Moon landing conspiracy theories
In this article from Wikipedia I have added my replies in red. Many people rely on hearsay and faith to show that the Manned Moon Landings did take place. What we need is science and where the science is thin we must use sound logic. Also, this article is firmly in the court of Apollo landings believers. It is a personal belief rather than a report of the facts by both antagonist, and as such lets Wikipedia down.
Also on this website I do not talk about comedy sites such as the flat earth society. Really they do not believe that themselves but they love the attention. It is purely for entertainment.
The MoonHoax site is all about science!
Moon landing conspiracy theories claim that some or all elements of the Apollo program and the associated Moon landings were hoaxes staged by NASA, possibly with the aid of other organizations. The most notable claim is that the six manned landings (1969–72) were faked and that 12 Apollo astronauts did not actually walk on the Moon. Various groups and individuals have made claims since the mid-1970s, that NASA and others knowingly misled the public into believing the landings happened, by manufacturing, tampering with, or destroying evidence including photos, telemetry tapes, radio and TV transmissions, Moon rock samples, and even some key witnesses.
Much third-party evidence for the landings exists, and detailed rebuttals to the hoax claims have been made.[All the rebuttals have been weak in substance. Soe people have even said ‘ It happened therefore they are wrong’ where is the science in that?] Since the late 2000s, high-definition photos taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) of the Apollo landing sites have captured the lander modules and the tracks left by the astronauts [ These ‘high definition photos do not reveal as much as the Google Earth images taken of our planet. The camera used to produce the Google Earth images is over 1,000 kilometers out from the Earth’s surface and looking through a thick atmosphere. Yet still one can see people walking in city streets. The LROC is stationed in orbit about 80 kilometers from the surface of the moon. NASA wants us to believe that the LROC can image boot prints but not show the descent landing module in any detail. Boot prints are about 40 centimeters long. The descent module is 5 meters long. That is 500 cms. If we could see a 40 cm long boot print we could easily see a 500 cm long landing craft.] In 2012, images were released showing five of the six Apollo missions’ American flags erected on the Moon still standing; the exception is that of Apollo 11, which has lain on the lunar surface since being accidentally blown over by the takeoff rocket’s exhaust [NASA states that the LROC has imaged the shadows of the Apollo flags on the surface of the Moon. If we can’t see the details of a 5 meter long space craft sitting on the Moon’s surface how on earth are we going to see a shadow 25mm wide. It is just not good science and a complete hoax.].
Conspiracists have managed to sustain public interest in their theories for more than 40 years, despite the rebuttals and third-party evidence. Opinion polls taken in various locations have shown that between 6% and 20% of Americans [That equals up to 60 million people!], 25% of Britons [15 Million Brits], and 28% of Russians [40 Million Russians] surveyed believe that the manned landings were faked. Even as late as 2001, the Fox television network documentary Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? claimed NASA faked the first landing in 1969 to win the Space Race.
Just using the info above we have a total of 115 Million soles, from three nations only, who are not convinced that the US landed Men on the Moon and brought them back safely.
An early and influential book about the subject of a moon-landing conspiracy, We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle, was self-published in 1976 by Bill Kaysing. Despite having no knowledge of rockets or technical writing, Kaysing, a former US Navy officer with a Bachelor of Arts in English, was hired as a senior technical writer in 1956 by Rocketdyne, the company that built the F-1engines used on the Saturn V rocket. He served as head of the technical publications unit at the company’s Propulsion Field Laboratory until 1963. Kaysing’s book made many allegations, and effectively began discussion of the Moon landings being faked. The book claims that the chance of a successful manned landing on the Moon was calculated to be 0.0017%, and that despite close monitoring by the USSR, it would have been easier for NASA to fake the Moon landings than to really go there.
In 1980, the Flat Earth Society accused NASA of faking the landings, arguing that they were staged by Hollywood with Walt Disney sponsorship, based on a script by Arthur C. Clarke and directed by Stanley Kubrick.[Note 1] Folklorist Linda Dégh suggests that writer-director Peter Hyams’ 1978 film Capricorn One, which shows a hoaxed journey to Mars in a spacecraft that looks identical to the Apollo craft [That’s because the movie was made 10 years after Apollo] , might have given a boost to the hoax theory’s popularity in the post-Vietnam War era. She notes that this happened during the post-Watergate era, when American citizens were inclined to distrust official accounts. Dégh writes: “The mass media catapult these half-truths into a kind of twilight zone where people can make their guesses sound as truths [Here at MoonHoax we have changed the guesses into scientific fact] . Mass media have a terrible impact on people who lack guidance [It was the age of the times that allowed the misdirection to take place] .”In A Man on the Moon, first published in 1994, Andrew Chaikin mentions that at the time of Apollo 8’s lunar-orbit mission in December 1968, similar conspiracy ideas were already in circulation.
Conspiracists and their contentions
After Kaysing, Moon-landing conspiracists include (in alphabetical order):
- Marcus Allen – British publisher of Nexus, who said photographs of the lander would not prove that the United States put men on the Moon, and “Getting to the Moon really isn’t much of a problem – the Russians did that in 1959. The big problem is getting people there [This is critically true] .” He suggests that NASA sent robot missions because radiation levels in outer space would be deadly. Another variant on this is the idea that NASA and its contractors did not recover quickly enough from the Apollo 1 fire, and so all the early Apollo missions were faked, with Apollos 14 or 15 being the first real mission.
- William L. Brian – a nuclear engineer who self-published a book in 1982, Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program, in which he disputes the Moon’s surface gravity.
- James M. Collier (d. 1998) – American journalist and writer, producer of the video Was It Only a Paper Moon? (1997).
- Milton William Cooper (1943–2001) – was an American conspiracy theorist and author. He believed that all of the Apollo missions to the Moon were actually carefully rehearsed productions that were then filmed in large sound stages.
- James H. Fetzer – retired American philosophy professor and conspiracy theorist. On May 2, 2013, Dr. Fetzer was interviewed by Dr. Sterling Harwood. Fetzer defended his conspiracist views that all six lunar landings were hoaxes.
- David Groves – works for Quantech Image Processing. He examined the photo of Aldrin emerging from the lander and said he can pinpoint when a spotlight was used. Using the focal length of the camera’s lens and an actual boot, he allegedly calculated, using ray-tracing, that the spotlight is between 24 and 36 centimetres (9.4 and 14.2 in) to the right of the camera. This matches with the sunlit part of Armstrong’s spacesuit.
- Clyde Lewis – radio talk show host who says the 1969 moon landing was fake.
- Philippe Lheureux – French author of Lumières sur la Lune. An English language edition was published in 2003, Moon Landings: Did NASA Lie? He said that astronauts did land on the Moon, but to stop other states from benefiting from scientific information in the real photos, NASA published fake images.
- Yury Ignatyevich Mukhin – Russian opposition politician, publicist and author of the book Antiapollon: Moonlight scam US in which he denies all Moon landing evidence and accuses the United States government of plundering the money paid by the American taxpayers for the Moon program. He also claims the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and some Soviet scientists helped NASA fake the landings.
- David S. Percy – TV producer, expert in audiovisual technologies, and member of the Royal Photographic Society. He is co-author, along with Mary Bennett, of Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers and co-producer of What Happened On the Moon? He is the main proponent of the ‘whistle-blower’ accusation, arguing that mistakes in the NASA photos are so obvious that they are evidence that insiders are trying to ‘blow the whistle’ on the hoax by knowingly adding mistakes that they know will be seen.
- Stanislav Pokrovsky – Russian general director of a scientific-manufacturing enterprise Project-D-MSK who calculated that the real speed of the Saturn V rocket at S-IC staging time was only half of what was declared. His analysis appears to assume that the solid rocket plumes from the fuselage and retrorockets on the two stages came to an instant halt in the surrounding air so they can be used to estimate the velocity of the rocket. He ignored high-altitude winds and the altitude at staging, 67 km, where air is about 1/10,000 as dense as at sea level, and claimed that only a loop around the Moon was possible, not a manned landing on the Moon with return to Earth. He also allegedly found the reason for this – problems with the Inconel superalloy used in the F-1 engine.
- Alexander Ivanovich Popov – Russian author of the book The Americans on the Moon: the great breakthrough or cosmic scam?? in which he aims to prove that Saturn V was in fact a camouflaged Saturn IB and denies all Moon landing evidence.
- Aron Ranen – a filmmaker, directed and produced the documentary Did We Go?
- Ralph René (1933–2008) – was an inventor and ‘self-taught’ engineering buff. Author of the self-published book NASA Mooned America! [There is a lack of scientific knowledge in this book, however he still raises some good points]
- Bart Sibrel – a filmmaker, produced and directed four films for his company, AFTH, LLC, including a 2001 film, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, examining the evidence of a hoax. The arguments that Sibrel puts forward in this film have been debunked by many sources [Where and how?], including Svector Studios’ five-part video series Lunar Legacy, which disproves the documentaries main argument that the Apollo crew faked their distance from the Earth while in low Earth orbit. Sibrel has said that the effect on the shot covered in his film was made through the use of a transparency of the Earth. Some parts of the original footage, according to Sibrel, were not able to be included on the official releases for the media. On such allegedly censored parts, the correlation between Earth and Moon phases can be clearly confirmed, refuting Sibrel’s claim that these shots were faked. On September 9, 2002, Sibrel was punched in the face by Buzz Aldrin after Sibrel confronted Aldrin with his theoriesand accused the former astronaut of being “a coward, and a liar, and a thief.” The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office refused to file charges against Aldrin, saying that he had been provoked by Sibrel.
- Takahiko Soejima – Japanese political scientist, author of 人類の月面着陸は無かったろう論.
- Jay Weidner – author and interviewee about the Moon conspiracy theory in the documentary film Room 237 (2012). In this film he repeatedly states that he does not necessarily doubt that America landed men on the Moon even though he thinks there was a conspiracy with Stanley Kubrick to fake the lunar landing footage.
- Jack D. White (1927–2012) – was an American photo historian known for his attempt to prove forgery in photos and the Zapruder film related to the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
- Gerhard Wisnewski – German journalist and filmmaker, author of One Small Step?: The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space.
Claimed motives of the United States and NASA
Those who believe the Moon landings were faked give several theories about the motives of NASA and the United States government. The three main theories are below.
The Space Race
Motivation for the United States to engage the Soviet Union in a Space Race can be traced to the then on-going Cold War. Landing on the Moon was viewed as a national and technological accomplishment that would generate world-wide acclaim. But going to the Moon would be risky and expensive, as exemplified by President John F. Kennedy famously stating in a 1962 speech that the United States chose to go because it was hard.
Hoax theory-debunker Philip Plait says in his book Bad Astronomy, that the Soviets – with their own competing Moon program, an extensive intelligence network and a formidable scientific community able to analyze NASA data – would have cried foul if the United States tried to fake a Moon landing, especially since their own program had failed [This is conjecture. Where is the evidence. The Soviet mission did not fail it was canned by Leonid Brezhnev ] . Proving a hoax would have been a huge propaganda win for the Soviets [The US new that the first human in space was not Gagarin and the soviets knew that the US disbelieved their claims.] Conspiracist Bart Sibrel responded, “the Soviets did not have the capability to track deep space craft until late in 1972, immediately after which, the last three Apollo missions were abruptly canceled.”
In fact, the Soviets had been sending unmanned spacecraft to the Moon since 1959 [So did the US], and “during 1962, deep space tracking facilities were introduced at IP-15 in Ussuriisk and IP-16 in Evpatoria (Crimean Peninsula), while Saturn communication stations were added to IP-3, 4 and 14,” the latter having a 100 million km range. The Soviet Union tracked the Apollo missions at the Space Transmissions Corps, which was “fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment.” Vasily Mishin, in an interview for the article “The Moon Programme That Faltered,” describes how the Soviet Moon program dwindled after the Apollo landings.
Also, there was nothing “abrupt” about the Apollo cancelations, which were announced in January and September 1970 for cost-cutting reasons. (See Vietnam War below.)
NASA funding and prestige
It is claimed[by whom?] that NASA faked the landings to avoid humiliation and to ensure that it continued to get funding. NASA raised “about US$30 billion” to go to the Moon, and Kaysing claimed in his book that this could have been used to “pay off” many people. Since most conspiracists believe that sending men to the Moon was impossible at the time, they argue that landings had to be faked to fulfill Kennedy’s 1961 goal, “before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.” In fact, NASA accounted for the cost of Apollo to the US Congress in 1973, totaling US$25.4 billion [And doggy accountants have never existed].
Mary Bennett and David Percy have claimed in Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, that, with all the known and unknown hazards, NASA would not risk broadcasting an astronaut getting sick or dying on live television. The counter-argument generally given is that NASA in fact did incur a great deal of public humiliation and potential political opposition to the program by losing an entire crew in the Apollo 1 fire during a ground test, leading to its upper management team being questioned by Senate and House of Representatives space oversight committees. There was in fact no video broadcast during either the landing or takeoff because of technological limitations [What limitations].
