Exposing PseudoAstronomy

July 17, 2009

The Apollo Moon Hoax: Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Images Apollo Landing Sites


In my post on “The Apollo Moon Hoax: Why Haven’t Any Pictures Been Taken of the Landing Sites?” I mentioned that NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is scheduled to take photographs of the Apollo landing sites. They did.

All posts in this series:

The Photos

These are really fairly unprocessed photographs and they are not at the highest resolution that they will eventually be once LRO actually targets the sites for close-up imaging during its primary mission phase (the narrow-angle camera should be able to resolve sizes of ~0.5 m (1.5 ft)).

However, they are still pretty darn cool, and they fly in the face of people like Bart Sibrel who in this CNN.com article is quoted as saying: “I do know the moon landings were faked,” said crusading filmmaker Bart Sibrel, whose aggressive interview tactics once provoked Aldrin to punch him in the face. “I’d bet my life on it.” Well, Bart, what do you think of these?

Apollo 11 Landing Site

Apollo 15 Landing Site

Apollo 16 Landing Site

Apollo 17 Landing Site

Apollo 14 Landing Site

I think that it’s so cool that you can actually see the astronaut’s footprints (well, the trail of footprints) on the moon. Amazing. (The visible trail is due to the astronauts disturbing the material on the lunar surface, much like we can see the rover trails on Mars from orbit.)

Final Thoughts – The Likely Hoax Response

As I said before, most of the Apollo moon hoax proponents will likely see it as a publicity stunt, that NASA faked ’em, used Photoshop, or whatever. I doubt this will turn a true believer in the conspiracy theory into someone who now believes the official story.

But, for those of us who do know that we actually did land on the moon 40 years ago, these photographs are a welcome reminder of the amazing achievements of the Apollo space program, and they may serve to inspire a new generation of scientists.



  1. There seem to be three classes of moon landing hoax believers
    1)The people making money and/or achieving notoriety out of denying the landings – hence there is no reason for them them to stop. New evidence to support the landings will be used by them as new evidence to support the hoax theory.
    2) The people who don’t trust the government and hence will never believe any facts supporting the government and NASA’s achievements.
    3) People that are apparently unable to accept that people could actually land on the moon.

    Class 2 and 3 of this group will never accept it when facts disagree with their belief systems. I suspect that as this generation dies out – and assuming that kids are taught science in classrooms – that the number of class 2 and class 3 believers will diminish. This happened with the flat earthers and those that believed that the Sun revolved around the earth. To me there appears to be ample evidence that the

    However not all conspiracy/hoax theories are necessarily false. There appears to be good evidence that Kennedy’s assassination was not by a loan gunman. The implications of this are that some people in previous governments arranged a cover up or were involved – or at the very least did a completely incompetent job of investigation. Similarly the US Government / CIA has often run covert operations around the world that are hidden for many years. If the US Government stopped doing these things some more of the 2s and 3s above might find it easier to accept the moon landings.


    Comment by Peter — July 17, 2009 @ 12:33 pm | Reply

    • Dear Peter; If you are open to a conspiracy to the Kennedy killings, in which I find personally ludicrous, then how can you dismiss the hoax theories of Apollo in the same breath? Of your listed points, 1. If there are those making money off of this lie of Apollo going to the moon, I would hope they use the money to broaden their reach to the other sheeple out there to get them to dare ask, “What? and Why?” And who is making money off this?….mmmmmm Mythbusters, who were busted by many on their so called proof in “proving” there was enough reflective light from the moon’s surface to light up Aldren descending the LEM in the shadows…trouble is, they got caught using a cement type material with an albedo of over 60% when the moon’s is about 6%…Did they retract or redo their experiment again? I don’t know about them, but other physicists did, and remarkably, you couldn’t see Aldren coming down the ladder with anything but a dark silhouette.
      2. NASA is part of the DOD that belongs to a government that has given us more questions than answers lately. Libya, IRS, NSA to name a few.
      3. There was a time when I waved the flag for our moon landings, but as I became older and a bit wiser, there seemed to be more questions than answers how we got there so easily and successfully with such primitive equipment, yet today, we don’t have the resources or technology to do it? When you honestly can sit down and go through the mountains of research that “hoaxers” have poured over since Bill Kaysing first raised the question…you may find more than one incident that causes that moment of fear in you, a fear of discovery that could shatter your own beliefs. I don’t celebrate any of this at all.
      I don’t take a moments delight in the fact we have all been bullsh*tted for over 40 plus years. But I ask you to go through the evidence and if you find just one item that doesn’t make sense or “can’t possibly be true”, then isn’t everything is thrown in doubt?

      Start with http://www.aulis.com…with an open mind, you could be in there for weeks, months.
      Good hunting

      Comment by James White — December 15, 2013 @ 10:01 am | Reply

      • James White,
        You couldn’t have put things better. I had the same experience as you, I used to truly believe we did in fact land on the moon until I realized that some things just don’t add up. I’m not happy about this realization, it has brought me great sadness but it also brings me a greater understanding of the universe. I would rather know the truth than be misled with a lie.

        The web site aulis.com is excellent and a voice of reason! It’s good to see!

        Comment by Cody Nundy — November 10, 2016 @ 12:20 am

  2. Smoke does not exist without fire. I think the fact of landing is undisputable, but at the same time I am sure that some materials and facts ware faked for some reasons and as a result we have so many believers of conspiracy theories.

    Comment by Sergey Nikolayev — July 17, 2009 @ 1:04 pm | Reply

    • Sergey – That’s really a fairly simple logical fallacy and doesn’t mean anything (“hasty conclusion,” “create misgivings,” or “jumping to conclusions” are other terms for this fallacy). A good example would be the Salem Witch Trials – there was a lot of smoke there of people being accused as witches, but there was no fire underneath it in that they weren’t witches (and after all, they were hanged instead of burned …).

      If you can point to actual evidence or claims, then we can address them. Otherwise, an argument from popularity is just an argument from popularity and has no real substance.

      Comment by astrostu206265 — July 17, 2009 @ 1:22 pm | Reply

      • Dear Sergey;

        Refer to Aulis.com, you tubes by Jarrah White, books by Ralph Rene and Bill Kaysing, Photo analysis by Jack White, physics study by S. Pokrovsky on the actual launch of Apollo 11 that totally busts NASA, the faked videos from the Cm going to / from the moon, the list goes on to infinity. The bottom line for such resistance is this evidence shatters the world of those who want so desperately to believe we really went to the moon just because we, like Babe Ruth pointing to the outfield fence predicting a home run was about to be hit, went to the moon just because we said we were going to!!! and that’s that??? And just ignore all those little things in the way, like lack of necessary propulsion, lethal radiation, heat, and cold.
        J White

        Comment by James White — December 15, 2013 @ 9:32 am

  3. In general, conspiracy theorists are little people with little minds, even less education and zero understanding. Furthermore, most are borderline personalities, and many would fail a screening for paranoid schizophrenia.

