With the anniversary of the passing of one of the most iconic figures in mankind’s space exploration program, it affords us an excuse to re-examine the short but history-making space mission we all know today as Apollo 11. Landmark events in human exploration and scientific discovery can often capture the human imagination to such a degree that certain aspects become enveloped in a cloud of mystery from which bizarre interpretations eventually emerge. Neil Armstrong’s July 1969 lunar voyage was no exception.

: The first human steps on the Moon undoubtedly became the story of the century, though some Apollo 11 myths question whether they were fact or fiction. (Image credit: Rufus330Ci via Wikipedia)

: The first human steps on the Moon undoubtedly became the story of the century, though some Apollo 11 myths question whether they were fact or fiction. (Image credit: Rufus330Ci via Wikipedia)


Since the Apollo 11 spacemen re-entered society after their lunar voyage, the quieter aftermath seems to have provided a fertile pool for the spawning of many myths concerning the space mission, ranging from the farcical to the speculatively ingenious. From across this spectrum let’s examine some of the more intriguing.

Did Neil Armstrong convert to Islam?

Firstly there was the Islamic conversion myth. Not long after the first moonwalk crew returned home did a story emerge that Neil Armstrong had become a Muslim. According to the myth, while in space both Aldrin and Armstrong had heard a voice which Armstrong later discovered had been chanting the ‘Adhan’ (the traditional Muslim call to prayer). The rumour goes that on finding out what the words were, Armstrong converted to Islam. Although the source of this myth is unclear the story found its way onto the pages of newspapers in Egypt, Indonesia, and Malaysia. So was there truth in the myth?



Well, we may find a clue in Armstrong’s response in the second part of the story. Over a period of time the first man on the Moon was then contacted by particular religious organisations, governments, and individuals inviting him to take part in Islamic activities. Although emphasising his desire not to offend anybody or disrespect any religion he advised the Department of State that the news of his Islamic conversion was inaccurate and that any individual(s) making further enquiries be politely but firmly told that he had not had a conversion experience nor was planning to participate in any religious activities overseas.  When Neil Armstrong continued to find himself the focus of some similar unwanted attentions, he felt it necessary to have a phone conference with members of the press in Cairo in which they heard him say that he was not a Muslim. To this day some are rumoured to believe that his public denials on the issue were only under extreme pressure from the US government.


Already an eventful journey: after seeing a luminous UFO from the Columbia spacecraft, Armstrong and Aldrin complete the remainder of their journey to the Moon in the Lunar Module Eagle. (Image credit: NASA)

Already an eventful journey: after seeing a luminous UFO from the Columbia spacecraft, Armstrong and Aldrin complete the remainder of their journey to the Moon in the Lunar Module Eagle. (Image credit: NASA)


Did Neil Armstrong and the Apollo 11 crew observe alien spacecraft?

As if humanity’s first landing trip to an extra-terrestrial object in the Solar System was not exciting enough, a myth latterly came to light that the Apollo 11 astronauts had witnessed some UFO’s in space. It was rumoured that at least one unidentified flying object, cylindrical in shape and matching the speed of the Columbia spacecraft, was observed by its crew during the Trans-lunar cruise, but disappeared before any photographs could be taken. To verify if it was possibly the upper section of the Saturn V launch rocket chasing them, the crew radioed Mission Control to try and establish the estimated distance between Columbia and their last nearest known manmade object in space. Houston’s reply confirmed to the crew that having been detached from it so long ago along the way, it would not be possible for them to see any part of the launch rocket at that point in time.  After flying parallel to the spacecraft for a few minutes this bright, flashing object eventually fell behind and Columbia completed the rest of its journey to the Moon void of escort. Although no-one will ever be able to say with a hundred percent certainty what the object briefly accompanying the flight of the spacemen was, the Apollo 11 crew came to the conclusion that the reflective, high-speed object was none other than a jettisoned panel of the Lunar Module’s housing container whose flight momentum had initially enabled it to keep pace with the spacecraft after separation. Their agreement on this point is based on their sure knowledge of the shape of an LM housing bay protection panel which the UFO was similar to.



Did Neil Armstrong have to take special fitness training?

A particularly bizarre myth that came into circulation was the ‘Exercise Fanatic’ myth. Somewhere along the line a rumour emerged that in terms of physical strength, Neil Armstrong would have initially fallen far short of what was required for the role of astronaut, had he not taken drastic action. According to the myth, as compensation, he put himself through long arduous hours at the gym which ultimately saw him cleared for going into space. The actual facts however were quite different. Although overall he lived out a fairly healthy lifestyle, Armstrong rarely exercised. His well-known philosophy on the theme was that he believed a man had only a certain number of heartbeats allocated to him in his lifetime. As a result, he had no intention of doing anything that would use them up faster.


Neil Legstrong: an astronaut doing overtime in the gym? (Image Credit: US Airforce via Wikimedia Commons)

Neil Legstrong: an astronaut doing overtime in the gym? (Image Credit: US Air Force via Wikimedia Commons)


Did a coke bottle roll past Neil Armstrong on the Moon?

As we know, food and liquids consumed by astronauts have to be specially prepared and packaged before being taken into the vacuous environment of space. So the suggestion that an everyday Coke bottle may have rolled passed the camera and was caught on film while Armstrong and Aldrin were out on the surface of the Moon, is simply too fantastic for words. Although common sense triggers a knee-jerk reaction to any notion that the Apollo 11 landing astronauts could have or would have smuggled a carbonated drink such as Coca-Cola to the Moon in such a ‘messy’ form, we should allow ourselves a moment to weigh up the real implication of this alleged sighting, that the lunar environment was faked, and the whole mission was a studio-based fabrication.


Twinkle twinkle little star: no Coke bottles lying around in this shot… but with an ‘empty’ sky, still a bit fake looking? (Image credit: Neil Armstrong/NASA)

Twinkle twinkle little star: no Coke bottles lying around in this shot… but with an ‘empty’ sky, still a bit fake looking? (Image credit: Neil Armstrong/NASA)


In so doing we acknowledge that from the varying shades of myth regarding mankind’s maiden Moonwalk, the greatest swell of speculations in fact centred on the notion that it never really took place. As this frontier-crossing American adventure had been played out so publically in the world arena via TV and clearly told the tale of a national success, any credence given to the ‘hoax’ notion would of course immediately have had huge implications.


NASA: Conspiracy Central? -Pictured here are NASA’s Kennedy Space Centre facilities, Florida. After the birth of the Apollo 11 myths, many conspiracy theorists would never look at the famous American agency the same way again. (image credit : NASA)

NASA: Conspiracy Central? -Pictured here are NASA’s Kennedy Space Centre facilities, Florida. After the birth of the Apollo 11 myths, many conspiracy theorists would never look at the famous American agency the same way again. (image credit : NASA)


Primarily that the most cohesive corporate conspiracy imaginable, had taken place in NASA along with at least the government’s knowledge, and more likely, at its instigation. Recognising therefore that the next few myths we will look at have ‘government conspiracy’ written all over them in giant letters and that your own outlook may drastically differ from such grandiose paranoid ideologies, let’s none-the-less look at the mechanics of them and see how well these myths stand up to scrutiny.

So on closer inspection of the Coke bottle conundrum, this Moon myth really does not fare well. The main reason being that although the offending article in the Apollo 11 Moonwalk footage, allegedly observed by an Una Ronald from Australia, was so obviously incongruous with its lunar surroundings, none of the other millions of observers around the world watching the same NASA-relayed footage in 1969, managed to spot it. That of course slightly undermines the entire myth. So perhaps the real question we should ask ourselves is, just how did some Apollo 11 hoax myths with so little real substance to them, such as this one, ever manage to gain such a high profile in the first place?


Are the stars missing from Armstrong’s photographs

Another well-known myth from the canon of Apollo 11 hoax theories is the ‘Absent Stars’ myth. As with a growing number of more sophisticated hoax myths to become associated with Armstrong’s lunar mission, it sought the more solid ground of better conceived scientific objections to the lunar environment captured on camera in 1969. In the case of this myth, sceptics claimed they had found visual proof of the LM landing site being a mere studio set in the unrealistic absence of stars pictured in the dark sky above the surface of the Moon. However this is a good example of a myth where ‘real science’ actually undermines its main principle. Although a clear night on Earth is generally associated with a black sky and the visual presence of stars, we know that light from our nearest star, the Sun, overwhelms and drowns-out all other comparatively dimmer light sources in space. The myth-makers in this story forgot that any photographs and videos showing the astronauts, their experiments, and the Eagle on the surface of the Moon could only be seen because they were filmed during the day, with the aid of sunlight. Once again, as on Earth, the bright glare from the Sun and its reflection off the lunar terrain hid the other stars in the blackness from view.


Is the Hubble Space Telescope forbidden from looking at the Apollo 11 landing site?

With escalating public controversy surrounding the numerous Apollo 11 hoax myths, one unanimous request eventually came to the fore. Namely that NASA employ the telescopic power of the Hubble Space Telescope to provide bird’s-eye-view photographic evidence of the Eagle, equipment, and lunar operations site, as was left on lunar soil in 1969. To date however, the Hubble Telescope has never been pointed at the Moon for such a purpose and in turn, NASA’s refusal to do so has been branded by some conspiracy theorists as ‘the Hubble cover-up’.

Camera shy? - The Hubble Space Telescope: at one time the centre of lunar hoax ‘cover-up’ myth. (Image credit: NASA/Crew of STS-125)

Camera shy? – The Hubble Space Telescope: at one time the centre of lunar hoax ‘cover-up’ myth. (Image credit: NASA/Crew of STS-125)


Speaking specifically on the subject NASA have said that as powerful as the optics of the Hubble Space Telescope may be, the instrument would be utterly incapable of distinguishing these objects because some of the Moon’s comparatively larger natural features are in themselves already on too small a scale to be seen. Any attempt to look for the Apollo 11 landing site with the Hubble telescope they explained would therefore be pointless. Well we’ve all heard it said “time will tell”, and in the case of this myth nothing could be truer. Just as NASA, the owners of the Hubble Space Telescope ought to be able to vouch for its optical power better than most armchair experts, they ought also to be able to do so for the rest of their fleet of space satellites. Recently their estimations were again proved correct as photos taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the Apollo 11 landing site have indeed verified vehicle tracks on the Moon, the stationary lander module, and the remains of Armstrong and Aldrin’s boot prints left over 40 years ago.


Convincing proof 43 years on? - Features of the Apollo 11 landing site caught on camera by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, March 2012 (where PSEP is a Passive Seismic Experiment Package and LRRR is the Laser Ranging Retroreflector). (Image Credit: NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University)

Convincing proof more than forty years on? – Features of the Apollo 11 landing site caught on camera by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, March 2012 (where PSEP is a Passive Seismic Experiment Package and LRRR is the Laser Ranging Retroreflector). (Image Credit: NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University)


Looking back, perhaps one of the biggest mysteries of all is that in the midst of such a wealth of photographic, video, and human evidence that Apollo 11 really happened, some still find it possible to accept the hoax myths instead. Moreover, the idea that the remaining Apollo astronauts could have delivered such convincing performances in countless interviews or could have lived with themselves for all these years after lying so publically to the world – will probably remain too much for many of us to believe.

The Apollo 11 crew: life-long collaborators in a government-led hoax? Left to right: Michael Collins; the then US President - George W.Bush; Neil Armstrong; ‘Buzz’ Aldrin. (image credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls)

The Apollo 11 crew: life-long collaborators in a government-led hoax? Left to right: Michael Collins; the then US President – George W.Bush; Neil Armstrong; Buzz Aldrin. (image credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls)


Others may take the view that although entertaining, and a historic part of the rich space exploration tapestry, the myths are of little consequence, as Armstrong himself explained:

“People love conspiracy theories. I mean, they are very attractive. But it was never a concern to me, because I know that one day, somebody’s going to go and fly back up there, and pick up that camera that I left.”

(Article by Nick Parke, Education Support Officer)



pikachu chu · December 4, 2019 at 07:05

Thank you for sharing this useful article information. I am really impressed with the article you provided.

