Apollo Zero -- No Man has Ever Walked on the Moon!

NASA claims that during the Nixon administration, between the years 1969 and 1972, 12 astronauts walked on the surface of the moon and returned safely to Earth. This event was even commemorated on two United States coins, the Susan B. Anthony dollar, which was minted from 1979 to 1981, and then again in 1999, and the Eisenhower dollar, which was minted from 1971 to 1978. The reverse sides of both of these coins were based on the Apollo 11 insignia, and show an eagle landing on the moon with the Earth in the background.

The belief that men actually walked on the moon is shared by the vast majority of the world's population. There are no high-profile scientists, astronauts, or officials that have openly expressed any doubt as to the reality of this alleged accomplishment. The only exception to this is former United States President William Jefferson Clinton. In his autobiography, My Life, published in 2004, he states on page 156, "...Just a month before, Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong had left their colleague Michael Collins aboard spaceship Columbia and walked on the Moon, beating by five months President Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the moon before the decade was out.

The old carpenter asked me if I really believed it had happened. I said sure, I saw it on television. He disagreed. He said that he didn't believe it for a minute, that them television fellers could make things look real that weren't.

Back then I thought he was a crank. During my eight years in Washington, I saw some things on TV that made me wonder if he wasn't ahead of his time. To simplify, what Clinton says is that a gentleman expressed doubt in the Apollo claims, and he wonders whether that gentleman was correct. Now, exactly what is a former two-term United States president doing, wondering about the authenticity of the greatest technological achievement in the history of mankind?

An event that had marked the legacy of his own boyhood hero, JFK. 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. Obviously, he has some reason to believe that the moon landings were not authentic. If a former US president is wondering about the authenticity of the claim, does it not make sense that you should wonder too?

One can imagine why a former president would not want to come right out and blow the whistle by unequivocally stating his true beliefs. But he did, probably for the sake of his legacy, want to have it recorded that he did subtly flag the issue for those paying attention. And he flagged it by using the old carpenter acquaintance to get his point across. Regardless of precisely how much time Mr.

Clinton actually spends wondering about this, a closer examination of the claim reveals that to have performed such a feat in 1969 completely contradicts the evidence and otherwise offends common sense. The last alleged mission to the Moon was Apollo 17, which NASA says took place in December of 1972. Since then, absolutely no country claims to have sent astronauts or even animals more than 400 miles above the surface of the Earth. In recent years, space shuttle astronauts completed a trip wherein they attained a maximum altitude of 365 miles.

Normally, the Space Shuttle orbits at an altitude of approximately 200 miles from the Earth, the same orbit altitude of the International Space Station. Now, you might be asking, why exactly is this maximum distance from Earth relevant to our discussion? Well, let's put it this way. The Moon is 240,000 miles away from the Earth.

The diameter of the Earth is 8,000 miles. This puts the Moon at about 30 Earth diameters away. In relation to the space shuttle's orbit on this scale, it has never traveled more than one half of one inch away from the Earth's surface. Five, three main engines up and burning.

Two, one, and liftoff. Just getting into orbit is no small feat, as is illustrated by the fact that in all of recorded history, only three countries, the United States, China, and Russia, have been able to put a human just into orbit orbit and never being more than 400 miles from Earth. The explanation for this has always been that, except for these three countries, every other country in the world has been too cheap and lazy to venture into just Earth orbit. In reality, the reason has to do with the difficulty in accomplishing this.

This most of all drives home the point that NASA's claim of sending men on a 240,000 mile trip in 1969, some 600 times further than they can send men today, is just not plausible. One reason the space shuttle has not been sent beyond 400 miles into space has to do with the Earth's magnetism. The core of the Earth is molten iron. As it slowly swirls around, it generates a powerful magnetic field surrounding the Earth.

These fields cause the formation of two radiation belts around the Earth, called the Van Allen radiation belts. They are made of charged particles and are named after James Van Allen, who was in charge of the Geiger counters installed on the Explorer 1 satellite, which discovered the belts in 1958. These belts are formed by trapped charged particles. The magnetic field traps these particles that originate from the Sun.

They then spiral around the lines of the Earth's magnetic field, going back and forth between magnetic poles. As As pointed out by Ralph Rene, author of NASA Mooned America, Dr. James Van Allen published an article in the March 1959 issue of Scientific American that described the danger in traveling through these belts. In this article, entitled, Radiation Belts Around the Earth, on page 47 of this issue, Van Allen states, Our measurements show that the maximum radiation level as of 1958 is equivalent to between 10 and 100 rent-gens per hour, depending on the still undetermined proportion of protons to electrons.

