The Moon Landing Didn’t Happen – Here’s How & Why

The United States takes an immense amount of pride in allegedly being the only nation to ever send any of its citizens to the Moon, or quite frankly, any celestial body besides the Earth. This is the culminating and crowning achievement for former U.S. President John F. Kennedy’s(JFK) Space Race commitment to the U.N. he made while president, promising the world that the U.S. would send a man to the moon before the end of the 1960s. In 1969, the U.S. announced to the world that its three famous astronauts, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins, had landed on the moon, the first ones to have ever done so. But did they really do so? Could they, or quite frankly anybody, make the gargantuan trip, especially roundtrip? This essay will answer those questions and conclude with the important implications for civilization

Just like he must be immensely thanked and credited for his work to expose the truth about the September 11th, 2001 attacks a.k.a. 9/11 and the problems with the official narrative surrounding 9/11, filmmaker Massimo Mazzucco produces a fantastic and comprehensive documentary called “American Moon”, that explains how and why the moon landing didn’t, and couldn’t, have happened. His work will be credited and referred to for the remainder of this essay.

Astronauts Suspicious Behavior

Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Mike Collins were the astronauts for the Apollo 11 mission, the mission that allegedly sent the first men ever to walk on the moon. Suspiciously, none of the Apollo 11 astronauts have ever agreed to swear on the Bible that they did indeed walk on the moon; Bart Sibrel, filmmaker of “Astronauts Gone Wild”, offered all three of them a chance to do so, and all of them refused. Why would they refuse, if they truly did achieve what is arguably the biggest achievement in human history; setting foot on another celestial body, and being the first to ever do so? When Sibrel approached Collins to swear on the bible, Collins walks away from Sibrel as if Sibrel was the Grim Reaper. Even after Sibrel offered to pay Armstrong $5,000 to which he could have donated to charity if he swore on the Bible, Armstrong still declined. Aldrin even punched Sibrel’s face when Sibrel accused of him of being a coward for refusing to swear on the Bible. If they truly did go, it should be very easy and warrant no hesitation to swear on the Bible to have done so. In addition to refusing to swear on the Bible, none of the three astronauts have ever made more trips to the moon. Why would that be – it would stand to reason that anybody who went to the moon once would have the desire, even the eagerness, to go again. Even in the press conference given by the three astronauts after returning to Earth, they all had a very tense and uncomfortable demeanor, rather than a proud, triumphant demeanor one would expect if they truly did land on the moon, similar to how the winning team of the Super Bowl would behave. As Mazzucco shows, Armstrong’s answers to questions seem more like he was reading a script rather than believing what he said. Arguably the strangest moment of the press conference is the fact that none of the astronauts recalled seeing any stars while on the moon, when asked by astronomer Patrick Moore. How could they not see any stars while on the moon – nobody has ever answered this. Most bizarrely, Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins all retired from the National Aeronautics & Space Administration(NASA) a year after their alleged moon landing, which again nobody has been able to explain. Armstrong went back into private life, and has since avoided the spotlight, as have Aldrin and Collins. In fact, Armstrong never ever did a single on-camera interview after the alleged moon landing. Before he died, the only two appearances Armstrong ever made after 1970 were an event at the White House in 1994 as well as a keynote speech for a technology company, that’s it. Why was Armstrong, a man who allegedly had an extraordinary amount of courage to make the arduous trip to the moon and back, so shy and afraid? Furthermore, Aldrin went into a state of deep depression and became an alcoholic soon after returning to Earth. As Mazzucco shows, in one of Aldrin’s interviews, the famous astronaut warns people who desire to pursue the aerospace field about possible disappointment and expectations not being met; why this is has not been explained, suspiciously. Perhaps most shockingly, Armstrong has never attended any of the commemorative anniversaries of the moon landing, neither the 10-year nor 40-year anniversary. Nobody, including Armstrong himself, has ever explained why he has declined to attend any of the moon landing anniversaries, at least not satisfactorily.

Why Has No Other Country Still Not Figured Out How to Go?