Robert europ · December 27, 2018 at 17:39

Myth: From boyhood, Neil Armstrong, an avid reader of Jules Verne and other science fiction writers, set his sights on space travel and even told one of his elementary school teachers that someday he would fly to the moon. None of this is true. “That’s all fiction. All my aspirations in those days related to aircraft. Space flight would have been an unrealistic ambition,” Armstrong said. As for science fiction, Neil did not begin to read any until he got to college.

Happy New Year!

    DDM · December 29, 2018 at 16:22

    Yeah, the other myth I hate is the one that says when Neil got to the moon, he said “Thank you Mrs. Johnson (or whatever name is used)”. Someone asked him why he said that and he said because one night when he was a kid, he heard his neighbor’s wife tell his neighbor “I’ll give you a blow job when that kid next door (Neil) lands on the moon”.

David Broad · November 5, 2018 at 23:13

To be frank I am 50 50 on the sujbject as to whether they got there or not . However one thing I do know is that they are all as bad as each other . A lot of what the conspiracy theorists come up with is wrong . However those for and involved in Apollo I think need to accept that why they did what they did with what they had is bound to cause some people to wonder . I am no expert but it is common knowledge that the equipment was pretty dangerous . Craft built around the engines . Main priority was getting the weight down . They admit that they would not use it now . Add to the fact that it was political , a game of beat the Russians . Also as much as some of the conspricay claimes are wrong non of Nassas counter claims really prove anything .

pedro · June 26, 2018 at 03:17


empire rising · March 9, 2018 at 21:52

Of course, before trying heading to that ball, you must read about the
equipment and tools you will want inside the game.

)”If it just weren’t for bad luck in trading, I would haven’t any Luck at all. If you might be on the IT industry, an aspiring programmer that’s, you’ll want to make sure that you don’t stay stagnant.

Michael Martin-Smith · September 23, 2016 at 11:45

The Apollo landers have been clearly photographed by Japanese, Chinese and Indian lunar missions over the past few years, none of whose owners had any reason to endorse a conspiracy theory.
In the same week as Apollo 11, the USSR had a spectacular failure of a robotic lander,which was clearly an attempt to upstage Apollo. probably by returning a sample at lower cost and risk than Apollo. The Laws of human nature are at least as predictable as the laws of physics. If the USA had faked the mission, the USSR’s extensive space monitoring and intelligence assets would have been fully aware, and would have cried foul! So, today would the Chinese if their Chang’e missions had not found the landers as expected

The ASLEP range finders had to be planted and accurately pointed and initialised by human hand. They had to be planted at some distance from the landers to avoid disturbance or contamination on lift-off. Robots at the time could not have accomplished this feat No conspiracy theorists has yet accepted an invitation to visit the facilities on Earth where accurate ranging data from the Moon has been returned, at the speed of light, ever since, and confirms the slow increase in distance between Earth and Moon precisely in line with gravitational theory. Faced with the ASLEP measurements conspiracy theorist politely- or not- change the subject.

Thirdly, the Giant Impact theory resulted from the 380 kilos of samples brought back by astronauts from the Moon, as well as the much smaller samples from the USSR. In 2012, the fractionation of Zinc isotopes due to the Ginat Impact was predicted but not found until Apollo samples were studied with far more capable equipment applied to the carefully curated samples.

We can conclude that with absolute assurance that this recent work has answered the principal objections to the Giant Impact Theory after 40 years, and, as an unintentional but inevitable by-product,it has proved that astronauts walked and work of the Moon. There is no imaginable way in which data proving a giant impact on the Moon could be faked without a giant impact on the Moon
Apollo not only happened, but fulfilled its scientific objectives on time and within budget.

Still, at least the Moon landing hoax theories are not actually harmful, unlike more pernicious ones currently popular in the Middle East and certain PC circles. Those could indeed cost us the Earth!

This Is My Display Name · September 21, 2016 at 19:39

Why is Buzz’s name in quotes in the photo with George W. Bush?

It’s not a nickname now or at the time of the photo; he legally dropped the “Edwin” in the late 80’s.

His name is Buzz. Insinuating that it’s not by using quotes that you didn’t give anyone else (it’s Neil Armstrong, not “Neil” Armstrong) is flat out disrespectful.

    admin · September 22, 2016 at 09:30

    Dear Display Name, thank you for your comment. You are correct and the caption will be changed.

Biggie · July 11, 2016 at 10:33

Hi Admin.
Personally am convinced that A11 never landed on the moon, in as much as the attempt was made am sure Armstrong and his crew found out after getting into space that they had bit off more than they could chew . Am most certain that NASA had pre arranged a video of the whole process and photos pre photographed as a plan b of countering any embarrassment in case they failed to step foot on the moon. A11 did go to the moon but didn’t land on the but just to orbit the moon probably was one success they scored. The way I see it

    admin · July 18, 2016 at 10:41

    Dear Biggie, thank you for your comments. Do you have any supporting evidence for any of the statements you have made? Otherwise they only reflect your personal beliefs which are not facts.

      Gene Comiskey · August 13, 2016 at 10:39

      Hopefully you can clear this up for me.
      The footprint on the moon left by Neil Armstrong (as confirmed by NASA) does not match the spacesuit he wore (as displayed by NASA July 2015) when he walked on the moon.

      I’m not a conspiracy theorist but I do find this odd.


    Jim j · February 15, 2018 at 02:10

    Biggie , the name must refer to your shoe size instead of your brain.Did you not read that other programs: Japan Russia China have filmed the Lm lander and accompanying equipment.

questions · May 3, 2016 at 11:20

hey admin i have a questions!
why is that the picture of the first man on the moon is flat?
While in the photos of apollo it is not flat?
And take a look at the reflection of the astraonaut suit is also flat.

    admin · May 3, 2016 at 14:55

    Dear Questions, thank you for your questions, but unfortunately I do not understand them. Are you asking about pictures in this article or other pictures you have seen elsewhere? If they are not in this site could you link to them? What do you mean by “flat”?

Lancer · April 17, 2016 at 15:24

I just wanted to say that i heared that the flag was moving in the video of first step on moon. If there is no air on moon, how could a flag move? Plz reply my answer
By the way, the articles was intresting and informative, thanks for the information…

sky · March 30, 2016 at 14:35

Hoax. Why they cant go now with new technology? the rocket, the gas, the metal are all advanced now. Why there are no stars? Stars suppose to be more closer. Why it is dark?
Where is the sun? The sun gives light to the moon.

    admin · April 4, 2016 at 09:05

    Dear Sky, thank you for your comments but sadly it is difficult to understand your points plus you seem a bit misinformed.

    Why they cant go now with new technology? the rocket, the gas, the metal are all advanced now.

    Please can you identify the technologies developed since the 1970s that you believe could be applied to send people to the Moon.

    Why there are no stars? Stars suppose to be more closer.

    Please see item 2 at 5 Goofy Moonlanding Hoax Theories (link). Even the closest star is about 30 million times as far from the Earth as the Moon is. Going to the Moon will not make the stars appear closer.

    Why it is dark? Where is the sun?

    In any photo taken from the Moon’s surface by astronauts, the Sun was in the sky when the photo was taken (no Apollo missions landed at night). You can see the surface, vehicle, equipment, astronauts etc are all brightly illuminated. It is not dark.

    I hope this has helped you.

    George Birch · January 14, 2017 at 05:51

    Just because they DON’T go back to the Moon doesn’t mean they CAN’T, or that they DIDN’T.

    What do you mean by “Why there are no stars?”
    When you say “Why is it dark?”, what is it that you are referring to?
    The Sun is always easy to find. Yes, it does give light to the Moon, as well as the Earth.

Stu · March 9, 2016 at 01:43

Dear Admin, How do you maintain composure and grace responding to commenters? They ask questions you have answered already and repeat others’ comments. They use poor grammar and incomplete sentences. Yet you don’t tear your hair out of your head. You somehow find time, and have the desire, to respond, even to the most inane arguments. I haven’t seen one commenter follow up with a “thank you.” What do I believe? I believe that most of your audience, at least those who care to comment, are uneducated and brain washed. I really enjoyed the content of your article. Thank you.

(Speculations on mental health of some other users removed, let’s not go there -ADMIN)

    Col. Ranger · March 3, 2019 at 00:46

    I get the poor grammar or English. It’s usually people from some dumpy 3rd world country bashing NASA on FB, etc. But you’re correct on the questions they ask. Asked and answered over the past 50 years, all on Google. But they’re too stupid and lazy to bother to use it. I guess they’re lonely and need attention.

semaj · March 4, 2016 at 11:35

David, I never said conspiracy.
3. Different result on the ‘rovers’ though? So Neil never said “kicking up some dust”?
6. Patronising pointless reply.
11. They were very lucky to see that danger from those tiny windows. Remember that the LEM was positioned ready to land so legs pointing downwards.
14. I said the so called dark side!
Why did the Apollo crew need to be quarantined but all the naval crew, flight crew etc. involved in the pick up, oh, and the chap in short sleeves leading them to the quarantine chamber, not need protection? Not much risk on a film set maybe?
So the suit with gloves and controls are not as shown on Stargazing which is one of our comedy shows? Also Chris Hadfield from the ISS hoax did not know how his suit worked and also seemed unaware in his comments on future space travel that we had already been to the moon supposedly.
The problem is that only NASA provide the ‘information’, no one else! Also how incompetent they must be to ‘lose’ vast amounts of data, film etc. from what would have been probably mans greatest, though pointless, achievement. I was 16 when Apollo 11 was under way and I can remember my dad saying “question everything” and I always have. Money, power, control! The whole space nonsense is about making people seem insignificant in an unfathomably vast universe but fortunately more and more people are waking up.

    admin · March 4, 2016 at 13:04

    Dear Semaj, regarding the Apollo quarantine procedures, I described them to you just three days ago in a response to your comments left at this article (link). Did you not read this?

    I detect an apparent feeling that you believe you are being patronised in some of the answers to your questions, I certainly do not intend that and I do not think that David did in his very helpful response.

David · March 3, 2016 at 21:03


I’m sure the admin team can answer your questions better than me but I’ll do my best with my limited knowledge.

1. The air is filtered for CO2 and recycled. This is no different to what happens in a submarine which does not surface for weeks at a time, albeit on a larger scale.

2. Don’t know but it is documented somewhere. A11 was several hours because the mission was to prove it could be done. Later missions were considerably longer.

3. There was a pause of several hours between landing and exiting the LM. The dust is not subject to the scattering effect that atmosphere would give.

4. Again, the coolant was continuously recirculated, a bit like in the engine of a car. And the liquid would have been at a controlled temperature of, say 23 degrees. If the outside is very cold, the temperature of the liquid is 23, if very hot, still 23. The closest bit to the human inside the suit and the most significant is that 23 degree liquid. There is a large degree of latency in the heating and cooling of liquids which makes them ideal for maintaining a steady temperature. That’s why the sea feels cool on a hot day and warmer on a cool day. The sea stays about the same while the air heats and cools.

5. You’ve said to disregard.

6. No idea. I’m not sure what you are getting at. If you’re looking for common ground we can agree that Henry VIII definitely didn’t go to the moon.

7. Sorry, don’t know.

8. The whole LM was depressurised before the EVA and stayed that way until both astronauts were back inside.

9. No, at the time when the LM was connected to the CM there was air and pressure in both. Astronauts would not have put helmets on until ready for EVA.

10. The CM and LM were connected from the nose of the CM to the top of the LM. Once connected, the air pressure was equalised and then astronauts could go from one to the other.

11. Most of the Apollo missions had significant issues. On A11 Armstrong had to choose another landing site because the planned site was too rocky and almost exceeded his descent fuel limit. “Apollo: The Race to the Moon” is a good read if you want to find as much technical detail as possible and includes NASA’s aggressive risk appetite for the Apollo programme.