Since a human being exposed for two days to even 10 rent-gens would have only an even chance of survival, the radiation belts obviously present an obstacle to spaceflight. If anyone ever really does go through these belts, it will become apparent just how lethal they really are to humans. Other than the alleged Apollo trips, all other manned spacecraft have stayed below the belts. These belts do not officially begin until an altitude of 1,000 miles is reached.

But when one space shuttle crew was brave enough to go nearly 400 miles above the Earth, they started to experience some unusual effects. They reported seeing shooting stars, which were a result of the radiation hitting the retinas of their eyes. interviewed Alan Bean of Apollo 12 initially stated that he had not gone through the belts and did not observe any effects caused by them. Any ill effects from the Van Allen radiation belts? No, now I'm not sure we went far enough out to to encounter the Van Allen radiation belt.

Maybe we did. When it was pointed out that the flight pattern took him through the belts he changed his story. The belts are 1,000 miles to 25,000 miles above the earth. Then we went right out through them.

No effects on your cells? We didn't even know it. I don't think anybody, well maybe somebody said you went through the radiation belt, but we didn't feel it inside and we didn't get any, you know, added radiation. The space shuttle went to 365 miles a few years ago because I worked in news, I saw CNN, they said that the radiation belts surrounding Earth are more dangerous than previously believed because the astronauts saw shooting stars with their eyes closed just when they got within 600.

Oh, now, that isn't from a radiation belt. We saw shooting stars, but they're not shooting stars from, with your eyes closed, although they look like it. If you're out in space beyond the Van Allen belt, and probably within the Van Allen belt, close your eyes and just pay attention you don't notice it unless you pay attention then all of a sudden you'll see a little flash like a shooting star except it's like that there goes one this way then one just blossoms and then not that fast maybe you wait three minutes or two minutes and one goes and what's happening is cosmic rays are hitting the back of your eye and exciting those sensors in the back of your eye so that's what you see and they got high enough apparently to close my guess is in earth orbit if you closed your eyes and just paid attention that you would see them the first time they were seen was when they went to 365 miles that's 650 miles below or away from the radiation you know see it it's below my guess if they just did it tonight but see if you're not if you're just going to sleep or closing your eyes or it's dark you don't notice them but if you'll close your eyes and pay attention which we had an experiment to do by the way then you see them whistling by not on our mission by the way they hadn't been discovered yet i saw them one day on the moon it wasn't dark and it was kind of dark and i saw this flash of light and it looked like like it was on the moon, but really it wasn't.

It was a flash of light in my eye. Some scientists argue that the trip through the belts was so brief, that is only a few hours, that the radiation would not have had a negative effect on the astronauts. But the question remains. If these belts are not dangerous, why in the last 30 years has absolutely no country put even a monkey past these belts?

The standard excuse is that no one has wanted to spend the money to do so. But to write off every advanced country in the world is too stingy and incompetent in over a third of a century to explore further than 400 miles from Earth really isn't too much to fathom. It is more likely that we simply do not have the technology to go further at this time. Try to imagine the flight pattern of the Apollo moon missions.

NASA says that three astronauts took off in a multi-stage rocket, and then three days later were in lunar orbit some 60 miles above the moon's surface, going about 4,000 miles per hour, or a little over Mach 6. Then, the spacecraft separated into two modules. One astronaut stayed in lunar orbit in the CSM. The other two flew down to the surface of the moon in the lunar module.

The first question that immediately comes to mind is how they were able to design a craft on Earth that would perform so well under quite different conditions on the moon, namely in a vacuum and in one-sixth gravity without killing anyone. The lunar landing research vehicle used to train the astronauts for a landing had a jet engine, which of course would never have worked out in the vacuum of space. NASA's answer to this is that the simulator provided 5 sixths, or 83% of the propulsion to simulate the amount of thrust that the rocket engine would need to lift the craft while flying down to the surface of the moon. This would be using 83% of Earth's propulsion requirements to adjust for an environment with only 17% of the Earth's gravity?

Explanations such as this certainly drive home the point that no matter how convoluted, they will always have a rationalization for everything. After supposedly landing on the moon during Apollo 17, two astronauts allegedly spent three days there. During this time, they were either in a small capsule, walking on the surface in their air-conditioned spacesuits, or riding around in the $60 million lunar rover. The lunar surface temperature in the sun should be around 135 degrees today.

