Q: Why is Jarrah so actively involved in the Apollo hoax conspiracy
A: Since he was a child, Jarrah has been fascinated with astronomy,
astrophysics and space travel. He dreamed of being the first man on Mars. But that
dream was shattered when he learned of the Apollo moon hoax theory. He initially
took it with a grain of salt but decided to analyse both sides of the argument to
find out whether there was any truth to the accusations. He also went back to studying
what he previously learned about space.
In his studies it quickly became clear that the pro-Apollo websites were not trying
to prove that Apollo was real, but rather manipulate their readers through flawed
science, logical fallacies and character assassination of those who believe the
missions were faked. Feeling it was time to stand up against these propagandists,
Jarrah took it upon himself to defend the hoax evidence and its supporters from
the numerous lies. Following in the footsteps of the two leading hoax advocates of the
time, Bill Kaysing and Ralph René, Jarrah subsequently became known as The Grandson
of the Apollo Hoax Theory.
Q: What are Jarrah’s credentials?
A: Jarrah White holds Certificate III & IV with distinctions in Screen
(a Film & TV course) at Sydney Institute of TAFE and is currently doing his BSc
with a double Major in Astrophysics and Geology.
Q: Is Jarrah some kind of anti-science crank who hates progress and wants to
destroy the good work done by NASA and other space agencies?
A: This is a frequent accusation from the pro-Apollo camp but... definitely
not! Jarrah is a keen enthusiast of space travel and supports the idea of manned
travel to the moon, mars (and beyond...). He gives NASA and other space agencies credit
where credit is due. In fact, he praises both Neil Armstrong and David Scott for proving
space docking is possible with their Gemini 8 mission. But so far he has not seen any
evidence to convince him that manned moon missions have occurred.
Jarrah believes the technology for safely achieving moon and interplanetary travel will
become available in the coming decades. And in fact, believes the basics for it are
already available from private companies. SpaceX has unveiled plans for their Falcon XX,
a rocket with a lifting capacity of 140 metric tons, more than enough to lift a shelter
module surrounded by two metres of water shielding. Jarrah has theorized on how SpaceX
might use this technology to get to the moon and mars for real.
Ironically, many of Jarrah’s opponents support much the same goals. But for some reason,
appear not to care whether the missions take place or not and will defend them regardless.
Jarrah demands real missions!
Q: How was the hoax pulled off?
A: There are two scenarios that we have to consider. On one hand we have
missions in which the Apollo astronauts stayed in low earth orbit (Apollo 10 for
example), and on the other hand we have missions in which the crews stayed on the
ground the entire time (such as Apollo 15).
In the former case, the Apollo 10 astronauts were launched with the Saturn V and
simply orbited the earth for the duration of their mission. In the event that any
independent party made an attempt to listen in, Apollo telecommunications were relayed
to an unmanned cislunar craft, which then repeated or reflected the signals towards
the earth. To account for the time that the CSM went behind the earth, three geostationary
relay satellites would be required to maintain a continuous connection with the
unmanned moon craft.
In the Apollo 15 scenario, the astronauts went up the gantry elevator and boarded
their capsule. Then prior to launch they got out and went back down the elevator
or, quite possibly,
down the emergency chute to the blast shelter under the launch site. They
were then picked up by NASA and went into hiding at a military base for the duration
of the mission.
Meanwhile the Saturn V was launched unmanned and jettisoned into the South Atlantic.
All the voices and videos came from scripted pre-recorded tapes that the NASA Manned
Space Flight Network (MSFN) relayed over the landlines to Houston. An unmanned cislunar
probe was used to broadcast identical signals for any independent party who tried
to listen in.
Q: Weren’t there independent parties tracking Apollo all the way to
the moon and back?
A: No. There are some known Ham radio operators who attest to having
picked up signals from Apollo (Paul Wilson, Richard Knadle, Larry Baysinger, Sven
Grahn), but none of them can attest to having tracked these probes all the way to
the moon and back. Grahn for example only testifies to having picked up signals
from Apollo 17 when it was in earth orbit, when it was on the moon and in lunar
orbit. He openly admits to not tracking it the whole way there and back. Baysinger only received communications from Apollo 11 during
the alleged moonwalk, again not the way to the moon and back. Wilson & Knadle received
signals from a diversity of Apollo missions2, but again only when the
crafts were in lunar orbit – an exception being Apollo 15 in which they received
a handful of signals on the alleged flight home. The two were quoted to saying:
“The moon is always in view of two of NASA's primary tracking stations
in Spain, Australia and California, but not so for the amateur. Some of the most
exciting events and transmissions from the Apollo mission always seem to occur when
the moon is below the horizon for the continental United States astronomer!”