    Happily, we have nothing to fear from such persons.

    Comment by fritz b — July 17, 2009 @ 1:24 pm | Reply

    • I’d say just the opposite…conspiracy theorists are people that are curious and want answers to questions that seem unanswered (either because of lack of one or because the answer is ambiguous). So in a sense, conspiracy theorists are people with large minds, interested in knowledge and seeking understanding.

      People, such as yourself, who gladly accept the “reality” as it is fed through propaganda and the media are what I would consider people with little minds, less education, and zero understanding. These type of people don’t seek the truth. They seek what feels comfortable to them.

      Comment by foofoorabbit — July 18, 2009 @ 6:17 am | Reply

      • The problem is that every single claim raised by conspiracy theorists has been answered. Bart Sibrel, Ralph Rene, and the others have been told many many times why the crosshairs disappear behind bright objects, or why the van Allen belt radiation isn’t a problem, yet they refuse to acknowledge any rebuttals and continue with the same claims. To me, that is not having a “large mind” but rather a very small one.

        To name another conspiracy — how many times do the “9/11 Truthers” have to be told that, no, the steel did not melt to bring down the twin towers, rather it was heated to a temperature where it lost nearly all of its tensile strength. That is solid chemistry, physics, engineering, what-have-you, yet they refuse to acknowledge the reality of that and move on to something else.

        Comment by astrostu206265 — July 18, 2009 @ 11:15 am

      • @Astrostu

        They lost tensile strength? The building came [—-] falling down at the speed of gravity. The “tensile strength” theory would make it so that the building would have fallen any way but down, into the basement complex, where it was. Along with 5 other WTC buildings… all destroyed, due to “office fires.” Not to mention the fact that at the base of the towers, the beams were slanted in a “\” pattern, which only occurs during demolition.

        One of the government officials died a year ago or so after he admitted that there were explosions all around inside Tower 7, the only office building that seemed to be in good condition after the planes hit and everything came down… Weirdly only a few months after he was recorded a second time saying so by a 9-11 Truth team.

        You are either a government whitewasher or a total idiot. I hope you’re from the government.

        Comment by Brian — July 25, 2009 @ 8:37 pm

    • Jerk.
      Some things are true, and some are not. I believe in the moon landing, and I’m kinda a conspiracy theorist. Don’t put a label on me because I know that people lie.

      Comment by sasracer — July 18, 2009 @ 12:37 pm | Reply

      • Had to reply again.

        1: I have to agree with all of you (except the first one I replied to. Although, I have to expand.
        First, not all conspiracy theorists are stupid, and neither are all smart. To be a good conspiracy theorist, you have to ask questions, research, find answers, check your research (Or whoever’s research you used), and accept the answer. Of course, if the answer doesn’t fit, ask more questions, research, find an answer, check the research, and repeat.
        Of course, some (or most, I really don’t care) C.T. don’t do this, and they fail because of this.
        Second…. actually, I have nothing else.

        Comment by sasracer — July 18, 2009 @ 12:46 pm

    • Little people, little minds? Some of us have traveled around the world and have held various levels of clearance with our government. Those of us who have been witness to, and part of this country’s bag of tricks for promoting our own interest around the world would call you a fool.

      Comment by John Lucas — July 18, 2009 @ 8:36 pm | Reply

  4. The real joke here is that if Obama gave the same mandate that Kennedy did,(to land on the moon by the end of the next decade), we as a society could not do it.

    The fact that forty years after the fact, more and more people believe that it did not ever happen is evidence of our continued devolution as a species. I thougt the movie Idocracy was stupid the first time I saw it, now I am not so sure.

    Comment by BigDuke — July 17, 2009 @ 1:28 pm | Reply

    • Except that it’s totally inaccurate, because we’ve been getting smarter every year.

      Comment by MikeTheInfidel — July 18, 2009 @ 6:32 am | Reply

    • Idocracy was hilarious. But I agree, to a degree.

      And to above, Ha, HA HA! And Ha again! You wish. In reality, the whole of us are stupid and uneducated. Hopefully the youth are as smart as you think.
      Well, atleast I am.

      Comment by sasracer — July 18, 2009 @ 12:51 pm | Reply

  5. “Kaysing theorized NASA sent the Apollo 11 astronauts up in a rocket until it was out of sight, then transferred the lunar capsule and its three passengers to a military cargo plane that dropped the capsule eight days later in the Pacific, where it was recovered. In the meantime, he believed, NASA officials filmed the “moon landing” at Area 51, the high-security military base in the Nevada desert, and brainwashed the astronauts to ensure their cooperation.” -CNN

    Then everyone involved kept quiet all these years and Russian astronomers, who almost certainly had their telescopes trained on the Sea of Tranquility, capitulated with the American “hoax”. Yeah, that’s more plausable than that we went to the moon.

    Comment by astronautus — July 17, 2009 @ 1:38 pm | Reply

    • Kaysing was just a disgruntled quack who’s an 15minute seeker trying to cash in on defaming American Heros.

      [Rest of comment removed due to advocation of violence.]

      Comment by Cannotsee — August 25, 2009 @ 12:44 pm | Reply

  6. Those thinking the moon landing is a hoax are
    1) fairly stupid
    2) fairly brainwashed by fairly stupid people
    3) attempting to get their 15min by worthless ramblings

    4) all of the above.

    Comment by iham mhee — July 17, 2009 @ 4:19 pm | Reply

    • attempting to get their 15 Minutes..OR MORE..by worthless ramblimgs..and simple minded diatribes

      help me find the ORIGINAL of this shot:

      I need to debunk it using Photoshop etc.

      Thank you

      Comment by Meshuge — April 9, 2011 @ 2:34 pm | Reply

  7. Many do not know that Iceland’s interior was used for practice because it is so moonlike. I first read about that in Frommer’s Guide to Europe. But Icelanders know about it. Somehow the photos taken there were released and used as part of the landing hoax “proofs” in the beginning. I recall also that a movie was made for tv that showed the landing being faked for propaganda reasons. But it is also true that conspiracy theorist thinking is just like religious circular reasoning. More information always is seen as proof of the “governments” need to cover up more, not actual proof of anything.

    The thing about conspiracy theories is that few, if any survive one lifetime. That is because when there is a conspiracy, a plot to do something unethical or criminal – whatever, there are eventually leaks and the truth comes out. But once the idea takes hold, there are always some for whom abandoning the belief system is too frightening or risky to the ego. Religion succeeds because of this and so do conspiracy theories.