The American Patriot Friends Network claimed in 2009 that the landings helped the United States government distract public attention from the unpopular Vietnam War, and so manned landings suddenly ended about the same time that the United States ended its involvement in the war. In fact, the ending of the landings was not “sudden” (see The Space Race above). The war was one of several federal budget items with which NASA had to compete; NASA’s budget peaked in 1966, and fell by 42.3% by 1972. This was the reason the final flights were cut, along with plans for even more ambitious follow-on programs such as a permanent space station and manned flight to Mars [The true reason was the space race had ended and there was no need to push the envelope any further].
Hoax claims and rebuttals
Many Moon-landing conspiracy theories have been put forward: claiming either that the landings did not happen and that NASA employees have lied, or that the landings did happen but not in the way that has been told. Conspiracists have focused on perceived gaps or inconsistencies in the historical record of the missions. The foremost idea is that the whole manned landing program was a hoax from start to end. Some claim that the technology to send men to the Moon was lacking or that the Van Allen radiation belts, solar flares, solar wind, coronal mass ejections and cosmic rays made such a trip impossible.
Vince Calder and Andrew Johnson, scientists from Argonne National Laboratory, gave detailed answers to the conspiracists’ claims on the laboratory’s website [That info is nowhere to be found. And I am guessing it is not scientific]. They show that NASA’s portrayal of the Moon landing is fundamentally accurate, allowing for such common mistakes as mislabeled photos and imperfect personal recollections. Using the scientific process, any hypothesis that is contradicted by the observable facts may be rejected. The ‘real landing’ hypothesis is a single story since it comes from a single source, but there is no unity in the hoax hypothesis because hoax accounts vary between conspiracists.
Number of conspirators involved
According to James Longuski (Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics Engineering at Purdue University), the conspiracy theories are impossible because of their size and complexity. The conspiracy would have to involve more than 400,000 people who worked on the Apollo project for nearly ten years, the 12 men who walked on the Moon, the six others who flew with them as Command Module pilots, and another six astronauts who orbited the Moon.[Note 2] Hundreds of thousands of people – including astronauts, scientists, engineers, technicians, and skilled laborers – would have had to keep the secret. Longuski argues that it would have been much easier to really land on the Moon than to generate such a huge conspiracy to fake the landings. To date, nobody from the United States government or NASA who would have had a link to the Apollo program has said the Moon landings were hoaxes. Penn Jillette made note of this in the “Conspiracy Theories” episode of his contrarian television show Penn & Teller: Bullshit! in 2005. With the number of people involved, and noting the Watergate scandal, Jillette noted that someone would have outed the hoax by now [ Well let’s look at it in reality. You don’t need 400,000 people to fake a moon landing. You need only those that are required to set up and maintain the misdirection. Each person on the Apollo program only knew what they had to know. Even the people in the command room at Houston were in the dark: with the exception of CapCom who was the only person allowed to speak with astronauts. The fact that they had the Apollo 1 fire and the reasons and actions around it, show what would happen to anyone who stepped out of line. So to carry on the misdirection all one needed was the astronauts, some high ranking officials (not the US President as politicians talk too much) a few film crews, some security people (all military because they obey orders) Today it would be almost impossible to do the same fake landings because technology now belongs to the people and not governments.].
Photograph and film oddities
Moon-landing conspiracists focus heavily on NASA photos. They point to oddities in photos and films taken on the Moon. Photography experts (including those unrelated to NASA) answer that the oddities are what one would expect from a real Moon landing, and not what would happen with tweaked or studio imagery. Some of the main arguments and counter-arguments are listed below.
1. In some photos, crosshairs seem to be behind objects. The cameras were fitted with a Réseau plate (a clear glass plate with crosshairs etched on), making it impossible for any photographed object to appear “in front” of the grid. This suggests that objects have been “pasted” over them.
- This only appears in copied and scanned photos, not the originals[Where are the originals. Bill Kaysing saw originals in the early 1970s that is why he started not to believe. ] . It is caused by overexposure: the bright white areas of the emulsion “bleed” over the thin black crosshairs. The crosshairs are only about 0.004 inches thick (0.1 mm) and emulsion would only have to bleed about half that much to fully obscure it. Furthermore, there are many photos where the middle of the crosshair is “washed-out” but the rest is intact. In some photos of the American flag, parts of one crosshair appear on the red stripes, but parts of the same crosshair are faded or invisible on the white stripes. There would have been no reason to “paste” white stripes onto the flag.
2. Crosshairs are sometimes rotated or in the wrong place.
- This is a result of popular photos being cropped and/or rotated for aesthetic impact [NASA doesn’t do this. All image should be downloaded from NASA].
3. The quality of the photographs is implausibly high.
- There are many poor-quality photos taken by the Apollo astronauts. NASA chose to publish only the best examples [Overwhelmingly the quality is professional. It is only in recent years that we have seen some washed out type photographs that could easily have bee manipulated in photoshop ij modern times.].
- The Apollo astronauts used high-resolution Hasselblad 500 EL cameras with Carl Zeiss optics and a 70 mm medium format film magazine.
4. There are no stars in any of the photos; the Apollo 11 astronauts also claimed in a post-mission press conference to not remember seeing any stars.
- The astronauts were talking about naked-eye sightings of stars during the lunar daytime. They regularly sighted stars through the spacecraft navigation optics while aligning their inertial reference platforms, the Apollo PGNCS [There is NOT one astronaut that ‘went’ to the Moon who has said he could see stars from the lunar surface or indeed from anywhere. The cosmos should have blown them away. This is explained in my article on stars and albedo].
- All manned landings happened during the lunar daytime. Thus, the stars were outshone by the sun and by sunlight reflected off the Moon’s surface [ This is truly incorrect. The albedo of the Moon is quite low and the sun cannot illuminate space.] . The astronaut’s’eyes were adapted to the sunlit landscape around them so that they could not see the relatively faint stars. Likewise, cameras were set for daylight exposure and could not detect the stars [Also not true. They wore protective visors. If they turned to face away from the Sun they would have seen millions of stars, especially if they lifted their visors when in shadow] . Camera settings can turn a well-lit background to black when the foreground object is brightly lit, forcing the camera to increase shutter speed so that the foreground light does not wash out the image. A demonstration of this effect is here. The effect is similar to not being able to see stars from a brightly lit car park at night – the stars only become visible when the lights are turned off. The astronauts could see stars with the naked eye only when they were in the shadow of the Moon [Not one of the astronauts in the command modules said anything about the wonders of he cosmos as seen from thew shadow of he moon (the old style dark side) and they made many orbits around the moon for each mission].
- A special far ultraviolet camera, the Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph, was taken to the lunar surface on Apollo 16 and operated in the shadow of the Apollo Lunar Module (LM). It took photos of Earth and of many stars, some of which are dim in visible light but bright in the ultraviolet. These observations were later matched with observations taken by orbiting ultraviolet telescopes. Furthermore, the positions of those stars with respect to Earth are correct for the time and location of the Apollo 16 photos [It certainly would have been possible to land a camera of anykind on the moon surface. after all, the USSR and he US has landed probes before Apollo 11 ].
- Photos of the solar corona that included the planet Mercury and some background stars were taken from lunar orbit by Apollo 15 Command Module Pilot Al Worden [These image scan be taken by any spacecraft that is sent to orbit the Moon. It doesn’t mean that there is a man inside it].
- Photos of the planet Venus (which is much brighter than any of the stars) were taken from the Moon’s surface by astronaut Alan Shepard during the Apollo 14 mission [One of the theories involved in the Moon Hoax conspiracies states that LMs could have been sent to the moon but not with astronauts inside them. Therefore, a camera can take a photo from any point where it is able to be manipulated from Houston. It just isn’t valid evidence that Man was on the Moon it is however valid evidence that a landing craft was on the Moon].
5. The angle and color of shadows are inconsistent. This suggests that artificial lights were used. [This is a complex topic that is dealt with in the Members Library]
- Shadows on the Moon are complicated by reflected light, uneven ground, wide-angle lens distortion, and lunar dust. There are several light sources: the Sun, sunlight reflected from the Earth, sunlight reflected from the Moon’s surface, and sunlight reflected from the astronauts and the Lunar Module. Light from these sources is scattered by lunar dust in many directions, including into shadows. Shadows falling into craters and hills may appear longer, shorter and distorted. Furthermore, shadows display the properties of vanishing point perspective, leading them to converge to a point on the horizon.
- This theory was debunked on the MythBusters episode “NASA Moon Landing”.
6. There are identical backgrounds in photos which, according to their captions, were taken miles apart. This suggests that a painted background was used.
- Backgrounds were not identical, just similar. What appears as nearby hills in some photos are actually mountains many miles away. On Earth, objects that are further away will appear fainter and less detailed. On the Moon, there is no atmosphere or haze to obscure faraway objects, thus they appear clearer and nearer. Furthermore, there are very few objects (such as trees) to help judge distance. One case is debunked in “Who Mourns For Apollo?” by Mike Bara.
7. The number of photos taken is implausibly high. Up to one photo per 50 seconds.
- Simplified gear with fixed settings allowed two photos a second. Many were taken immediately after each other as stereo pairs or panorama sequences. The calculation (one per 50 seconds) was based on a lone astronaut on the surface, and does not take into account that there were two astronauts sharing the workload during an Extra-vehicular activity (EVA).
8. The photos contain artifacts like the two seemingly matching ‘C’s on a rock and on the ground. These may be labeled studio props.
- The “C”-shaped objects are most likely printing imperfections and do not appear in the original film from the camera. It has been suggested that the “C” is a coiled hair.
9. A resident of Perth, Western Australia, a woman named Una Ronald (a pseudonym created by the authors of the source), said that for two or three seconds she saw a Coca-Cola bottle roll across the lower right quadrant of her television screen that was displaying the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 EVA. She also said that several letters appeared in The West Australian discussing the Coca-Cola bottle incident within ten days of the lunar landing…
[Finally I can agree with some part of this article: The image that Una saw was most likely a glitch. The broadcast in Perth Western Australia was in sync with Sydney New South Wales. For many years I did not believe so. However there is a website honeysucklecreek.net that explains the broadcast to WA very well. Well done to them! This is what this site is about if you can prove me wrong I will accept it and place you proof in your name on my site].
- No such newspaper reports or recordings have been found. Ronald’s claims have only been relayed by one source. There are also flaws in the story, e.g. the statement that she had to stay up late to watch the Moon landing live is easily discounted by many witnesses in Australia who watched the landing in the middle of their daytime.
10. The book Moon Shot contains an obvious composite photo of Alan Shepard hitting a golf ball on the Moon with another astronaut.
- It was used instead of the only existing real images, from the TV monitor, which the editors seemingly felt were too grainy for their book. The book publishers did not work for NASA.
11. There appear to be “hot spots” in some photos that look like a huge spotlight was used.
- Pits on the Moon’s surface focus and reflect light like the tiny glass spheres used in the coating of street signs, or dewdrops on wet grass. This creates a glow around the photographer’s own shadow when it appears in a photograph (see Heiligenschein).
- If the astronaut is standing in sunlight while photographing into shade, light reflected off his white spacesuit yields a similar effect to a spotlight.
- Some widely published Apollo photos were high-contrast copies. Scans of the original transparencies are generally much more evenly lit. An example is shown below:
12. Who filmed Neil Armstrong stepping onto the Moon?
- The Lunar Module did. While still on the steps, Armstrong deployed the Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly from the side of the Lunar Module. This housed, amongst other things, the TV camera. This meant that upward of 600 million people on Earth could watch the live feed. [The MESA table has the camera at the back near the wall of the LM. It points under the ladder. There is no way it could have taken the shot of armstrong stepping onto the ‘Moon’.]
1. The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation (see radiation poisoning and health threat from cosmic rays). Some conspiracists have suggested that Starfish Prime (a high-altitude nuclear test in 1962) was a failed attempt to disrupt the Van Allen belts.
[I have written a lot on this in the Members Library]
- There are two main Van Allen belts – the inner belt and the outer belt – and a transient third belt. The inner belt is the more dangerous one, containing energetic protons. The outer one has less-dangerous low-energy electrons (Beta particles). The Apollo spacecraft passed through the inner belt in a matter of minutes and the outer belt in about 1 1⁄2 hours. The astronauts were shielded from the ionizing radiation by the aluminum hulls of the spacecraft. Furthermore, the orbital transfer trajectory from Earth to the Moon through the belts was chosen to lessen radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too harmful for the Apollo missions. Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem (10 mSv), which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a yearand not much more than what Space Shuttle astronauts received.