Recently, Jarrah met with CSIRO professor Ray Morris, who as a kid received signals from Apollo 13 –
but only during the time they were said to be in earth orbit.
In the nineties, David Percy contacted Jodrell Bank Observatory technician Robert
Pitchard. He stated that they too only tracked Apollo when it was close to the moon,
not the trip there and back: “The Moon probes were observed with a 50ft radio
telescope which at the frequency used (2300MHz) had a beam width of 5/8ths degrees
In round terms this allowed us to pick up signals from up signals from up to about
1,000 miles above the moon’s surface, although small corrections had to be made
to pointing as the probes orbited the Moon.
Voice signals (of good quality) were received from both the orbiting spacecraft
and the Lunar Lander but television signals were only picked up from the spacecraft
on the surface of the Moon. As we were not actively involved in the tracking of
these spacecraft, we did not track them after they had left the Moon. And with regard
to Apollo 10, I have no details of any observations, after all this time – the reason
And on the Russian side, for the most part the Soviets had relied heavily on Jodrell
Bank just to track their own moon-bound spacecrafts because they lacked the capability
to do it themselves (this was discussed in the BBC series, The Planets).
Although later in the early 60s they were able to build deep space network tracking
facilities with a 100million kilometre range, none of these radio telescopes were
tuneable to the 2.3GHz (2300MHz) signals used by Apollo. Only at the last minute
in November 1968 did they manage to equip their
TNA-400* facility in Crimea with suitable receiving
And even then, because NASA did not supply them with the ballistics data, the Soviets
were limited to listening to it during the time Apollos 8, 10, 11 and 12 were supposedly
in lunar orbit.
* In Russian. Can be read using
A: Maybe. Maybe not. For awhile Jarrah was convinced that they were, but
has since reconsidered and remains undecided. Because of the way telecommunications
were handled, it’s hard to say for sure.
The MSFN simply relayed the signals it received over the landlines to the technicians
at the Mission Control Center in Houston. These technicians didn’t need to know
or care where the data came from. So since it was purely NASA’s MSFN who were allegedly
tracking Apollo all the way to the moon and back, regardless of whether the crews
were actually in LEO or on the ground; all they would need do is relay pre-recorded
tapes or LEO signals or both over the landlines, claim it was from the moon, and
the MCC controllers would’ve called it a day.
This was little different to the pre-flight simulations. The MCC controllers were
trained for actual space missions by being fed simulated data over the landlines.
Flight Director Eugene Kranz, in the documentary Failure Is Not an Option, was quoted to saying that
the simulations were so realistic that no controller could distinguish the training
from the real mission. (see time codes 4:40-4:54)
On the other hand, the MSFN could easily have been in the dark too. Honeysuckle Creek
for example had developed their own simulation system for specifically training the
operators. The computers were even capable of simulating the Doppler shift! These
simulators were also designed to be indistinguishable from the real thing. But while
it could be argued that a similar simulation could have been used, it ultimately was
not required to fool the MSFN.
As explained below, the Soviet Union had successfully faked telecommunications by
transmitting the voices of cosmonauts to the unmanned Zond 5, which in turn relayed
them back to earth. At the time the Americans and Jodrell Bank thought the spacecraft
was manned. There was nothing stopping the Americans from also flying an unmanned
spacecraft to the moon and using it to relay data. So if the MSFN operators were not
involved in the conspiracy, they were probably receiving telecommunications from an
In summary: because the MSFN facilities were either NASA owned or NASA contracted,
it is not an outside possibility that they were involved in the hoax; but on the
other hand, they could just as easily have been left in the dark and NASA could
have pulled a Zond 5 on them.
Jarrah has personally asked various radio operators how they know Apollo
telecommunications were not just another Zond 5 stunt, and so far none of them have
given him a direct answer. And considering the Zond 5 hoax has been officially
revealed, Jarrah is amazed that anyone would cite telecommunications as evidence for
Apollo, let alone consider it their best evidence!
Q: How were the videos and still pictures faked?