In the shade, the temperature would again be about minus 100 to minus 150 degrees Fahrenheit. That would be in the shadow of the lunar module. If the LEM didn't have climate control and had air in it, would it be hot or cold without the climate control? If you just took a lunar module, well, let's take the climate control and it fails, what happens then?

You've got air setting there at 70 degrees. If the lunar module is setting in the sun, which it always is, then slowly but surely that temperature inside is going to go up to 250 degrees Fahrenheit. Now you ain't going to make it because you're going to cook long before that. What powered the air conditioning?

What powered the air batteries? You had a number of big batteries in the lunar module. They powered pumps. They powered the air conditioning.

They powered the communication system. And that's the reason we were only able to stay on the Moon 33 hours. Later on, we got a little better batteries, more batteries, and we could stay longer. Now let's examine some problems with the astronauts' time on the moon's surface.

In the sunlit areas, the temperature on the surface of the moon is 250 degrees Fahrenheit. If the sunlight struck the astronauts' suits or the surface of the moon, they would heat up very quickly. Considering that they always landed on the daylight side of the moon, the energy from the sun would be radiated directly at them, and additionally, the heat would be collected and radiated by the Moon itself. Put simply, the astronauts had no energy source that would have enabled them to reject the Sun's intense heat.

The Moon has no atmosphere. It has a vacuum. Conduction and convection could not practically be used for cooling. The heat would have had to have been radiated away.

I know, Bob. I know. They carried no energy source potent enough to re-radiate this heat away. What powered the air conditioning?

What powered the air batteries? You had a number of big batteries in the lunar module. Alan Bean's explanation of using batteries is not convincing. Efforts to explain successful functioning of the spacesuits amount to elaborate double talk.

That's it, sports fans. After allegedly spending three days on the surface, the two astronauts blasted off, went up 69 miles, somehow docked with the command module traveling at a speed of over 4,000 miles per hour, and then they all flew back to Earth for a round trip of 480,000 miles. Doesn't this seem a bit beyond 1969 technology? How can this be explained as anything other than an accomplishment beyond belief?

So what purpose would it serve to contrive such an elaborate hoax? Let's take a brief look at the events leading up to the American space race. After the Russians thoroughly spooked America in 1957 with the launching of Sputnik, citizens were in fear that the USSR would soon be able to drop an atomic bomb on the United States from orbit. What could be done to avert such a disaster?

And to what lengths would the United States government go to ensure national security? The Soviet Union has launched a second Earth satellite. It gets the American people alarmed that a foreign country, especially an enemy country, can do this. We fear this.

Man had his first great success in space when the Russians pushed a man across the threshold. He was Yuri Gagarin, the astronaut the Russians lionized as the first to orbit the Earth. It was the propaganda coup of the year. After the Russian flight, U.S. plans were accelerated.

Commander Alan B. Shepard was sent into suborbital flight. Unlike the Russian venture, this took place in the white-hot glare of worldwide publicity. The Mercury capsule is right on course, as the commander took over the controls to become the first man to guide a spacecraft.

As the tension increasingly rose between the world's two dominant post-war powers, the space race went into high gear, with Kennedy promising in 1961 to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade. We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other thing.

Not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Of course the United States would spare no expense to hold off an attack from space by the USSR. What countermeasures were at their disposal? Could they not simply stage a moon landing as an elaborate form of propaganda against Russia, while emboldening U.S. morale?

High in the volcanic mountains of Arizona, a little piece of the moon was recreated on Earth. This field of craters seen from the air precisely matches a view of the Sea of Tranquility on the moon. It is common in the history of warfare to intimidate your foe by means of deception. For example, during World War II, the Allies placed inflatable tanks on the battlefield to make the enemy think they were confronting a more formidable foe.

One could say that the Apollo Bluff worked, as there never was a nuclear war. Yet no one has ever come forward and actually admitted to this deception long after the Cold War hostilities have ceased. I don't care what you say. I went to the moon and back, and everyone that's a scientist knows it.

Now, if you want to not believe it, it's okay, you know? It's okay. It's a better story. It just happens to be a lie, that's all.

I probably would have done with the other six there, because I'm just as stubborn as anybody else. I said, I don't need to prove to you that I went to the moon. I know I went. Well, I know for a fact you didn't walk on the moon.

That's fine. It's okay if you know it. Do you understand that? You can have any opinion you want.

That's what's wonderful about this country. You can believe anything you want. And it's okay with me, for sure. Right.