12. The LM had two motors. One was for landing, the other for ascent.

13. There’s a difference between heat and temperature. Heat generates temperature through conduction, convection and radiation. In the vacuum of Space, radiation is the only option as the Sun (millions of miles away) cannot convect via an atmosphere or conduct by direct proximity. Unfortunately, radiation is the weakest of these three heating effects.

14. No idea. Maybe they did. I’m sure someone will know. However, the dark side, isn’t always dark. It’s just that we can never see that side from earth.

15. We have a comedy TV show here called Father Ted. Ted is trying to explain a similar concept to his young colleague Dougal, using a cow standing in a field and a small plastic toy cow, from a farm set. The line, as I recall, is “Small…far away”. It’s a perspective thing.

By the way, the gloves, as I recall were a sort of bayonet seal. Like a fit and then quarter-turn twist. It’s much like military spec electrical connectors and for the same reason. You can do it without fine fingertip control and they can only be fitted one way.

Great questions and everyone is entitled to their opinions. I was 2 months old when Armstrong took his step. I’ve been hooked ever since. The only conspiracy I agree with is that Armstrong fluffed his lines re the “One small step for (a) man”.

Admin: Sorry if this cuts across what you were doing, doubly so if I’ve been inaccuar I live in Bangor Co Down so I’ll look forward to blagging a free ticket when I come down over Easter!

    admin · March 4, 2016 at 13:07

    Dear David, thank you for your comments.

    Sorry, I can’t promise a free ticket, but do say hello when you visit us. I hope you will have a great day!

semaj · March 3, 2016 at 19:51

Marely your Gran was right along with me, my parents and much of the generation that witnessed the hoax supposedly live! Its about money and the fact that NASA with all its false fascade comes under the US military, enough said!
In all honesty if anyone had ever achieved such a phenomenal feat like walking on the moon you would never stop wanting to tell people about it but the majority of people in the world would have trouble naming anyone on the other supposed moon missions apart from Apollo 11 and I would wager most people would not have clue who Buzz Aldrin is if he was not so aggressive in the past when questioned about the whole scam. Watch his interview on Stargazing, what an insulting joke!

    George Birch · January 27, 2017 at 16:42

    I would wager that most people who are aware of Buzz Aldrin have never heard anything about Apollo hoax theories.

    I’ve known who Buzz Aldrin is since the very early 1970s when I was very young. I didn’t hear any of these “alternative facts” regarding supposed conspiracies to conceal a faked moon landing until much later. My son is ten years old and he knows who Buzz Aldrin is. I don’t think he’s ever heard any of these “alternative facts”.

    Yes, the other Apollo moon landing missions are, when compared to Apollo 11, relatively obscure. This, however, is not evidence of, well, of anything.

    Les · January 12, 2018 at 08:31

    You need to get a life period.

    Adrian M. Kleinbergen · January 22, 2019 at 08:41

    Jim, did you learn all that stuff in Clown College?

marely · March 3, 2016 at 05:57

This blog is fascinating! I was 13 years old when Neil Armstrong landed on the moon. I remember my grandma saying that it was all a show and she died thinking it was not true. That thought has been always in my mind and it is one of the reasons that I keep reading about this event until today. I am happy that I landed here so I can learn more about it. Many of the comments are very interesting! I am also interested in your article and in the answers you will provide to semaj questions. Why did Neil Armstrong live such a “quiet” life after his mission? There have been so many speculations about it…… Did he really see other spaceships landed on the moon? I’ve always had so many questions.

    admin · March 3, 2016 at 08:44

    Dear Marely, thank you for your kind words. As for Armstrong’s teaching career after he went to the Moon, I wrote in our article about him

    He was as accomplished and professional a teacher as he was an astronaut. A shy and modest man, he made little of his achievement, avoiding publicity and rarely giving media interviews

    I find it strange that people seem to think Armstrong should have been making bombastic chest-beating displays about his achievements, I find his dignified approach much more understandable. By the way, there are several biographies of Armstrong, there is nothing mysterious about his career.

    The stories of the Apollo 11 crew reporting aliens spaceships are myths (we say this in the article), you should also see James Oberg’s article on this topic at this link.

semaj · February 15, 2016 at 11:51

Where is the article admin? Have I missed it or is it under a different post?

    admin · February 17, 2016 at 10:06

    Dear Semaj, thank you for your patience. As I have said before we are all very busy planning and running events at the moment, but I will complete this article as soon as can. In the meantime, you could try to find some of the answers you seek at the ApolloHoax.net forum (link), there seems to be some very informed and helpful people there.

      semaj · February 19, 2016 at 18:40

      Skip item 5 about the boot tread, I forgot about the over boots. However the over boots appear to have no sealing mechanism so how did they work? Having now researched in depth the suit design and the acrobatics that were needed to get them on and off can you explain how the glove rotation seals were tightened once an astronaut had got the other glove on and how did they attach the life support umbilicals and know they were correct and going to function? I ride motorcycles a lot and believe me getting a second, bulky winter glove on with an already gloved hand is not an easy task let alone a threaded ring fitting.
      Can you also show me how and where the landing chutes, floatation devices etc were housed in the return module bearing in mind that this was the only exit and access into the LEM and CSM? Please can you explain how the return module was accessed from the CSM as there is no apparent access via the heat shield of the return module? Sorry to add to your work load.

    admin · April 7, 2016 at 15:45

    Dear Semaj, please the article at 15 Questions about the Moon Landings (link). I hope it helps you.

semaj · February 7, 2016 at 14:27

How is the article coming on? Looking forward to having confirmation that I am wrong about the moon landings.

Zach Henry · February 5, 2016 at 20:40

Duplicate post- ADMIN

Zach Henry · February 5, 2016 at 20:18

HI, im doing a project in my school about Apollo 11, and I need to know how it fits the topics of Exploration, Encounter, and Exchange. Ive got ideas on it, but I would like to know somebody elses ideas, or feedback on this.

TMark · January 31, 2016 at 18:41

The most convincing evidence of whether humankind landed on the moon is to turn the tables on the conspiracy theorists with this question: Would NASA conspirators really script false moon landings this way, or would they do some things differently? Consider the following errors in the theorist rationale:
1. Our space race and Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union, did not challenge the accomplishment and instead congratulated the United States. The USSR had the means to confirm the landing as they had tracking systems and experience landing probes on the moon before 1969.
2. China, whose forces were actively in a hot war with the U.S. in Vietnam, also acknowledged the landings and criticized the U.S. for “militarizing” the moon.
3. If the Apollo missions were staged for propaganda purposes, then why would NASA deliberately cripple Apollo 13? Why so potentially embarrass NASA and compel politicians to debate cancelling further moon missions?
4. Why would conspirators kill three astronauts in the Apollo 1 fire which nearly resulted in Apollo program cancelation?
5. Why deliberately fake Apollo 10’s ascent module tumbling out of control upon releasing its landing platform in lunar orbit? Why would NASA broadcast Gene Cernan uttering “Son of a b—-” out to the networks during a live telecast as the craft tumbled? (Check out YouTube on this one.)
6. When Sheppard and Mitchell (Apollo 14) attempted to summit Cone Crater (a mountain) on foot, why would NASA fake their hike coming just 20 paces short of the summit which they were attempting to reach with frustration?
7. Why fake having Charlie Duke (Apollo 16) permanently damaging scientific equipment (kicking some wires loose) on the moon’s surface? Why broadcast that to a television audience? (Again, Youtube).
8. Why fake several moon landings not achieving a pinpoint landing? (Armstrong radioed that the Eagle would be “a little long.”)
9. Why fake several astronauts falling ill during flights including Fred Haise’s urinary tract infection on Apollo 13?
10. If you were a government conspirator, wouldn’t you create ‘fake’ stars in your ‘fake’ moon photos? Certainly by the second mission when people first asked questions, yes? If NASA’s moon missions were so elaborate and complex, including celestial navigation aids onboard, you’d think they would add something as easy as fake stars, right? Fortunately, NASA remained true to the physics of film exposure during extreme sunlight.
So to believe the moon missions were faked, one must believe the U.S. controlled the Soviets and Chinese, and NASA staged events that risked the agency’s own embarrassment, de-funding and program cancellation. Conspiracy theorists have no answer for this.

    admin · February 1, 2016 at 09:04

    Dear TMark, thank you for raising these points, I am in complete agreement with them!

    semaj · February 23, 2016 at 10:07

    Item 10 “including celestial navigation aids”. What was the point in that as NONE of the Apollo 11 crew said they could see any stars? (Ref. post return press conference)
    So if I, for example, am a conspiracy theorist by your definition is it ok if I call those who believe in this space nonsense reality deniers? Look up the history of the term conspiracy theorist, which was derived by the CIA to deride people who investigated and/or doubted government word speak. (Ref. 1984 George Orwell)

      admin · February 23, 2016 at 10:55

      Dear Semaj, I’m afraid you have been taken in by misinformation here. Claims that the Apollo astronauts could not see stars is based on selective reporting of what was really said. At the press conference you mention Armstrong discussed experiments to photograph the Sun’s atmosphere, the corona, by the three astronauts from the CSM on the outward journey. This prompted Patrick Moore, the British TV astronomer to ask:

      “I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere 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 in the solar corona in spite of the glare?” (My emphasis)

      Aldrin responded to the first part. Then Armstrong responded to the second part.

      “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 solar corona what stars we could see.”

      “Optics” refers to the LM’s navigation telescope.

      No astronaut has ever claimed that stars cannot be seen in space.

      Adrian M. Kleinbergen · January 22, 2019 at 09:06

      Jim, “reality denier” fits far better with your attitude about this subject… Honestly, I don’t understand why this is even a thing… If you don’t believe in the moon landings, OK, fine.

      So what?

      What difference does it make now?
      Why not expend that energy on something more practical and beneficial to the rest of the world?

    This Is My Display Name · September 21, 2016 at 21:37

    3) It renewed interest. The public had quit caring, as it had become mundane. “Been there, done that, NEXT!”

    Apollo 11: YAY!

    Apollo 12: Ooooo.

    Apollo 13: Meh. Wait… YAY!!!

    It also added realism. You can’t do the same thing perfectly every time–that’s just not realistic.

    4) Similar to the above, it gave a reason. Now it wasn’t “We have to beat the Russians”, it was “We have to beat the Russians & make sure these 3 didn’t die for nothing!” Similarly, do you think JFK’s speech would’ve had the same impact if he hadn’t died? Doubtful.

    5) Realism. (See #3)

    6) See number #5.

    I’m just going to stop there, since it seems like “See #5” will answer most of those.

    I’m the farthest thing from a hoax spreader or believer (I even collect NASA memorabilia), but even I can answer those. You wouldn’t watch a TV show or movie that had no drama in it because you wouldn’t believe it. That’s why characters have flaws written into them. The person scripting moon hoaxes would’ve done the same thing, especially since believability is their goal–if the things you cited didn’t happen, the list of people who didn’t believe it would be a lot longer.

semaj · January 19, 2016 at 12:35

Thanks for your reply, much as I suspected you have exercised your get out clause by denying that my observations and questions are not relevant to the site. Does this mean now that you will not be writing the article to answer my questions in my first posting? Truth does not fear investigation!

    admin · January 19, 2016 at 12:58

    Dear Semaj, thank you for your comments. Of course I am writing the article as it seems an interesting topic.

    I am not denying your observation, but trying to understand it. If you tell me what kind of device you used to look at the ISS when it seemed strange to you, I might be able to see what was happening and advise you. If you can come along one of our open nights or astronomy courses (link) I’d be happy to look it over.

    I tend to find it is the people pushing unscientific theories who are afraid of the truth being investigated!

      semaj · January 19, 2016 at 21:05

      I viewed it via binoculars and a telescope. Now stop trying to avoid answering or explaining my questions and observations by centring on this one comment.
      Please let me know when I can expect the article you said you will write which hopefully will put to bed my doubts. I am not a scientist so obviously any observation I make must be unscientific but science throughout history has to keep changing its theories but here we are looking for facts, nothing more.

        admin · January 20, 2016 at 09:51

        Dear Semaj, I will publish the article when it is ready. It will not be this week as we are very busy.