A: They were filmed either in a studio or on location in the Nevada
desert. When it came down to filming the moonwalk scenes, lunar gravity was simulated
by suspending the astronauts on wires to reduce their weight.
And to complete the look, the videos of the astronauts on wires were played back
in slow motion.
Ironically, the Mythbusters recently tried to debunk this by filming Adam Savage
running around in a replica spacesuit. They filmed him both with and without wire suspension.
But the only slow motion footage shown was of when he was not suspended by a wire.
If one takes his wire jump footage, slows it down to 67% and then plays it alongside
the original Apollo 16 footage, the two are a near-perfect synchronization.
Bottom line, if Russia could keep a secret that involved thousands of people for
so long, so could NASA. And anyway, not everyone at NASA would have needed to be
in on the conspiracy. For example, as stated above, the technicians at Houston Mission
Control Center would be unable to distinguish the difference between simulations
and the real missions. Hence there is no need for them to ‘keep quiet’ about anything.
Likewise for the remainder of NASA staff and contractors located on the ground.
Once the rockets were out of sight they had no way of knowing whether the CSM continued
to the Moon, came down shortly afterwards, or just stayed in earth orbit. Everyone
just assumed it happened the way it was reported and they had no reason to suspect
otherwise. Ultimately there were only three eyewitnesses for each mission, not thousands.
Q: Why did the Russians remain silent?
A: Jarrah can see three reasons.
Firstly, if you really want to know what Russia thought of manned lunar exploration,
just ask Jodrell Bank’s Sir Bernard Lovell. In May of 1963, the President of the
Soviet Academy of Sciences Mstislav Keldysh instructed him to inform NASA’s deputy
administrator Hugh Dryden that Russian had to postpone manned moon flights indefinitely,
because they could see no way to protect their cosmonauts from the insurmountable
dangers posed by solar flare radiation3, 4, 5, 6. Well into 1966, around
the time Russia put Lunik 10 in lunar orbit, Sir Bernard remained in contact with
the Soviets asking when they intended to send a human to the moon.
In 1999, Sir Bernard was quoted by the BBC along these lines: “I had frequently
asked my Soviet contacts when they intended to send a human being to the moon and
their response was always ‘when we can be absolutely certain of getting him back
alive’. And they did not believe the Americans would do this and in fact it’s pretty
clear that the Americans did take considerable risk.”
Well into December 1968, Alexei Leonov and his comrades pleaded the politburo to
let them pilot Zond 7 around the moon, as the Zonds 5 & 6 had already flown around
the moon and returned to earth in September and November of that year – the former
of which was successfully recovered. But their pleas were rejected despite having
proven their capabilities with Zond 5.
Jarrah believes that Russia may likely have planned to fake their manned moon flights
too. Aboard Zond 5 was an audio cassette player which played back the voices of
cosmonauts Pavel Popevich and Vitali Sevastyanov7, 8, 9. At the time
many thought Russia had sent the first men around the moon, but upon return of the
capsule it was revealed that it was only a tape recording. NASA, who at the time
weren’t officially planning a ‘manned’ moon mission until April or May 1969, responded
to the tape recorder stunt by changing Apollo 8’s flight plan from a high earth
orbit flight to a lunar orbit flight in December 1968.
Russia had the opportunity to claim victory over the Americans, but they let it
slip through their fingers. But even if they were to cry foul on the Americans,
it would only jeopardize their own program. If the USSR was to come out and say
that Apollo was faked due to lethal radiation, the Americans would just as easily
cry foul if the Soviets proceeded to fake their own for the same reason.
The second reason for their silence would be because of free trade deals. Since
Kennedy administration, the United States government and its allies had been
selling tons of American wheat to the Soviets. It’s no different to modern times:
the US cuts multi-billion dollar trade deals with the Chinese and in turn China
gets kicked off America’s list of human rights violators, likewise Russia gets tons
of wheat in return for silence.
Thirdly, nowadays the Russian and American space programs are partners in crime.
In the early 70s the US and Soviets agreed to work cooperatively in the exploration
of space. This international cooperation became a reality in 1975 with the Apollo
Soyuz Test Project, the first joint mission. Many other missions followed and Russia
essentially became the United States’ best ally. In the 1990s, with the Buran program
cancelled, the Russians had no shuttle to get to their Mir space station, only Soyuz.