The most common question asked is how so many people could have been kept quiet about it. One wonders, too, why the astronauts would go along with such an elaborate hoax. To answer this question, we must all return to World War II Germany. Under Adolf Hitler's leadership, a Nazi war criminal named Wernher von Braun built thousands of V-2 rockets through slave labor that were launched against London.

Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department, says Wernher von Braun. some have harsh words for this man of renown but some think our attitude should be one of gratitude like the widows and cripples in old london town who owe their large pensions to werner von braun after the war the soviets and the americans divided up the rocket technology the americans brought home over 100 top nazi propulsion specialists including their leading rocket scientist, von Braun. Since most people wanted to come live in America, the Soviet Union was given most of the hardware, which, to a large degree, contributed to their victory with Sputnik. By 1961, Nazi rocket scientists such as von Braun such as von Braun, maintained a close relationship with President John F.

Kennedy as he moved to fulfill his promise to land Americans on the moon before the end of 1969. Yet today, NASA says it will be 2018 before we go back to the moon, despite having supposedly been there over 35 years ago. It is time for America to take the next steps. Today I announce a new plan to explore space and extend a human presence across our solar system.

We will begin the effort quickly using existing programs and personnel. We'll make steady progress, one mission, one voyage, one landing at a time. Our third goal is to return to the moon by 2020 as the launching point for missions beyond. Beginning no later than 2008, we will send a series of robotic missions to the lunar surface to research and prepare for future human exploration.

Using the crew exploration vehicle we will undertake extended human missions to the moon as early as 2015 with the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods of time. Would we ever consider it reasonable if there were a 40 year span between the first and second trips across the Atlantic Ocean? Why such a late date? In 1953, Von Braun wrote a book on how to get to the moon, titled Conquest of the Moon.

On page 14 of his book, he states, �It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility. It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth�s gravity, and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to Earth. Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three. Calculations have been carefully worked out on the type of vehicle we would need for the non-stop flight from the Earth to the Moon in return.

The figures speak for themselves. Each rocket ship would be taller than New York's Empire State Building, 1,250 feet, weigh about 10 times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons. The Apollo program's three-stage Saturn V was only 3,000 tons. The Saturn V was 266 times smaller than it had to be.

Von Braun was certain that the way to get to the Moon would first require that a space station be built, with the rocket parts being ferried there for final construction. Our first goal is to complete the International Space Station by 2010. by 2010 we will finish what we have started we will meet our obligations to our 15 international partners on this project we will focus our future research aboard the station on the long-term effects of space travel on human biology research on board the station and here on earth will help us better understand and overcome the obstacles that limit exploration through these efforts we we will develop the skills and techniques necessary to sustain further space exploration. The constructed vehicle would then launch from the Earth's orbit rather than its surface. The Saturn V used only three fuels, liquid oxygen and kerosene in the first stage and liquid oxygen and hydrogen in the upper stages.

No exotic new fuels were invented to bring down the fuel requirement. Also, the space shuttle has 30% less mass at liftoff than ended the Saturn V, yet has never attempted to travel beyond the 400-mile altitude. With Kennedy's promise, the space race was in full swing, yet it became apparent in the mid-60s that there was absolutely no way anything of the sort was going to happen. Following in Commander Shepard's star-studded footsteps came Captain Virgil Grissom.

Everything is A-OK until the heartbreaking finale. As the captain prepared to leave the capsule, explosive bolts on the escape hatch let go, and the Mercury is lost. However, the moon gets closer. The leading astronaut of the day, Gus Grissom, was slated to be the first man to walk on the moon.

He was an outspoken man with the highest level of integrity. There was no way he would lie for anyone. He was also an outspoken critic of the dilapidated state of the moon program. Just before he died, he hung a lemon on the capsule, and held a press conference in which he pointed out the sad state of the program.

On the morning he died, upon having difficulty communicating from the capsule, he angrily asked, In 1967, during a plugs-out test in which no engines were even ignited, they had him in a sealed capsule and pressurized it with 100% pure oxygen. A fire erupted, and all three astronauts perished. After this grisly incident, no other astronaut dared to criticize the program. And after all these years of lying and making their livings off the fame, none chooses to wreck this acclaimed success for the others by telling the truth.

There is strong reason to doubt the fire was accidental. Page 81 of the Apollo 1 Accident Investigation Report, issued by the U.S. Congress, reveals that prior to the fire, NASA, by their own admission, were very well aware of the respective fires at the Johnsville Navy Air Station and Brooks Air Force Base. The fires in question, as pointed out by author Ralph Rene, were a result of sparks and even static electricity igniting the pure oxygen environments.