        I do note that you are interested in the truth, “Truth does not fear investigation!” as you told me, and your observation of the ISS appearing multi-coloured is a piece of investigation where I can try to help you discover the truth. So can you give any details of the telescope (make,objective and eyepiece etc) and binoculars (make, magnification and objective)you were using and what kind of mount they were on?

        (edited for grammar-20 January 2016)

semaj · January 16, 2016 at 22:05

Ok more childish questions as you so eloquently put it.
1 The average man consumes approx.100 litres of air/hour.How much air did Armstrong and Aldrin carry with them during their moonwalks and how was this achieved?
2 With this in mind how long did they both stay outside the lander?
3 Neil quote “we are kicking up some dust”. No dust on lander feet and not even the slightest evidence of dust having been disturbed under the landers engine outlet. Why not?
4 How much water was required in the space suits to provide cooling and heating and how was this cooling and heating achieved in a split second moving from sunlight to shade?
5 The ‘famous’ Armstong foot print shows a deep tread pattern. His suit which is now undergoing requests for funding to preserve it shows NO tread pattern on the boots. Explain please.
6 These moonwalking suits were supposedly designed to withstand incredibly harsh conditions with rapid heat changes, potential meteorite hits,radiation etc. How can it require restoration and preservation so soon after the event when we can see in museums Henry VIII,s clothes from 500 years ago?
7 Did the LEM door open inwards or outwards? If it opened inwards how did the 2 astronauts get out as there was allegedly no room with all their kit on?
8 Did the LEM have an airlock, if so how was it pressurised and depressurised or did they remain fully suited throughout?
9 Did Armstrong and Aldrin wear their suits and helmets when entering the LEM from the command module and when returning to the command module?
10 How was the LEM reattached to the command module and did this require an airlock?
11 What were the odds that every Apollo mission except for 13 went without any major incident?
12 Is it true that the LEM motor could only be fired once after which it required a rebuild. Depending on this being true how was it used to land and then be reused to launch away from the lunar surface?
13 In the film Apollo 13, if it was a true story, why were the astronauts not frying to death rather than freezing to death as shown.
14. Why did the astronauts not take photos of the stars during the dark periods e.g. while orbiting around the so called dark side?
15 The so called ‘earth rise’ photo from NASA shows earth totally out of proportion considering it is much larger than the moon. Why is that?
More soon.

    admin · January 18, 2016 at 11:49

    Dear Semaj, thank you for your comment. Just to clarify, the comment referring to “childish” arguments was made by another user of this comments page, not by me or any of my colleagues here.

    Your list of questions is very extensive and to do them justice I intend to publish the answers as an article in its own right which will appear in the near future. In the meantime you could have a look at some of our other articles (including the comments!) linked to below as some of your questions may be answered in them.
    5 Goofy Moonlanding Hoax Theories
    Spacesuits: Fashion of the Future!
    NASA’s Lunar Module: Everything You Need to Know

      semaj · January 18, 2016 at 19:29

      Apologies for misquoting.

      We have a TV show each year in the UK called Star Gazing which amongst others has a presenter called Brian Cox, its not meant to be comedy but it really comes over that way. Last year they interviewed Buzz Aldrin who could not remember how they had a cup of coffee on the ‘moon mission’ and fumbled an answer regarding seeing radiation. Neither Cox nor the other sycophantic presenter had the courage to pick him up on it.

      If you check out various interviews with other astronauts each seems to have conflicting answers and the difference in answers regarding whether they could see stars or not just beggars belief. The 3 members of Apollo 11 stated at a press conference not long after their ‘return’ that NONE of them recalled seeing stars!!

      Chris Hadfield, the consummate story teller from the ISS lost the plot when explaining how the suits work and also stated that as we develop space travel we can then get to the moon and onwards and once again not one interviewer picked up on the fact that we have supposedly been to the moon several times 45 years ago!

      The ISS supposed live ‘space walk’ by Tim Peake showed no umbilical cord so he must have been carrying enough air for the expected 6 – 8 hours that the job would entail. Remember that he was also carrying the miracle heating and cooling system, enough to drink and wait for it, a jet pack to get back to the ISS should he break loose.

      The pressurised gloves with the hard fingertip ends would not fit in to the suits ‘temperature adjuster’ shown on Star Gazing, including the other suit controls and this was all supposed to be carried out via a mirror on their wrist!How many air locks are on the ISS as it was all built in sections and must be a constant worry if one section was damaged and developed a leak.

      I await with interest your response to my previous post and I trust you can explain all the anomalies regarding the ISS as well. Some say you can see the ISS but when I look it appears to be a multi coloured hologram and it certainly is a miracle that not one of the supposed hundreds, some say thousands, of satellites never hit the ISS, come close or are EVER visible in so called pictures of the ISS in orbit. Its funny in this time of renewed hostility between Russia and the USA that its only the Russians that have the capability of reaching the ISS, worrying times for all aboard I would think! I would love my disbelief in the moon landings to be proved wrong because what an incredible achievement it would have been.

      I will have more questions but I will leave it until you have posted your explanations. Thanks for your time.

      (Formatting added for ease of reading and one word changed- remember this site is used by school children- ADMIN)

        admin · January 19, 2016 at 10:40

        Dear Semaj, thanks for your comments but I think that you have misunderstood the purpose of this comments section. It’s meant to be a forum to discuss the article with us and other commentators. It is not a generic question and answer service or a place for publishing philosophical polemics. Please keep on topic or your comments will be edited or even not be published.

        Please too note that the sentences “I do not understand X” and “X is not true” are not equivalent statements. You might find that a little bit of library research into some of the issues that perplex you would be very helpful.

        What kind of device were you using to observe the ISS? I have never observed the effect you are describing.

        This Is My Display Name · September 21, 2016 at 21:23

        What?! Buzz Aldrin couldn’t remember minutiae 45 years later?! The whole thing must be a hoax then!

        …I mean, seriously? You’re bringing an elderly man’s failed recall of certain details, 45 years after they happened, into the argument as evidence of something other than 45 years having an effect on memory? That actually struck you as something worthy of remarking on?

Scottish Man · December 29, 2015 at 06:01

We went to the moon, period.

COLM · November 24, 2015 at 15:50

why did Collins not go out to the moon? he did do experiments on the shuttle which I understand but why didn’t he explore the moon himself.does anyone know why not?

    admin · November 25, 2015 at 10:23

    Dear Colm, thank you for the question. The easy answer is that the Lunar Module (link) was designed to carry only two people from lunar orbit to the Moon’s surface and back. As to why it was done this way, the Apollo missions and their hardware were planned in the early 1960s, back then the limitations of technology meant that a sophisticated spacecraft like the Apollo CSM needed to be looked after by a human pilot and human intervention was also essential for docking procedures, so one astronaut had to stay on board the CSM to do these tasks. The Moon missions planned by the USSR (link) would have been similar with one cosmonaut landing while his comrade stayed in orbit.

    I hope this has helped you.

    This Is My Display Name · September 21, 2016 at 21:19

    1) There was no shuttle.

    2) If he did, there would have been no way for them to get back to Earth. It’s better that one man not get to walk on the Lunar surface than all 3 of them die because he did, yes?

Steven Iles · September 3, 2015 at 10:46

I know the moon is smaller than the Earth but can you explain why the photos show the horizons to be only a short distance away. In photos taken on Earth the horizon appears much further away.

    admin · September 3, 2015 at 13:53

    Dear Steven, thanks for your question. You’re correct that on the Moon the distance to the horizon is less than on Earth (about half as far away as it is here) but are you sure the distance is anomalously short in Apollo images? It is hard to judge distances in images from the surface of the Moon due to the lack of familiar landmarks and atmospheric haze but there are images from later Moon missions which landed in more dramatic landscapes than Apollo 11 showing mountains which are several kilometres tall in the distance. Here are a couple from Apollo 17:
    Edge of Shorty Crater
    Distant LM

    I think images like these prove the Apollo astronauts’ photographs show distant objects.

evergreen · August 17, 2015 at 19:10

Thanks for an interesting article, with a lot of interesting links. I think all the comments are entirely valid. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter how daft it may seem to others. Personally I am inclined to the view that the moon landings took place, but the photos were faked. This is because the photos are too good (perfect)…also I remember seeing a rather pursuasive program about this in which they pointed out an anomaly with the crosshairs. Not that it really matters….the photos don’t prove anything either way. But I have two questions for Admin 1) where can we find the results of all the lunar experiments (ie what did we learn?) and 2) why doesn’t the moon spin on its axis like the earth?

    admin · August 18, 2015 at 09:40

    Dear Evergreen, thank you for your comments (and the polite and friendly way you’ve expressed them). I absolutely agree that every one is entitled to their opinions, but I hope you see that opinions and facts are not the same thing. As educators, we at the Planetarium have a duty to present facts (I hope you notice that I’m careful to point out my opinions or speculations), that duty includes correcting misstatements of fact or challenging assertions of fact which seem dubious.

    You say the photos are “too good”, but is that correct or just your opinion? One point in response is that the astronauts were actually trained to take clear photographs as efficiently as possible to document their activities. Another point is that you are only seeing images that have been chosen for their clarity or visual appeal, but hundreds of photos were taken on each mission. Every single Apollo missions’ photographs have been scanned and put on line at the Apollo Image Gallery (link). Go through it and you will see the images that are out of focus, light struck, over- or under-exposed, misframed, taken by accident or otherwise defective.

    I would guess that your “anomaly with the crosshairs” is the claim (which I have addressed before on this blog) is the claim that some objects in images are “in front” of the crosshairs which “proves” that graphics editing software like Photoshop was used to compose the images. This claim is foolish nonsense, this effect is known as washout and is the result of bright areas of the photographic emulsion “bleeding” over the very thin crosshairs (you will see that it only happens when the crosshair is front of a brightly illuminated white item). I would add too that nothing like Photoshop existed in the !960s and 70s and faking images in this way seems an absurdly complicated and error-prone way to do things.

    There is no centralised Big Book of Apollo Science, but it’s true to say that most of what we know about the Moon today comes from the Apollo missions. The best I can do for a start is direct you to the Preliminary Science report for each mission. Click on the links below (these are big downloads, and see much bigger the later ones are!):
    Apollo 11
    Apollo 12
    Apollo 14
    Apollo 15
    Apollo 16
    Apollo 17

    The Moon does indeed spin on its axis every 27.3 of our days (if it didn’t spin on its axis we would be able to see all of its surface it as orbits Earth every 27.3 days, not just half). You might have been confused by the fact that the Moon is in synchronous rotation around the Earth. It rotates about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit the Earth so it always keeps the same face turned towards Earth. There is nothing paranormal about this, it’s a natural consequence of tidal interactions between the Earth and Moon. Every moon in the Solar System is in synchronous rotation with the planet it orbits. It would be weird if the Moon wasn’t!

    I hope this has helped you.

Ronit · August 15, 2015 at 15:22

Dear admin,
I appreciate your patience and scientific attitude in answering this otherwise 75% annoying comment section. My deepest sympathies on recieving such reponse to such a great article. In addition to the knowledge provided I also learnt here that how infinitely ignorant and baseless humans can be.

    admin · August 17, 2015 at 08:48

    You’re welcome!

      JD · March 19, 2016 at 13:02

      I have to agree! I am impressed with your patience and longstanding with these replies. You somehow manage to maintain your calm and present the facts. It is amazing to me how some people can be so ignorant and refuse to see the facts and be proud of who we are as humans and how much we have achieved! Thanks for your hard work maintaining this website!

shoaib · August 4, 2015 at 09:37

hi admin !!! my question is that the picture we see is possible on the temperature of 250 degree at the moon??because the camera was not able to handle this temperature…

    admin · August 4, 2015 at 11:18

    Dear Shoaib, do you mean degrees in Celsius, Kelvin or Fahrenheit? The difference is important!

    Here is a photo taken with a camera in Earth orbit in 1965.