And the US had no equivalent to Mir. The solution was the Shuttle-Mir program, in
which US shuttles carried astronauts and cosmonauts to and from the Russian Mir
space station. Now the US and Russia have collaborated towards the construction
of the International Space Station, involving not only them but also every other
space nation – except for the US’s best trade partner, the Chinese.
The Russians were also kind enough to give American astronauts a ride to space aboard
the Soyuz during the time the shuttle was grounded. And with the termination of
the shuttle program, the US will now be reliant on Russia’s
Soyuz to get to the ISS. It’s essentially a one-world space government, one big
happy family. No one will blow the whistle on anybody.
Q: What is the most compelling evidence that the moon missions were
A: Jarrah can nail it down to four pieces of evidence.
First, as demonstrated by James Van Allen’s own findings, the radiation belts that
surround earth would have been lethal to astronauts10, 11. It began in
1952 when James Van Allen & his team at the University of Iowa began launching Geiger
counters into space aboard rockoons. Although these did not have enough lift to
get into orbit, these experiments were able to detect radiation levels higher than
what Van Allen had expected. Later in the late 50s and early 60s, his Geiger counters
were carried aloft by the Explorer satellites and Pioneer space probes. Each time
the spacecrafts entered the radiation belts, the Geiger counters would become continuously
busy. They encountered protons and electrons with fluxes of 40,000 particles per
square centimetre per second and average energies ranging between 1-100 MeV.
Before Van Allen began shielding his Geiger counters with a millimetre of lead,
the instruments detected radiation with a dose rate equivalent of 312.5rad/hr to
11,666rad/hr for the outer belt and inner belt respectively [Fig-2]12. These
instruments quickly became jammed by the radiation. Even to this day, the belts
are so severe that satellites must operate outside the belts: geostationary satellites
operating beyond the end of the outer belt (but still within the protection of the
magnetosphere) and GPS satellites operating in the gap between the two belts. Meanwhile
low earth orbit satellites like the Hubble must shut down some of their instruments
during South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) transit. Even after Van Allen shielded his Geiger
counters with lead, the results were still equivalent to 10-100rad/hr. He concluded
that effective shielding of astronauts was beyond engineering feasibility available
at the time, that even a rapid transit through the belts would be hazardous, and
that for these reasons the two belts must be classed as an uninhabitable region
of space that all manned space flight must steer clear of.
Even if we discount the Van Allen belt, there are still other dangers to consider.
The sun constantly bombards the earth-moon system with solar flares. Regardless
of whether these flares deliver x-rays or protons, or are minor or major, both are
a hazard to humans. A major flare delivers in excess of 100rad/hr, a minor flare
can deliver 25rad/hr depending on how many centimetres of water shielding is used.
The minor flares of May 10th and July 15th 1958 for example,
would have required 31gm/cm2 of water just to bring their dose rates down to 25rad/hr [Fig-3].
The Apollo capsule, with its aluminium honeycomb hull and outer epoxy resin ablator,
was rated at 3gm/cm2 on the walls and 8gm/cm2 on the aft heatshield.
The thicker portion of the spacecraft walls would bring the dose rate of such flares
down to around 1,000rem/hr. The records show that 1400 of these minor flares occurred
over all nine moon flights (Tables
1 & 2). NOAA’s Comprehensive Flare Index for Major flares, also
reveals that thirty of the major ones took place during the Apollo missions. By
any definition, these astronauts should have been as dead as spam in a can.
The second smoking gun is the fact that the Apollo 10 telecasts were proven to have been pre-filmed and
edited together. After every space mission, NASA releases a ground-to-air communications
transcript covering everything the crew and capsule communicators (Capcoms)
said during the flight. The company Spacecraft Films sells what they claim is
complete and unedited television transmissions and 16mm reels from the Apollo
missions. Jarrah purchased the Apollo 10 DVD set and compared the in-flight videos
with the transcript. To his astonishment, Jarrah found numerous occasions in which
the views of earth and even interior shots would cut from one angle to another and
yet the audio would remain perfectly synchronized to the video with no signs of
interruption when the video cut. So we know that the astronauts didn’t simply cut
the camera and then begin rolling moments later.