In spite of these past fatalities, NASA used a 100% oxygen atmosphere in the Apollo 1 spacecraft, arguing that they had done it previously on the Gemini program. Of course they had. However, Gemini had a cabin pressure of only 3 pounds per square inch, the pure oxygen equivalent to the 14.7 pounds of nitrogen and oxygen at sea level. All previous aviation flash fires had been only slightly higher than Gemini's cabin pressure.

Apollo 1's cabin pressure was more than five times higher. NASA was aware of the dangers, but they went ahead and sealed three of their astronauts inside a highly volatile capsule that had already been packed full of combustible and highly toxic materials. most of which were untested and had not been given their seal of approval before they were installed. The technicians on Pad 34 needed at least five minutes to open the command capsule's door. The astronauts had a mere 15 seconds before the fire consumed their cabin.

Additionally, in 1999, when Grissom's son, Scott, was granted access to his father's spacecraft, he uncovered evidence that a metal plate had been shoved behind the dashboard to deliberately trigger a spark. Keep in mind that many of these scientists were war criminals imported from Hitler's Germany. One should not be surprised that such horrors could occur when one considers that these Nazis helped perpetuate the cruelest, most brutal atrocity that has ever taken place in the history of mankind. Also, the behavior of the astronauts upon their return to Earth is highly suspicious.

Armstrong, Collins, and Aldrin were made to sit and brief the press for nearly an hour and a half. At times, all three men exhibited a type of disinterest or absconding emotion, not to mention outright lying. The most obvious error was in an answer given by Collins. The astronauts were asked if they could see stars from the surface of the moon.

Armstrong answered, I don't recall. Then Collins, in an attempt to cover for Neil's mistake, and remembering his equal communal experience of sharing the capsule in Earth orbit for eight days with his crewmates splurted out. I don't remember seeing any. I have two brief questions I'd like to ask, if I may.

When you were carrying out that incredible moonwalk, did you find that the surface was equally firm anywhere, or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect? And secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars and the solar corona in spite of glare? The first part of your question, the surface did vary in its thickness of penetration. One must be quite cautious in moving around in this rough terrain.

We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the Sonar Curler what stars we could see. I don't remember seeing any. We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the moon by eye without looking through the optics.

I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the sonar curl or what stars we could see. I don't remember seeing any. Transcripts published later attributed his remark to Aldrin, who was supposed to have been there on the surface. This was done, no doubt, to throw off most who had only had an altered transcript and not a film copy of the entire press conference.

I doubt they'd be interested in seeing that they really are here. What about the moon rocks, the laser reflector discs, and the photographs of the astronauts on the moon? The Apollo samples are not rocks gathered during moonwalks. They are, in fact, meteorites that were specifically gathered on Earth by von Braun himself before the moon landing ever took place.

After Kennedy declared that we would land on the moon by the end of the decade, the race to the moon was in full force. So why would von Braun, who was supposed to be working feverishly on the Saturn V rocket, need to go to Antarctica? to Antarctica. In the May 1967 Popular Science article entitled A Spaceman's Look at Antarctica on page 114 to 116, von Braun states, it may well be smart to test lunar vehicles or surface drills in Antarctica before taking them to the moon. This was never done.

He did, however, meet up with the penguins. In reality, the real reason for the trip was to gather meteorites that could be passed off as moon rocks. Some meteorites that actually originated from the moon can be found on Earth, as they can be expelled from the moon during meteor crashes. After von Braun found them, the outer surfaces were probably blasted with an abrasive in a ceramics lab to hide the fact that they had fallen through the Earth's atmosphere.

After the conclusion of the Apollo missions, some Apollo astronauts made money by taking tourists down to Antarctica to gather meteorites. Due to the contrast with the landscape, meteorites are easier to spot there. But it's evidence the astronauts left behind, and not what they brought back, that may offer the clinching proof each successful moon mission set up a range of experiments more than 30 years after Apollo 11 one of them continues to operate the lunar laser Ranger there were two major experiments one was a series of corner reflectors to reflect laser beams from the earth sent to the moon that then because of the geometry of these corner reflectors would send the beam back in exactly the direction that it came from high up in the Davis mountain range the McDonald Observatory in Texas continues to gather information from the experiment in 33 years no no one has showed up no one has come in and talked to us Jerry Wyatt would welcome a visit from the conspiracy theorists since 1969 and his team has been firing a laser beam at the experiment an average of 240 times a year.

