, it looks - looks pretty fair. How about if I just retract you?" 177:41:25 Mattingly: "I believe we're there." 177:41:27 Mattingly: "Casper's captured Orion!" The inspection is complete. Command module and lunar module manoeuvre to docking.(24:34–24:44)(28:13–30:18)	No control thruster activity is visible (contrast this with this photo of the Apollo taken from the Soyuz), and the high-tonnage modules do jerky movements as if there is no inertia, leaving the impression of animation or a very small mass.(pp. 110, 150)
Earth angle over the horizon: In each of the following Apollo 17 archive photos, the Earth (with an angular diameter of 1.9±0.1°) is at a different angle over the horizon: AS17-137-20910 – 16°, AS17-134-20473 – 32°, AS17-134-20384 – 34°, AS17-137-20957 – 16°, AS17-137-20960 – 16°	Calculating from the coordinates of the Apollo 17 lunar landing site (20.16° North and 30.77° East), the Earth should be at constant 53.4° above the lunar horizon.
Return to orbit: 188:01:27 [Apollo 17] lunar lift-off film. The television camera was mounted on the rover which Gene [Cernan] parked about 145 metres east of (behind) the lunar module. The ascent stage ignites and climbs, spacecraft foil and dust flying in all directions. Ed Fendell in Houston anticipates exactly the timing of ignition, lift-off, and the rate of climb, and the camera tilts to follows the ascent.	Awesome! And there apparently either wasn't any delay in the signal or NASA had the foresight to hire a remote camera operator who was able to see a few seconds into the future.
Skylab interior photo: Astronaut Charles Conrad, Jr., Skylab-2 commander, smiles happily for the camera after a hot bath in the shower in the crew quarters of the Orbital Workshop of the Skylab space station.	The towel at the upper right corner hangs as on Earth, so there was no weightlessness and the photo was taken on Earth, not Earth orbit.

Discrepancies in NASA documents

First NASA document	NASA document or astronaut statement found to contradict the first document
Earthrise photos: The first photo of Earthrise by a human as he watched the event unfold (AS08-13-2329) was taken on 24 December 1968.	There is yet another photo (AS08-14-2392) of the same Earthrise at the same time and place but with a window frame and said to be taken two days earlier. A sceptic says that both photos are taken by a secret Lunar Orbiter unmanned craft and not from Apollo 8.(p. 190)
Visibility of stars from the Lunar Module: 103:12:44 [Neil] Armstrong (Apollo 11): "I'd say the colour of the local surface is very comparable to that we observed from orbit at this Sun angle – about 10° Sun angle, or that nature." 103:22:30 Armstrong: "From the surface, we could not see any stars out the window; but out my overhead hatch (means the overhead rendezvous window), I'm looking at the Earth. It's big and bright and beautiful."	[Alan] Bean, from the [Apollo 12] 1969 Technical Debrief – "Star (and) Earth visibility was interesting. We could always see stars at the upper rendezvous window." The Sun is currently 5.5° above the eastern horizon. With the Sun 10° above the horizon, stars should have been visible out the Apollo 11 overhead window too.
Visibility of stars from the lunar surface: [Neil] Armstrong (Apollo 11): "We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics." [Michael] Collins (Command Module pilot): "I don't remember seeing any."(1:06:00–1:06:19) (Collins' remark is misattributed to [Edwin] Aldrin in the transcript. In his book "Liftoff", Collins writes "My God, the stars are everywhere, even below me. They are somewhat brighter than on Earth")(p. 33) Alan Bean (Apollo 12): "Oh so carefully, I removed my silver pin, took one last look at it, and gave it my strongest underarm toss out toward Surveyor. I can still remember how it flashed in the bright sunlight then disappeared in the distance. It was the only star I ever saw up in the black sky, the sunlight was just too bright on the Moon's surface to see any of the others."	103:22:54 Duke: "...Gene Cernan says that, while standing in the shadow of the Apollo 17 [Lunar Module] (LM), he could see some stars while he was outside." (Correction on the star visibility issue from the Moon is introduced later.) Astronauts' reminiscences contradict the descriptions of the star sky observed by Soviet cosmonauts (Leonov, Lebedev, Savinykh) on the dayside of the orbit; light from the Earth (Earth albedo 0.367, Moon albedo 0.12) did not hamper them see the stars. For example, Leonov says that "the brightest of the stars can be recognised when they are farther than 30° away from the daylight luminary [the Sun]". On the Moon, the sky is black – even during the day – and the stars are always visible.
Omitted telltale astronauts' words from journal text? 116:07:19 [Alan] Bean (Apollo 12): "Okay. You go ahead. That's difficult, because it's so tender up here on these legs." 116:07:26 [Charles] Conrad: "Well, I don't see the Earth anywhere in the sight."	Listening to the RealVideo clip (1:39–1:45), Alan Bean actually said "It's difficult tricking them", and Charles Conrad replied "Yea, I know."
Moon landing trajectory and dust visibility: [Charles] Conrad (Apollo 12), from the 1969 Technical Debrief – "As soon as I got the vehicle stopped in horizontal velocity at 300 feet (figure 4–12 from the Apollo 12 Mission Report indicates that he stopped almost all of his forward motion at about 220 feet), we picked up a tremendous amount of dust – much more than I had expected. It looked a lot worse than it did in the movies I saw of Neil's landing. It seemed to me that we got the dust much higher than Neil indicated. It could be because we were in a hover, higher up, coming down...".	According to the Apollo 12 land path, at 300 feet (90 m) the module was almost half a kilometre far from the landing place and was descending not vertically but down a very gently sloping trajectory, and dust was first seen at a 3 times less height of 30 m (100 feet).
Fred Haise on the Moon? [Fred W.] Haise and fellow [Apollo 13] crewmen, James A. Lovell (spacecraft commander) and John L. Swigert (command module pilot), working closely with Houston ground controllers, converted their lunar module "Aquarius" into an effective lifeboat. Their emergency activation and operation of lunar module systems conserved both electrical power and water in sufficient supply to assure their safety and survival while in space and for the return to Earth.	Edwin Aldrin (Apollo 11): "The highlight of the evening was a film showing Fred Haise, my back-up on the flight to the Moon, stumbling around on the surface of the Moon until, in desperation, he retreated to the lunar lander which, the moment he stepped on the ladder, tumbled into pieces around him."(p. 164)
Dust blowing: After the landing of the Apollo 14 lunar module, the engine has worked for several more seconds and the jets of dust flying from under the module are clearly seen.(4:46–4:56)	There are no signs of blowing the dust on the photo of the surface under the Apollo 14 lunar module.
Separation – Contradictory times and distances to Earth: 03:42:29 [Apollo 17] Commander [Eugene Cernan]: "Separation, Houston." This photo shows the [Apollo 12] Spacecraft-LM Adapter (SLA) above centre. (Altitude at [SLA] separation was about 3,800 nautical miles – about 7,000 km.)	A Full Earth from the Apollo 17 Command Module at about 5 hours 6 minutes, shortly after separation of the docked CSM-LM from the S-IVB at 4 hours 45 minutes.
When was the descent engine stopped? 113:01:43 [Harrison] Schmitt (Apollo 17): "Stand by. 25 feet, down at 2. Fuel's good. 20 feet. Going down at 2. 10 feet. 10 feet." 113:01:58 Schmitt: "Contact." (Pause) 113:02:03 Schmitt: (Reading a checklist) "Stop, push. Engine stop; Engine Arm; Proceed; Command Override, Off; Mode Control, Att(itude) Hold; PGNS, Auto." 113:02:11 [Eugene] Cernan: "Okay, Houston. The Challenger has landed!"	Eugene Cernan: "We shut the engine down some 3 metres above the surface."(part 6, 6:02–6:26)
Lunar rovers had an engine muffler? 120:10:55 [Eugene] Cernan (Apollo 17): "Just don't step on it." (Pause) 120:11:01 [Harrison] Schmitt: "I do that (pause) in training, though." (Pause). 120:11:13 Cernan: "Ooh. (Grunting and breathing hard) Hey, Bob, just out of curiosity, what kind of heart rates has this drill been producing on me?"	Listening to the RealVideo clip (17:11–17:41), these words are missing from both the journal text and the MP3 audio clip: 120:10:57 Flight/EVA: "OK, we definitely did not want Flight to figure the rover's muffler at this point. He has it as a stick with mine as an optional, as an option, and ah we're, at this stage of the game, we're screwing around. We definitely do not want to figure this muffler. Since we're being called upon, I'm sure you all recognise not to do this anymore."