The Apollo astronauts had only the one television camera hooked up to the S-band
antenna, so these broadcasts should be one continuous shot with no edits – as per
the false claims made by propagandists. Because these edits only take place during
post production, not whilst the video is being recorded, it would not have been
possible to cut and paste LIVE video. The only logical conclusion is that the views
of earth were pre-filmed, edited together, and then sandwiched between the interior
shots with the ground-to-air communications dubbing the video regardless of the
edits. Transitions from these fake views of earth videos to interior scenes were
pulled off by conveniently cutting the camera or blacking the scene from interior
to exterior and vice versa, in one circumstance Eugene Cernan went as far as putting
a piece of paper in front of the camera lens during this switch from exterior to
By comparing the videos with the transcript, Jarrah also discovered that there were
sections of video missing from the “complete” Spacecraft Films DVD set. Jarrah knows
these missing pieces of video exist, because in the transcript the Capcom confirms
that the MSFN was ‘receiving’ them. For reasons unknown, Spacecraft Films omitted
minutes of footage from Apollo 10 and then sold their DVD set to the world as “complete
After Jarrah released his video covering this, ironically titled “Flagging The
Gems”, Mark Gray of Spacecraft Films flagged it for copyright infringement
and had the video pulled along with Jarrah’s entire Youtube account. Gray’s copyright
claims are fraudulent and thus he is guilty of perjury, because NASA’s in flight
telecasts are PUBLIC DOMAIN. They are not copyrighted.
The third piece of evidence that the Apollo missions were faked is the fact that
the moon rocks actually on the moon later turned out to be different to the ones
the astronauts supposedly collected. See below.
Fourth, and probably the most visually identifiable, is the fact the
framerate of the Apollo 11 telecast is not what NASA claimed it was.
NASA claims that the only television camera that recorded the Apollo 11
EVA was a B&W non-interlaced Westinghouse camera that ran at
10fps. As this framerate is lower than both conventional television
framerates of PAL (25fps, interlaced) or NTSC (30fps, interlaced), the
video allegedly received by the DSN and MSFN needed to be converted to
NTSC. NASA says that this was done by pointing an NTSC TV camera at a
screen that displayed the 10fps feed. The unfiltered 10fps was recorded
on 1inch reels, but only the 2inch reel containing the NTSC conversion
Nonetheless, it is important to note that at least 24fps (cinema) is
sufficient to show fluent motion. Framerates lower than 24fps,
especially as low as 10fps, will appear very jumpy. Because fourteen
important frames of natural motion are missing. Additionally, in a
10fps to 30fps conversion, the motion on screen would update only once
every three frames. Because the camera pointed to the screen would have
recorded the same display three times.
Frame by frame analysis of the digital transfers of NASA’s 2inch reels
however reveal this not to be the case. The motion of the astronauts’
movement is very smooth and not jumpy at all. And frames update not
once every three frames, but four out of every five frames with the odd
one out being an overlay of the frames before and after. This clearly
indicates that the Apollo 11 EVA video playback speed was not 10fps but
24fps. Meaning the EVA was shot with a camera that reportedly was not
in the Apollo 11 crews possession during the time they were supposedly
on the moon.
Because of the similarities in age, chemistry, mineralogy and oxygen isotope ratios,
as well as the alleged lack of water in Apollo samples, this has led William Hartman
to believe that the moon was formed when a mars-sized planet collided with the earth.
All water was vaporized in the impact and the moon formed out of the terrestrial
debris knocked off into space. To account for the similarities between Apollo samples
and eucrites, some such as Ruzicka et al have proposed that the mars-sized planet
had a eucritic composition14.
Clearly, NASA’s Apollo samples are a combination of terrestrial basalts, eucrites
and tektites. Terrestrial basalts are plentiful, but the advantage of Eucrites is
that they show signs of solar and cosmic radiation, which is absent in earth rocks.
Things like ‘zap pits’ (micrometeoroid impacts) can be added by firing projectiles
from high-speed multi-stage gas guns which existed at the time. To hide the fact that these
Eucrites fell through the atmosphere, the first millimetre was chipped away to remove
the fusion crust (the outer burned layer due to atmospheric entry). Contrary to
what propagandists claim, removing of this layer will not subsequently remove a
large portion of helium3 or other solar wind induced isotopes, because solar wind
a few millimetres into the rock– not 1 micrometre as the propagandists claim.