And, of course, at Apollo 11 site is where the United States placed its first lunar retro package. So we fire a laser at this spot and two others, three others on the moon. Now we've turned the laser on. In a few seconds, you'll see the splash.

The laser hits the reflector on the moon's surface and bounces back as a series of pulses invisible to the human eye. By measuring the time it takes for each laser pulse to return, scientists gather key information about the Earth's position in the solar system. That's not light coming from the moon. The splice you see is light coming from the end of our own telescope.

That's the first spot where a man walked on the moon. Our search for the truth has revealed the definitive answer. Maybe that's why conspiracy theorists have so little to say on this subject. The December 1966 issue of National Geographic explains why no such reflectors are needed to bounce signals off the moon.

This is detailed in The Laser's Bright Magic by Thomas Molloy. On page 876, he states, Four years ago, a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available shot a series of pulses at the moon, 240,000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than 2 miles in diameter and were reflected back to Earth with enough strength to be measured by ultra-sensitive electronic equipment. It should also be noted that many types of signals can be bounced off the moon, even without such reflectors.

In the 1950s, moon bounce was used to communicate around the curvature of the Earth. That is, if you were in the military and wanted to talk to someone in Hawaii from California, you would bounce your conversation off of the moon. The photographs also fail under critical analysis. There are flags waving in the wind, even though the moon exists in a vacuum, and astronauts that cannot jump more than 6 inches high on the first mission, when the gravity is only one-sixth that of Earth's.

But just the sheer perfection of the setups and appearances of the photos is enough to make you wonder whether they were shot in a studio. There is no fog on the film from immense temperature variation, no discoloration from radiation, no lightning streaks from micrometeoroids passing by. Other anomalies include photos that seem to be taken using artificial light. Apollo researcher David Percy traveled to Sweden to talk to Jan Lundberg, the man that managed the group in charge of supplying NASA with the advanced cameras used to take photographs on the Moon.

Hasselblad in Sweden was the NASA-appointed manufacturer of a camera capable of functioning on the lunar surface, And Jan Lundberg was the project engineer responsible for building the camera. Originally, NASA made all the alterations themselves. Then they presented what they had done to us and asked, Can you do this? And we said, Yes, we can.

And we can do it better. So what does Hasselblad have to say about this classic Aldrin picture? Does it look to Jan Lundberg as though the subject was lit? Yes, it seems like he's standing in the spotlight.

And I can't explain that. That escapes me. Why? So maybe you'll have to find Armstrong and ask him.

And how exactly did they pan the camera up to film the liftoff of the ascent module on Apollo 17? How do you think we took the pictures of the liftoff on Apollo 17 with a television camera? How do you think we missed him on Apollo 16, because of the time delay, by the time the guy sent the signal, it was gone and the camera couldn't track fast enough, so on 17 he sent the signal a second and a half or three quarters of a second earlier, so that the camera got the signal and we were... How do you think that happened?

I've got a book telling me I didn't go to the moon, that thick, okay? There's a book that went all, you can't see stars in the daytime and the shadows interomphal... I don't give a damn about all that. Remember too, while the thousands of NASA employees did help them achieve Earth orbit, beyond that, all information fed to the press and public was from the government and there was no independent reporting.

But is there a smoking gun? Yes there is. It has to do with the camera shots of the Earth. Although it is likely that the astronauts were on the Saturn V rocket when it took off, it seems that they stayed in low Earth orbit for the duration of their missions.

This provided them with the zero-gravity filming environment, which would be what one would expect on a trip to the moon. They may also have done dives in a KC-135 to get the zero-gravity shots. Yet there is one segment that clearly shows the behind-the-scenes chicanery that is going on. At one point, the crew says they are 130,000 miles out, or just halfway to the moon.

They say that they have the camera pointing toward the only window that is facing the earth. Yet you see something come between the camera and the earth. They are caught in a lie right there. Had the camera been in the window as they stated, then nothing should be coming between the camera and the Earth.

We should not see any light in the upper left corner of the screen either. Of course, whenever the Earth was clearly seen vanishing behind the window, the view of the Earth was always from a cutaway shot, in which no astronauts were present. In this circumstance, it was probably a globe on the outside of a mock command capsule in a studio environment. But in this other video, it is easy to see how a different method of trick photography was used.

They had placed a transparency over the window to make the window look like the Earth. You can actually see a corner of this transparency pulled away from the window when the lights come on. You can't quite make out who that is. It's Big Mike Collins there.