    Ed White EVA

    The camera used seems to have functioned perfectly despite being in full sunlight in space. This suggests that photography in space is not so difficult.

    Please provide a link stating that the cameras used on the Moon could not operate on the Moon and why they would not work.

    George Birch · January 13, 2017 at 20:25

    When we talk about the “temperature” on the Earth we are talking about the temperature of the air in the shade. Something on the Moon being 250 degrees F or even C, rocks, the ground, whatever, has no effect whatsover on anything else, such as a camera. The effects of the Sun on a camera can be mitigated by the use of insulation and reflective material.

don · July 20, 2015 at 20:30

The one fact that proves the moon landings and the entire U.S. space program was NOT a hoax, GRISSOM WHITE & CHAFFEE And anyone who cannot remember who these gentlemen were, shame on you.

    This Is My Display Name · September 21, 2016 at 21:15

    1) Not knowing something or, especially, remembering something is NOT a shameful act. They don’t need (or deserve) shame. They need a reminder.

    2) That proves absolutely nothing on this subject, and, in fact, weakens the argument. The proof that this stuff isn’t a hoax is in the substantial evidence & refutations–not a terrible attempt at tugging the heartstrings.

Kashaf Imran · July 19, 2015 at 19:49

I just want to make sure that it is stated that neon and some other gases are present on the moon, so how can we say that the flattering flag can be an issue?
I know that proper air air is not present but even then…………..
I’ll appreciate your concern.

    admin · July 21, 2015 at 08:11

    Dear Kashaf, you are correct in that the Moon has indeed an atmosphere (although I am not sure if neon has ever been detected there). However the lunar atmosphere is incredibly tenuous, comparable to the traces of Earth’s atmosphere detectable at the altitude the International Space Station orbits at. The Moon’s atmosphere is far too thin to cause a flag to move.

Cibi · July 1, 2015 at 10:19

Who was the man who removed from first space footage because of his last name German…?

    admin · July 14, 2015 at 10:06

    Dear Cibi, I am sorry but I have no idea who you are thinking of.

      Nick · January 30, 2016 at 00:28

      Dear admin,

      Thank you for providing these explanations. I would appreciate if you could provide some feedback on the famous photo of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin while setting up the US flag.
      https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/ap11-S69-40308.jpg (still frame on the following video https://youtu.be/k1B2UPkelNw?t=37)

      “S69-40308: This frame from the 16-mm camera mounted in the LM window shows Neil (left) and Buzz (right) deploying the U.S. Flag”
      Notice the length of the shadows of the two astronauts. I think we can agree that the length of the astronauts’ shadows clearly differ. On my computer’s screen, it appears as follows:
      The height of Neil Armstrong (left) is 1-15/16 inches = 1.9375” (his real height is 5”11’ = 71’)
      The height of Buzz Aldrin (right) is 2 inches (his real height is 5”10’ = 70’)
      The length of Neil’s shadow is 3 inches
      The length of Buzz’s shadow is 4 inches
      Distance between the 2 astronauts is about 2-1/4 inches (2.25 “).
      Also, in the famous Apollo 11 video of setting the US flag for the first time, we can see that the shadows of the astronauts change as they move around, , ,https://youtu.be/k1B2UPkelNw?t=42 On my computer’s screen,
      The height of Neil Armstrong (left) is 1-4/16 inches (1.25”)
      The height of Buzz Aldrin (right) is 1-5/16 inches (1.3125”)
      The length of Neil’s shadow is 2-8/16 inches (2.5”)
      The length of Buzz’s shadow is 3-1/8 inches (3.125”)
      Distance between the 2 astronauts is about 2 inches

      As it is on earth, the sun is far enough away from the moon that the rays of light that reach one general area on the planet may safely be regarded as being parallel. This obviously would not be the case for a nearby light-source, Theoretically, the ratio of height to shadow of any object standing straight up is constant, if the ground is perfectly flat. We do not see any significant changes in the slope of the lunar surface around the flag that could explain such a difference in the astronauts’ shadow length. Based on Neil’s height (1.9375“) and shadow length (3”) on my screen, the angle “w” from the horizontal is tan^-1(1.9375/3)=0.645833 or w=32.8557 degrees. Based on Buzz’s height (2”), his shadow length should have been about 2/0.645833 = 3.096774 inches. Instead it is 4 inches, which means that the surface where Buzz’s shadow is projected should slope about cos^-1(3.096774/4) or 39.27 degrees.
      Based on Neil’s height (1.25“) and shadow length (2.5”) on my screen, the angle “w” from the horizontal is tan^-1(1.25/2.5)=0.5 or w=26.2650512 degrees. Based on Buzz’s height (1.3125”), his shadow length should have been 1.3125/0.5 = 2.625 inches. Instead it is 3.125 inches, which means that the surface where Buzz’s shadow is projected, should slope about cos^-1(2.625/3.125) or 32.86 degrees.
      Either slope (39.27 degrees or 32.86 degrees) is nowhere near what we see in the photo and the video or the video stills. The only way that I can think of a shadow length increase, would be by walking away from a nearby light source, like a post lamp. Certainly not the sun, because the sun rays are parallel to the surface.
      You can take a look at a simplified model here: http://www.purplemath.com/modules/ratio7.htm

        admin · February 1, 2016 at 12:01

        Dear Nick, thank you for your analysis. Clearly you have put a lot of effort into this but you may have made some simplifications and assumptions which may need addressed in the interest of accuracy.

        On my computer’s screen, it appears as follows:
        The height of Neil Armstrong (left) is 1-15/16 inches = 1.9375” (his real height is 5”11’ = 71’)
        The height of Buzz Aldrin (right) is 2 inches (his real height is 5”10’ = 70’)
        The length of Neil’s shadow is 3 inches
        The length of Buzz’s shadow is 4 inches
        Distance between the 2 astronauts is about 2-1/4 inches (2.25 “).

        Not that this is important but the spacesuits added multiple inches to each astronaut’s height.

        I disagree that you have accurately measured the shadows’ lengths. You are looking along the shadow yet ignoring perspective when you measure its length on your screen. The shadows’ lengths will be foreshortened. Short of someone laying a tape measure alongside the shadows when the film was made I have no idea how you could accurately measure their lengths.

        the ratio of height to shadow of any object standing straight up is constant, if the ground is perfectly flat. We do not see any significant changes in the slope of the lunar surface around the flag that could explain such a difference in the astronauts’ shadow length

        The surface is not perfectly flat (it would be really odd if it was). I am pretty certain that in the images you are using that the astronauts and flag are standing in a depression and their shadows are falling on a gentle slope upwards, making the shadows shorter than they would be on a flat surface.

        The only way that I can think of a shadow length increase, would be by walking away from a nearby light source, like a post lamp.

        Is this really what you would see though? If illuminated by a nearby source, would the astronauts’ shadows (and those of the flagpole, TV camera and solar wind experiment) not diverge? Would the astronaut closer to the nearby source not have a shorter shadow than the one further to the hypothetical source? Is this what the picture shows?

hi im goerge · June 29, 2015 at 21:56

why didn’t neil armstrong just admit it?

    Kashaf Imran · July 19, 2015 at 19:52

    Neil Amstrong did not admit it because he knew that if he did,he could be arrested like some of his fellows and on the ither hand,he believed that he had really been on the moon.

      admin · July 21, 2015 at 08:03

      Dear Kashaf, thanks for your comments, but when you say

      he could be arrested like some of his fellows

      what are you referring to? I’m not aware of any Apollo astronauts being arrested.

      This Is My Display Name · September 21, 2016 at 21:10

      Well, which is it? Was it that he actually believed it (and therefore had nothing to admit) or that he knew he’d face substantial punishment?

      They can’t both be true.

BT · June 27, 2015 at 03:16

Disappointing to see people troll an otherwise well documented presentation.

Abraham · June 6, 2015 at 01:03

Dear Admin

how many hours would an astronaut spend in the van allen radiation belt while crossing it? If the van allen radiation belt are as strong as the skeptics claim; what kind of protection would the astronauts need to protect themselves from this radiation? would this radiation affect instruments on board the space craft? if it does then how would it be possible to overcome its effects?

Malcolm Shykles · June 4, 2015 at 21:27

There is an issue, easily checked out from numerous videos of the take off, that the Apollo 11 craft did not accelerate fast enough to get on to a flight path that would take it to the Moon.

That it was so easy to make Moon trips nearly 50 years ago and return at some 25,000 miles per hour to a spot local to a recovery ship beggars belief.

Today’s public are not as gullible as those of 1969.

    admin · June 5, 2015 at 09:35

    Dear Mr Shykles, thank you for your comments. I am not sure that I agree with all of them.

    There is an issue, easily checked out from numerous videos of the take off, that the Apollo 11 craft did not accelerate fast enough to get on to a flight path that would take it to the Moon.

    To the best of my knowledge that statement is indeed correct, but you are drawing an erroneous conclusion from it. The Apollo missions were not launched to the Moon in a single impulse like a cannon fired from a gun. Rather the first two stages of the Saturn 5 were used to place the complete third stage plus Apollo spacecraft in a low Earth orbit (about 100 nautical miles up). The third stage was later fired to send the complete assembly to the Moon. You can read about this complete detail in Apollo 11 Flight Plan Final–July 1,1969 (link).

    I disagree that the Moon missions were “easy”, if you read about them in detail, virtually every one of them faced difficulties and famously Apollo 13 was almost a disaster. If you are really interested you ought to start by reading Andrew Chaikin’s excellent history of the Apollo missions A Man on the Moon.

    You say that to “return at some 25,000 miles per hour to a spot local to a recovery ship beggars belief”, but I cannot agree with that. By the late 1950s when space travel was becoming a reality, ballistics and aerodynamics were completely understood fields of technology so launching payloads into space to return to a specified area on the Earth’s surface was just a matter of complex and expensive engineering. I am sure that you are aware that in achieving this the Apollo systems were not unique; in the same period the Soviet Union not only launched several Zond spacecraft, essentially unpiloted Soyuz spacecraft, around the Moon but also sent probes in the Luna series to the Moon which then returned samples of lunar material. These were successfully recovered on Earth too.

    I hope this has helped you.

      This Is My Display Name · September 21, 2016 at 21:09

      Apollo 13 wasn’t “almost a disaster”. It was a disaster. It could’ve been much worse, but it was still, by definition, a disaster.

        admin · September 22, 2016 at 09:19

        Dear Display Name, thankfully everyone on Apollo 13 survived. I cannot justify calling a non-fatal accident a “disaster”.

vimal · June 3, 2015 at 07:28

The article is very interesting with awesome images .

Ravikiran.G · May 25, 2015 at 17:10

Is really this Apollo 11 landing on moon is fake? I still remember that my father use to tell “Neil armstrong is the first person to land on moon when I was 12 years old”.

    admin · May 27, 2015 at 09:21

    Dear Ravikiran, I’m happy to confirm that the Apollo Moon landings are historical events and were not faked. Isn’t that amazing!

Naim Ahmad · May 20, 2015 at 06:52

I have only one question, and i would appriceate if someone would answer, if had reached on moon with teachnology of 1969, then what is the big reason we can not reach again with teachnology of 2015,

America just wanted to prove that they are No 1, they are in better condition then Russia, Whole incident was fake and was filmed in studio.

    admin · May 20, 2015 at 08:23

    Dear Naim, thanks for your comments. Why hasn’t there been any further human missions to the moon since 1972? This was not the original plan which was to continue regular and increasingly elaborate missions throughout the 1970s, but NASA’s budget was repeatedly cut until the program ended with Apollo 17. There has been no other missions because of the huge cost and lack of public and political interest in lunar exploration.

    Whole incident was fake and was filmed in studio

    Why do you think this?

jaden · April 11, 2015 at 03:33

If their is no gravity in space. The oil from the bearings would flout away right or do they use some kind of magnetic bearings.

    admin · April 14, 2015 at 06:59

    Dear Jaden, I’d had a quick look and it seems multiple solutions are used depending on the application. Magnetic bearings are used but so are bearings with solid and fluid lubrication (obviously the bearing must be designed to retain fluid lubricants, special oils resistant to vacuum boil-off are used too).