2. Film in the cameras would have been fogged by this radiation.
- The film was kept in metal containers that stopped radiation from fogging the film’s emulsion. Furthermore, film carried by unmanned lunar probes such as the Lunar Orbiter and Luna 3 (which used on-board film development processes) was not fogged. [True]
3. The Moon’s surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted. [ However, the Sun heats what its photons hit. An atmosphere is not required. That’s why the Surface Temp on the Moon varies from minus 160 degrees celsius to plus 120 degrees celsius. The camera did not have its own cooling system so it would have become very hot indeed. Too hot for unprotected hands. The next question is, were the gloves of the astronauts suits able to withstand touching metal that may be hotter than 100 degrees celsius?]
There is no atmosphere to efficiently bind lunar surface heat to devices (such as cameras) that are not in direct contact with it. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as a heat transfer mechanism. The physics of radiative heat transfer are thoroughly understood, and the proper use of passive optical coatings and paints was enough to control the temperature of the film within the cameras; Lunar Module temperatures were controlled with similar coatings that gave them a gold color. Also, while the Moon’s surface does get very hot at lunar noon, every Apollo landing was made shortly after lunar sunrise at the landing site; the Moon’s day is about 29½ Earth days long, meaning that one Moon day (dawn to dusk) lasts nearly fifteen Earth days. During the longer stays, the astronauts did notice increased cooling loads on their spacesuits as the sun and surface temperature continued to rise, but the effect was easily countered by the passive and active cooling systems. The film was not in direct sunlight, so it was not overheated.
4. The Apollo 16 crew could not have survived a big solar flare firing out when they were on their way to the Moon.
- No large solar flare occurred during the flight of Apollo 16. There were large solar flares in August 1972, after Apollo 16 returned to Earth and before the flight of Apollo 17.
5. The flag placed on the surface by the astronauts fluttered despite there being no wind on the Moon. This suggests that it was filmed on Earth and a breeze caused the flag to flutter. Sibrel said that it may have been caused by indoor fans used to cool the astronauts since their spacesuit cooling systems would have been too heavy on Earth.
- The flag was fastened to a Г-shaped rod (see Lunar Flag Assembly) so that it did not hang down. The flag only seemed to flutter when the astronauts were moving it into position. Without air drag, these movements caused the free corner of the flag to swing like a pendulum for some time. The flag was rippled because it had been folded during storage – the ripples could be mistaken for movement in a still photo. Videos show that when the astronauts let go of the flagpole it vibrates briefly but then remains still.
- This theory was debunked on the MythBusters episode “NASA Moon Landing”.
6. Footprints in the Moondust are unexpectedly well preserved, despite the lack of moisture. [The main complaint here is not that they are well preserved but rather that they are so cleanly made. The moon is drier than the atacama desert and there should be no vivid detail in a boot print.]
- The Moon dust has not been weathered like Earth sand and has sharp edges. This allows the Moondust particles to stick together and hold their shape in the vacuum. The astronauts likened it to “talcum powder or wet sand” [This is unscientific rambling].
- This theory was debunked on the MythBusters episode “NASA Moon Landing”.
7. The alleged Moon landings used either a sound stage or were filmed outside in a remote desert with the astronauts either using harnesses or slow-motion photography to make it look like they were on the Moon.
- While the HBO miniseries “From the Earth to the Moon”, and a scene from the movie “Apollo 13” used the sound-stage and harness setup, it is clearly seen from those films that when dust rose it did not quickly settle; some dust briefly formed clouds. In the film footage from the Apollo missions, dust kicked up by the astronauts’ boots and the wheels of the Lunar Roving Vehicles rose quite high due to the lower lunar gravity, and settled quickly to the ground in an uninterrupted parabolic [ There is no parabolic in those shots. the dust rises to ~2 meters (just like it does on earth) and stops and falls immediately (just like it does on earth). If it were on the Moon the dust would have risen to ~ 3 meters and kept on moving to create a an arc that was 6 meters at the base. This is covered with Maths in the members library. ] arc since there was no air to suspend the dust. Even if there had been a sound stage for hoax Moon landings that had the air pumped out, the dust would have reached nowhere near the height and trajectory as in the Apollo film footage because of Earth’s greater gravity.
- During the Apollo 15 mission, David Scott did an experiment by dropping a hammer and a falcon feather at the same time. Both fell at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time. This proved that he was in a vacuum [ Pro. Brian Cox did the same experiment recently in a massive NASA vacuum chamber that was built in 1966. Scott was obviously in that facility. ].
- This theory was debunked on the MythBusters episode “NASA Moon Landing” [Mythbusters have debunked nothing to do with the Moon Hoax Conspiracies. Their methodologies are for one end only: ratings. They are unscientific and are there to entertain not debunk NASA. The experiment they did on the waving flag was nothing short of charlatanism. ]
1. The Lunar Modules made no blast craters or any sign of dust scatter.
- No crater should be expected. The 10,000-pound thrust Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final landing [It was throttled down to 2,000lbs and that would have created a storm of dust and gouged out a small crater.]. The Lunar Module was no longer quickly decelerating [ It weighed nearly 4 tonnes on the 1/6 G Moon. Try dropping even a one tonne block from a few meters high here on Earth and you will see what I mean. Even though the LM had legs that were designed to collapse internally, there is not one photograph that shows this. And, there is NO dust on the underside of the LMs at all not even in the foot pads.] , so the descent engine only had to support the lander’s own weight, which was lessened by the Moon’s gravity and by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants. At landing, the engine thrust divided [How? There is only one nozzle attached to the descent engine] by the nozzle exit area is only about 10 kilopascals (1.5 PSI) [ NO not so. 2000lbs per square inch equals 13789.51456 kPa. ] . Beyond the engine nozzle, the plume spreads, and the pressure drops very quickly [ Again this is an urban myth. The speed of the rocket exhaust cannot be stoped by a vacuum. If that were so then no spacecraft would ever be able to get to the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn or Pluto.] . Rocket exhaust gasses expand much more quickly after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably. To lessen this, rocket engines made for vacuums have longer bells than those made for use on Earth, but they still cannot stop this spreading. The lander’s exhaust gasses, therefore, expanded quickly well beyond the landing site. The descent engines did scatter a lot of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and many mission commanders spoke of its effect on visibility. The landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically, and photos do show scouring of the surface along the final descent path. Finally, the lunar regolith is very compact below its surface dust layer, making it impossible for the descent engine to blast out a “crater”. A blast crater was measured under the Apollo 11 lander using shadow lengths of the descent engine bell and estimates of the amount that the landing gear had compressed and how deep the lander footpads had pressed into the lunar surface and it was found that the engine had eroded between 4 and 6 inches of regolith out from underneath the engine bell during the final descent and landing [There is an outside gas shell to a rocket engine’s exhaust. The main thrust is still available otherwise they wouldn’t get off the ground. And the ascent module of the LM wouldn’t be able to lift off from the Moon].
2. The second stage of the launch rocket and/or the Lunar Module ascent stage made no visible flame.
- The Lunar Modules used Aerozine 50 (fuel) and dinitrogen tetroxide (oxidizer) propellants, chosen for simplicity and reliability; they ignite hypergolically – upon contact – without the need for a spark. These propellants produce a nearly transparent exhaust[ On this website there are images of the orange and white flames that these gases produce.]. The same fuel was used by the core of the American Titan II rocket. The transparency of their plumes is apparent in many launch photos. The plumes of rocket engines fired in a vacuum spread out very quickly as they leave the engine nozzle (see above), further lessening their visibility. Finally, rocket engines often run “rich” to slow internal corrosion. On Earth, the excess fuel burns in contact with atmospheric oxygen, enhancing the visible flame. This cannot happen in a vacuum.[This is a rerun of bad information]
Apollo 17 LMleaving the Moon; rocket exhaust visible only briefly
Apollo 8 launch through the first stage separation
Exhaust flame may not be visible outside the atmosphere, as in this photo. Rocket engines are the dark structures at the bottom center
The launch of a Titan II, burning hypergolicAerozine-50/N2O4, 430,000 pounds-force (1.9 MN) of thrust. Note the near-transparency of the exhaust, even in air (water is being sprayed up from below) [ On the Moon in the darkness of space it would be even more evident]
Atlas uses non-hypergolic kerosene (RP-1) fuel which gives a bright and very visible exhaust, 340,000 lbf(1.5 MN) of thrust
Bright flame from first stage of the Saturn V, burning RP-1
3. The Lunar Modules weighed 17 tons and made no mark on the Moondust, yet footprints can be seen beside them.
- On the surface of the Earth, Apollo 11’s fueled and crewed Lunar Module, Eagle, would have weighed approximately 17 short tons (15,300 kg). On the surface of the Moon, however, after expending fuel and oxidizer on her descent from lunar orbit, the lander weighed about 2,698 pounds (1,224 kg). The astronauts were much lighter than the lander, but their boots were much smaller than the lander’s approximately 3-foot (91 cm) diameter footpads. Pressure (or force per unit area) rather than mass determines the amount of regolith compression. In some photos, the footpads did press into the regolith, especially when they moved sideways at touchdown. (The bearing pressure under Apollo 11’s footpads, with the lander being about 44 times the weight of an EVA-configured astronaut, would have been of similar magnitude to the bearing pressure exerted by the astronauts’ boots.)
4. The air conditioning units that were part of the astronauts’ spacesuits could not have worked in an environment of no atmosphere.
- The cooling units could only work in a vacuum. Water from a tank in the backpack flowed out through tiny pores in a metal sublimator plate where it quickly vaporized into space [If that happened we would be able to see he water vapour as it was pulled out of the PLSS]. The loss of the heat of vaporization froze the remaining water, forming a layer of ice on the outside of the plate that also sublimated into space (turning from a solid directly into a gas). A separate water loop flowed through the LCG (Liquid Cooling Garment) worn by the astronaut, carrying his metabolic waste heat through the sublimator plate where it was cooled and returned to the LCG. Twelve pounds (5.4 kg) of feedwater gave about eight hours of cooling; because of its bulk, it was often the limiting consumable on the length of an EVA.
1. There should have been more than a two-second delay in communications between Earth and the Moon, at a distance of 400,000 km (250,000 mi).
- The round trip light travel time of more than two seconds is apparent in all the real-time recordings of the lunar audio, but this does not always appear as expected. There may also be some documentary films where the delay has been edited out. Reasons for editing the audio may be time constraints or in the interest of clarity [ True however,the ‘Live’ telecast should have the 2 second delay].
2. Typical delays in communication were about 0.5 seconds.
- Claims that the delays were only half a second are untrue, as examination of the original recordings shows. Also, there should not be a consistent time delay between every response, as the conversation is being recorded at one end – Mission Control. Responses from Mission Control could be heard without any delay, as the recording is being made at the same time that Houston receives the transmission from the Moon.
3. The Parkes Observatory in Australia was billed to the world for weeks as the site that would be relaying communications from the first moonwalk. However, five hours before transmission they were told to stand down. [Parks momentarily stood down because a strong wind gust tilted the 30 meter dish at the wrong angle. It wasn’t long before they were ready to receive.]
- The timing of the first moonwalk was changed after the landing. In fact, delays in getting the moonwalk started meant that Parkes did cover almost the entire Apollo 11 moonwalk.
4. Parkes supposedly had the clearest video feed from the Moon, but Australian media and all other known sources ran a live feed from the United States [ Please check your info before publishing. Parks was the primary source for receiving the 1969 ‘Moon Walk’. The signals were then sent by NASA technicians in Sydney to Goldstone via an Intelsat link. From there they were redirected to Perth WA. The Eastern states in Australia watch the telecast via ABC cable direct from Sydney. The US watched via the received Sydney signals sent to Goldstone. Check: honeysucklecreek.net ] .
- While that was the original plan, and, according to some sources, the official policy, the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) did take the transmission direct from the Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek radio telescopes. These were converted to NTSC television at Paddington, in Sydney. This meant that Australian viewers saw the moonwalk several seconds before the rest of the world. See also Parkes radio astronomer John Sarkissian’s article, “On Eagle’s Wings: The Parkes Observatory’s Support of the Apollo 11 Mission” The events surrounding the Parkes Observatory’s role in relaying the live television of the moonwalk were portrayed in a slightly fictionalized Australian film comedy “The Dish” (2000).
5. Better signal was [were] supposedly received at Parkes Observatory when the Moon was on the opposite side of the planet [What do you mean on the other side. The apollo moon landings supposedly happen while the moon was orbiting through a line that cut the Pacific ocean over Australia. If the moon was on the opposite side of the earth to Australia no signal could be received. This why the Soviets could not obtain the live moon landing signals because the moon was not over the northern hemisphere.]
- This is not supported by the detailed evidence and logs from the missions 
Blueprints and design and development drawings of the machines involved are missing. Apollo 11 data tapes containing telemetry and the high-quality video (before scan conversion from slow-scan TVto standard TV) of the first moonwalk are also missing.