Over 50 years after the U.S. successfully figured out how to send people to the moon, why have no other countries learned how to do so? Yes, going to the moon is immensely difficult, actually impossible, and requires very heavy expenses and investment in particular resources, but it doesn’t make sense that no other country would have figured out, especially by this point, how to do so. Even though the U.S. was the first to invent cars, airplanes, computers, and cell phones, several other countries have since learned to manufacture and build those technologies. Surely, other countries would’ve figured out how to go to the moon after learning from the example set by the U.S., unless of course the U.S. didn’t actually go, and therefore set no example for the rest of the world to follow. Even the U.S., the only country to ever learn how to go to the moon, has not sent any people there since 1972, nearly 50 years later, why? This question has also not been satisfactorily answered. As Mazzucco explains, the Russians, during the space race of the 1960s, casted serious doubts about the ability of the U.S. to make the trip to the moon. One of the biggest concerns by the Russians is how to make the return trip, not knowing how to refuel, if necessary, on the moon, in order to make the return trip. I’m convinced the Russians don’t believe the U.S. ever went to the moon and that the Russians themselves have no genuine desire to send any of their citizens to the moon. Many might ask, why wouldn’t the Russians, the major enemy of the U.S. at the time, ridicule the U.S. for their faked moon landing? As Mazzucco explains, the global public would have ridiculed the Russians and would have thought of them as sore losers for losing the space race. Furthermore, at the time of the landing, then U.S. President Richard Nixon was easing tensions and relations between U.S. and Russia at the time; also, amicable press conferences between U.S. and Russian astronauts were being held. Additionally, the Russians conceivably were quite happy to see the U.S., their Cold War adversary, waste precious resources on the unproductive mission to the moon. Hard to blame the Russians for that.

Cosmic Radiation: Why We Couldn’t Have Gone

It is imperative to understand that the sun, the center of the milky way galaxy and by far it’s largest celestial body, constantly emits an immeasurable amount of dangerous cosmic radiation. What protects the Earth from the sun’s cosmic radiation are the Van Allen Belts, named for the scientist who discovered them, James Van Allen. The Van Allen Belts surround the Earth, trapping the cosmic radiation from the sun, so that the radiation doesn’t strike the Earth, as one of the phenomena that enable life on Earth to exist. The Van Allen Belts also enable low-Earth orbit, such as that by the numerous satellites in space, like the International Space Station. In order to reach the moon, you must go past the Van Allen Belts, and then traverse at least an additional thousands of miles before reaching the moon. Once you go past the Van Allen Belts, the spaceship, astronauts, and equipment such as video cameras, all become exposed and vulnerable to the sun’s destructive cosmic radiation. It is border-line impossible to protect the ship from the sun’s cosmic radiation after going beyond the Van Allen belts; certainly the spaceships used for all the moon landings were not designed to withstand that kind of heavy radiation. To protect the spaceship, and the astronauts and equipment inside, the spaceship would need to be covered by something like a lead-coating shield; doing this, however, would make the spaceship far too heavy to get off the ground, let alone all the way to the moon. Suspiciously, up until 1968, NASA, and the scientific community at large, sincerely believed in the radiation dangers, such as those pointed out by James Van Allen. However, from 1968 to 1972, those concerns seemed to have taken a hiatus. Since 1972, including up to today’s times, NASA does raise serious concerns about cosmic radiation, especially at the level beyond the Van Allen Belts – Mazzucco points these unexplained discrepancies and inconsistencies out in “American Moon”. Today, NASA goes as far as to say that it can’t get people to the moon without effectively solving the radiation obstacles. Even astronaut Alan Bean, one of the astronauts after the Apollo 11 mission who also allegedly went to the moon, says he wasn’t sure his mission went as far as the Van Allen Belts when asked about it by Sibrel. Bean also admitted his lack of knowledge of the Van Allen Belts.

Critical Data Missing

At this point, one might ask, well why don’t we just check the original NASA tapes which contain the original films of Neil Armstrong’s footsteps on the moon and the telemetric data? This would lay all doubts to rest that the astronauts did land on the moon, as the telemetric data would reveal the astronauts’ exact location in space, and on the moon, at the time of the mission. However, this critical data has been removed from NASA’s archives. Therefore, the public can never access the one and only record of telemetric data indicating, and potentially proving, the moon landing as true, in order to lay all doubts to rest; how inconvenient. Another piece of essential data that isn’t available is the original structural and design blueprints for the Lunar Excursion Model(LEM), the spaceship used for the Apollo 11 mission; these blueprints have been destroyed. As Mazzucco explains, Grumman, the company that originally made the LEM designs, got rid of the original design documents; the reason given is that the design documents took up too much space to store. Therefore, no independent researcher will have the opportunity to examine the original plans, to verify one way or the other if the LEM was structurally capable of going to the moon, and then returning to Earth. It really is too bad, as many museums would probably kill to have the designs for the first-ever spaceship to physically take a human being to another celestial body. Furthermore, this would end all debates and potentially lay to rest all doubts that the LEM was indeed structurally capable of carrying out the Apollo 11 mission.