    Comment by Marcus Laruius — July 17, 2009 @ 4:35 pm | Reply

  8. This is a great series of articles! I’ve been sparring with the Hoaxheads for some time, and I’m familar with the Clavius site, but I hadn’t heard of yours until I just read about it in the news today.

    There’s probably a risk in rebutting every single claim that cranks like Bart Sibrel make, because it’s much less work to just make something up out of whole cloth than to carefully and thoroughly rebut every facet of it.

    But I do have my favorites among their “arguments”. On YouTube is a series of short video clips entitled “15 second hoax proofs”. They demonstrate a favorite tactic of the hoaxheads — choose one tiny bit of information, separate it completely from its context, and insist that it proves a hoax all by itself. They don’t understand that you don’t get to pick and choose your evidence; any theory has to fit ALL of the evidence or explain very convincingly why the inconsistent evidence can be disregarded.

    One such “proof” is a video clip of an astronaut (Dave Scott, I think) walking in front of the flag on Apollo 15. After he passes, the previously stationary flag swings for a while and finally stops. The implication is that air was present and the astronaut stirred it up when it passed, causing the flag to “wave”. No mention is made of the fact that the astronauts pass the flag very closely at other times and it remains absolutely still each time. Was there air in the “studio” only during that one pass?

    Hasselblad photos taken from the left side of the scene show very clearly that the flag was rotated about 45 degrees toward the rover’s TV camera and Scott simply brushed the corner of the flag as he passed. A simple explanation, but of course the hoaxheads think their hoax is the better explanation.

    Some other clips show utter ignorance of spacecraft engineering and even basic physics and math. One shows Apollo 12 astronaut Al Bean explaining that the lunar module was subject to extreme temperature ranges on the moon. It required active cooling to maintain its electronics and the astronauts at comfortable temperatures. How was this cooling powered, Sibrel asks. “Batteries”, says Bean — and the clip immediately ends. Evidently Sibrel thinks this answer is patently absurd — how could batteries possibly power what must be a very powerful air conditioner?

    The answer — which Sibrel could easily discover with even a tiny bit of research — is that the LM didn’t have an ordinary air conditioner. In fact it was much more like a swamp cooler: it boiled water into space to carry away heat. (The astronauts’ backpacks used the same method to keep the astronauts comfortable.) Swamp coolers require far less power than regular air conditioners because they’re open loop; the water boiled into space is not recaptured and reused. There’s no compressor that requires so much energy in an air conditioner. The LM’s ‘swamp cooler’ only required a pump to run the glycol coolant through the sublimator and past the equipment; the cooling water was fed from a pressurized tank.

    The LM carried a limited supply of cooling water, but this was okay because the missions were all fairly short. Apollo was designed to put a man on the moon and return him to the earth; keeping him there so he could do a lot of science was not a priority. (This limited cooling water supply became the critical issue during the Apollo 13 emergency.)

    By the way, those batteries on the LM weren’t exactly puny flashlight batteries. It carried nearly half a ton of silver-zinc batteries storing over 60 kilowatt-hours. Silver-zinc batteries are almost as good as lithium ion for energy vs weight, but they’re not widely used outside NASA and the military for fairly obvious reasons (though there is a company trying to change that). The LM was originally intended to use fuel cells like the CSM, but they ran into development problems and batteries were used instead for simplicity. Again, a long lunar stay was not a priority in Apollo’s design.

    NASA has made an amazing amount of Apollo technical documentation available on its website ntrs.nasa.gov. You will find manuals, checklists, schematics, reports, procedures and all sorts of arcane and obscure stuff. How much of this have the conspiracy theorists read, I wonder…

    Comment by Phil Karn — July 17, 2009 @ 9:55 pm | Reply

  9. NASA didn’t help either. They erased the 40 original film. Now what’s that all about? cover-up?

    Comment by mike — July 17, 2009 @ 11:16 pm | Reply

    • My mother actually just told me of this one today. Apparently, NASA had run out of tape and just started to record over old stuff. One thing you have to remember is that some of these places really had no impetus to save Apollo-era items. That’s why most of the plans for the original hardware no longer exist (another hoax claim).

      Comment by astrostu206265 — July 17, 2009 @ 11:30 pm | Reply

      • frankly it seems pretty inconceivable that people would erase those tapes rather than like buy another tape or something. After all, tapes are so, uh, prohibitively expensive?

        Comment by jeezeye havegas — December 10, 2012 @ 3:10 am

      • Having worked in radio back in the 1980s, I can tell you magnetic media was hugely expensive even back then and we regularly taped over things. This was pretty common practice in TV as well. There is not a lot of existing footage of old sports games (NHL for example) as these things were routinely taped over.

        Comment by mindme — December 12, 2012 @ 8:34 am

    • No, it wasn’t cost — it was *availability*. NASA simply couldn’t buy enough tape in the early 1980s. The manufacturer(s) had changed the adhesive in the formulation and new tapes turned out to be unusable. So it was either recycle the Apollo tapes or let data from new interplanetary probes be lost.

      You have to understand that the Apollo 11 raw signal recordings were never meant to be archival. They were created merely as backups in case the scan converters failed during the live broadcast. They didn’t. The only use for the tapes (then) was to be played through a scan converter to produce a broadcast format signal, and since there were MANY copies of the scan converter output there didn’t seem to be much use for the raw signal tapes.

      Now it would have been nice if NASA in 1969 (or the early 1980s) had a crystal ball to forsee that computers would someday be so incredibly cheap and powerful that every individual would have one able to read the raw signal directly with just a little software, and that would give a better picture than their scan converters. But they didn’t.

      Comment by Phil — December 10, 2012 @ 1:58 pm | Reply

  10. It’s really much less sinister and mysterious than it sounds. The Apollo 11 Lunar Module carried a special, nonstandard, slow-scan black and white TV camera for reasons of power, weight, space and development time. (Later missions carried color cameras, though they were still non-standard). TV was, believe it or not, a last minute addition to Apollo; there were some who argued against it as a distraction to the pilots! Fortunately, much wiser heads prevailed.

    But there was no readily available equipment to convert the slow scan format for the regular broadcast neworks. (Today it’d be an easy job for a personal computer). So they improvised and pointed a regular TV camera at the special TV screen showing the slow-scan signal. This worked, but needless to say the quality was less than optimal.

    As a backup in case the scan converter failed, each station recorded the “raw” downlink signal, containing video, voice and telemetry, with high speed broad band instrumentation tape recorders. (I understand this kind of raw backup recording is still standard practice during critical spacecraft mission phases.) Instrumentation recorders worked somewhat like video tape recorders but were not limited to standard TV signals. They were already widely used throughout NASA for recording telemetry for later analysis. Today you’d use a computer and a hard drive, but they didn’t exist in 1969.

    It’s these tapes from the instrumentation recorders that are missing. But they were only intended as backups. The scan converters all worked, so there was never any immediate reason to play back those tapes; NASA and the TV networks already had plenty of standard video recordings of the scan converter output.

