What is the evidence?

1) Claim: Film clearly shows a flapping flag but there is no wind on the moon, how can this be?

Argument: It isn't flapping, things can move in a vacuum, it's just 'wobbling' until it finds its center of gravity. There was a metal pole at the top of some of the flags taken to the moon which might explain some of apparent rigidity.

2) Claim: There are various lighting discrepancies on pictures which indicate more than one light source, when the only light source was the Sun, there was no artificial light source taken.

Argument: If there are two light sources on the pictures used for this evidence, then why aren't there two shadows? Check out the perspective which could compromise the pictures.

3) Claim: There are no stars in the sky

Argument: They are there, you just can't see them. In daytime on earth the stars are still there, you just can't see them.

4) Claim: There is no engine noise behind the voice of the astronaut as it comes down to land on the moon. The sound of the engines should have been deafening.

Argument: The microphone is at the mouth of the astronaut. In space there is no sound, thus you couldn't hear the engine noise.

5) Claim: There is no blast crater beneath the lunar lander

Argument: They decelerated down slowly, they didn't crash down, they were slow enough to cause dust clouds but not remove all dust.

6) Claim: There are pictures of the feet of the lunar lander which look completely dust free, why?

Argument: There is no moisture in space, nothing for dust to cling to and thus it just did not stick, hence it looks pristine.

7) Claim: The on-moon photographs were taken with cameras which had view finders on which the astronauts could not see, yet a number of the pictures are perfectly framed.

Argument: OK so they couldn't see the view finder, but they practiced endlessly on earth before they went. They took thousands of pictures and only showed the good ones.

8) Claim: The space suits and the space craft were just not strong enough to fight off the radiation either on the Moon itself or through the Van Allen radiation belt.

Argument: They went through the Van Allen belt in an hour, this was not enough time to be affected by the radiation. The astronauts were affected by radiation, they just were not made ill by it as the doses were small. As for 'how did they survive the sun's radiation on the moon if the suits weren't strong enough': Hmmm... well, the suits must have been strong enough if you think the conspiracy is wrong, or they didn't go...

9) Claim: The moon walking, if doubled in speed, looks like running on earth.

Argument: UHM, NOT REALLY. OK if they had a suspension cord on their backs maybe, but take a look at the moony buggy, that looks realistic driving in a weightless environment.

10) Claim: There were problems on earth with the LAM moon lander, which was very unstable on earth (if you moved your body weight slightly it would destabilize the craft, but on the moon pictures it was flawless.

Argument: You are in weightlessness up there, the problems were all because of gravity on the earth.

11) Claim: Photos: When an astronaut goes into the shadows you can still see him, why, there is no light? Also there is at least one picture with the sun behind the craft but everything in the foreground is clearly visible, with no secondary light source surely this is not possible, it should have been in a shadow.

Argument: Yes but light bounces off objects too so that doesn't prove anything - the sun's light could bounce off the surface of the moon (even on earth the sun lights things it doesn't have a direct line of sight of.)

12) Claim: On some of the film footage from the moon there seems to be identical scenery, one with the lander on, one without. Clearly the one without must be wrong as they had not been there before and after they left the lander base was still there.

Argument: But there are differences, the backgrounds are not identical if you look closely enough. The Moon is a pretty featureless place and certain mountains can look similar.

13) Claim: Identical backgrounds on different days with pictures of astronauts looking around but we are told this is a different day, how can this be?

Argument: It's a simple mistake.

14) Claim: People have been killed and threatened to keep this story quiet.

Argument: 750,000 people work either directly or indirectly for NASA - they couldn't keep this a secret.

15) Claim: Launch of Apollo 11 did happen, just the astronauts went round the earth for 8 days, in the interim NASA showed the pictures and then they touched down again.

Argument: There is testimony from very respected astronauts who say they went to the moon, are they liars?

16) Claim: Strange camera work on Apollo movies which suggest a person is working the camera when in fact nobody could possibly have been left on the moon to operate the camera.

This starting frame shows the camera looking straight at the Apollo craft as it blasts off from the moon's surface.

As it goes up, the camera pans upwards.

Even higher... the camera filming this (on the moon) continues to follow the ship upwards (see the scenery at the bottom of the screen disappear). But there was nobody left on the moon to film this, surely this is further evidence this is all a fraud?

(If you look at the video [See the apollo.mov file here] you can also see that the camera seems to pull backwards slightly when the explosion takes place, as if someone is pulling back... All very strange...)

Argument:

Firstly, nobody was controlling the camera physically standing on the moon and there was no automatic device on the camera on the moon. The most likely explanation is therefore that it was being controlled from mission control by a team who compensated for the 2 second delay... They succeeded in timing it just right.

To see the movie in its entirety there is a 1MB Quicktime movie here.

17) The astronauts did actually leave something on the moon that has (verifiably) been used regularly ever since. In 1969 Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin left a mirror device (picture below) on the moon's surface. This is used to measure the distance between the earth and the moon using a lazer device from the McDonald Observatory, 4 hours drive from El Paso.

(Source: BBC Horizon documentary, What on Earth is wrong with Gravity?)

Why would 'they' cover it up? The political demands of succeeding in the space race, to prove USA's superiority in the cold war. US rocket science was not up to the job, this was politically unacceptable.

A reader e-mailed in this question: In your article you mentioned that there was no moisture on the moon (which is definitely true) and thus dust can not stick on any parts of the buggy or the lander. Now here's the kicker: What about the famous picture of the foot print on the moon? How can dust stick on the shoes of the space suit?

We replied: The footprint on the moon could have been made simply by a dry foot pressing down on dry, deep moon dust. Just because there was an impression it doesn't mean moisture made dust stick to the moon boot that made the impression... the dust could just have been pushed into that impression by a dry moon boot pressing downwards - it's really fine dust up there...

Another reader emailed in this question: If the Hubble telescope can see galaxies dozens of light years away, why can't we just turn '1' of our worlds super powerful telescopes at the moon and just see the flag?????? Doesn't SETI have such capabilities? Can't we see car license plates from orbiting satellites with today's technology... show me the flag!!!!!!!!

A reader has kindly been in contact and it seems that Hubble can, indeed, see the moon, trouble is it can't see anything as small as the landing debris on the moon... http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=77&cat=topten . As for Earth orbiting satellites, they can only see the Earth (ie allegedly the licence plates) and not up at the moon.

Last update: 1 February 2006 (If you have a question please e-mail us and we will include it on this page to editor@thevoiceofreason.com.)