LEM Design Flaws

Many suspect the LEM to only be a mock-up model on a movie set, which is what it appears to be. It looks to even be held up and put together with Scotch tape. With temperatures that can reach up to 200 degrees Fahrenheit on the moon, it is illogical, and even dangerous, to put together the LEM with Scotch tape, which can easily melt and disintegrate in such high temperatures that can be reached on the moon. Furthermore, the engine was covered with aluminum foil, and the panels in some areas don’t line up properly. Additionally, no crater under the LEM in its landing spot is visible in the photos. This is especially bizarre considering the moon’s surface is powdery and sandy, as confirmed by astronauts Neil Armstrong and Alan Shepard. Furthermore, no dust is on the landing pads of the LEM, which is also bizarre. Many believers of the moon landing explain the absence of dust because of the strength of the engine blowing the dust away; the only problem is that the engine was also not strong enough to produce a crater. The LEM engine also produces no flame and makes no noise on its take-off from the moon, which doesn’t make sense from a physics standpoint.

Audio, Photos, and Video Faked

As Mazzucco explains, the radio communication between NASA’s station in Houston, TX and the moon require at least 2.6 seconds to receive and hear a response. Given the immense distance between the Earth and moon, it takes 1.3 seconds to send the message, and then 1.3 seconds to receive the responding message. To emphasize, 2.6 seconds is the MINIMUM amount of time needed to receive a response from the moon. As such, in the original radio recordings released, it takes only about 1 second for NASA’s station in Houston, TX to receive a response from the moon; this is impossible if the astronauts were truly on the moon. While those recordings were later edited and altered to FABRICATE the delayed response, the fact remains, that the original radio communication lacked the delay that would certainly occur if the astronauts were in fact on the moon. The original recording of the radio communication lacks the critical delay, and is in fact so quick that it’s almost as if the astronauts were in the room next door, rather than on a different celestial body.

The photos of the moon landing released by NASA are also quite problematic. For one, the cameras and equipment had to endure immeasurable amounts of extreme cosmic radiation, especially after going through the Van Allen Belts. This should have produced some visible damage to the quality of the pictures, but no such damage to the image quality is visible. Furthermore, the extreme temperatures on the moon, highs of 200 degrees Fahrenheit, and lows of negative 200 degrees Fahrenheit, would also have compromised the quality of the photographed images, as well as the camera too. However, no such visible damage is present on either the camera or the photos of the moon landing released by NASA. Mazzucco confirms this by bringing this point up to professional photographers, like Toni Thombert and Peter Lindbergh. Mazzucco himself is also a trained photographer. As the professional photographers also point out, the shadows of the objects in the photographs are not parallel, which shouldn’t be the case if the sun was in fact the light source, as NASA states. When photographed on a horizontal axis, a photo in sunlight would show all shadows throughout the picture, for all objects and people in the picture, to be parallel. If all the shadows in the picture are not parallel, that means the source of light couldn’t be far away, like the sun; the photos presented by NASA have non-parallel shadows. The shadows by the rocks, astronauts, flag, and spaceship are not parallel, which means, as the professional photographers explain, the sun couldn’t have been the light source. While the professional photographers don’t go as far as claiming that the moon landing was faked, they do confirm that the photos given by NASA cannot possibly be ones taken on the moon. Lastly, in the images where the LEM is facing the sun, the backside of the LEM is not shady, but is actually relatively bright; this cannot be, unless, as the professional photographers explain, a reflective mirror was placed in the scene. NASA has never confirmed that reflective mirrors were taken on the trip to the moon. While many on the other side of this debate state that the lunar terrain reflected light, this cannot be possible; if it were, then the shadows of the moon rocks in the various photos should also not exist, but they do.

The video recordings also don’t make sense. For one, the antenna signal to and from the Earth to capture and enable video recording of the astronauts on the moon is extremely sensitive. Even the smallest oscillation of the video camera on the moon would cause the feed to be disrupted, or even cut. However, the vibrations from the video recordings. caused by the astronauts shaking the rover, the wheeled platform carrying the video camera, don’t disrupt the video feed at all. Additionally, in the released videos, the astronauts appear to be held up by pulleys, similar to actors in Hollywood studios when filming scenes of lower gravity, levitation, and flight. The wires used to hold up the astronauts to the pulleys, are extremely thin, making them invisible in the videos. However, as Mazzucco points out, the wires sometimes flash on screen in the videos released by NASA, proving their existence and usage in the videos. Then there is the issue of the lunar dust. Due to the moon’s lack of atmosphere, the lunar dust should not stick to any surface. However, the astronauts’ suits, as well as the cameras, both become dusty. In the video recordings, the astronauts even talk about their suits and camera lenses becoming dusty, which can’t happen on the moon because of it’s lack of atmosphere.