    Apparently, it never occurred to anyone at NASA that there might someday be better ways to convert a slow scan signal to a standard TV format. Or that personal computers could easily be programmed to display the slow scan signal directly. So, there being no apparent need for the tape recordings of the raw signal, and since those tapes were large and expensive, it seems that somebody simply reused them.

    Believe it or not, it was standard practice in early television broadcasting to reuse video tapes. No one thought they would have any historical value, so those early shows are lost forever. But in their defense, you have to remember that early video tape recorders were big, expensive, and consumed tape at a prodigious rate. The tape was 2″ wide and moved at 15 inches per second. A 4800 foot reel was about 12 inches in diameter, and held only 1 hour of video! I can’t find the weight of these tape reels, but believe me they were massive — I handled lots of them as a TV broadcast engineer during summers in my college years in the 1970s.

    So I think we can cut NASA some slack on this one. Sure, I wish they had kept those tapes. But even NASA people make mistakes, especially when predicting the future.

    Comment by Phil Karn — July 18, 2009 @ 1:02 am | Reply

    • Oh yeah, I also forgot to mention a similar situation but with a completely different medium: Early cartoons. During the 1940s, animation cells were expensive, and no one considered them to be of any value once they were photographed. Hence, all the artwork was literally washed off the cells so they could be reused to save money — all those wonderful Warner Bros. scenes and backgrounds … just gone.

      Comment by astrostu206265 — July 18, 2009 @ 1:13 am | Reply

      • A perfect example. Yes.

        Comment by Phil Karn — July 19, 2009 @ 9:58 pm

      • ah. thank you.

        Comment by jeezeye havegas — December 10, 2012 @ 3:13 am

    • NASA people make mistakes and yet in all the moon landings, except of course apollo 13 which happened incidentally when tv viewership of the space program was at its lowest (quite a coincidence), not one mistake or accident happened.

      everything went off without a hitch. what are the odds? i don’t buy it, not for second. humans always and i repeat always make mistakes. the wright brothers didn’t fly on the first attempt and yet we are to believe that on the first attempt to place men on the moon (and it was the first attempt, or was it?), it went off perfectly for the whole world to see?

      And every tv shot and photograph was perfectly done and all the product placement (in this case the product being NASA, the United States; and making sure the insignia all show properly in every photo, must show that American know-how accomplished this and not the commies!) done so perfectly that even professional photographers are impressed.

      now i know all the good little Americans who believe everything our government tells us are going to say that not all the photographs were perfect, that NASA just shows the good ones. well then lets see some of the flubs. prove the hoaxers wrong and lets see some bad photos taken from the moon. that’s because there aren’t any bad photos. when you take photos in a perfectly lit environment like a studio everything comes out perfect. people have to understand that nothing goes right on the first time, the odds are astronomical! even when sending an unmanned craft to the moon to take survey photos NASA was giving it an extremely low chance of success. They were actually surprised it worked. Now lets add men riding along with the equipment to the moon, NASA knew they couldn’t do it, let alone 6 more times with no mistakes whatsoever and not one bad circuit or anything gone wrong? jet aircraft have problems on earth, even military craft, but no problems with getting to the moon.

      for those who want to say that how could a cover up not be exposed since so many would know? NASA works in a manner that is very compartmentalized, meaning you do your one job and are given only enough information so that you are able to perform your job and ONLY your job. The only ones who would know everything would be the astronauts, most likely the US President various people who worked on the sound stage to produce the images we saw, and all of these people would go along with it because they are told that it is for the good of the nation. That if you are a good American you will go along with this lie. why, you may be asking, would other countries go along with it (and the Russians do know the US faked it)?

      one word, and its what makes the world go round (no unfortunately not love): money. people and nations will do anything for it. if you don’t think so then where have you been living your whole life. I wouldn’t trust any info provided by a government agency from any nation. how can you be sure they are not lying? if there was an independent investigation not affiliated with any government of any kind into the moon landings, meaning sending a camera to the alleged landing location and it showed that men were there then i would of course be a believer that we went, and color me impressed that NASA did in fact send men there. anything short of that, then i won’t believe it because the info could be falsified. Like these recent LRO images, people are saying that the little dots on a photo of what appears to be the moon’s surface is evidence we went to the moon. sorry don’t see it. it looks like a bunch of little dots on what appears to be a photo of the moon. if there is something on the surface of the moon in the photo how do i know it wasn’t an unmanned mission that put it there?

      its kind of funny too because i have long been a believer of the moon anomalies that were discovered on the far side of the moon when NASA sent unmanned lunar orbiters to take pictures of the lunar surface. many skeptics of the lunar anomalies would say that the images do not show what look like structures on the moon and that it doesn’t look like anything. In this case i have to take a lesson from the skeptics and say that the LRO photos show nothing but a bunch of dots that don’t look like anything to me. Also how do i know NASA didn’t just doctor the photo?

      Comment by Cody Nundy — November 5, 2016 @ 11:48 pm | Reply

      • Cody….your main premise is “nothing goes without a hitch yet the moon mission went flawlessly”. Um…what makes you think that? There were all kinds of problems with the NASA space program, including a devastating fire. And not every single employee was “compartmentalized”. So…who faked the radio transmissions sent to the “real” operators in Mission Control? Who faked the telemetry? Who faked the photos? The press releases? So much trickery and fakery involved here, I’ve only just named a few. Yet NO ONE told? You said greed rules humans, but notoriety and fame also do…imagine being the one to show proof? You’d probably be the most famous person of this age.

        No Cody…when the “conspiracy” becomes harder to do, and harder to believe than the actual event, you’re logic become suspect. You have to think this through more than just “faked photos”…it would be a HELLUVA lot more than just that. A lot of these conspiracy ideas are from ignorance…people who THINK they know photography. People who THINK it would be impossible, and therefor it HAD to be faked. Not just once, but five MORE times?

        You’ll have to give me more to go on here. You want scientific proof we went, then you should abide by the same logic…scientific proof we didn’t. Authentic testimony. Not just your feelings.

        Comment by SteveK — November 6, 2016 @ 9:02 am

  11. I do not believe for a second that the US govt., which can barely pave roads or keep its people healthy, had the capacity to keep a cover-up this big for 40 years. It is far more plausible to believe we went to the moon than it is to believe a conspiracy like this could be kept from people for 40 years. However, after reading the comments, I wanted to comment on a comment.

    Someone said, and I quote, “In general, conspiracy theorists are little people with little minds, even less education and zero understanding.”