Well, you got a little bit of me putting nails in the center couch and Buzz is doing the camera work this time. Roger, it's a little dark now, Levin. Maybe a bigger head stop might help. This is, what is this, this is a shot from 130,000 miles out, I guess it's from approaching the moon looking back at the earth.

Now I've seen this on a couple of flights, was this something that you got, although this is from Apollo 11, did you shoot a shot of the earth like this? So you had a TV camera in the spacecraft. That's correct. And this is, I guess, the Earth zoomed in at a distance.

Yep, seems to be. I think it shot a little bit halfway to the moon. Now, it's kind of, I guess the cloud cover looks... It's what you're looking at.

Now, what is that right there? What is what? There's like an arm. It looks like hair on an arm getting in front of the window.

Maybe somebody got their arm in front of it. Now, I thought that was the arm of God moving across the Earth. I couldn't quite figure that out. I suspect that was the edge of the window, more than likely, that they were shooting at.

What did the Earth look like from a great distance? About like that. There it is again, 130,000 miles out. About like that.

So it was pretty small at the distance of the Moon? Yes, but I think the better images are the Hasselblad images that have been taken on every flight and are the most published pictures in the history of the world. What is that in the top left? If that's the Earth, is that like another spacecraft?

No, no, no, no. That, I have no idea what that is. It's some aberration on the film of some sort. Oh, those are shadows, I think.

Or reflections, probably reflections that are just reflecting. Run that back again so we get another shot of it. If you're going to press me on this, I'm not going to talk to you anymore because I won't pursue this. All of this attempt to say the Apollo programs were fake is just sheer nonsense. and you can talk till hell freezes over, and you're wrong.

Well, would you affirm... I won't continue on this line. Okay, turn off the camera. Your interview is done.

I've given you all the time I'm gonna give you. Okey-dokey. Good to meet you. I don't say it's a pleasure.

I understand. Please get your ass out of my house. Okay. And you came here under false presences, and I think you're an asshole.

Well... And if you continue this, and if you press this, I will personally take you to court. I hope that you do. I invite you to.

I'm going to give you my card so you can arrange that. And I'm encouraging you to arrange... You're frankly not worth it. No, no.

We have you on the record saying you'll take me to court. I hope you do. Because we have proof that we've proven in a court of law that Apollo 11 didn't go to the moon. And I think it's something that you should see it.

I don't say that lightly, believe me. I don't say it lightly. You hear me joking, sir? People can have fun and maybe do that if they feel like they want to have a little fun on a trip to the moon.

As an independent producer, doing that is against moral ethics. Lying about going to the moon is a satanic lie of gigantic proportions. I don't hit people, but you're going to be on the deck unless you get hit. Well, I'm heading out.

I'm going to get hit. And get the hell out of the black house. Don't get a gun to shoot them at them before they get out of the office. We have a video camera running if you want to do it.

All right. That would be great footage for us. See you later. In court, I hope.

Court of the CIA. Have them whacked. Someone prompting you on this thing. You believe in UFOs?

You believe we've been visited by a... Why do you want to believe this? I know for a fact we've had this analyzed. And this is the window.

And you're in a state that's trying to time a clock at the Goldstone tracking station. What does it take? Well, you're talking to the wrong guy. Why don't we talk to the administrator at NASA?

We're passengers. We're guys going on a flight. I know for a fact that you didn't. You really like to date me, don't you?

You're the one who said you walked on the moon when you didn't. Calling the kettle black, if you ever thought of saying I misrepresented myself. Will you get away from me? You're a coward and a liar and a thief.

Buzz Aldrin's violent reaction is not surprising, considering the hundreds of thousands of dollars he has made by defrauding people, selling his personal memorabilia. According to the winter 2008 issue of Heritage Magazine, in September of 2007, Aldrin sold the following items, which he claimed were flown to the moon. A medallion for $15,535, a silver dollar for $31,070, a chart for $71,700, and a handwritten note for $179,250. Not all of the Apollo astronauts profiteer off this lie, but Aldrin is certainly the worst offender.

Mr. Armstrong, Bart Sebril, ABC Digital. Wanted to give you the opportunity to swear in the Bible that you walked on the moon. Will you put your left hand on the Bible and swear to God that you walked on the moon?

Gentlemen. Mr. Sebril. Yes?

If you really walked on the moon, why would you not do that? So why don't you just put the end to the record in the argument argument, and put your hand on the Bible, swear to God you walked on the moon. Mr. Seibel, knowing you, that's probably a fake Bible.