Lastly, in the last 20 minutes of Sibrel’s film “A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon”, he shows unedited and raw video tapes of the Apollo 11 mission faking the viewing of the Earth while halfway to the moon. This video was accidentally sent by NASA when requested.

Evidence of the Moon Landing Refuted

Of course, most people do believe the moon landing truly happened. Wikipedia has a whole section about it here. Mythbusters, a popular TV show on the Discovery Channel, has also tried to refute the arguments stating the fabrication of the moon landing. Let’s start with the retroreflectors. According to Mythbusters, the retroreflectors left behind on the moon by the Apollo 11 astronauts enables Earthlings to shoot a laser to the moon, to then be reflected back to Earth. When Mythbusters shot a laser to a moon, they did indeed receive a reflection. However, as Mazzucco points out, this experiment was done and confirmed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT), who shot a laser to the moon in 1962, several years before the first successful mission to the moon, and also received a reflection. Therefore, no man-made retroreflectors were needed in order to receive a reflected laser when shot at the moon, as the MIT experiment proves.

Another aspect Mythbusters tries to refute is the waving movement of the flag observed in the videos on a moon without an atmosphere. Mythbusters simulates the situation by placing a flag in a vacuum chamber. They physically jerk the flag and observe the flag waving, even while in the vacuum chamber. Mythbusters celebrates this observation, but a moment later, states that AS LONG AS THE ASTRONAUT TOUCHES THE FLAG, the flag can wave, even without an atmosphere. In the video recordings by NASA, as Mazzucco shows, the flag does sometimes wave without being touched by any astronauts, invalidating Mythbusters experiment.

Another fact discording with the lack of moisture on the moon are the footprints left by astronauts on the moon, herein referred to as lunar footprints. From the images and videos, the lunar footprints form perfect solid shapes and are compact. This should not be the case in an environment truly void of atmosphere and moisture. Once again, Mythbusters tries to disprove this point. Mythbusters’ attempt involves making a footprint in a man-made vacuum chamber on moon dust provided by NASA. While a footprint is left on the dust used by Mythbusters, the footprint does not form the perfect solid shapes as the lunar footprints. Furthermore, any touch, such as by fingers, on the footprint fabricated by Mythbusters would destroy the integrity of that footprint, which contrasts significantly with the lunar footprints.

Why Would the U.S. Government Lie to the World?

This is literally perhaps the trillion dollar question. For one, JFK made a commitment to the world that had to be fulfilled, one way or the other. Even though JFK, through conversations with then NASA-head James Webb, show that the possibility of fulfilling the commitment by the end of the 1960s was pretty much impossible, it had to be done, announced, and certified to the world. To add further suspicion, Webb retired months before the Apollo 11 mission; why he retired before the culmination of his career’s biggest achievement is a mystery that still remains unsolved. Additionally, U.S. citizens had become so enamored with propaganda, through newspapers, TV, and films, that the U.S., the country of distinguished exceptionalism, would for sure be the first to send people to the moon. If the U.S. Government failed to take anybody to the moon, it would have lost credibility, not just with its own citizens, but with the whole world too. The failure would also show the incompetence and lack of dominance by the U.S. in the fields of science and aeronautics, which was deemed to be unacceptable, even at the cost of truth and integrity. Perhaps most importantly, the U.S. government has told big lies, both before and after the moon landing, and have gotten away with those lies, as most people believe the lies told to them by government. Most people have proven to be rather gullible when told lies by the government. Why do most people continue to believe the lies and falsehoods told to them regarding 9/11, The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, JFK, Osama Bin Laden’s death, and the narrative that Saddam Hussein had many weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; this is just naming some of the lies, not all. It seems like most people hardly ever learn the truth, especially to the point where they stop believing the lies told to them by their own government.

Why This Matters

Christopher Columbus’ discovery of the Americas in the late 15th century is considered one of the biggest achievements among all recorded explorations. In the United States, a holiday, called Columbus Day, is dedicated to his achievements and discoveries of what was regarded at the time as the New World. U.S. culture, and many other cultures too, acknowledge and celebrate major new discoveries and explorations. Shouldn’t then the first successful exploration of the moon, the only alleged exploration by mankind on any other celestial body, get similar, if not greater, recognition? Certainly a roundtrip voyage to the moon is far more arduous than Columbus’ expedition, even when considering the circumstances of Columbus’ time. Why then does the U.S. not even have a holiday or any sort of public recognition of this gargantuan achievement? In addition to the lack of a holiday for the moon landing, there isn’t even culturally a moment of silence in schools or annual media headlines in recognition and/or commemoration of arguably the biggest discovery and achievement by any human being – landing on the moon. Does that really make any sense?