    I think it is very dangerous to think that way, or to make broad statements like this. The irony of conspiracy theories is that they exist, primarily, because they grow out of a society in which very real, true conspiracies have existed. If all people who believed in conspiracy theories were so easily classifiable as “little people, with little minds” then it is likely that Richard Nixon would have never become president (a man prone to conspiracy-think), likely that Watergate would have never happened, and likelier still that nobody would have been curious enough about a few burglars breaking into the DNC to ask enough questions to eventually bring down a crooked president. If all people who believed in conspiracies were “little people, with little minds” it is doubtful that there would have been the Church / Pike hearings of the 1970s, or the second investigation into the JFK assassination, which, despite not proving undoubtedly a conspiracy to assassinate the president, did in fact prove, and get the CIA to confess to, multiple mob-related conspiracies to assassinate foreign leaders.

    One of the reasons conspiracy theorists like the people who believe the moon landings were hoaxed are so dangerous is because they trivialize very real conspiracies that happen all around us, every day, and are a natural part of history. But to dismiss all conspiracy theorists at the same time is just as harmful, in my opinion.

    – N

    Comment by Nathan C. — July 18, 2009 @ 8:12 am | Reply

    • The issue is not conspiracy vs no conspiracy. It’s facts and logic vs nonsense and illogic.

      Yes, real criminal conspiracies do occur within government. Nixon/Watergate, Iran/Contra, and now Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Gonzales/etc, the Iraq invasion and torture. I accept that these exist because there is real evidence for them. On the other hand, I do not accept that Apollo was a fraud because there’s no evidence for that.

      No doubt many Apollo conspiracy theorists rationalize away the complete lack of evidence as proof of the success of the conspiracy. But they’re simply full of it. Real conspiracies are much smaller than the supposed Apollo conspiracy yet they leak all the time, which is how we know about them.

      Comment by Phil Karn — July 19, 2009 @ 10:22 pm | Reply

    • let’s not forget our well spoken president JFK’s speech about conspiracies and secret societies just a few weeks before his death, as well as ominous warnings of conspiratorial behavior by other presidents. I think these historical addresses are actually quite important and deserve a serious place in our classrooms.

      Comment by jeezeye havegas — December 10, 2012 @ 3:17 am | Reply

      • Which proves…*what* about Apollo, exactly?

        Comment by Phil — December 10, 2012 @ 3:09 pm

  12. So out of all these “hoax” theories, no one has questioned about where the LUNAR FREAKIN ROVER was stored, on that little tiny craft??? OH…I know, they dropped it from orbit right? They assembled it on the moon? Where’s the pics?? or Videos??? Anyone out there???

    Comment by John B Good — July 18, 2009 @ 4:00 pm | Reply

    • Huh? The rovers were stored on the J-class lunar modules (Apollos 15, 16, 17) in Quad 1 of the Descent stage. That’s the compartment on the southwest corner when the LM was on the moon with the front facing west. It was folded up into a pretty compact shape, and unfolded as the astronauts lowered it to the surface. You can even watch them doing it on TV; try the Apollo 15 DVDs from Spaceflight Films.

      It’s just amazing to me how slavishly your average conspiracy theorist repeats the accusations of their cult leaders without applying even the slightest amount of independent checking. They can’t pretend that the information isn’t available. NASA has placed an enormous amount of Apollo technical data on the web; see ntrs.nasa.gov.

      Would they be this open if Apollo were a fraud? Of course not. While the hoax believers might be too ignorant and unskilled to make sense of these documents themselves, a lot of knowledgeable engineers — including Russian engineers — have looked at them, and if any of them smelled a rat they would certainly say so.

      Comment by Phil Karn — July 19, 2009 @ 6:58 pm | Reply

    • Are you serious? Do you think American engineers are so stupid that they can’t figure out how to make something that can fold up and then bolt on the side of the lander? If this was such an impossible engineering challenge, you’d think some engineers would be debating it.

      I suppose no one questions it because they’re capable of using youtube and finding video of it in 1 second flat:

      *pat* *pat*

      Comment by mindmetoo — July 20, 2009 @ 6:15 am | Reply

  13. […] The Apollo Moon Hoax: Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Images Apollo Landing Sites Introduction In my post on “The Apollo Moon Hoax: Why Haven’t Any Pictures Been Taken of the Landing […] […]

    Pingback by Top Posts « WordPress.com — July 18, 2009 @ 5:16 pm | Reply

  14. I truly believe that man landed on the Moon today 40 years ago. A testament to what man can do with the right motivation and desire to overcome almost impossible odds. What bothers me is the inconsistencies in some of the Apollo 11 photographs. The lighting especially. In the famous picture of Buzz Aldrin for instance clearly shows a light source above him that could only be achieved by a second light source other than the sun, there is no record of any of the Apollo Astronaughts taking any lighting rigs or secondary light sources with them.
    The photograph was shown to the engineer at Hasselblad and he conceded that it did indeed look as though there was another light source above Buzz Aldrin and could not explain why that would be.
    It is possible that the film taken by Armstrong may have been spoilt by radiation and the excesses of cold and heat. If so it would not be beyond the realms of possibility for NASA to restage some of the photographs for publicity reasons. Imagine going all the way to the Moon and developing the film to find out the vast majority of it spoilt? If you think about it they would not even need Aldrin or Armstrong’s knowledge or permission to do so, who could tell who was behind those golden visors? It wouldn’t take too many people to re do the photographs and if they were convinced they were doing it in the national interest would they not keep the secret?
    I reiterate I believe most firmly that Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong landed and walked on the Moon and took Man beyond the confines of our Earth and walked on another world. But I find some of the photographs troubling.

    Comment by Rob — July 20, 2009 @ 3:34 am | Reply

    • Rob, I think you’re referring to the interview during the FOX docudrama that interviewed that particular engineer. The problem is that this is a poor argument from authority, where the guy may be great at making lenses, but he has no idea how things act on the moon. He says he doesn’t know how to do it, either, which is simply an argument from ignorance — another logical fallacy.

      I have not looked into this claim so I am not 100% certain this is the proper explanation, but my understanding is that the apparent light halo is due simply to the reflective properties of the lunar regolith, which is a physically different material with different reflective properties than normal Earth. The same effect can be had from using specific lighting on Earth, but this is just the same effect — but as I’ve talked about elsewhere with this hoax, especially with the footprints claim, you can get the same effect but under different conditions.

      And I just looked up this claim on the clavius.org site, which effectively says what I just did as the explanation.

      Comment by astrostu206265 — July 20, 2009 @ 7:00 am | Reply

      • I’m not sure which picture of Aldrin you’re talking about. If it’s those of him coming down the ladder in the shadow of the LEM, he’s lit by sunlight scattering off the lunar surface behind him. The same effect illuminates the shuttle bay when it is facing the daylit side of the earth.