Really? Well, no, it's a real Bible. You have the opportunity to have $5,000. The meeting is not open.

Well, you have $5,000 cash. You can give it to charity if you swear on the Bible that you walked on the moon. Please give it to charity. I have a tape.

It'd be fine. Why don't you swear to... Why not? Why won't you do it?

So why don't you put your hand on the Bible and swear to God that you walked on the moon? Mr. Seibel has made a fool of himself in front of the world. Mr.

Seibel, you do not deserve answers. The difficulties one would encounter while trying to land a man on the moon and return safely to Earth are truly astounding. The moon has a harsh environment, with the surface temperature ranging from minus 170 degrees Fahrenheit in the shadows to 250 degrees Fahrenheit in the sunlight. It is also a vacuum.

To think that man made it there and back a third of a century ago is quite a stretch. This should be apparent when one looks at how this space shuttle has fared going only one six hundredth the distance that Apollo claims to have gone. After three men died in the capsule during the simulation in 1967, it was just two years later that men were walking around on the moon. This is less time than it took to launch the space shuttle again after its burn-up on re-entry in 2003.

To win the X Prize, a private company had to fly a light craft to an altitude of 62 miles. This is just under the distance that the Ascent Module had to fly to reach the Command Module from the surface of the Moon. Yet the winner of the X Prize on Earth had to have their vehicle hauled up by another vehicle and then fire its engines to get to the 62 mile mark. This should give you an idea of how difficult it is to just go 62 miles high even with today's technology.

Then, add to the fact that the ascent module, with its very low mass fraction, would have had to accelerate to over Mach 6 to dock with the command module, and the fictional nature of the event becomes self-evident. It is just outright unscientific and pathological to accept the moon landing claim, given the total lack of confirmation and inability to duplicate anything that even slightly approaches the alleged events of 1969. Of course, by far the greatest mystery in all this is why the scientific community continues to fall for all this and accept it unquestioningly. Is science just another religion that has its sacred cows?

If you want to stay in the club, must you defend the beloved cow, no matter how badly it stinks? Since nearly all of academia is dependent on funding from the federal government, any scientist brave enough to speak the truth would be committing career suicide. Scientists realize this, and therefore will not let their minds examine this objectively for even a moment. They all just prefer to run with the herd.

As victims of cognitive dissonance, so-called scientists argue in support of the moon landings out of reflex. If one examines a timeline of aviation and space travel milestones, this contradiction of logic becomes apparent. Consider Kitty Hawk in 1903, Lindbergh crossing the Atlantic in 1927, Sputnik, in 1957, threw the space shuttle in the latter part of the 20th century. These were all within 400 miles of Earth, yet the alleged moon landings of the late 60s purportedly took astronauts 240,000 miles away from the Earth.

The Apollo missions, therefore, stick out as a fantastic statistical anomaly, and without any other similar events to confirm or duplicate the hypothesized event, one-third of a century since the scientific method requires that they be discarded. This being the case, no one that believes the moon landing claims should be allowed to call themselves a scientist. The Cold War provided the perfect motivation for the deception. Under the specter of a nuclear threat from the Soviets, and in the shadow of the Bay of Pigs invasion, it is easy to imagine those involved believing that it was their patriotic duty to help bluff the Soviets into thinking we had military superiority.

It apparently worked. A nuclear war was never fought, so we are certainly in no position to second-guess the military strategy that the government employed. With the space race officially ending with this achievement, Nixon was quick to seize the spotlight by becoming the first U.S. president to visit Moscow. Cooperation for joint space missions quickly became the topic of discussion between the leaders, ushering in détente and easing of tensions between the two superpowers.

As you're probably well aware, we are still working on other programs, Skylab being the prime effort starting in the spring of next year. We're also working on the cooperative mission with the Russians, which will take place in 1975. And, of course, we've got quite a few of the flight control team as well as other center elements involved in the work on the shuttle. So it's the start of a new era, I hope.

It is easy to see why the government would want to perpetuate such a myth, even after the military objectives were achieved. The alleged accomplishment is a source of national pride, and no one wants to be the one to remove this source of pride. It would also not come as a surprise to find out that in upper levels of certain agencies, the moon landing hoax is actually somewhat of an inside joke, and that within these institutions, those that have attained a certain level are entrusted with this secret information. Considering the difficulties attended in such a trip, one thing is for sure.

When the first person actually arrives on the moon someday, they will have bought themselves a one-way ticket. An exploratory voyage of this magnitude does not lend itself so easily to a return.