Dr. David R. Williams (NASA archivist at Goddard Space Flight Center) and Apollo 11 flight director Eugene F. Kranz both acknowledged that the Apollo 11 telemetry data tapes are missing. Conspiracists see this as evidence that they never existed. The Apollo 11 telemetry tapes were different from the telemetry tapes of the other Moon landings because they contained the raw television broadcast. For technical reasons, the Apollo 11 lander carried a slow-scan television (SSTV) camera (see Apollo TV camera). To broadcast the pictures to regular television, a scan conversion had to be done. The radio telescope at Parkes Observatory in Australia was able to receive the telemetry from the Moon at the time of the Apollo 11 moonwalk. Parkes had a bigger antenna than NASA’s antenna in Australia at the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station, so it received a better picture. It also received a better picture than NASA’s antenna at Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex. This direct TV signal, along with telemetry data, was recorded onto one-inch fourteen-track analog tape at Parkes. The original SSTV transmission had better detail and contrast than the scan-converted pictures, and it is this tape that is missing. A crude, real-time scan conversion of the SSTV signal was done in Australia before it was broadcast worldwide. However, still photos of the original SSTV image are available (see photos). About fifteen minutes of it were filmed by an amateur 8 mm film camera and these are also available. Later Apollo missions did not use SSTV. At least some of the telemetry tapes from the ALSEP scientific experiments left on the Moon (which ran until 1977) still exist, according to Dr. Williams. Copies of those tapes have been found.
Others are looking for the missing telemetry tapes for different reasons. The tapes contain the original and highest quality video feed from the Apollo 11 landing. Some former Apollo personnel want to find the tapes for posterity while NASA engineers looking towards future Moon missions believe the tapes may be useful for their design studies. They have found that the Apollo 11 tapes were sent for storage at the U.S. National Archives in 1970, but by 1984, all the Apollo 11 tapes had been returned to the Goddard Space Flight Center at their request. The tapes are believed to have been stored rather than re-used. Goddard was storing 35,000 new tapes per year in 1967, even before the Moon landings.
In November 2006, COSMOS Online reported that about 100 data tapes recorded in Australia during the Apollo 11 mission had been found in a small marine science laboratory in the main physics building at the Curtin University of Technology in Perth, Australia. One of the old tapes has been sent to NASA for analysis. The slow-scan television images were not on the tape.
In July 2009, NASA indicated that it must have erased the original Apollo 11 Moon footage years ago so that it could re-use the tape. In December 2009 NASA issued a final report on the Apollo 11 telemetry tapes. Senior engineer Dick Nafzger, who was in charge of the live TV recordings during the Apollo missions, is now in charge of the restoration project. After a three-year search, the “inescapable conclusion” was that about 45 tapes (estimated 15 tapes recorded at each of the three tracking stations) of Apollo 11 video were erased and re-used, said Nafzger. In time for the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landing, Lowry Digital has been tasked with restoring the surviving footage. Lowry Digital president Mike Inchalik said that, “this is by far and away the lowest quality” video the company has dealt with. Nafzger praised Lowry for restoring “crispness” to the Apollo video, which will remain in black and white and contains conservative digital enhancements. The US$230,000 restoration project that will take months to complete will not include sound quality improvements. Some selections of restored footage in high-definition have been made available on the NASA website.
The website Xenophilia.com documents a hoax claim that blueprints for the Saturn V rocket, Apollo Lunar Module (LM), Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV), and associated equipment are missing. There are some diagrams of the Lunar Module and Lunar Roving Vehicle on the NASA website and on Xenophilia.com. Grumman appears to have destroyed most of their LM documentation, but copies of the blueprints for the Saturn V exist on microfilm [Yet NASA states that they can’t build a Saturn V because the technology has been lost].
Four mission-worthy LRVs were built by Boeing. Three of them were [reported to have been] carried to the Moon on Apollos 15, 16, and 17, and left there. After Apollo 18 was canceled, the other LRV was used for spare parts for the Apollos 15 to 17 missions. The 221-page operation manual for the LRV contains some detailed drawings, although not the blueprints.
Bart Sibrel cites the relative level of the United States and USSR space technology as evidence that the Moon landings could not have happened. For much of the early stages of the Space Race, the USSR was ahead of the United States, yet in the end, the USSR was never able to fly a manned craft to the Moon, let alone land one on the surface. It is argued that, because the USSR was unable to do this, the United States should have also been unable to develop the technology to do so. [That is a bad argument because the USSR could land spacecraft on the Moon just as the US had done before Apollo 11. The main thrust is, how did the US get Men to the Moon and how can they justify being able to launch so much tonnage. If this could be done then why was the ISS put together in space from sections ferried out by the space shuttle program over a number of years. Even Von Braun wanted the Moon rockets to be built in low Earth orbit.]
For example, he claims that, during the Apollo program, the USSR had five times more manned hours in space than the United States, and notes that the USSR was the first to achieve many of the early milestones in space: the first man-made satellite in orbit (October 1957, Sputnik 1);[Note 3] the first living creature in orbit (a dog named Laika, November 1957, Sputnik 2); the first man in space and in orbit (Yuri Gagarin, April 1961, Vostok 1); the first woman in space (Valentina Tereshkova, June 1963, Vostok 6); and the first spacewalk (EVA) (Alexei Leonov in March 1965, Voskhod 2).
However, most of the Soviet gains listed above were matched by the United States within a year, and sometimes within weeks. In 1965, the United States started to achieve many firsts (such as the first successful space rendezvous), which were important steps in a mission to the Moon. Furthermore, NASA and others say that these gains by the Soviets are not as impressive as they seem; that a number of these firsts were mere stunts that did not advance the technology greatly, or at all, e.g., the first woman in space. In fact, by the time of the launch of the first manned Earth-orbiting Apollo flight (Apollo 7), the USSR had made only nine spaceflights (seven with one cosmonaut, one with two, one with three) compared to 16 by the United States. In terms of spacecraft hours, the USSR had 460 hours of spaceflight; the United States had 1,024 hours. In terms of astronaut/cosmonaut time, the USSR had 534 hours of manned spaceflight whereas the United States had 1,992 hours. By the time of Apollo 11, the United States had a lead much wider than that. (See List of human spaceflights, 1961–1970, and refer to individual flights for the length of time.)
Moreover, the USSR did not develop a successful rocket capable of a manned lunar mission until the 1980s – their N1 rocket failed on all four launch attempts between 1969 and 1972. The Soviet LK lunar lander was tested in unmanned low-Earth-orbit flights three times in 1970 and 1971. [Strange isn’t it that NASA now uses a Soviet built rocket engine design for all its large rocket launches]
Deaths of NASA personnel
In a television program about the moon-landing hoax allegations, Fox Entertainment Group listed the deaths of ten astronauts and of two civilians related to the manned spaceflight program as having possibly been killed as part of a cover-up.
- Theodore Freeman (killed ejecting from T-38 which had suffered a bird strike, October 1964)
- Elliot See and Charlie Bassett (T-38 crash in bad weather, February 1966)
- Virgil Ivan “Gus” Grissom, Edward Higgins “Ed” White, and Roger B. Chaffee (Apollo 1 fire, January 1967)
- Edward “Ed” Givens (car accident, June 1967)
- Clifton “C. C.” Williams (killed ejecting from T-38, October 1967)
- Michael J. “Mike” Adams (X-15 crash, November 1967. The only pilot killed during the X-15 flight test program. He was a test pilot, not a NASA astronaut, but had flown the X-15 above 50 miles.)
- Robert Henry Lawrence, Jr. (F-104 crash, December 1967, shortly after being selected as a pilot with the United States Air Force’s (later canceled) Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) program.)
- Thomas Ronald Baron (North American Aviation employee died in an automobile collision with train, April 27, 1967, six days after testifying before Rep. Olin E. Teague’s House Subcommittee on NASA Oversight hearing held at Cape Kennedy, Florida, concerning the Apollo 1 fire, after which he was fired). Baron was a quality control inspector who wrote a report critical of the Apollo program and was an outspoken critic after the Apollo 1 fire. Baron and his family were killed as their car was struck by a train at a train crossing. The deaths were an accident.
- Brian D. Welch, a leading official in NASA’s Public Affairs Office and Director of Media Services, died a few months after appearing in the media to debunk the Fox pro-Moon hoax television show cited above. He died of a heart attack at the age of 42.
Two of them, X-15 pilot Mike Adams and MOL pilot Robert Lawrence, had no connection with the civilian manned space program of which Apollo was a part. All of the deaths listed beside Welch occurred at least 20 months before Apollo 11 and the subsequent flights.
As of February 2016, seven of the twelve Apollo astronauts who landed on the Moon between 1969 and 1972 still survive, including Buzz Aldrin. Also, nine of the twelve Apollo astronauts who flew to the Moon without landing between 1968 and 1972 still survive, including Michael Collins.
The number of deaths within the American astronaut corps during the run-up to Apollo and while the Moon landings were happening is similar to the number of deaths suffered by the Russians. During the period 1961 to 1972, at least, eight Russian serving and former cosmonauts died:
- Valentin Bondarenko (ground training accident, March 1961)
- Grigori Nelyubov (suicide, February 1966)
- Vladimir Komarov (Soyuz 1 accident, April 1967)
- Yuri Gagarin (MiG-15 crash, March 1968)
- Pavel Belyayev (complications following surgery, January 1970)
- Georgi Dobrovolski, Vladislav Volkov, and Viktor Patsayev (Soyuz 11 accident, June 1971)
Also, the overall chief of their manned-spaceflight program, Sergei Korolev, died while undergoing surgery in January 1966. [There are many more that aren’t listed here including 100 top scientist how perished when a new rocket fuel exploded on the pad while the rocket was being refuel. That really put an end to the Soviet Space Race.]
In June 1977, NASA issued a fact sheet responding to recent claims that the Apollo Moon landings had been hoaxed. The fact sheet is particularly blunt and regards the idea of faking the Moon landings to be preposterous and outlandish. NASA refers to the rocks and particles collected from the Moon as being evidence of the program’s legitimacy, as they claim that these rocks could not have been formed under conditions on earth. NASA also notes that all of the operations and phases of the Apollo program were closely followed and under the scrutiny of the news media, from liftoff to splashdown. NASA responds to Bill Kaysing’s book, We Never Went to the Moon, by identifying one of his claims of fraud regarding the lack of a crater left on the Moon’s surface by the landing of the lunar module, and refuting it with facts about the soil and cohesive nature of the surface of the Moon.
The fact sheet was reissued on February 14, 2001, the day before Fox television’s broadcast of Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon? The documentary reinvigorated the public’s interest in conspiracy theories and the possibility that the Moon landings were faked, which has provoked NASA to once again defend its name.
[This response by NASA in 2001, reads like it was written by a high school student rather than a NASA scientist. There is so much evidence to refute NASA’s opinion that the regolith is hard and compact. And a rocket engine that initially was running at 10,000lbs p/inch squared was throttled down to 2000 lbs p/inch squared and Armstrong in the Eagle, did not cut the engine off until the LMs landing pads had reached the surface (On his own admission and it is clearly audible in the transmission tapes). Now it is just not cricket for NASA to try and say that a rocket in a vacuum has little or no central exhaust plume when we can see it in photographs of spacecraft in Earth’s orbit. Also it would not take much for someone who has access to a large vacuum chamber to place a test rocket inside and withdraw the atmosphere and fire up the rocket. I can confidently predict that a solid central fire plume will be seen with a curtain of hot gas fanning out around the central plume.]
Alleged Stanley Kubrick involvement
[Forget this one it has no validity]
Filmmaker Stanley Kubrick is accused of having produced much of the footage for Apollos 11 and 12, presumably because he had just directed 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is partly set on the Moon and featured advanced special effects. It has been claimed that when 2001 was in post-production in early 1968, NASA secretly approached Kubrick to direct the first three Moon landings. The launch and splashdown would be real but the spacecraft would stay in Earth orbit and fake footage broadcast as “live from the Moon.” No evidence was offered for this theory, which overlooks many facts. For example, 2001 was released before the first Apollo landing and Kubrick’s depiction of the Moon’s surface is much different from its appearance in Apollo video, film, and photography. Kubrick did hire Frederick Ordwayand Harry Lange, both of whom had worked for NASA and major aerospace contractors, to work with him on 2001. Kubrick also used some 50 mm f/0.7 lenses that were left over from a batch made by Zeiss for NASA. However, Kubrick only got this lens for Barry Lyndon (1975). The lens was originally a still photo lens and needed changes to be used for motion filming.
The mockumentary based on this idea, Dark Side of the Moon, could have fueled the conspiracy theory. This French mockumentary, directed by William Karel, was originally aired on Arte channel in 2002 with the title Opération Lune. It parodies conspiracy theories with faked interviews, stories of assassinations of Stanley Kubrick’s assistants by the CIA, and a variety of conspicuous mistakes, puns, and references to old movie characters, inserted through the film as clues for the viewer. Nevertheless, Opération Lune is still taken at face value by some conspiracy believers.