Another commonly held belief and talking point is that the government should interfere in the economy to fund and control space exploration. After all, as believed by many, in a true laissez-faire & free-market economy, the government would not have the ability to fund space exploration, and so space exploration would therefore never happen. Two major points need to be addressed regarding the previous sentence. First of all, even when government has funded and nearly monopolized the management of any space exploration, it hasn’t produced a true moon landing; as I’ve detailed and essayed above, all the U.S. government and NASA have produced are elaborately embellished lies and deceptions, despite all the immense taxpayer money that NASA received, and continues to receive today. Contrary to the idealistic vision presented by those who believe that an income tax is needed in civilization in order to enable space exploration, history has shown that turning over space exploration to the government, and also enabling financial waste through income tax collections, have not been productive for space exploration. Therefore, government should not, under any circumstance, fund space exploration, especially with taxes or bonds from the central bank. If no space exploration, especially to the moon and back, happens in the absence of government management and funding, then that means that space exploration, contrary to popular belief, is not a worthy venture or investment. If not enough people are voluntarily willing to fund and invest enough to enable space exploration, then that means space exploration is not the most worthy investment, as people would instead choose to use their funds for other ventures, ones deemed more worthy and productive than space exploration. Private funding is a more reliable indicator of worth, because private funders have skin in the game and much to lose from failure, unlike government, which doesn’t fund its missions with its own money, and therefore has none of its skin in the game or any of its own money to lose.

The final essential point that I want readers to take away is that this moon landing deception, among the numerous other deceptions promoted by the U.S. government, shows what lengths the U.S. government will go to lie to its people, as well as the people of other countries. It isn’t just prominent dictatorships, like those of North Korea, Cuba, and Russia, which lie to its people; even the so-called “free” and “democratic” countries like the U.S. tell egregious lies to the citizens. Especially for NASA, after promoting this gigantic lie of the moon landing, NASA is now promoting two other huge lies in modern-day civilization. The first of NASA’s other promoted lies is the theory of man-made global warming, which has since been rebranded to climate change. Global warming, and climate change, promote the false beliefs that carbon-dioxide emissions, especially those by mankind for energy consumption, either cause dangerously significant increases or changes to the the temperature and climate. In reality, global warming and climate change are political agendas backed up by very little legitimate science that are being used to both de-industrialization the world, especially the developed world, and impose intrusive controls on people’s livelihoods, ranging from whether people can heat their homes in the winter, drive gasoline-powered automobiles, or eat meat. Especially suspicious are the fact that all these politicians, like Barack Obama and Al Gore, who promote the fear porn associated with global warming and climate change, live luxuriously and have much bigger carbon footprints than the average U.S. family. Of course, NASA fails to alert the public about the dishonest nature of the global warming and climate change agendas being pushed onto the public. Additionally, NASA also participated in the 9/11 cover-up, by quarantining United Airlines Flight 93, the jet which allegedly crashed in Shanksville, PA, in the NASA Glenn Hangar in Cleveland, OH. All these lies and deceptions prove that the U.S. government, even the venerated and vaunted NASA, should not be trusted, especially with NASA’s announced mission to go the moon “again” in 2024.

When NASA “completes” the 2024 mission, we should all interrogate and press NASA on how they managed to pass through the Van Allen Belts, and then protect the mission from the fields of extreme radiation once beyond the Van Allen Belts. We, and NASA, should also make sure the spaceships, suits, and video cameras are all truly capable of withstanding all that extreme radiation, because if they aren’t, that’d indicate another faked moon landing mission. Especially if the astronauts themselves don’t give satisfactory answers on how they warded off all the sun’s radiation, that would be a major red flag on the veracity and credibility of the 2024 mission to the moon. Like Sibrel, we should require the astronauts on the 2024 mission to the moon to swear on the Bible that they did indeed walk on the moon; if the astronauts refuse, like all the Apollo 11 astronauts did, then that’s arguably the biggest red flag that would indicate that the 2024 mission to the moon is(or rather, will be) faked, just like its predecessors. We must implement the same scrutiny for the photos, videos, and audio that NASA will release regarding the 2024 missions. If those photos, videos, and audio have the same, or similar enough, problems and discrepancies as the first missions to the moon, nearly 50 years ago, then that would be yet another strong indication of another faked moon landing mission.

If the first moon landing missions from 1969-1972 could be convincingly faked, so can the 2024 mission to the moon. How much have people learned since getting fooled the first time? Only time shall tell.