    Here’s a link to an ESA page you may find helpful.

joseph · April 1, 2015 at 13:00

Just so everyone knows, Earth isn’t the only planet nor are we in the only universe. In the solar system there’s alot of universes, I haven’t seen it face to face but I have seen the solar system on a video. I find it Rather arrogant that out of all those planets, out of those universes that people still believe the only inhabited planet is earth, out of all those universes only ours is inhabited

Watcher 17 · March 25, 2015 at 15:40

The earth is a big cave about 8,000 miles in diameter, we live on the inside.


wake the fk up and do the math…. water curves UP all over the whole planet, 8 inches the first mile, 32 inches the 2nd mile, 72 inches the 3rd mile etc. go measure it yourself…

The moon and all the planets, stars, sun, etc are within the cave.

The laws of optics, mainly foreshortening, prevent an eye from resolving beyond the ‘vanishing point’ and make it appear as though the stars are going around us but in fact it is just a big ball of stuff turning around in a big cave.

Live long enough and do the math. You will know this to be true as well.

The earth CANNOT be spinning at 1000mph. Use your frikkin heads….

it is no wonder they think of us as dumb animals. We cant even figure out the shape of our world… Don’t help them justify the evil they pour into this world daily. Be smarter than they expect. learn this fact. It is key. Easy to prove at any lake, river, or ocean…anytime….

Wake up Neo.

    admin · March 25, 2015 at 15:52

    Hi Watcher, thanks for sharing your comments. That site you’ve linked to is a really amusing piece of satire!

      grazapin · October 19, 2015 at 23:09

      That website and the comments sections are the very definition of believing what you want to believe in the face of all evidence. If it is actually satire, it’s brilliant.

R Billing · March 21, 2015 at 18:36

The moon landings were real.

I was there when it all happened, a 13 year old kid allowed to stay up late to watch the first landing. Yes, it was genuine, the physics is right, the photography is what I’d expect. Years later I was allowed to touch a moon rock, hearty thanks to NASA and the Smithsonian for letting me do it.

There is however one thing that everyone forgets. The conspiracy theories actually started with a BBC comedy show. An episode of the series “The Men from the Ministry” titled “The Big Rocket” first transmitted on 6th Nov 1962, when the Apollo program was in its early stages, had a bungling official accidentally telling the press that a British astronaut was orbiting Mars. What had happened was that a typist had taken the afternoon off to visit her sick mother and left a note saying, “Going round Ma’s this afternoon”, and this had been read verbatim over the phone as a press release. The British government then had to fake a mission to Mars to cover up the blunder.

This later became the plot of Capricorn One, although I can’t tell if the story was copied or independently re-invented.

I find it mildly amusing to discover that the conspiracy theory is in fact the descendant of something intended as a joke.

    This Is My Display Name · September 21, 2016 at 21:05

    What you described is absolutely nothing close to the plot of “Capricorn One”. The only similarity is “faked mission to Mars”, which, by the way you described it, wasn’t even done the same way.

    In order copy something, you’d need actually copy it. Making something with a completely different premise based off a vague idea that didn’t originate with either party doesn’t count.

    But good try, I guess. Maybe have your facts straighter the next time you accuse someone of plagiarism?

muhammed · March 21, 2015 at 08:55

Firstly he didn’t go on the moon. There are hundreds of conspiracy theories one is that the flag was waving when there is no wind there.there were 2 sources of light and on the picture there are no stars on it when he is on the moon and his shadow was there as well it was hoax they can’t go there and come back in 8 days so that shows that he didn’t go on the moon. It was a hoax and a scandals event. Because Russia was ahead of them they had all the technologies and they didn’t so they decided to play a hoax. They never went in the rocket they were doing all this in the studio. Nobody knows if it was fake or real.

    admin · March 23, 2015 at 10:43

    Dear Muhammed, thank you for your comments but I can only suggest that you research a little more widely. A start might be our article 5 Goofy Moonlanding Hoax Theories (link) which covers some of your points. By the way, you might want to reread the article you are commenting on as your “no stars” point is actually covered in it.

    Hopefully a short piece of research will confirm to you that human beings have indeed visited the Moon!

Gene Ferrer · January 20, 2015 at 16:10

I am leaning towards the acceptance that man has been on the moon or man is frequenting it already (in secrecy anyway).

The one thing very obvious with the images (aside from a great deal of other anomalies) is the stars that are “missing” from a zero atmosphere setting. (Remember Edgar Mitchell’s contradiction of Neil Armstrong – that outside the atmosphere of earth, stars and galaxies are 10 times brighter?) The total blackness of the “sky” in those photos show an intentionally painted-over image.

With that being said, it is not far from the truth that these photos are NOT on the moon. Otherwise, why paint them over? If you want to show only part of what is true, then you are lying… and what they wanted to show to the public is already a photo made from a lie.

Robert Lord · January 19, 2015 at 19:42

Wow, lots of interesting and quite passionate comments here!! Great stuff. Perhaps an answer Mr. Admin to a couple of questions. There are no stars in the sky because even on earth if you take a picture at night, the focus of your “person” or subject is about 3-10 feet away, and the background will naturally blur out everything else, (including stars)….. Anyone whos in photography even somewhat, knows this. Its not magic. And yes my friend the LEM landed attached to its “launch pad” which is where the landing gear come out from. And yes the LEM has its own engine, and you didnt see any flames on take-off because there is no air on the moon, to feed the combustables.. The oxygen that started the engine is in tanks carried aboard the Lunar Landing Module, inside. And its not a biggy to launch, you just power up, and hit the start engine button, and you dont need 25 employees of NASA to help you with that. Just like you dont need your co-workers to help you start your car every morning. So, lets lighten up everyone, they landed on the moon many times, and the Japanese satellite orbiting the moon right now, than was launched in 2012, has taken pictures of every landing site for Apollo missions to the moon, and all the equipment is still sitting on the moon for all to see. Funny how some dont think we landed there, as they text each other on their cell phones, which were science fiction 40 years ago…makes me laugh.

Manoj Tomar · January 1, 2015 at 05:40

It is said the period of revolution of moon around earth is equals to its rotation on its own axis. It takes our 27 days for moon to complete one cycle of its revolution & its rotation. So it takes our 12 days for a night to pass on moon. If the astronauts stayed for six hours ( as per earth time) on moon then how much of time they have actually stayed on moon as per moon’s time?

    admin · January 5, 2015 at 11:46

    Hi Manoj, I don’t quite understand your question as an hour (which is a purely human unit) is the same everywhere.

    If it helps, I’ll clarify that a day on the Moon lasts about 29.5 of our Earth days. So, if you were standing on the surface of the Moon, it would take about 29.5 days for the Sun to move entirely through the sky and return to its original position (say from dawn to dawn). This means everywhere on the Moon gets about 14.75 days (about 354 hours) of daylight followed by 14.75 hours of darkness.

      This Is My Display Name · September 21, 2016 at 21:00

      That is actually an interesting question–and I’m not necessarily sure you got it right. In fact, I’d like to see the evidence that you used to come up with your answer, since, as far as I can, there’s not an actually an agreement among experts about what an hour actually is.

      Time, as we know it, is based solely on the Earth. If Earth was actually Mars & vice versa, we would have a completely different concept of time.

      Similarly, if we were spend a significant duration on the Moon, the Earth concepts may be thrown out there in favor of Lunar-based ones. The Apollo trips weren’t significant enough to do such a thing, especially since the key personnel was located on Earth.

      I’ll try to put this in terms that are easier to understand. Look at it this way:

      A solar day is the average length of time it takes for a full rotation.

      An hour is 1/24 of a mean solar day.
      A minute is 1/60 of an hour (1/1440 of a mean solar day)
      A second is 1/60 of a minute (1/1440 of an hour, 1/86400 of a mean solar day)

      If we view all of the above as constants, then 1 day on the Moon would equate to 24 hours on the Moon; it wouldn’t equate to 24 hours on Earth anymore than 1 day on Earth would equate to 1/24 of a mean solar day on the Moon.

      If 1 day on the Moon equates to 29.5 days on Earth, as you said earlier, then 1 hour on the Moon equates to roughly 1.2 days on Earth.

      Such an equation would actually make more sense than arbitrarily basing Lunar time on Earth’s solar day–especially in a situation where those following Lunar time are doing so in the long term & independent of those on Earth. Naturally, as I said before, that wouldn’t be the situation for the brief Apollo trips, as it would have (obviously) been more convenient for them to just observe Earth time.

      But, no, an hour isn’t “a purely human unit” any more than a day or year is. Sure it’s a fairly arbitrary designation, but its basis is in nature.

        admin · September 26, 2016 at 10:28

        Dear Display Name, thank you for your comments. I had thought (in retrospect possibly incorrectly) that the person asking the question was trying to find out if there is some sort of “time dilation” effect on the Moon. However I still think that my original answer stands. People going to the Moon will continue to use our standard measures of time as they are what we are used to.

          Abdul Wahid S. · May 27, 2017 at 01:20

          Yes you are damn right. An hour in earth is the same everywhere. But the day differs. Earth rorates in its own axis and complete one rotation in 24 hours. The moon does that in 29.5 earth days and the on Mercury a day lasts 1,408 hours, and on Venus it lasts 5,832 hours. On Earth and Mars it’s very similar. Earth takes 24 hours to complete one spin, and Mars takes 25 hours. The gas giants rotate really fast. Jupiter takes just 10 hours to complete one rotation. Saturn takes 11 hours, Uranus takes 17 hours, and Neptune takes 16 hours.

            Abdul Wahid S. · May 27, 2017 at 01:34

            This is just like the height of a man is the same anywhere he goes. But his weight may differs from planet to planet.

      Manao · October 9, 2017 at 04:25

      The moon orbits the Earth once every 27.3 days. It also takes approximately 27 days for the moon to rotate once on its axis only from the view of the Earth. As a result, the moon does not seem to be spinning but appears to observers from Earth to be keeping almost perfectly still as it shows us, on Earth, the only lunar hemisphere always lit by the Sun. When we see a half moon, from our perspective on Earth, we are seeing the constantly lit side, as it continues to face the Sun, but do not see the dark side that is not lit because that side never faces the Sun. ?This explains why we see two half moons a month. ?? We don’t see two full moons a month. Only one when the moon is in its place that shows us all of the lit side of the moon. Hence, full moon. ? A half orbit of the moon around the Earth, 13.65 days from the full moon exposure, will expose the unlit side of the moon to us on the Earth. Hence, the dark side of the moon. ? We don’t see it. It’s never lit by the Sun but it’s there. If we had a view of the Earth’s moon from the Sun’s point of view, however, it would not be spinning on an axis as only one side always faces the Sun.? (Some Wikipedia sourced to help with clarity) That should help make this all clear as mud on a moonlit night!??

Adam Hart · December 28, 2014 at 08:22

It’s staggering how many people don’t believe the moon landings were real and then back up this belief with ‘arguments’ that are childish in the extreme. I would suggest you do some actual research on the matter, maybe read the huge amount of scientific and lay books and papers on the subject? No one with any actual knowledge on the topic doubts the moon landings. And possibly leave the Internet to grown ups who can identify crackpot conspiracy nonsense when they read it.

    admin · January 5, 2015 at 09:18

    Dear Adam, thank you for your comment. I agree that it is surprising how many people claim to disbelieve in the reality of the Apollo landings, but please do not count us among them!