        But if you mean the pictures of his shadow showing what looks like a bright halo around his head, this is a different effect called Heiligenschein (German for “halo”). It’s caused by the fact that the lunar surface is extremely rough, covered with fine jagged particles. Each particle casts a shadow, but when you look at them at 0 phase angle (i.e., with the sun behind you) each particle blocks its own shadow so the region looks brighter. There may also be some refractive properties of the individual particles since many of them are glasses formed by the heat of high velocity impacts.

        The same effect causes the full moon to appear much brighter than you’d expect from its brightness when it’s half full. I.e., the full moon is more than twice as bright as the half moon.

        Comment by Phil Karn — July 20, 2009 @ 6:12 pm

  15. I’m always curious why the moon hoax people don’t actually test their ideas. For example, they claim you should be able to see stars in the photos. Well, that’s a pretty easy claim to test in a controlled environment. It’s easy to simply label something an anomaly and then sell a book, dvd, or put up a crappy web page.

    Also, the Chinese would sure like to be the first people to walk on the moon, not the second. You think if the evidence was so clear, the Chinese would bust the myth.

    Comment by mindmetoo — July 20, 2009 @ 6:05 am | Reply

    • I also believe that Chinese would bring back all automatic probes, rovers and stations from moon back to their national museum. 🙂

      Comment by Sergey Nikolayev — July 20, 2009 @ 8:44 am | Reply

      • Why do you believe this? The Chinese would probably leave stuff on the moon for the same reason we did: it was too expensive to bring back, and the very limited return capacity was much better used to return samples for scientific study.

        Comment by Phil Karn — October 6, 2009 @ 2:07 am

      • Come to think of it, the Chinese might want to bring back one or two Apollo items — just to prove they were there.

        More seriously, there would be significant scientific and engineering value in bringing back artificial materials that have been on the moon for so long so they can be studied to see the effects of the lunar environment. The flags, for example, are almost certainly nothing more than a pile of dust by now as nylon doesn’t withstand ultraviolet very well. The thermal blankets on the LM are probably not in much better condition.

        Comment by Phil Karn — February 18, 2010 @ 10:28 am

    • Isn’t it obvious? If they actually tested their ideas, they’d be disproven. Then they wouldn’t have anything to cling to.

      Comment by Phil Karn — July 20, 2009 @ 10:19 pm | Reply

    • In one of Apollo’s (I don’t remember which one, but I think was Apollo 15) The astronauts took pictures of the stars using an ultra-violet telescope. I read it on an old National Geographic Magazine). they made a complete celestial map.

      Comment by Ricardo Contreras — October 5, 2009 @ 5:26 pm | Reply

      • It was Apollo 16. One of the main targets was the earth, which apparently has a large UV “halo” that is best seen from the outside, i.e., from very high altitude. But they also got a lot of stars. I’ve seen analyses of the images showing that the positions of the earth and the stars around it exactly match those predicted from the known dates and times the pictures were taken. And remember, the pictures were in the ultraviolet, meaning they couldn’t have been taken from the earth’s surface because our atmosphere is largely opaque to UV. That was the reason for taking the telescope into space in the first place.

        Comment by Phil Karn — October 6, 2009 @ 12:58 am

      • You were right, Phill Karn, was Apollo 16. this is a transcription from my old Nat Geo Magazine (December 1972) “In 180 exposures the camera recorded not only earth’s atmosphere, but also distant stars, the solar wind, and possible intergalactic hydrogen”. So, if this information was available since 1972, why those conspiracy theorist still believe that Apollo was a Hoax?. I just don’t get it. The conspiracy theorist say that there are not stars on any apollo’s pictures. Obviously they had not done their homework, even if you apply a filter, using a software program, you can see the stars on almost any apollo’s pictures…

        Comment by Ricardo Contreras — October 6, 2009 @ 8:45 am

  16. Comments reports 33 comments. I’m adding a comment to make it 34 so as not to tip off the moon hoaxers regarding this blog’s deep, deep Masonic connections.

    Comment by mindmetoo — July 23, 2009 @ 10:36 am | Reply

  17. I had my doubts no more, The proof is irrefutable, Amazing that they achieved this back then, I remember being brought into the school auditorium to watch the landing on a black n white tv that was placed onstage.

    Comment by Richard — July 30, 2009 @ 1:09 pm | Reply

  18. Anybody who could believe that those photos prove that humans landed on the Moon doesn’t have the f-ing brains that God gave to a doorknob.

    Comment by Big M — October 12, 2010 @ 8:35 am | Reply

  19. The Moon landings are without any shadow of a doubt completely & quite obviously fake.

    Please see my latest posting refering to Dave McGowans articles.

    Thanks =)


    Comment by remotekontrol — October 25, 2010 @ 6:56 am | Reply

  20. Photos are quite [—-], taking into account resolutions of space telescopes looking for stars and extra-stellar planets, you still show this low quality [—-] to everybody. It only proves that there is nothing to see.

    Comment by Sergey Nikolayev — October 25, 2010 @ 9:33 am | Reply

    • Sergey, you obviously are not familiar with telescope resolution. You should read The Apollo Moon Hoax: Why Haven’t Any Pictures Been Taken of the Landing Sites?. Additionally, I do not allow foul language on my blog. You will note that I have edited your comment above. If you continue to use vulgarities, I will no longer permit you to post comments.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — October 25, 2010 @ 9:37 am | Reply

      • Foul language complain is accepted.

        It is very hard to believe in problems related to resolution taking into account that moon has no atmosphere. In Tundra at far north traces of human activity stays for hundreds years like new. Caterpillar vehicle tracks left 50 years ago looks like left yesterday. So moon site landing would remain intact for hundred thousands years ahead. So I personally wanna see landing site like on Google maps and even better. I would like to see human’s steps on the surface and all tools and equipment dropped their. For me it is just interesting to see them alive after so many years. Not because I need some extra proof, but because I consider it is interesting, the only reason not to show this information is fact that all astronauts are lying dead on moon surface. And it was one way ticket mission.

        Comment by Sergey Nikolayev — October 25, 2010 @ 10:26 am

    • “It is very hard to believe in problems related to resolution taking into account that moon has no atmosphere. ”

      Hard for who to believe? You or an astronomer familiar with telescopes?

      Comment by karl — October 25, 2010 @ 10:29 am | Reply

      • You have space telescope, interrupt its space photo gallery mission and target it at moon at least once. I personally don’t care about stars and even moon, it is just big stone in space reflecting sun shine to earth. Moon has no value for me at all. But we did left some traces on the moon and I would like to see them in high res. It was said 40 years ago that it is passable for spy satellites to read newspaper’s title lying on the ground, and now you would show me these photos. It is just make me think that something wrong for sure.

        Comment by Sergey Nikolayev — October 25, 2010 @ 11:09 am

    • Sergey, you didn’t really answer my question. Hard for who to believe, you or an astronomer? I take it to imply YOU find it hard to believe. Please explain why this isn’t simply an argument from personal incredulity.