An article entitled “Stanley Kubrick and the Moon Hoax” appeared on Usenet in 1995, in the newsgroup “alt.humor.best-of-usenet”. One passage – on how Kubrick was supposedly coerced into the conspiracy – reads:
NASA further leveraged their position by threatening to publicly reveal the heavy involvement of Mr. Kubrick’s younger brother, Raul, with the American Communist Party. This would have been an intolerable embarrassment to Mr. Kubrick, especially since the release of Dr. Strangelove.
Kubrick had no such brother – the article was a spoof, complete with a giveaway sentence describing Kubrick shooting the moonwalk “on location” on the Moon. Nevertheless, the claim was taken up in earnest; Clyde Lewis used it almost word-for-word, whereas Jay Weidner gave the brother a more senior status within the party:
No one knows how the powers-that-be convinced Kubrick to direct the Apollo landings. Maybe they had compromised Kubrick in some way. The fact that his brother, Raul Kubrick, was the head of the American Communist Party may have been one of the avenues pursued by the government to get Stanley to cooperate.
In July 2009, Weidner posted on his webpage “Secrets of the Shining”, where he states that Kubrick’s The Shining (1980) is a veiled confession of his role in the scam project. This thesis was subject of refutation in an article published on Seeker nearly half a year later.
The 2015 movie Moonwalkers is a fictional account of a CIA agent’s claim of Kubrick’s involvement.
In December 2015, a video surfaced which allegedly shows Kubrick being interviewed shortly before his 1999 death; the video purportedly shows the director confessing to T. Patrick Murray that the Apollo Moon landings had been faked. Research quickly found, however, that the video was a hoax.
In 2002, NASA granted US$15,000 to James Oberg for a commission to write a point-by-point rebuttal of the hoax claims. However, NASA canceled the commission later that year, after complaints that the book would dignify the accusations [So is that how NASA does science?]. Oberg said that he meant to finish the book. In November 2002, Peter Jennings said “NASA is going to spend a few thousand dollars trying to prove to some people that the United States did indeed land men on the Moon,” and “NASA had been so rattled, [they] hired [somebody] to write a book refuting the conspiracy theorists.” Oberg says that belief in the hoax theories is not the fault of the conspiracists, but rather that of teachers and people (including NASA) who should provide information to the public [ And the science that beggars to differ].
In 2004, Martin Hendry and Ken Skeldon of the University of Glasgow were awarded a grant by the UK-based Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council to investigate Moon landing conspiracy theories. In November 2004, they gave a lecture at the Glasgow Science Centre where the top ten claims by conspiracists were individually addressed and refuted.
[Forget the mythbusters they are entertainers not scientist and I have proven what charlatans they are with an article on the waving flag in the Members Library
An episode of MythBusters in August 2008 was dedicated to the Moon landings. The MythBusters crew tested many of the conspiracists’ claims. Some of the testings were done in a NASA training facility. All of the conspiracists’ claims examined on the show were labeled as having been “Busted”, meaning that the conspiracists’ claims were not true.
Third-party evidence of Moon landings
[How is this third party evidence this is a NASA program https://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/ and one doesn’t ask a gov department to investigates itself.]
Imaging the landing sites
Moon-landing conspiracists claim that observatories and the Hubble Space Telescope should be able to photograph the landing sites[ Not all conspiracist say this only those with little or no scientific education]. This implies that the world’s major observatories (as well as the Hubble Program) are complicit in the hoax by refusing to take photos of the landing sites. Photos of the Moon have been taken by Hubble, including at least two Apollo landing sites, but the Hubble resolution limits viewing of lunar objects to sizes no smaller than 60–75 yards (55–69 meters), which is insufficient resolution to see any landing site features.
In April 2001, Leonard David published an article on space.com, which showed a photo taken by the Clementine mission showing a diffuse dark spot at the site NASA says is the Apollo 15 lander. The evidence was noticed by Misha Kreslavsky, of the Department of Geological Sciences at Brown University, and Yuri Shkuratov of the Kharkiv Astronomical Observatory in Ukraine. The European Space Agency’s SMART-1 unmanned probe sent back photos of the landing sites, according to Bernard Foing, Chief Scientist of the ESA Science Program. “Given SMART-1’s initial high orbit, however, it may prove difficult to see artifacts,” said Foing in an interview on space.com. [ I firmly believe that NASA sent spacecraft to the Moon but as I have stated many times, there were no humans onboard.]
In 2002, Alex R. Blackwell of the University of Hawaii pointed out that some photos taken by Apollo astronauts while in orbit around the Moon show the landing sites [They would be NASA photos].
The Daily Telegraph published a story in 2002 saying that European astronomers at the Very Large Telescope (VLT) would use it to view the landing sites. According to the article, Dr. Richard West said that his team would take “a high-resolution image of one of the Apollo landing sites.” Marcus Allen, a conspiracist, answered that no photos of hardware on the Moon would convince him that manned landings had happened. As the VLT is capable of resolving equivalent to the distance between the headlights of a car as seen from the Moon, it may be able to photograph some features of the landing sites. Such photos, if and when they become available, would be the first non-NASA-produced photos of the sites at that definition [It will not happen because no Earth bound telescope can resolve an image of the Moon to show its actual surface].
The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) launched their SELENE Moon orbiter on September 14, 2007 (JST), from Tanegashima Space Center. SELENE orbited the Moon at about 100 kilometres (62 mi) altitude. In May 2008, JAXA reported detecting the “halo” generated by the Apollo 15 Lunar Module engine exhaust from a Terrain Camera image [ NASA said the rocket exhaust from the Apollo mission cannot mark the surface. So what they saw was the remnants of a crash site]. A three-dimensional reconstructed photo also matched the terrain of an Apollo 15 photo taken from the surface [The 3D reconstruction image was made with NASA data].
On July 17, 2009, NASA released low-resolution engineering test photos of the Apollo 11, Apollo 14, Apollo 15, Apollo 16 and Apollo 17 landing sites that have been photographed by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter as part of the process of starting its primary mission[ Yes but they are inconclusive and could very well be moon probes, or straight out lies]. The photos show the descent stage of the landers from each mission on the Moon’s surface. The photo of the Apollo 14 landing site also shows tracks made by an astronaut between a science experiment (ALSEP) and the lander[I have answered this earlier].Photos of the Apollo 12 landing site were released by NASA on September 3, 2009. The Intrepid lander descent stage, experiment package (ALSEP), Surveyor 3 spacecraft, and astronaut footpaths are all visible. While the LRO images have been enjoyed by the scientific community as a whole, they have not done anything to convince conspiracists that the landings happened.
On September 1, 2009, India’s lunar mission Chandrayaan-1 took photos of the Apollo 15 landing site and tracks of the lunar rovers. The Indian Space Research Organisation launched their unmanned lunar probe on September 8, 2008 (IST), from Satish Dhawan Space Centre. The photos were taken by a hyperspectral camera fitted as part of the mission’s image payload [The photo taken by this mission of what has been said to be one of the apollo rover’s tracks is in actual fact a system of tiny craters called ‘bubble runs see crustonics.com there are no tracks here].
China’s second lunar probe, Chang’e 2, which was launched in 2010, can photograph the lunar surface with a resolution of up to 1.3 meters (4.3 ft). It spotted traces of the Apollo landings [China has NEVER release high resolution images of any NASA sites].
The Apollo program collected 380 kilograms (838 lb) of Moon rocks during the six manned missions. Analyses by scientists worldwide all agree that these rocks came from the Moon – no published accounts in peer-reviewed scientific journals exist that dispute this claim. The Apollo samples are easily distinguishable from both meteorites and Earth rocks in that they show a lack of hydrous alteration products, they show evidence of having undergone impact events on an airless body, and they have unique geochemical traits. Furthermore, most are more than 200 million years older than the oldest Earth rocks. The Moon rocks also share the same traits as Soviet samples.
Conspiracists argue that Marshall Space Flight Center Director Wernher von Braun’s trip to Antarctica in 1967 (about two years before the Apollo 11 launch) was to gather lunar meteorites to be used as fake Moon rocks. Because von Braun was a former SS officer (though one who had been detained by the Gestapo), the documentary film Did We Go? suggests that he could have been pressured to agree to the conspiracy to protect himself from recriminations over his past. NASA said that von Braun’s mission was “to look into environmental and logistic factors that might relate to the planning of future space missions, and hardware.” NASA continues to send teams to work in Antarctica to mimic the conditions on other planets.
It is now accepted by the scientific community that rocks have been blasted from both the Martian and lunar surface during impact events, and that some of these have landed on the Earth as meteorites. However, the first Antarctic lunar meteorite was found in 1979, and its lunar origin was not recognized until 1982. Furthermore, lunar meteorites are so rare that it is unlikely that they could account for the 380 kilograms of Moon rocks that NASA gathered between 1969 and 1972. Only about 30 kilograms of lunar meteorites have been found on Earth thus far, despite private collectors and governmental agencies worldwide searching for more than 20 years.
While the Apollo missions gathered 380 kilograms of Moon rocks, the Soviet Luna 16, Luna 20 and Luna 24 robots gathered only 326 grams combined (that is, less than one-thousandth as much). Indeed, current plans for a Martian sample return would only gather about 500 grams of soil, and a recently proposed South Pole-Aitken basin robot mission would only gather about 1 kilogram of Moon rock. If NASA had used similar robot technology, then between 300 and 2000 robot missions would have been needed to collect the current amount of Moon rocks that is held by NASA.
On the makeup of the Moon rocks, Kaysing asked: “Why was there never a mention of gold, silver, diamonds or other precious metals on the moon? Wasn’t this a viable consideration? Why was this fact never discussed [sic] in the press or by the astronauts?” Geologists realize that gold and silver deposits on Earth are the result of the action of hydrothermal fluids concentrating the precious metals into veins of ore. Since in 1969 water was believed to be absent on the Moon, no geologist would bother discussing the possibility of finding these on the Moon in any great amount.
Missions tracked by independent parties [No it wasn’t. The spacecraft sent to orbit the Moon could be tracked however no one tracked humans on the moon.]
Aside from NASA, a number of groups and individuals tracked the Apollo missions as they happened. On later missions, NASA released information to the public explaining where and when the spacecraft could be sighted. Their flight paths were tracked using radar and they were sighted and photographed using telescopes. Also, radio transmissions between the astronauts on the surface and in orbit were independently recorded.
The presence of retroreflectors (mirrors used as targets for Earth-based tracking lasers) from the Laser Ranging Retroreflector Experiment (LRRR) is evidence that there were landings. Lick Observatory attempted to detect from Apollo 11’s retroreflector while Armstrong and Aldrin were still on the Moon but did not succeed until August 1, 1969.The Apollo 14 astronauts deployed a retroreflector on February 5, 1971, and McDonald Observatory detected it the same day. The Apollo 15 retroreflector was deployed on July 31, 1971, and was detected by McDonald Observatory within a few days. Smaller retroreflectors were also put on the Moon by the Russians; they were attached to the unmanned lunar rovers Lunokhod 1 and Lunokhod 2.
In a 1994 poll by The Washington Post, 9% of the respondents said that it was possible that astronauts did not go to the Moon and another 5% were unsure. A 1999 Gallup Poll found that 6% of the Americans surveyed doubted that the Moon landings happened and that 5% of those surveyed had no opinion, which roughly matches the findings of a similar 1995 Time/CNN poll. Officials of the Fox network said that such skepticism rose to about 20% after the February 2001 airing of their network’s television special, Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?, seen by about 15 million viewers. This Fox special is seen as having promoted the hoax claims.
A 2000 poll conducted by the Public Opinion Foundation(ФОМ) in Russia found that 28% of those surveyed did not believe that American astronauts landed on the Moon, and this percentage is roughly equal in all social-demographic groups. In 2009, a poll held by the United Kingdom’s Engineering & Technology magazine found that 25% of those surveyed did not believe that men landed on the Moon. Another poll gives that 25% of 18- to 25-year-olds surveyed were unsure that the landings happened.
There are subcultures worldwide which advocate the belief that the Moon landings were faked. By 1977 the Hare Krishna magazine Back to Godhead called the landings a hoax, claiming that, since the Sun is 93,000,000 miles away, and “according to Hindu mythology the Moon is 800,000 miles farther away than that”, the Moon would be nearly 94,000,000 miles away; to travel that span in 91 hours would require a speed of more than a million miles per hour, “a patently impossible feat even by the scientists’ calculations.”
James Oberg of ABC News said that the conspiracy theory is taught in Cuban schools and wherever Cuban teachers are sent. A poll conducted in the 1970s by the United States Information Agency in several countries in Latin America, Asia, and Africa found that most respondents were unaware of the Moon landings, many of the others dismissed them as propaganda or science fiction, and many thought that it had been the Russians that landed on the Moon.[From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]
- Plait 2002, pp. 154–173
- Neal-Jones, Nancy; Zubritsky, Elizabeth; Cole, Steve (September 6, 2011). Garner, Robert, ed. “NASA Spacecraft Images Offer Sharper Views of Apollo Landing Sites”. NASA. Goddard Release No. 11-058 (co-issued as NASA HQ Release No. 11-289). Retrieved September 22, 2011.
- Robinson, Mark (July 27, 2012). “LRO slewed 19° down-Sun allowing the illuminated side of the still standing American flag to be captured at the Apollo 17 landing site. M113751661L” (Caption). LROC News System. Retrieved April 29, 2013.
- “Apollo Moon flags still standing, images show”. BBC News. London: BBC. July 30, 2012. Retrieved April 29, 2013.
- Abbey, Jennifer (July 31, 2012). “American Flags From Apollo Missions Still Standing”. ABC News (Blog). New York: ABC. Retrieved April 29, 2013.
- ^ :abPhillips, Tony (February 23, 2001). “The Great Moon Hoax”. Science@NASA. NASA. Retrieved July 30, 2012.
- Kaysing 2002
- Kaysing 2002, p. 30
- Kaysing 2002, p. 80
- Kaysing, Wendy L. “A brief biography of Bill Kaysing”. BillKaysing.com. Retrieved February 28, 2013.
- ^ :ab Kaysing 2002, p. 7–8
- Plait 2002, p. 157
- Braeunig, Robert A. (November 2006). “Did we land on the Moon?”. Rocket and Space Technology. Robert Braeunig. Retrieved May 3, 2013.
- Galuppini, Albino. “Hoax Theory”. BillKaysing.com. Retrieved May 3, 2013.
- Schadewald, Robert J. (July 1980). “The Flat-out Truth: Earth Orbits? Moon Landings? A Fraud! Says This Prophet”. Science Digest. New York: Hearst Magazines. Retrieved April 29, 2013.
- van Bakel, Rogier (September 1994). “The Wrong Stuff”. Wired(2.09). New York: Condé Nast Publications. p. 5. Retrieved August 13, 2009.
- Chaikin 2007 (page needed)
- Attivissimo 2013, p. 70
- Dick & Launius 2007, pp. 63–64
- Matthews, Robert (November 24, 2002). “World’s biggest telescope to prove Americans really walked on Moon”. The Sunday Telegraph. London: Telegraph Media Group. Retrieved May 15, 2013.
- “Irrefutable proof [Archive] – Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum” (Forum). Bad Astronomy. May 3, 2002. Retrieved November 25, 2008.[unreliable source?]
- Brian 1982
- ^ :abCooper, William (1997). “MAJESTYTWELVE”. williamcooper.com. Archived from the original on August 15, 2000. Retrieved May 31, 2013.
- Fetzer, James H. (May 2, 2013). “Did America Land Men on the Moon?: The Moon Landing Hoax” (MP3). Spirit To Spirit (Interview). Interview with Sterling Harwood. San Jose, California: KLIV 1590 AM. Retrieved May 3, 2013.
- Cosnette, Dave. “The Apollo Hoax”. Ufos-aliens.co.uk. Dave Cosnette. Retrieved November 25, 2008.
- ^ :abWindley, Jay. “Clavius: Photo Analysis – buzz’s hot spot”. Moon Base Clavius. Clavius.org. Retrieved June 25, 2009.
- Miller, Jeff (October 1, 2012). “Clyde Lewis: Ground Zero Radio”. Portland Interview Magazine. Retrieved May 4, 2017.
- ^ :abcLewis, Clyde. “Good Luck, Mr. Gorsky!”. Groundzeromedia.org. Retrieved November 25, 2008.
- Lheureux 2000
- “Moon shots ‘faked'”. BBC News. London: BBC. June 21, 2001.
- Mukhin 2005
- Mukhin, Yury Ignatyevich. ‘АнтиАполлон’. Лунная афера США[Anti-Apollo: Lunar Scam of the USA] (in Russian). ymuhin.ru. Retrieved April 28, 2013. Promotional webpage from Mukhin’s personal website.[unreliable source?]
- ^ :ab Bennett & Percy 2001
- Windley, Jay. “Clavius: Bibliography – dramatis personae”. Moon Base Clavius. Clavius.org. Retrieved November 25, 2008.
- Pokrovsky, Stanislav G. (2007). “Investigation into the Saturn V velocity and its ability to place the stated payload into lunar orbit”(PDF). Актуальные проблемы современной науки. Moscow (5): 152–66. ISSN 1680-2721. Retrieved May 1, 2013. English translation by BigPhil 2011.
- Pokrovsky, Stanislav G. “Improved estimates of the Saturn V velocity and its ability to place the stated payload into lunar orbit”(PDF). Retrieved May 1, 2013. English translation by BigPhil 2011.
- “Investigations: Moon”. Supernovum.ru (in Russian). Archived from the original on July 25, 2009. Retrieved May 1, 2013. Site archives three papers by Stanislav G. Pokrovsky.
- “Станислав Покровский – Профессионалы.ru” [Stanislav Pokrovsky – professionali.ru] (in Russian). Профессионалы.ru. Retrieved May 1, 2013.
- Pokrovsky, Stanislav (April 27, 2008). “Уточненная реконструкция” [A more exact reconstruction] (Forum). Форум С.Кара-Мурзы. Retrieved May 1, 2013. S. Kara-Murza forum message to Дмитрий Кропотов.
- Popov 2009
- Popov, Alexander Ivanovich. Человек на Луне? Какие доказательства? [Man on the Moon? What’s the Evidence?]. Part 2 (in Russian). Archived from the original on February 17, 2009.
- Popov, Alexander Ivanovich. Человек на Луне? Какие доказательства? [Man on the Moon? What’s the Evidence?] (Abstract) (in Russian). Retrieved April 28, 2013. “Man on the Moon? What’s the Evidence?” is the title of a preliminary paper. Selected chapters of Popov’s book, Americans on the Moon, are also provided.
- ^ :abcdRanen, Aron (Director, Writer, Producer); Britton, Benjamin (Writer, Executive Producer) (2005) [First published 1999 by the University of Cincinnati as part of Moon: A Mutual Reality Art Experience]. Did We Go? (VHS tape). Santa Monica, CA: Third Wave Media. OCLC 56316947. Retrieved May 4, 2013. Abstract: “This video looks at whether man actually walked on the moon in 1969 or if it was an elaborate hoax.”
- Britton, Benjamin (Executive Producer); Britton, Lisa (Associate Producer); Ranen, Aron (Video Documentary); et al. (1999). Moon: A Mutual Reality Art Experience (DVD video). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati. OCLC 43837978. Abstract: “The Moon Project is a full-screen, Mutual Reality Internet DVD made on the event of the 30th anniversary of humankind’s first moon landing. It is to bring viewers into personal contact with humanity’s cultural tradition through participation in the exploration of the moon. As an historical source document and as an artistic interpretation of cultural context, the Moon project is made to connect viewers in our collective global culture.”
- René 1994
- “Moon Hoax – MOONMOVIE.COM – Seeking Full Disclosure of NASA’s Fraudulent Manned Moon Landings”. Moonmovie.com. Nashville, TN: AFTH, LLC. Archived from the original on November 2, 2010. Retrieved November 13, 2010.
- Sibrel, Bart Winfield (Writer, Producer, Director) (2001). A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon (DVD). Fairway, TN: AFTH, LLC. OCLC 426135438.
- “Moon Hoax – A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon DVD – Front Cover & Bart Sibrel”. Moonmovie.com. Nashville, TN: AFTH, LLC. Archived from the original on February 28, 2008. Retrieved November 25, 2008.
- Svector (Writer, Producer, Director) (2007). Lunar Legacy (Flash Video) (Digital video). Low Gravity Films. Retrieved May 9, 2013.
- Burr, Bill (July 20, 2016). Buzz Aldrin punches guy (YouTube).
- Bancroft, Colette (September 29, 2002). “Lunar Lunacy”. St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved February 13, 2007.
- Soejima 2004
- White, Jack D. (April 13, 2010). “An Interview with Photo Analyst Jack White On JFK, Apollo and 9/11”. NoMoreGames.net(Interview). Interview with Morgan O. Reynolds. Retrieved May 23,2013.
- Bugliosi, Vincent (2007). Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 504–12. ISBN 978-0-393-04525-3.
- Fetzer, James H., ed. (1998). Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK. Chicago: Catfeet Press. pp. 213–14. ISBN 0-8126-9366-3.
- Windley, Jay. “Clavius: Bibliography – jack white”. Moon Base Clavius. Clavius.org. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
- Wisnewski 2007
- Chaikin 2007, p. 2, “We choose to go to the Moon! We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things – not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” – Kennedy speaking at Rice University, September 12, 1962.
- Plait 2002, p. 173
- “Moon Hoax MOONMOVIE.COM Frequently Asked Questions”. Moonmovie.com. Nashville, TN: AFTH, LLC. Archived from the original on February 12, 2008. Retrieved August 26, 2009.
- “Soviet Lunar Programs”. Space Race (Online version of exhibition on view in Gallery 114). Washington, D.C.: National Air and Space Museum. Retrieved November 13, 2010.
- Zak, Anatoly. “Russia’s space command and control infrastructure”. RussianSpaceWeb.com. Anatoly Zak. Archived from the original on July 8, 2010. Retrieved November 13, 2010.
- “Soviet Space Tracking Systems”. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Mark Wade. Retrieved November 13, 2010.
- Scheaffer 2004, p. 247
- “The Moon Programme That Faltered”. Spaceflight. London: British Interplanetary Society. 33: 2–3. March 1991. Bibcode:1991SpFl…33….2.
- “Apollo 18 through 20 – The Canceled Missions”, Dr. David R. Williams, NASA, accessed July 19, 2006.
- Kaysing 2002, p. 71
- Attivissimo 2013, p. 163
- Kennedy, John F. (May 25, 1961). Special Message to Congress on Urgent National Needs (Motion picture (excerpt)). Boston, MA: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. Accession Number: TNC:200; Digital Identifier: TNC-200-2. Retrieved August 1,2013.
- Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Science and Astronautics (1973). 1974 NASA Authorization Hearings (Hearing on H.R. 4567). Washington, D.C.: 93rd Congress, first session. OCLC 23229007.
- Bennett & Percy 2001, p. 77
- Bennett & Percy 2001, pp. 330–31
- Anderson, Clinton P. (January 30, 1968), Apollo 204 Accident: Report of the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences, United States Senate, with Additional Views, Senate Report 956, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, archived from the original on December 20, 2014
- Steven-Boniecki, Dwight (2010). Live TV From the Moon. Burlington, Ontario: Apogee Books. ISBN 978-1-926592-16-9.
- “Was The Apollo Moon Landing Fake?”. American Patriot Friends Network (APFN). APFN.org. July 21, 2009. Retrieved November 25, 2008.
- U.S. Office of Management and Budget
- Hepplewhite, T.A. The Space Shuttle Decision: NASA’s Search for a Reusable Space Vehicle, chapter 4. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1999.
- Calder, Vince; Johnson, Andrew, P.E.; et al. (October 12, 2002). “Ask A Scientist”. Newton. Argonne National Laboratory. Retrieved August 14, 2009.
- Ramsay 2006 (page needed)
- Longuski 2006, p. 102
- Aaronovitch 2010, pp. 1–2, 6
- “Conspiracy Theories”. Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. Season 3. Episode 3. May 9, 2005. Showtime.
- ^ :abcWindley, Jay. “Clavius: Photography – Crosshairs”. Moon Base Clavius. Clavius.org. Retrieved April 20, 2013.
- Windley, Jay. “Clavius: Photography – image quality”. Moon Base Clavius. Clavius.org. Retrieved September 5, 2009.
- “Apollo 11 Mission Photography”. Lunar and Planetary Institute. Retrieved July 23, 2009.
- “Space Cameras”. Hasselblad in Space. Victor Hasselblad AB. Retrieved May 6, 2013.
- Jones, Eric M. (January 21, 2012). “Navigation Stars used in the AOT”. Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. NASA. Retrieved September 28, 2014.
- Carlowicz, Mike (September 28, 2011). “Where are the stars?”. NASA Earth Observatory (Blog). NASA. Retrieved April 20, 2013.
- Plait 2002, pp. 158–60
- Woods 2008, pp. 206–07
- Harrison 2012, pp. 95–96
- Keel, William C. (July 2007). “The Earth and Stars in the Lunar Sky”. Skeptical Inquirer. Amherst, NY: Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. 31 (4): 47–50.
- Keel, William C. “Apollo16EarthID.gif” (GIF). UA Astronomy Home Page. Retrieved May 8, 2013. Base image: AS16-123-19657; Earth image start: 1233 CDT 21 April 1972; Field shown: 18.9 degrees.
- “Solar corona photographed from Apollo 15 one minute prior to sunrise”. JSC Digital Image Collection. Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center. July 31, 1971. Photo ID: AS15-98-13311. Retrieved April 26,2013.
- Lunsford, Danny Ross; Jones, Eric M. (2007). “Venus over the Apollo 14 LM”. Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. NASA. Retrieved May 8, 2013.
- Plait 2002, pp. 167–72
- Goddard, Ian Williams (February 26, 2001). “Goddard’s Journal: Are Apollo Moon Photos Fake?”. Iangoddard.com. Retrieved November 25, 2008.
- ^ :abcBara, Michael; Troy, Steve. “Who Mourns For Apollo? Part II” (PDF). Mr. Clintberg’s Studyphysics!. LunarAnomalies.com. Retrieved November 13, 2010. Part I with Steve Troy and Richard C. Hoagland is available here (PDF). Part III by Steve Troy has been archived from the original by the Wayback Machine on June 10, 2009.
- White, Jack (2005). “The skeleton in NASA’s spacesuit”. AULIS Online. London: AULIS Publishing. Retrieved November 25, 2008.
- Windley, Jay. “Clavius: Photo Analysis – lunar rover”. Moon Base Clavius. Clavius.org. Retrieved September 5, 2009.
- Bennett & Percy 2001, p. 321
- Bennett & Percy 2001, pp. 319–20
- Windley, Jay. “Clavius: Bibliography – una ronald and the coke bottle”. Moon Base Clavius. Clavius.org. Retrieved May 23, 2013.
- Bennett & Percy 2001, p. 319
- Anthony, James. “Fly Me to the Moon”. Web Wombat. Web Wombat Pty Ltd. Retrieved November 25, 2008.
- Shepard & Slayton 1994 (page needed)
- Phillips, Tony, ed. (February 28, 2013). “Van Allen Probes Discover a New Radiation Belt”. Science@NASA. NASA. Retrieved May 8,2013.
- ^ :ab“The Van Allen Belts”. IMAGE Science Center. NASA. Retrieved May 6, 2013.
- ^ :abcd Woods 2008, p. 109
- ^ :ab Plait 2002, p. 162
- Windley, Jay. “Clavius: Environment – radiation and the van allen belts”. Moon Base Clavius. Clavius.org. Retrieved September 8,2009.
- Plait 2002, pp. 160–62
- Bailey, J. Vernon (1975). “Radiation Protection and Instrumentation”. Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center. NASA SP-368. Archived from the original on May 15, 2013. Retrieved May 17, 2013. Section II, Chapter 3, of NASA SP-368, Biomedical Results of Apollo. See “Table 2: Average Radiation Doses of the Flight Crews for the Apollo Missions.”
- Plait 2002, pp. 162–63
- Plait 2002, pp. 165–67
- Windley, Jay. “Clavius: Environment – heat”. Moon Base Clavius. Clavius.org. Retrieved November 25, 2008.
- Phillips, Tony (January 27, 2005). “Sickening Solar Flares”. Science@NASA. NASA. Retrieved November 25, 2008.
- Cull, Selby (July 12, 2006). “Predicting Solar Eruptions”. News from Sky & Telescope. Sky Publishing. Retrieved November 25,2008.
- Windley, Jay. “Clavius: Environment: fluttering flags”. Moon Base Clavius. Clavius.org. Retrieved April 20, 2013.
- Harrison 2012, p. 97
- McAdams 2011, p. 132
- Nemiroff, R.; Bonnell, J., eds. (November 1, 2011). “Hammer Versus Feather on the Moon”. Astronomy Picture of the Day. NASA. Retrieved April 20, 2013. Source for video: “The Hammer and the Feather” on YouTube
- Kaysing 2002, p. 75
- Harrison 2012, p. 96
- Plait 2002, p. 164
- Plait 2002, pp. 163–65
- “Apollo 11 Preliminary Science Report” (PDF). NASA. 1969. NASA SP-214. Retrieved May 1, 2013.
- Woods 2008, p. 191
- René 1994 pp. n, 11
- Orloff, Richard W. (September 2004) [First published 2000]. “Apollo by the Numbers: A Statistical Reference”. NASA History Program Office. NASA. ISBN 0-16-050631-X. NASA SP-2000-4029. Retrieved May 31, 2013. See Statistical Tables: “Selected Mission Weights (lbs)” and “LM Descent Stage Propellant Status”.
- Rogers, William F. “Apollo Lunar Module Landing Gear” (PDF). Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. NASA. Retrieved May 31, 2013.
- Heiken 1991, pp. 475–476
- “Radio Lag”. Redzero.demon.co.uk. Archived from the originalon July 29, 2008. Retrieved November 25, 2008.
- “Apollo 11 Mission Summary”. The Apollo Program. National Air and Space Museum. July 16, 1969. Retrieved November 13, 2010. From NASA SP-214, Preliminary Science Report
- “Apollo 11 TV – as seen in Australia”. Honeysucklecreek.net. Retrieved November 25, 2008.
- ^ :abSarkissian, John M. (2001). “On Eagle’s Wings: The Parkes Observatory’s Support of the Apollo 11 Mission”. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia. Collingwood, Victoria: CSIRO Publishing for the Astronomical Society of Australia. 18 (3): 287–310. Bibcode:2001PASA…18..287S. doi:10.1071/AS01038. Retrieved November 25, 2008. October 2000 website version, part 1 of 12: “Introduction.” Original version available from CSIRO Parkes Observatory (PDF).
- Sarkissian, John M. (2001). “On Eagle’s Wings: The Parkes Observatory’s Support of the Apollo 11 Mission”. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia. Collingwood, Victoria: CSIRO Publishing for the Astronomical Society of Australia. 18 (3): 287–310. Bibcode:2001PASA…18..287S. doi:10.1071/AS01038. Retrieved November 25, 2008. October 2000 website version, part 9 of 12: “One Giant Leap.” Original version available from CSIRO Parkes Observatory (PDF).
- Windley, Jay. “Clavius: Bibliography – cosmic dave’s 32 questions”. Moon Base Clavius. Clavius.org. Retrieved November 13, 2010.
- ^ :abWindley, Jay. “Clavius: Bibliography – the Collier article”. Moon Base Clavius. Clavius.org. Retrieved November 13, 2010.
- Macey, Richard (August 5, 2006). “One giant blunder for mankind: how NASA lost moon pictures”. The Sydney Morning Herald.
- Sarkissian, John M. “The Parkes Apollo 11 TV Quality”. CSIRO Parkes Observatory. Retrieved November 25, 2008.
- ^ :abAmalfi, Carmelo (November 1, 2006). “Lost Moon landing tapes discovered”. COSMOS Online. Australia: Cosmos Media Pty Ltd. Retrieved November 25, 2008.
- Sarkissian, John M. (May 21, 2006). “The Search for the Apollo 11 SSTV Tapes” (PDF). Honeysucklecreek.net. CSIRO Parkes Observatory. Retrieved April 26, 2013.
- “The GSFC Scientific Data Storage Problem” (PDF). NASA. Retrieved September 5, 2009.
- “The Apollo 11 Telemetry Data Recordings: A Final Report”(PDF). NASA. December 2009. Retrieved April 27, 2013.
- Borenstein, Seth (July 17, 2009). “NASA lost moon footage, but Hollywood restores it”. US News & World Report. Associated Press. Retrieved September 5, 2009.
- Garner, Robert, ed. (August 7, 2009). “Apollo 11 Partial Restoration HD Video Streams”. NASA. Retrieved September 5,2009.
- ^ :ab“Xenophilia – Moon Hoax Debate”. Xenophilia.com. August 2, 2005. Retrieved September 2, 2009.
- Scotti, Jim (February 4, 2000). “The Collier article – a critique”. Lunar and Planetary Laboratory. University of Arizona. Retrieved September 2, 2009. Scotti’s critique of James M. Collier August 1997 article, “Investigator Challenging NASA”, Media Bypass(Evansville, IN: Tree Top Communications, Inc.) Vol. 5, No. 8. ISSN 1085-6714.
- Paine, Michael (March 13, 2000). “Saturn 5 Blueprints Safely in Storage”. Space.com. TechMediaNetwork, Inc. Archived from the original on July 8, 2008. Retrieved November 13, 2010.
- Young, Anthony (April 5, 2004). “Lunar rovers past and future”. The Space Review. Jeff Foust. p. 1. Retrieved September 5, 2009.
- “Lunar Rover Operations Handbook”. NASA. Doc. LS006-002-2H. Retrieved November 25, 2008.
- Windley, Jay. “Clavius: Technology – beating the soviets”. Moon Base Clavius. Clavius.org. Retrieved September 5, 2009.
- Warren, Liz (June 17, 2013). “Women in Space Part One, Female Firsts in Flight for Space Exploration and Research”. A Lab Aloft(Blog). NASA Blogs. Retrieved July 18, 2013.
- “Soviet Lunar Landing”. Encyclopedia Astronautica. Mark Wade. Retrieved November 25, 2008.
- Scotti, Jim. “Comments on the FOX special on the Hoax”. Lunar and Planetary Laboratory. University of Arizona. Retrieved November 25, 2008.
- “NASA Apollo Mission Apollo-1 – Baron Report”. NASA History Program Office. NASA. Archived from the original on September 21, 2008. Retrieved November 25, 2008.
- ^ :abcdeOberg, James (March–April 2003). “Lessons of the ‘Fake Moon Flight’ Myth”. Skeptical Inquirer. Amherst, NY: Committee for Skeptical Inquiry: 23, 30. Retrieved April 27, 2013. Reprinted in Frazier, Kendrick (ed.) (2009). Science Under Siege: Defending Science, Exposing Pseudoscience. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-59102-715-7.
- “Brian Welch, NASA director Of media services, Dies”. Space.com. TechMediaNetwork, Inc. November 24, 2000. Archived from the original on May 23, 2009. Retrieved May 2, 2013.
- “Did U.S. Astronauts Really Land on the Moon” (PDF) (Reissue (June 1977)). Washington, D.C.: NASA. February 14, 2001. Retrieved April 24, 2014.
- Windley, Jay. “Clavius: Bibliography – the kubrick article”. Moon Base Clavius. Clavius.org. Retrieved April 20, 2013.
- Weidner, Jay (July 20, 2009). “How Stanley Kubrick Faked the Apollo Moon Landings”. jayweidner.com. Archived from the original on November 23, 2010. Retrieved June 24, 2017.
- Weidner, Jay (July 20, 2009). “Secrets of the Shining”. Bibliotecapleyades.net. Retrieved June 24, 2017.
- Faked Moon Landing Hidden Subliminal Messages in Stanley Kubrick’s Movie ‘The Shining’ on YouTube. Retrieved June 24, 2017.
- Lamb, Robert (January 21, 2010). “Faked Moon Landings and Kubrick’s ‘The Shining'”. Seeker. Retrieved June 24, 2017.
- Austin, Jon (December 11, 2015). “Moon Landings ‘Fake’: Shock video shows ‘Stanley Kubrick’ admit historic event was ‘HOAX'”. Daily Express. Retrieved December 11, 2015.
- Evon, Dan (December 11, 2015). “Lie Me to the Moon”. Snopes.com. Retrieved December 11, 2015.
- Whitehouse, David (November 8, 2002). “Nasa pulls Moon hoax book”. BBC News. London. Retrieved August 26, 2009.
- Hendry, Martin; Skeldon, Ken (February 17, 2005). “Did we really land on the Moon?”. Cafescientifique.org. Archived from the original on August 5, 2009. Retrieved August 26, 2009.
- Di Maggio, Mario (November 2004). “Hoax Busters”. Dimaggio.org. Archived from the original on October 12, 2007. Retrieved August 26, 2009.
- “The Human Moon”. The New York Times. November 16, 2009. Retrieved November 19, 2009.
- Stoyanova, Silvia, ed. (September 10, 2007). “Hubble Shoots The Moon”. NASA. Retrieved October 20, 2009.
- David, Leonard (April 27, 2001). “Apollo 15 Landing Site Spotted in Images”. Space.com. TechMediaNetwork, Inc. Archived from the original on March 1, 2005. Retrieved August 26, 2009.
- ^ :abRichmond, Michael (August 17, 2002). “Can we see Apollo hardware on the Moon?”. The Amateur Sky Survey (TASS). Retrieved August 26, 2009.
- David, Leonard (March 4, 2005). “End of Conspiracy Theories? Spacecraft Snoops Apollo Moon Sites”. Space.com. TechMediaNetwork, Inc. Retrieved May 2, 2013.
- Matthews, Robert (November 24, 2002). “World’s biggest telescope to prove Americans really walked on Moon”. The Daily Telegraph. London. Retrieved August 26, 2009.
- Stee, Philippe (September 20, 2006). “To Be or Not to Be: Is It All About Spinning?” (Press release). Garching, Germany: European Southern Observatory. Retrieved September 5, 2009.
- “The “halo” area around Apollo 15 landing site observed by Terrain Camera on SELENE (KAGUYA)” (Press release). Chōfu, Tokyo: Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency. May 20, 2009. Retrieved August 26, 2009.
- ^ :abHautaluoma, Grey; Freeberg, Andy (July 17, 2009). Garner, Robert, ed. “LRO Sees Apollo Landing Sites”. NASA. Retrieved August 14, 2009. NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, or LRO, has returned its first imagery of the Apollo Moon landing sites. The pictures show the Apollo missions’ lunar module descent stages sitting on the moon’s surface, as long shadows from a low sun angle make the modules’ locations evident.
- Garner, Robert, ed. (September 3, 2009). “Apollo 12 and Surveyor 3”. NASA. Retrieved May 2, 2013.
- Antonia (September 10, 2009). “A HB Response To The LRO Photos”. Lunarlandinghoax.com (Blog). Antares 14 Media. Archived from the original on October 18, 2009. Retrieved April 27,2013.
- ^ :ab“Chandrayaan sends images of Apollo 15 landing”. The Times of India. New Delhi: The Times Group. September 2, 2009. Retrieved April 20, 2013.
- “Chandrayaan’s moon findings: Water, rocks and traces of Apollo”. MSN India. Redmond, WA: Microsoft. India Syndicate. October 22, 2009. Retrieved April 20, 2013.
- Lina, Yang, ed. (February 6, 2012). “China publishes high-resolution full moon map”. English.news.cn. Beijing: Xinhua News Agency. Retrieved April 20, 2013.
- Papike, James J.; Ryder, Graham; Shearer, Charles K. (January 1998). “Lunar Samples”. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry. Washington, D.C.: Mineralogical Society of America. 36 (1): 5.1–5.234. ISBN 978-0-939950-46-1.
- “Wernher von Braun in SS uniform”. The Reformation Online. Bible Believers Press. Source cited: Dornberger, Walter V-2 (1958) New York: Viking Press [OCLC 255209058].
- “Marshall Highlights for 1967”. Marshall Space Flight CenterHistory Office. Originally “published in a news release issued in late 1967 by the Marshall Center Public Affairs Office.”
- Head, James N.; Melosh, H. Jay; Ivanov, Boris A. (November 2002). “Martian Meteorite Launch: High-Speed Ejecta from Small Craters”. Science. 298 (5599): 1752–56. Bibcode:2002Sci…298.1752H. PMID 12424385. doi:10.1126/science.1077483.
- Cooke, Bill (2006). “The Great Interplanetary Rock Swap”. Astronomy. Waukesha, WI: Kalmbach Publishing. 34 (8): 64–67. ISSN 0091-6358.
- ^ :abKorotev, Randy (2005). “Lunar geochemistry as told by lunar meteorites”. Chemie der Erde. 65 (4): 297–346. Bibcode:2005ChEG…65..297K. doi:10.1016/j.chemer.2005.07.001.
- “Mars Sample Return”. European Space Agency.
- Portree, David S. F. (November 7, 2012). “Lunar South Pole-Aitken Sample Return (2002)”. Wired. New York: Condé Nast Publications. Retrieved May 2, 2013.
- Duke, Michael B. (June 2003). “Sample return from the lunar South Pole-Aitken Basin”. Advances in Space Research. Netherlands: Elsevier. 31 (11): 2347–52. Bibcode:2003AdSpR..31.2347D. doi:10.1016/S0273-1177(03)00539-8.
- Duke, M. B.; Clark, B. C.; Gamber, T.; et al. (September 24, 1999). “Sample Return Mission to the South Pole Aitken Basin” (PDF). Retrieved May 2, 2013. Paper presented at the “New Views of the Moon II: Understanding the Moon Through the Integration of Diverse Datasets” workshop held on September 22–24, 1999, in Flagstaff, AZ. The workshop’s preliminary program (PDF).
- Kaysing 2002, p. 8
- Dorminey, Bruce (March 2011). “Secrets beneath the Moon’s surface”. Astronomy. Waukesha, WI: Kalmbach Publishing: 24–29. ISSN 0091-6358.
- Hansen 2005, p. 515
- Bender, P. L.; Currie, D. G.; Dicke, R. H.; et al. (October 19, 1973). “The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment” (PDF). Science. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. 182 (4109): 229–38. Bibcode:1973Sci…182..229B. PMID 17749298. doi:10.1126/science.182.4109.229. Retrieved April 27, 2013.
- Jones, Nancy; McDonald, Kim (April 26, 2010). Jenner, Lynn, ed. “NASA’s LRO Team Helps Track Laser Signals to Russian Rover Mirror”. NASA. Goddard Release No. 10-038. Retrieved September 24, 2012.
- Scheaffer 2004, pp. 226–27
- ^ :ab Plait 2002, p. 156
- ^ :abBorenstein, Seth (November 2, 2002). “Book to confirm moon landings”. Deseret News. Salt Lake City, UT. Knight RidderNewspapers. Archived from the original on July 26, 2009. Retrieved August 13, 2009.
- “Did Men Really Land on the Moon?” (Press release). Gallup. February 15, 2001. Retrieved August 14, 2009.
- Newport, Frank (July 20, 1999). “Landing a Man on the Moon: The Public’s View” (Press release). Gallup. Retrieved August 14, 2009.
- “One giant leap of imagination”. The Age. Melbourne, Australia. Associated Press. December 24, 2002. Retrieved August 13, 2009.
- “American Beat: Moon Stalker”. Newsweek.com. New York: Newsweek. September 15, 2002. Archived from the original on December 6, 2007. Retrieved August 13, 2009.
- Петрова, А.С. (April 19, 2000). БЫЛИ ЛИ АМЕРИКАНЦЫ НА ЛУНЕ? [Were the Americans on the Moon?] (Press release) (in Russian). Public Opinion Foundation (ФОМ). Retrieved August 13,2009. Nationwide Russian survey of urban and rural population conducted on April 1, 2000. 1,500 respondents. Americans walked on the Moon? Overall results of poll: 51% yes; 28% no; 22% unsure.
- ИНОГДА ВЫСКАЗЫВАЕТСЯ МНЕНИЕ, ЧТО НА САМОМ ДЕЛЕ ВЫСАДКИ АМЕРИКАНСКИХ АСТРОНАВТОВ НА ЛУНУ НЕ БЫЛО. ВЫ ЛИЧНО ВЕРИТЕ ИЛИ НЕ ВЕРИТЕ, ЧТО АМЕРИКАНСКИЕ АСТРОНАВТЫ ДЕЙСТВИТЕЛЬНО ПОБЫВАЛИ НА ЛУНЕ? (in Russian). Public Opinion Foundation (ФОМ). April 5, 2000. Retrieved April 30, 2013.
- ЗНАЕТЕ ЛИ ВЫ, ЧТО-ТО СЛЫШАЛИ ИЛИ СЛЫШИТЕ СЕЙЧАС ВПЕРВЫЕ О ВЫСАДКЕ АМЕРИКАНСКИХ АСТРОНАВТОВ НА ЛУНУ ЛЕТОМ 1969 ГОДА? (in Russian). Public Opinion Foundation (ФОМ). April 5, 2000. Retrieved April 30, 2013.
- Bizony, Piers (July 6, 2009). “It was a fake, right?”. Engineering & Technology. London: Institution of Engineering and Technology. Retrieved February 19, 2011.
- Kruesi, Liz (December 2009). “The Cosmic Grid”. Astronomy. Waukesha, WI: Kalmbach Publishing: 62. ISSN 0091-6358.
- Satsvarūpa dāsa Goswami (May 1977). “Man on the Moon: A Case of Mass Brainwashing” (PDF). Back to Godhead. Los Angeles: Bhaktivedanta Book Trust. 12 (5): 10–11, 13–14. ISSN 0005-3643. Retrieved October 9, 2013.
- Scheaffer 2011, p. 229
- Oberg, James (July 1999). “Getting Apollo 11 Right”. ABC News. New York: ABC. Archived from the original on April 2, 2003. Retrieved August 13, 2009. I’m told that this is official dogma still taught in schools in Cuba, plus wherever else Cuban teachers have been sent (such as Sandinista Nicaragua and Angola).
- Oberg 1982, p. 97
- Aaronovitch, David (2010) [Originally published 2009 in Great Britain by Jonathan Cape]. Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History (1st American ed.). New York: Riverhead Books. ISBN 978-1-59448-895-5.
- Attivissimo, Paulo (2013). Moon Hoax: Debunked! (1st English ed.). Lulu. ISBN 978-1-291-59157-6.
- Bennett, Mary; Percy, David S. (2001) [First published 1999 in Great Britain by Aulis Publishers]. Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers. Kempton, IL: Adventures Unlimited Press. ISBN 978-0-932813-90-9.
- Brian, William L. (1982). Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program, The NASA-Military Cover-Up (1st ed.). Portland, OR: Future Science Research Publishing Co. ISBN 978-0-941292-00-9.
- Chaikin, Andrew (2007) [First published 1994]. A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts. Foreword by Tom Hanks and a new afterword by the author (Reissue ed.). New York: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-311235-8.
- Dick, Steven J.; Launius, Roger D., eds. (2007). Societal Impact of Spaceflight (PDF). Washington, D.C.: NASA. ISBN 978-0-16-080190-7. NASA SP-2007-4801. Retrieved June 7, 2013. Part 2 available here(PDF).
- Hansen, James R. (2005). First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-7432-5631-5.
- Harrison, Guy P. (2012). 50 popular beliefs that people think are true. Foreword by Phil Plait. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-61614-495-1.
- Heiken, Grant H.; Vaniman, David T.; French, Bevan M. (1991). Lunar Sourcebook: A User’s Guide to the Moon (PDF). Cambridge, England; New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-33444-6. Retrieved May 24, 2013.
- Kaysing, Bill (2002) [First published 1976]. We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle. Randy Reid credited as co-author in 1976 editions. Pomeroy, WA: Health Research Books. OCLC 52390067.
- Kranz, Gene (2000). Failure is not an Option: Mission Control from Mercury to Apollo 13 and Beyond. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-7432-0079-9.
- Lheureux, Philippe (2000). Lumières sur la Lune [Lights on the Moon] (in French). Chatou: Éditions Carnot. ISBN 978-2-912-36249-0.
- Longuski, Jim (2006). The Seven Secrets of How to Think Like a Rocket Scientist. New York: Springer Publishing. ISBN 978-0-387-30876-0.
- McAdams, John C. (2011). JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think about Claims of Conspiracy. Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books. ISBN 978-1-59797-489-9.
- Mindell, David A. (2008). Digital Apollo: Human and Machine in Spaceflight. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-13497-2.
- Мухин, Юрий Игнатьевич (2005). Антиаполлон: Лунная афера США [Anti-Apollo: Lunar Scam of the USA] (in Russian). Moscow: Eksmo. ISBN 978-5-699-08657-3.
- Oberg, James E. (1982). UFOs & Outer Space Mysteries: A Sympathetic Skeptic’s Report. Norfolk, VA: The Donning Company. ISBN 978-0-89865-102-7.
- Plait, Philip C. (2002). Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Astrology to the Moon Landing “Hoax”. New York: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-40976-6.
- Попов, Александр Иванович (2009). Американцы на Луне: великий прорыв или космическая афера?[Americans on the Moon: The Great Breakthrough or Space Scam?] (in Russian). Moscow: Veche. ISBN 978-5-9533-3315-3.
- Ramsay, Robin (2006). Conspiracy Theories. Harpenden: Pocket Essentials. ISBN 1-904048-65-X.
- René, Ralph (1994). Lucas, Stu, ed. NASA Mooned America!. Drawings by Chris Wolfer. Passaic, NJ: René. OCLC 36317224.
- Scheaffer, Robert (2011). Psychic Vibrations: Skeptical Giggles from The Skeptical Inquirer. Illustrations by Rob Pudim. Charleston, SC: CreateSpace. ISBN 978-1-4636-0157-7. Reprinted from the Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1977.
- Scott, David; Leonov, Alexei; Toomey, Christine (2004). Two Sides of the Moon: Our Story of the Cold War Space Race. Foreword by Neil Armstrong; introduction by Tom Hanks (1st U.S. ed.). New York: Thomas Dunne Books. ISBN 0-312-30865-5.
- Shepard, Alan B.; Slayton, Donald K. (1994). Moon Shot: The Inside Story of America’s Race to the Moon. With Jay Barbree and Howard Benedict; introduction by Neil Armstrong. Atlanta: Turner Publishing. ISBN 978-1-878685-54-4.
- 副島, 隆彦 (2004). 人類の月面着陸は無かったろう論 [Apollo 11 Has Never Been to the Moon] (in Japanese). Tokyo: Tokuma Shoten. ISBN 978-4-198-61874-2.
- Wisnewski, Gerhard (2007) [Originally published 2005 in German under the title Lügen im Weltraum, Von der Mondlandung zur Weltherrschaft, Knaur Taschenbuch Verlag, Munich]. One Small Step?: The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space. English translation by Johanna Collis. Forrest Row: Clairview Books. ISBN 978-1-905570-12-6.
- Woods, W. David (2008). How Apollo Flew to the Moon. New York: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-0-387-71675-6.