Eric · December 19, 2014 at 19:42

Are the photos today of the landing sites faked..? Because it would be nice to look through this particular telescope to verify the actual landing zones.. That would solve a lot of issues. I mean photos can be shown or put on the internet proving nothing.. But are they real..? Yesterdays technology when TV’s were black and white and toasters burnt your toast all the time. To actually go to the moon and land on it for the first time without anything going wrong seems quite a stretch..
However I hope they did this magnificent feat of human accomplishment.. My hat is off to all of them if so.

photodad · December 17, 2014 at 16:39

Too many sketchy photos, too much to swallow from NASA regarding the Van Allen Belts, too many interviews with astroNOTs that double talk. In 3 months of independent study, looking at both sides, I went from believing 100% we put a man on the moon to 60% sure we didn’t. I have severe doubts and trusting NASA to explain it is like trusting your ex to explain how they didn’t cheat on you.

fbwhatsapp.in · November 12, 2014 at 23:27

I believe landing on moon was a historic moment for all human beings and to cast a doubt on it with stupid hoax theories is to belittle this great achievement

Karen · November 12, 2014 at 23:04

For me, I do believe that they really have landed on the moon, it’s not impossible. Americans are really brilliant and intelligent. They did. The only fake there, were those pictures. Those pictures were shot in a studio just like the films. You wanna know why? Because during the flight to the moon as well as the landing, they forgot to bring CAMERA. The CAMERA, I just said it. The CAMERA. And in order for the people to believe that they really landed on the moon(which is true), they have to act like they were on the moon and made pictures and videos that’s why many people and experts have turn their attention to the videos and photographs because they can’t really mimic what’s outside the earth. Can you notice that all those conspiracy theories were only based on the pictures where they said it’s fake. That’s the only reason why. Then, what can you say?

    admin · November 13, 2014 at 09:41

    Dear Karen, do you really believe the crews forgot to take cameras on all the missions that landed on the Moon or are you having a joke with us?

Niels · November 5, 2014 at 22:45

Very strange video form the moon landing 1969

(Link removed, please explain what this video is about and the link will be restored -ADMIN)

Shoaib Alam · October 25, 2014 at 13:55

Then why we don’t reach there at present time? Is there any positive reason behind this. And what about escape velocity in moon? Guys please reply me it’s important. Please Mr. ADMIN.

    admin · October 27, 2014 at 10:40

    Dear Shoaib, today there are no rockets in service powerful enough to send a human mission to the Moon and back. This may change in a few years if the SLS rocket (link) completes its development. Then we would still need to pay for a suitable system of vehicles equivalent to the Apollo CSM and LM.

    The cost is the crucial thing. The Apollo missions ended early (link) because starting in 1968 the US Congress began to severely reduce NASA’s budget. This was a popular decision as there was a widespread belief that the Moon missions were expensive (true), not worth the money (debatable) and using public money that would otherwise be used to eliminate poverty and hunger (untrue). I am old enough to remember this. Due to the real cost of developing lunar spacecraft and the infrastructure needed for Moon missions and the possible negative response from the public there has been only one serious plan to send people to the Moon in decades. This was Project Constellation (link) which met with apathy from the public and was underfunded until it was cancelled.

    I am unsure what you are asking about the Moon’s escape velocity. It is about 2.38 km/s (about 21% of Earth’s).

daoism · October 13, 2014 at 22:10

Nice replies in return of this difficulty with solid arguments and describing all concerning that.|

teja · September 24, 2014 at 21:46

dear admin. …from earth only we can see many stars and brightness of moon …but from moon were d all stars gone….is that all stars are playing hide and seek …..nd what abt the light of sun on moon ….is it night on moon at that time ….

    admin · September 25, 2014 at 11:50

    Dear Teja, you ask

    from moon were d all stars gone….is that all stars are playing hide and seek

    No, the stars were in the sky all the time just as they are in our sky during the day, the Sun’s brightness made them hard to see and photograph though. Have another read at Nick’s article and you will see that he discusses this.

    light of sun on moon ….is it night on moon at that time

    All the Apollo missions landed during the Moon’s day. In fact the landings were timed for the local early morning as the longer shadows made spotting potential hazards easier.

Rogerio Monteiro · September 18, 2014 at 17:31

When the Lunar Module reached the Moon, in July 1969, no people was in there of course! Being so, who did film Neil Armstrong getting out from the module and going down the stairs? I wonder whether someone already posted this question. If that is the case, please be kind enough to forward to me the reply (or reference). Thank you. Best regards from

    admin · September 19, 2014 at 09:04

    Dear Rogerio, this is a strangely common question. A remote controlled camera fitted to the exterior of the Lunar Module filmed the astronauts climbing down the ladder. We covered this in 5 Goofy Moonlanding Hoax Theories . There is more detail in this NASA document (page 20).

      This Is My Display Name · September 21, 2016 at 20:09

      It’s not strange that it’s common; it’d be strange if it wasn’t. It was my first question when I first saw the videos when I was about 6 years old.

      It’s the simplest of questions, to the point that a 6 year old can (and has) come up with it. It requires 0 scientific knowledge or understanding, 0 analysis, and 0 thought.

      The others require a slight, fundamental understanding of something, such as gravity. This one doesn’t. Anyone, regardless of their intellect or knowledge level, is qualified to have it, based solely on a quick glance of the video.

      At the same time, the answer isn’t as easy to happen upon as some of the other details. Cursory reviews of the event are too cursory to get into any of the details, including that one. In-depth documentaries spend their time on the actual details, rather than that one.

      Far more people are going to see the footage than know how it was captured. With that, you’re going to find plenty of people who want to know. Personally, I can tell you all about what caused the 1202 program alarm & how they had to take over manual control because of the rocks, because of I’ve heard both stories repeated ad nauseum, but I don’t know a whole heck of a lot about the camera set up because the documentaries are too busy repeating the story about the 1202 alarm.

      As such, the question isn’t inherently bad. It’s as common as it is because the answer isn’t repeated as often as other details. It’s like the people making the general overviews assume that the people doing in depth stuff will cover it and the people doing in depth stuff assume the general people will cover it.

Yogeet Sharma · September 11, 2014 at 06:13

Dear Govt-sponsored myth-buster admin,

What are your motivations for proving the hoax-theory believers wrong? Were you all blood, sweat and guts involved in the Apollo 11 mission ?

No Stars – Did u go to elementary school ? We do not see stars during daytime on Earth because here we have a thick atmosphere which scatters the light. However on Moon, there is no atmosphere to do that, so the stars ought to be not-just-visible in the dark sky ..but blinding the hell out of your eyes ( Exaggeration to say they would be bright)

No UFO – So you think that all the 400,000 odd people who have reported sighting a UFO worldwide are lying through their noses right ? Have you been living your life so far in a box ? Have you seen 5000 to 25000 year old cave paintings clearly showing UFOs ? How did a cave-men society Earthlings till 3000 BC suddenly get the know-how to make structures like pyramids that required such huge scientific knowledge and engineering technology that it can not be replicated even today with our so-called cutting edge modern technology ? And if UFOs have been around for 25000 years, and if they are seen today all over our skies, would those people be stupid enough to “miss out” the Moon mission of Earthlings ?? Huh !#*#

Why are we avoiding Moon now ? – Mr M.I.B. Administrator, could you please tell me, why Man suddenly “stopped” going to Moon ? If we had a technology back in 60’s to put a Man on Moon, by now we all should be launching from our backyards to spend 2 hours sipping coffee on Moon and to catch a glimpse of how the Blue planet looks in the “sky” of moon !!

Launch from Moon – This bit has really baffled the hell out of me. If it took 10 years of preparation and 1,000 men and scientists to launch a rocket for Moon, how did three men and no support staff manage to launch themselves from Moon and back to Earth ? Shouldnt we be doing the same now on Earth ? Lets scrap the whole NASA intrastructure and just launch ourselves to Moon from the roof of Nearest shopping Mall. Wot say ?

No Earth Pics with Astronauts – What is the first thing you would do if you land on Moon and see Earth in the sky like never before ? Obviously you will take pics of you with Earth in background. U-n-b-e-l-i-e-v-a-b-l-y no Astronaut seemed to notice Earth hanging in the Moon sky !!!

Mr Administrator, plz wake up to reality. When stupidity exceeds gullibility it is termed insanity….by all means ….write all the bull**** u want to write….but plz dun expect us to eat it.

Stop Mooning us !!!!

(Edited to remove offensive language – ADMIN)

    admin · September 11, 2014 at 10:56

    Thank you for your comments. I would like to make it clear that this blog is created by Armagh Planetarium and not any government.

    We have published other articles on the Apollo project, you might find some of them helpful, especially the posts on the Lunar Module and the cancelled Apollo missions. Elsewhere, there are are extensive resources on the history of the Apollo moonlandings and on the lunar environment. Why don’t you have a look at some of them to answer your questions and clear up your misconceptions? A good starting place might be A Man on the Moon by Andrew Chaikin (Penguin Books, ISBN 0-14-027201-1).

    When you complain of the lack of photographs from the Moon showing the Earth, it especially suggests that you have been visiting some of those misinformation sites rather than checking for yourself, because the Apollo 17 crew made the effort to capture the Earth which was high in the sky in their portraits, for example

    Harrison Schmitt

    We have discussed UFOs else where on this blog, but to cut a long story short, in nearly 70 years of reported UFOs, there has not been one credible piece of evidence from anywhere in the world of alien technology. This is a fact and in no way an attack on the honesty of those who report UFOs. Neither is there evidence of alien beings interacting with humans in the past. To assume thousands of years ago humans needed outside guidance to build structures is to assume that human beings are stupid and incapable of achievement. That is absurd and borders on offensive.

    I hope this has helped, if you need further assistance please avoid the offensive and insulting language you felt the need to include in your original comment.

      Gab · October 11, 2014 at 12:20

      I was thinking. If I were to go to the moon as an explorer or someone concerned on the very actual experince standing on the moon, I wold have prepared some sort of scientific tools to measure every bit of information I can anticipate rather than just bringing back some pictures to say I went there. Or should they already have the equipment there-why are we always using pictures like we were tourist at the moon. Can we do some sort of scientific tricks of taking pictures which can only be done when your in atmosphere of the moon? btw in that picture i was curious. first time i see a rod stick to the top of the flag? looks like a support?

        admin · October 13, 2014 at 09:56

        Hi Gab, thanks for your comments. The Apollo 11 crew did indeed take a limited set of scientific tools with them, this was the Early Apollo Scientific Experiments Package and you can read about it at this link. Results from the experiments and from samples and data brought back from the Moon are in the Apollo 11 Preliminary Science Report, here is a link to it.

        Later Apollo crews took a far more elaborate set of equipment with them, these were the Apollo Lunar Surface experiments Packages (ALSEPs).

        Can we do some sort of scientific tricks of taking pictures which can only be done when your in atmosphere of the moon?

        I am not really sure what you are asking here, but if it helps there are movies of unique phenomena like the parabolics arcs made by the dust thrown up the wheels of Lunar Roving Vehicles which can only occur in a vacuum environment.

        You are quite right that the flag poles left on the Moon included a horizontal rod to support the flag. This was because there would be no wind to blow the flag. In fact the Apollo 12 astronauts were unable to get this rod to catch and the flag had to hang limply as shown in the picture at this link.
        I hope this has helped you.

          Lunar-MythBuster · June 18, 2015 at 01:53

          In the article, you give, what I believe is, the best proof of man landing on the moon. Yet in the article and in the comments, you barely reference the Lunar Laser Retro-reflectors and do not explain their purpose or how they were verified by observatories around the world.

          Here is the wikipedia article on the retro-reflectors:

            ThrowAway · July 23, 2015 at 05:06

            Becuase they can be planted without having to actually step on the moon. seriuosly so no naive.

            Admin some questions for you:
            -how do you explain the stereoscopic camera/parralex calculations of pictures from moon landings, that using basic equations shows that the distance of objects in moon photos is actually within ~150-300m when it should be 1500m (from memory)?
            -bubbles in space. scuba divers evident in footage in space. there is footage of this on many sites.
            -how do you deny in the last 5-15 years or so, greater quality footage and things like this (youtube search): orb splitting ufos, cloud cloak ufo, and countless other visibly-plausible ufo videos…SO many out there. what exactly is your threshold for ufo’s being ”credible”…again, as is an often occuring theme in your articles, just because a notion is not mainstream does not make it uncredible. pandering to the masses of sheeple yet again, tssk tssk.