      Comment by karl — October 25, 2010 @ 11:23 am | Reply

    • Again, Sergey, you are not familiar with resolution. Read the post I linked to and then comment.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — October 25, 2010 @ 11:40 am | Reply

      • I don’t need your excuses. Images you publish have very marginal value, as for me it is better not to have them at all, than have them so low quality.

        You can return me back to your blog as many times as you want, but it does not change anything. I was not born yet when all that media hype happened around American moon mission.

        So I as contemporary human want to see something valuable. So far I see photos which could be an argument 40 years ago, not now.

        Good luck.

        Comment by Sergey Nikolayev — October 25, 2010 @ 12:23 pm

    • “I don’t need your excuses.” Sergey. Basic optics is not an excuse. I think we’re done here.

      “I don’t believe that square peg can’t fit into a round hole!”

      “Well, measure it. The peg is too wide.”

      “I don’t need your excuses.”

      Sergey you come across as that ignorant and incurious.

      Comment by karl — October 25, 2010 @ 12:35 pm | Reply

      • Yes, I forgot that it is radio telescope. So you are right I forgot basic physics.
        Nevertheless you cannot deny that these photos has no value for public. Check out how long news about space research grab public attention. They stay maximum for 2-3 hours at front page of CNN.

        Your are talking to me because my father spent years on maths and physics, so I still believe in pure science. You can visit my web site at http://www.maths.ru (it is about 500 pages on-line)
        He is pure math prof, but he has a lot of unpublished basic concepts of field engine having no exhaust for example. And he explains why fusion power stations fail all the time, the answer is pretty simple. He does not publish that staff due to high scientific community resistance. If anybody bare to say anything about these holy cows he is immediately proclaimed as profanation or as anti-scientific. So he has no such things in his book, but he pays a lot of attention to maths and nuclear physics for example, because it is generally only for limited number of knowledgeable people. So having such background I still believe in human mind.

        So I have right to say that what you published does not prove anything, and it does not inspire anybody except another round of speculations. As I tald you already your photos are [—-].

        Good Luck

        Comment by Sergey Nikolayev — October 25, 2010 @ 1:45 pm

    • “So I have right to say that what you published does not prove anything,”

      Yeah. In North America we have the right to say most things too. I can say people named Sergey are all really big white fluffy bunnies. Some might like me to back that claim. By the same token, after making your claim, could you point out where Stuart goes wrong in the linked page. Surely someone who publishes the mighty maths.ru page could show the error in Stuart’s math. I’d genuinely like to know where he has got it all so wrong. But I repeat, merely returning saying on your authority he got it wrong or he’s just making excuses really brings us no closer to understanding why you’re right about your continually repeated (but no supported) claim.

      Comment by karl — October 25, 2010 @ 1:52 pm | Reply

      • I am Alex Petrov now. It is my nick name anyway.

        So basically you are trying to mirror my statement. It is useless attempt to switch me to baseless allegations. I am not going to say anything beyond obvious facts that these photos are very low quality and does not expose any value for public. You don’t claim anything publishing these photos.

        Comment by Alex Petrov — October 25, 2010 @ 2:17 pm

      • “Smoke does not exist without fire.”

        You can make smoke without fire.

        “I am not going to say anything beyond obvious facts that these photos are very low quality and does not expose any value for public. You don’t claim anything publishing these photos.”

        That’s only half your point. And that’s a statement of the obvious and one we would agree with insofar as people pot committed to the moon landing is a hoax would find no contradictory evidence compelling. Ever. They would just fall back to a position that the photos were faked. I bet we could fly you personally to the moon, show you the landing sites, and you would think “it was a VR simulation!”

        It seems to me your other claim is there should be high quality telescope photos of the sites and yet there are not. Stuart directed you to a page explaining why we can’t resolve the sites with the telescopes we have. You claimed this was just an excuse without showing why Stuart was wrong.

        Comment by karl — October 26, 2010 @ 7:00 am

    • Sergey- when I was a kid I had this admittedly inexpensive telescope- the kind you might find at a department store like Sears, or maybe now Wal Mart (but not as good). I remember I tried to focus it on some trees across the river. I coulda swore I found a deer footprint. Hard to tell because I couldn’t get it in focus. I thought I had a crappy ‘scope. Turns out I was using the wrong tool for the job…it’s not binoculars…but a telescope. Designed for SPACE viewing. I think this is what NASA deals with. They have a scope designed for deep space….not to focus on the moon.

      So I ask you…if this is your theory..have you tested it? Have you purchased or borrowed a telescope…then tried to focus it on your next door neighbor? I am asking with sincerity. I think it would be a good experiment. You’ve proposed a theory that can be tested. So instead of just making a claim….do an experiment. This is what people are asking the “conspiracists” to do. It’s not the questioning of the evidence…that is fine any any good scientist would do it. It’s the blind acceptance of the conspiracy…based on ignorance and stubbornness.

      If you are going to question scientific data…than put it to the test. Don’t read the Krishna site and just accept it. Do the tests. Find out how a moon rock differs from an Earth rock or meteorite. Find out about optics and photography for yourself. Be your own scientist.

      Comment by Steve Krall — June 15, 2014 @ 9:26 am | Reply

  21. Karl

    Your problem is that you consider I am taking one of the sides in this dispute. These photos only reignite it, but they don’t inspire new generation for space exploration. You stuck in history. And the fact that you are not capable to come back to moon and bring more or less interesting photos only proves it.

    Comment by Alex Petrov — October 26, 2010 @ 7:18 am | Reply

    • “These photos only reignite it, but they don’t inspire new generation for space exploration.”

      They might not inspire it in you but I’m curious how you support such a broad statement.

      But back to your claim. Is it you think we have telescopes that should be able to resolve the moon landers, dead astronauts, etc. on the moon and “we” purposely avoid doing so as to not show people crystal clear evidence that the moon landings are a hoax (or as you seem to suggest a form of premeditated murder). If that is your claim, Stuart answered it. You seemed to wave away his reasoning and label it as an excuse. If I have that right, you still need to explain why Stuart’s link is wrong.

      And yes, your claim that if there’s smoke there’s fire, seems to me you’re taking a side, that conspiracy claims have substance. Maybe you’d like to clearly state your position?

      Comment by karl — October 26, 2010 @ 7:37 am | Reply

  22. My position is very clear you react on provocations and it is funny how disparately you defend. You are in position of proving facts 🙂 not me denying them. I say “I don’t like photos” and you immediately start to prove that they are real. I don’t care whether they are real or not, but they are not interesting it is absolutely true.

    Comment by Alex Petrov — October 26, 2010 @ 7:47 am | Reply

    • You’ve said a lot more than you don’t like the photos. You said:

      “the only reason not to show this information is fact that all astronauts are lying dead on moon surface. And it was one way ticket mission.”