Technological legacy

Statement or document of NASA and / or its defenders	Statement of Moon sceptics
Moon race legacy: Hook-and-loop fasteners, polytetrafluoroethylene non-stick coating, disposable nappies – here are only the most well-known results [of the Apollo programme] in everyday life. It has been counted that the spreading of "lunar" technologies gave the American economy an effect, estimated to more than $20 milliard. But the space technology created strictly for conquering of the Moon did not get further development.	Here is what remained with the USSR after the end of the Moon race: The Proton rocket and the Soyuz spacecraft which were both developed for circumlunar, not circumterrestrial flights.
Why is the Saturn V no longer used? Notwithstanding the great carrying capacity, the Saturn [V] expendable launch systems did not get use – they got nothing to carry. The mass of even the most sophisticated artificial Earth satellites does not exceed 20 tonnes. Yet another obstacle is the complexity and cost of service of the huge rocket.	If Saturn V carried the International Space Station (ISS) modules, which are now not heavier than 20 tonnes, their mass could quadruple while their number be reduced four times, along with the number of the docking assemblies for space rendezvous, whose mass is now about one seventh of the mass of the entire ISS. The number of the dangerous space rendezvous procedures would also be reduced. The cost of the two Proton rockets and one Space Shuttle used to carry three ISS modules is roughly equal to the cost of one Saturn V. And the ISS cost is thousands of times greater than the Saturn V service cost. Also, the launching cost for 1 kg of cargo using the Space Shuttle turns out to be much higher than using the Saturn V.(drawing 4) But for some reason, the Americans have money for the "prodigal" Shuttles and not for the "frugal" Saturns. And why is the F-1 engine no longer used but the U.S. Atlas V rocket uses the Russian RD-180 engines instead that are nothing else but one half of the RD-170/171 engines of the Soviet Energia and Zenith rockets? The F-1 engine failure modes (especially combustion instability) need substantial research and the Russian RD-180 is recommended as a model for its modification, if it is to be used in future manned flights to the Moon and Mars.

Quotes by famous people

“

I can't be 100% sure that man actually walked on the Moon. It's possible that NASA could have covered it up, just in order to cut corners, and to be the first to allegedly go to the Moon.

”

—Dr. Brian Todd O'Leary, former NASA astronaut and Apollo project adviser^{(5:22–5:45)}

“

Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague, Michael Collins, aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the Moon, beating by five months President Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the Moon before the decade was out. The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed; he said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that 'them television fellers' could make things look real that weren't. Back then, I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time.

”

—Dr. William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States of America (1993–2001)

See also

• Moon
• NASA
• Apollo programme

External links

Science: Science in Society: Sceptical Inquiry: Hoaxes: Lunar Landing at the Open directory project, 4 February 2009