            (Edited for language-ADMIN)

              George Birch · January 13, 2017 at 18:56

              Hi. I just did a couple of YouTube searches using your search terms “orb splitting ufo” and “cloud cloak ufo”.

              The first brought me straight to video of the U. S. Army Golden Knights parachute team doing a night jump, the second to lots of interesting shots of unusual clouds.

              To me, none of it looked like alien spacecraft.

      thumbs1964@hotmail · January 8, 2015 at 16:08

      We’re ARE the stars? Given what were ARE thought, light traveled here, from the source, i.e. the stars, where are they? ANSWER THIS.. OR ADMIT YOU ARE LYING, OR SAY “YOU DON’T KNOW.” THESE DARK SKY PHOTOS, HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLAINED…UNLESS PHYSICS, AND THE VERY NATURE OF LIGHT TRAVELING. IS A DECEPTION….AND “c” Is a constant and not a limit…it seems “they” don’t lie about somethings, the powers that be, LIE about everything…just in case…

        admin · January 9, 2015 at 13:38

        We’re ARE the stars?

        Do you mean in the photos from the Moon’s surface? Try looking at item 2 at 5 Goofy Moonlanding Hoax Theories and remember the missions landed during the local day. Can you see stars during the day?

        Please do not accuse us of lying.

          Tony · February 24, 2015 at 00:10

          Admin, thanks for basing your information on FACTS. Too many people to not understand such things as the lens speed required to take these pics, which would not allow for the “star light” to be captured by the cameras of that day. Your information and facts are top notch. Good job!

          Marc · November 17, 2016 at 07:27

          Very plausible answer wrt stars:

          When there is a full moon go outside and see how many stars you can find compared to a night when the moon is not out. You will see the difference. The stars are very faint and get washed out by the bright light of the moon.

          The reason why no or very little stars can be seen is because of the Earth. The Earth, when lit by the Sun, is many thousands times brighter than the stars around it. As a result the Earth is so bright that it swamps out most if not all of the stars.
          Answered by: David Latchman, B.Sc. Physics, University of the West Indies

          The stars are there and the astronauts can see them if they look away from the sun. The reason that the stars do not show up on the film is that the stars are so dim that the camera cannot gather enough of their light in a short exposure. Our eyes are a lot more sensitive to light than photographic film. A good example of this is when we take a picture with a camera that is back lighted. The photographer can plainly see the features and colors of the object(usually a relative), but when the picture is developed, only the shadow outline can be seen of the person without any features.

          Any picture that you may see of stars are from time-lapse photos. To take a time-lapse photo of the stars, the shutter must be left open on the camera in order for the lens to focus enough light on the film for the image to show up. Longer times allow more photons to enter the camera and record the image. The image is built over time from the total number of photons striking the film. The dimmer the object, the longer the film must be exposed because there are fewer photons per unit of time reaching the camera than for a brighter object. The brightness of an object is directly related to the number of photons that reach a recording device such as your eye or a camera. For example, to get a decent photo of the full moon, the shutter should be open for about a second or two. To record the image of a star, the shutter must be open from several minutes to several hours in order for enough photons to hit the film and make an image. Some of the spectacular photos that are made by the large telescopes, which col As for the pictures of the astronauts, the sunlight reflecting off of them is so bright that the shutter speed of the camera has to be a fraction of a second. If the exposure was longer, the film would absorb to many photons from the astronauts and they would become ‘washed out’ and appear as a featureless form of white, the opposite of the underexposed ‘shadow’.
          Answered by: Matthew Allen, B.S., Physics/Calculus Teacher Saint Scholastica Academy

          Source: http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae323.cfm

        Stubob · December 8, 2015 at 00:14

        Actually, “c” has been proven to not be a constant… It was much faster at the time directly after the Big Bang

          admin · December 8, 2015 at 10:25

          Dear Stubob, thank you for your comment, but I believe the idea that the speed of light varied in the distant past is a hypothesis but has not been confirmed yet.

    Azzy · January 22, 2015 at 08:35

    I couldn’t agree more…………great write-up dude…..

    philip · August 11, 2015 at 15:33

    Well said Yogeet,i would just like to add,when talking of evidence for UFO,s & ET,s we have now,photographs,videos,military personnel,high ranking officials,presidents,astronauts,policemen,civilians from all walks of life,we have multiple witness,s some sightings seen by hundreds at a time.implants being removed from abductees that science can’t explain.if you go to court and a policeman gives evidence,it is usually enough to convict,Yet time after time science constantly tries to de-bunk all this evidence.The camera never lies,UFO,s are here and always have been.To those who are sceptics don’t believe that science is always right,evolution is only a theory!

      admin · August 12, 2015 at 08:55

      Dear Philip, you may want to read our article Astronauts, Aeroplanes and UFOs (link) to see how weak these accounts attributed to military officers are.

      Are you quite sure that UK courts generate guilty verdicts solely on a single police officer’s testimony?

      time after time science constantly tries to de-bunk all this evidence

      Scientists would love there to be unexplained phenomena in the sky, it would be an amazing opportunity for new research and the recognition and prestige that goes with it (plus satisfying the scientists’ own curiosity), the fact that the ‘evidence’ offered is so low quality means scientist will continue to be disinterested in UFOs.

      The camera never lies

      Are you really sure of that? Do you really think that no image or video of a “UFO” has ever been of a misidentified mundane phenomenon or even a hoax?

      By the way, “all sky cameras” are now easily available. These can be set up and left to run for days at a time to record meteors, satellite passes etc. If alien spaceships are common why have no UFO groups bought a set of these and produced enough evidence to attract the attention of the scientific community?

utkarsh singh · August 21, 2014 at 14:24

it was the result of cold war between usa and ussr. It resulted in many fake and real facts that are still unknown to us. In my views that whole man missions of usa was a fake and that all 12 never went to moon. Still many truth and lies are said by nasa on many issues.

Janice · July 26, 2014 at 12:43

The trip to the moon was a very political competition between the US and the USSR to showcase which one was the most powerful, dominant, technologically advanced, etc. If the moon landing was a hoax, why haven’t the Russians to this day come up with a absolute proof of it? I mean the US kicked their collective asses on that competition to win the hearts/minds of the people on this planet. Why then would they not do their utmost to prove that is was a fake? They already had sent their own probes, they had technology to prove the landings fake or not, but they accepted defeat. So to all who entertain the hoax views: wake up, it did happen. You are giving humanity too little credit.

    Azzy · January 22, 2015 at 08:30

    The then Soviets did not do their utmost to prove the landings was fake because Yuri Gagarin did not make to space, thus, was not the 1st man in space. Who’s to prove it? They lied, so do US Govt on moon landings. Too many unexplained instances…

      admin · January 22, 2015 at 08:55

      Dear Azzy, why do you believe Gagarin did not go into space? If he didn’t, who do you believe was the first human in space?

        Shriki · April 11, 2016 at 18:50

        But Mr Admin why did US never send any person to moon after this mission which was 46 years ago.Is it because they have forgot the system and technology which they used to send men in 1969.

          admin · April 12, 2016 at 08:56

          Dear Shriki, thank you for your question. I have answered very similar questions already in this comments section, please scroll up see my responses to Shoaib Alam’s question posted October 25, 2014 and Naim Ahmad’s question posted May 20, 2015.

          You may also wish to see my article Apollo 18: the truth about the lost Moon missions (link) which discusses why the Apollo Moon missions ended with Apollo 17.

          I hope this helps you.

kabota · June 10, 2014 at 07:44

my only question is, how did they launched back from the moon? we see that huge preparation is being done when they want to launch from the earth and they need to go at least 12km/ sec to do escape from the earth gravity. now the moon gravity is much less(1/6) from the earth gravity but they still need to go at least 2 km/ sec speed. with what facilities they did that? did they take rocket with them? and launching platform? and who did all the preparation do do so? am i asking stupid question? may be. but i need somebody to answer if possible please


Niquenak · November 30, 2013 at 01:14

OK It’s not that I don’t believe that mankind has not walked on the Moon, in fact I believe that previous technologically advanced civilisations (forgive my spelling) have in fact been there before ours; it’s just that I believe that Nasa chose to film certain bits in a controlled setting right here on Earth for their own reasons.
So Did we go to the Moon ? YES I think we did.
Have we been to Mars ? Yes I think we have.
Did they film a lot of the Moon Landings right here on Earth ? YES I’m sure they did .
Why ? I can’t tell you that . I just am not sure , Maybe they wanted to control what we were supposed to see . Not what was really there . Sounds Paranoid, just a little perhaps ? Well OK maybe it does, but I feel deep in my heart, a much undervalued thinking tool , that I am right . So there.
What are they up to now ? Oh my word god only knows, but it seems to me that the general population of mother earth is not being respected , nor considered. Worth informing nor consulting , and has not been , for the last sixty years or more. the Germans did not win WW2 the Nazi’s were not destroyed either. In some sick manner their ideology and science got transfered to the ‘free capital of the free world, the USA, and they now control it. Extrapolate back a few thousand thousand years and you may discover their ancestors alive and busy destroying their home planet Mars, before a few of the powerful controllers escaped and started their sick game all over again. Is this a good First Post ? I would rather it was not the infamous Last Post.
Lets round up the Martians and fill them full of feminine thoughts, It’s the only way forward people . We have got to ditch our governments, they are ruining the beautiful planet we live on . We trust them . We should not. We need to politely tell them to go to a different Hell to the one they are making. We can still sort this civilisation out, we still have a little time Precious Little PLEASE PEOPLE VOTE OUT OUR EVIL RULERS

    gotyournumber · August 21, 2014 at 13:29

    (Comment deleted- Sorry but I can’t allow a post purely to insult another commenter -ADMIN)

    Dave · March 29, 2015 at 20:24

    Armstrong said someone would go back up and find his camera. Is that the same camera his wife found in a cupboard with other Apollo items hidden in their house after his death!

    Big Papi Juan · March 29, 2016 at 23:41

    Love your way of thinking Niquenak. I’ve had very similar thoughts myself. Perhaps it’s because I’m Gen X, but I don’t trust our governments one bit. I’m ex-military and saw more lies fabricated for the littlest things.

    Rickster · May 27, 2016 at 18:48

    The moon landings were only one of few great achievements to science and human genius. Then they went on doing business as usual until they created the world mess we are all in today. You just can’t get the same calibre of men and women as back in the day ?

    john · September 10, 2016 at 08:51

    “Why ? I can’t tell you that . I just am not sure”

    So we have to take your statement as truth simply because of your gut feeling?
    While there is much actual physical proof that this civilization ( american to be sure and not the past civilizations you tallked about) did get to the moon using the Apollo Missions (doesnt matter if they were first or not but they did achieve the impossible for you)

    I know people who inspite of spelling out every word and pointing out every proof who would never ever believe anything else but their own manufactured truths.

    Faith alone isnt enough.
    Blind faith can mislead you.

20 Most Popular Astronotes Stories of 2015 | Astronotes · January 6, 2016 at 10:57

[…] (213,291 page views) 4. The Truth About the Black Knight Satellite Mystery (175,999 page views) 5. 8 Myths About Neil Armstrong’s Flight to the Moon (73,579 page views) 6. How Far Away is the Farthest Star? (43,844 page views) 7. The Dangers of […]

10 Most Popular Astronotes Stories of 2014 | Astronotes · January 8, 2015 at 11:33

[…] 2. 8 Myths About Neil Armstrong’s Flight to the Moon […]

11 Strange Facts You Didn’t Know About the First Moon Landing | Astronotes · December 18, 2014 at 10:38

[…] 8 Myths About Neil Armstrong’s Flight to the Moon […]

Kosmische Kuriosa kompakt aus 2013 und 2014 | Skyweek Zwei Punkt Null · January 18, 2014 at 22:41

[…] gemacht wird, dank DASH, des Digital Access to a Sky Century @ Harvard. • Acht Mythen über Apollo 11 und die Rolle von Zond 8 beim Wettlauf zum Mond. • Und der Ruf nach einer Renaissance der […]

Leave a Reply

Avatar placeholder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.