      That the astronauts we sent seem to be mostly alive today seems to demand YOU be in the position of proving your claim.

      Put up time, Alex.

      Comment by karl — October 26, 2010 @ 7:57 am | Reply

  23. Oh I’m sorry we’re those pictures of Bigfoot?
    Or UFO’s? Typical blurry images that show Nothing. Shame of you for even going there.
    We have the most powerful telescopes and you show us these embarrassing nothing photos.
    Wait a minute, I think I saw Elvis in one of those pictures.

    Comment by Joe Rizoli — September 7, 2012 @ 12:28 am | Reply

    • Joe, you don’t sound like someone who can be reached with facts and reason, but one can try.

      Not even the most powerful telescopes — not even the Hubble — can produce pictures like these of the Apollo landing sites. The Apollo artifacts are simply too small and too far away. The LRO comes quite close to the theoretical limits of any telescope of its size (about 8 inches) and distance.

      LRO has since produced even better pictures of the Apollo landing sites. After mapping the moon at its nominal 50 km altitude, the orbit was changed so that it got closer to the Apollo sites. Also, additional processing to reduce the imaging artifacts was done, and the results are really quite good.

      Comment by Phil — September 7, 2012 @ 8:00 pm | Reply

  24. OK help me out here. I’m not sure what I believe but I’m dam sure some of the evidence from the moon landing photos, videos, etc is a little suspicious. Given that the Russians, Chinese, Japanese and Indians have also photographed the moon surface, are any of the moon landing site photos available from them ? Also does anyone know what happens to film emulsion in a vacuum ? NASA in its own statements said it had to remove any lubricants from the camera mechanism to avoid them boiling in a vacuum. Film emulsion contains water which I presume would also boil ?

    Comment by Adrian Johnson — December 13, 2012 @ 6:19 am | Reply

    • NASA used a thin-film emulsion developed by Kodak, that did not contain oxygen in it. Oxygen in lubricants is what boils off in the situation you speak of. Watch the video of space flights where astronauts are squirting liquid drops into the cabin and consuming them, no liquid boiling there, oxygen is bonded in H2O.

      Finally, the LRO uses digital cameras, not film.

      Comment by Doc Noah — December 15, 2013 @ 12:43 am | Reply

  25. So NASA produces photos that “prove” the Apollo landing sites are real. Really?? NASA doctors another photo to say, “See! this lying photo proves all our lies”!

    Comment by Jim White — May 13, 2013 @ 12:55 pm | Reply

  26. And here is the proof these pictures were all photo shopped!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRE7grId3sI&feature=player_embedded#!
    The pictures NASA wants you to believe show that Apollo landing sites couldn’t possibly be true due to the physics of the optics – see Jarrah White’s Moon Faker YouTube series. Remember one important thing…It IS NOT Un-Patriotic to question NASA’s version of Apollo…But it is foolish to not question everything the government spoon feeds you as the truth. Bad governments thrive upon the blind followers who call themselves patriots.

    Comment by Jim White — May 13, 2013 @ 1:11 pm | Reply

    • Fascinating. So because someone cropped an image and saved it from Photoshop means it was created in Photoshop? Everything else in there is a gross misunderstanding of what’s going on, from stripes (early calibration and processing artifacts from LROC NAC that had only been in orbit for a few months), to descent engine (top-down versus bottom-up view), to rover tracks (not seeing individual tracks in those photos, seeing all the dust that was disturbed). Not that I expect you to believe me — it’s much easier to remain ignorant and conspiratorial than to try to understand the science of what’s going on.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — May 13, 2013 @ 1:19 pm | Reply

    • It’s not unpatriotic, it’s simply unintelligent.

      Comment by Doc Noah — December 15, 2013 @ 12:33 am | Reply

  27. These are great images of the landing sites. But why can’t we have at least the same resolutions as maps.google.com has of earth by satellites that are orbiting higher up than SMART-1 orbits the moon?

    Comment by Carl Lochen — October 19, 2013 @ 12:49 am | Reply

    • Two reasons. First, a gagillion dollars in spy and Earth mapping satellites for important human endeavors on out own planet. Second, much of the imagery you see on today’s map software/websites is from airplanes a few kilometers up, not from a satellite tens to hundreds of kilometers up.

      Comment by Stuart Robbins — October 19, 2013 @ 8:29 am | Reply

  28. These so called NASA photos of Apollo landing sites have already been debunked by several photographer experts. Simply look into the coded info on each of these pictures and you will find , ADOBE photoshop or DUCKY, the term for Adobe photoshop. Is Never A Straight Answer getting so lazy they think a sloppy insert of little nubs in a moon photo and call it an Apollo landing site is gonna fool anybody except the foolish and the Mythbusters??

    Comment by Jim White — October 21, 2013 @ 12:28 pm | Reply

  29. I love moon hoax conspiracists. they all share a common origin of having questionable, if any education, a history of mental illness, a domineering mother that raised them in a basement and they were always picked last to play battle-ball in grade school. Outside of that, they’re just ordinary kooks with too much time on their hands.

    Comment by Doc Noah — December 15, 2013 @ 12:30 am | Reply

  30. Having watched Tim Peake up in Space for 6 months and the dangerous logistical nightmare which is a space walk……. I don’t need any further evidence ….. Highly dangerous to step outside the ISS in 2016 with all the tech we now have…. But popping to the moon and going for a stroll in 1969 onwards… Mmmmm I’m not an expert but seems unlikely even without considering any of the hoax info!

    Comment by Anna — July 17, 2016 @ 4:29 am | Reply

    • Anna, just because you THINK it didn’t, couldn’t happen doesn’t make it so. Hardly “evidence”. By that standard, I think it’s highly improbably, actually impossible!…to keep such a large endeavor secret for so many years by so many people. But alas, that’s only my “thought” on the matter, hardly “evidence”. It was a different world back then, we took a lot more chances. Smoking, riding around unbuckled…now? Not so much. These men were dardeveils anyway, ex pilots and experiemntal pilots and such. Think they cared THAT much about radiation? Or even knew what it might do?

      No, that’s a very weak aspect to take. If that’s all it takes to convince you, well…okay. Not me.

      Comment by SteveK — July 21, 2016 @ 3:11 pm | Reply

    • Jarrah White, in his Moon Faker series ripped any claims NAZA had in trying to say that the LRO could image the landing sites…NAZA tried all sorts of explanations and a touch here and there of CGI, but comes up empty…Every thing NAZA does / says is just a lie…Common sense tells us the International SWIMMING Station is a total hoax too….the sharp eyed internet mindset has ripped NAZA to shreds….

      Comment by John Smith — July 22, 2016 @ 7:20 am | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: