The Apollo moon landing conspiracy is undoubtedly the single most prominent conspiracy, if it exists as such, in American history, and cost us $30 billion.  Just one single point that is proven, and its implications indicate that the moon landing was a hoax.  

Screenshot_2018-12-01 AS11-40-5872

Apollo 11 EVA



Lunar Module

Screenshot_Lunar Module

In the photograph above of the Lunar Module, note the diverging shadows.  Note also there is no blast crater, nor is there any dust on the Module. Diverging shadows are an impossibility if the sun is the only source of lighting.  This is an indication of multiple uses of artificial lights.

Let’s look at the camera they supposedly used on the moon.

A planet with no atmosphere, the moon, is exposed to heavy levels of X Rays and cosmic radiation – this would absolutely fog the film.

  1. In full light on the moon temperatures exceed 200 degrees F, and in full shadow they drop below 200 degrees F.  I know people who have visited the South Pole with better equipment, and they had major film issues.  The South Pole at that time was only 20 degrees below zero.
  2. How were the images so splendidly composed?
  3. The emulsion on the film would have been severely affected.
  4. The metal casing on their camera had absolutely no special protection. 
  5. They somehow took the photos without using an exposure or light meter.
  6. There was no View Finder on the camera!
  7. Wearing pressurized suits, how do you bend fingers to operate this?
  8. A dose of only 25 rem renders film useless – you have no atmosphere and no protection.
  9. And finally, the camera “photos” were proven patently false since they violate a basic law of physics – light travels in a straight line. Diverging shadows make absolutely no sense or logic.

A British statistician has stated that over 85 algorithms and programs had to occur perfectly for one single lunar landing to occur, and with the state of the art in 1969 it’s highly doubtful it could even have been done.

Why were there no heat and exhaust plumes underneath the engine of the Lunar Module.  It was producing thousands of pounds of thrust.  Why was no crater left underneath the Module on the ground?

The Lunar Roving Vehicle in pictures looks like it is on the earth.  Instead of kicking up dust to a factor of 6 (1/6 gravity), it looks like it’s on an earth path, just cruising along.  It doesn’t make sense.

NASA has years of time, and a huge budget to work with Advanced Projects Research Agency and other alphabet agencies and simulate a Moon Landing.  They had access to a 100,000 square foot studio in the outskirts of Los Angeles.  A simulation was a thousand times easier than an actual Moon Landing. 

Antarctica has an abundance of moon meteorites, and the U.S. actively collects them: “the U.S. Antarctic Search for Meteorites program (ANSMET)… spends six weeks of every year living in tents on the ice, searching Antarctica for meteorites.”

Just look at pictures of Apollo 13, supposedly in distress and supposedly nearing the moon.  You look out the window and see the blue atmosphere of earth – that is impossible unless they were still in low earth orbit, staging the emergency.  Everything was scripted.  I am in process of writing a new book about this topic – if you have information you’d like to share, please write me at

Here is what an American researcher, engineer and inventor Ralph René wrote describing how each manned Apollo mission was falsified in roughly the same way:

… Each mission was on sequential tapes and programmed into the computer weeks before the lift-off… all that was left was to provide the distraction that is vital to conman and magician alike just before the deception begins. In this case it was the public launching at Cape Canaveral that provided all the flame, fury and flash that any magician could ever ask for. It focused the attention of billions of people around the world on the launch while diverting us from the scam.

Check out Bill Kaysing’s site at the link below – he was with Rocketdyne, an Apollo contractor -Bill Kaysing worked as a technical writer for Rocketdyne, a company involved in the Apollo program. During this time, Kaysing claims, NASA carried out a feasibility study which found they had only a 0.0017 per cent chance of landing a man on the moon and returning him to earth.