And while chipping away the fusion crust may leave traces of themselves in the rock,
these tools are little different to the tools used by NASA to chip the samples into
the tiny sugar-cubed pieces that they send to geologists. In short, if a geologist
found traces of these tools, he/she would be unable to tell whether they got there
through chipping off fusion crust or by chipping free the sub-sample from its parent
Q: How do you know the moon rocks are fake?
A: If Jarrah picks up a rock from the moon to analyse in a lab and
then send up a probe to the moon to kick up plumes of dust for analysis via radio
telescope, he expects to find the same chemical signatures and mineralogy. This
assertion is supported by the lunar maria samples from Apollos 11, 12 and 17 being
virtually the same above and below ground, the fact that NASA claims their Lunar
Prospectors and Clementine spacecrafts indicated that the lunar geology is the same
as Apollo throughout, and the fact that the vast majority of official lunar meteorites
are the same as NASA’s samples. Yet when the European Space Agency’s SMART-1 probe
crashed into the Lake Of Excellence, a lunar maria region, it was reported that
the minerals kicked up were different to the Apollo rocks.
In recent years correlating evidence has immerged from China. In 2013,
they landed the Chang’e 3 lander which deployed a tiny rover carrying
an Active Particle X-ray Spectrometer to analyse the soil. Analysis of
the spectral peaks show the chemistry of the actual lunar soil to be
completely unlike any rock from the Apollo missions or any rock we know
about. The soil detected by the Yutu rover is chemically 43% by weight
calcium oxide, 39% titanium oxide and 4% silicon dioxide. It also
contains chromium oxide as a major element (>1% by weight) and
strontium, yttrium and zirconium as minor elements (0.1-1% by weight).
For direct comparison: Apollo soils are generally 10% calcium oxide,
0.5-10% titanium oxide and ~45% silicon dioxide; with chromium oxide as
a minor element and strontium, yttrium and zirconium as trace elements
(<1% by weight).
Likewise, although most “lunar meteorites” can be closely matched with Eucrites,
there are known exceptions in which the meteorites have gone on the record as being
“distinct from” or “unlike any basalt from Apollo or Luna” ( Yamato 793169, Asuka 881757, Miller Range 05035, Dhofar 287, NWA 773). These include differences in chemistry and
even oxygen isotope ratios. One such meteorite, Dhofar 280 [Fig-7], contains an iron silicide mineral Hapkeite [Fig-8, 9]. Which
is believed to be formed through micrometeorite impacts with the moon [Fig-10], and due to
billions of years of such bombardment, the mineral is believed to be common on the
lunar surface. Yet Hapkeite has never been found in any of the Apollo samples.
Some geologists acknowledge this ferric iron, yet others dismiss it –
attributing it and the water to terrestrial contamination! By
comparison, none of the soil samples remotely collected by the Soviet
Union were reported to contain any oxidation and the only sample
containing water was Luna 24, which is only found by drilling nearly
1.5meters under the surface. They found 1,000ppm drilling this deep,
the other two Soviet samples collected from shallower depths were bone
dry. By comparison, Apollo samples supposedly collected from the
surface contained up to 6,000ppm of water. Something’s wrong!
Q: But hasn’t water been found on the moon remotely by Cassini, Chandrayaan-1
& Deep Impact? Not to mention kicked up by LCROSS?
A: The only significant findings were in the lunar polar regions. Regions
were the daylight temperatures drop below the boiling point of water [Fig-16] and where some
craters are permanently shadowed [Fig-17]. The highest water detected in the remote sensing
data was at the North Pole: 3,000ppm. By comparison, the only signs of water outside
the polar regions were so low that they didn’t even register in the Chandrayaan-1
data [Fig-18, 19, 20, 21].
Q: What about the laser retro-reflectors on the moon?
The Russians successfully placed such retro-reflectors on the surface of the
moon, yet they have never claimed to have put a man on the moon. The Russian reflectors
were carried by the unmanned rovers Lunokhod 1 & 2. One of these reflectors is
still in use. The recent Mythbusters show claimed that the only way retro-reflectors could
have got there is by astronauts. This was said while on a visit of the APOLLO laser
ranging facility which uses the Lunokhod 2 mirror.
If there are reflectors at the
Apollo sites, they were dropped there by unmanned probes. The US certainly had the
capability to do this since they had earlier placed several Surveyor probes on the
moon. In fact, the lunar retro-reflector experiments were originally intended for
the Surveyor missions. Hence similar probes carrying reflectors would have done
Some propagandists claimed that if there was no reflector on the
lunar surface, we’d never get the laser signal back because the moon would not reflect
it. This false claim even found its way onto Mythbusters. When
it was pointed out that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)16
and the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory17 were able to bounce lasers
off the moon and back to earth without the aid of any retro-reflector, propagandists
have now switched the statement into saying the retro-reflectors can reflect lasers
with better accuracy than the bare lunar surface.
They even tried to use Jarrah as a fall guy for the propagandists’
erroneous claim that the moon is unable to reflect lasers back to earth!
Q: What about the Lunar Reconassiance Orbiter photographs which show
the lander, rover and tracks?
A: The important point to consider is that LRO is a 100% NASA-run project
and hence NASA could have altered the images prior to releasing them.
In fact a close examination indicates this to be the case. For
example, in some cases the Lunar Rover and Surveyor 3 probe shows as being black [Fig-22, 23, 24],
despite their many bright and reflective surfaces [Fig-25, 26, 27] and with the sun overhead. In
the one case when Surveyor 3 did appear, its white boxes appeared to be aligned
east and west, not north and south as seen in the Hasselblad still-pictures [Fig-28].
There are even anomalies that contradict previous landing site photos. Prior to
LRO, the most commonly cited images were pictures of the Apollo 15 landing site
taken by NASA’s Clementine spacecraft and JAXA’s SELENE spacecraft [Fig-29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36]. These images
showed what they described as a bright “halo” within a 150metre radius around the
landing site. This “halo” was attributed to dust that was disturbed by the engine
exhaust during touchdown. NASA, propagandists and scientists at large have insisted
that the disturbance caused by the engine should be easily seen from orbit. David Scott & Jim Irwin even claimed to have seen it themselves
after their alleged departure from the lunar surface. But by comparing these
Clementine & SELENE images with the newer LRO imagery, Jarrah discovered that the
“halo” was nothing more than the sunlight sides of some giant impact craters [Fig-37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42]. The
alleged lunar module is not even within this halo, but on the outermost edge of
it. In fact the halo exists in the pre-Apollo photos taken by Lunar Orbiter [Fig-43, 44, 45].
The total lack of a visible soil disturbance is one of the most conclusive pieces
of evidence that the ‘artefacts’ were added into the LRO image.
Further, the way the LRO operates is suspicious. The images are transmitted in an
encrypted format which means nobody that eavesdrops on the signal can decode it.
Why encrypt a picture of something that isn’t secret? NASA then holds on to the
images for a few days before releasing them to Arizona State University, who then
reframes and annotates the images before making them public. Why the delay? For
some reason NASA doesn’t want any 3rd party to view a live transmission.
Finally, the LRO images are of very poor quality. The LRO operates at an altitude
of 50km and returns images of resolution 0.5 metres/pixel. And the images have an
odd striped pattern that reduces the quality further. Equivalent earth-imaging satellites
return better resolution from much higher up. The privately owned GeoEye-1 satellite for example has perfectly resolved cars
and even individual people at 0.5 m/pixel, in colour, through an atmosphere, and
from an altitude 14 times higher up than the LRO [Fig-46, 47]. If NASA had installed a similar
camera (which they can afford!) we would be seeing a resolution of 3 cm/pixel and this
would allow us to see the hardware in great detail – assuming that it’s there. We
would also be able to see the landscape in great detail and compare it to the Hasselblad
images. Since the landscape had never been photographed at that resolution prior
to the Apollo missions, a match between the two sets of images would provide a good
test of Apollo’s authenticity.
Q: Could you see the artefacts (if they were there) with a telescope?
A: Although propagandists say that you can’t, Jarrah disagrees and
can prove it. There is a simple formula that scientists use to determine the angular
size of an object in space.
(d ÷ D) x 206,265 = α
Where d is the diameter of the object, D is the distance of the object and α is
the resolution in arc-seconds.
We know the lunar module is 4metres across and the moon is 380,000km away – or 380,000,000metres.
So we plug those digits into the formula and get,
(4 ÷ 380,000,000) x 203,265 = 0.002arc-seconds.
So from this calculation, we know that we need a telescope with an angular resolution
In 2011, Jarrah contacted ESO to ask if they had any luck finding the lunar module and
to inquire about getting some time on the telescope to look at the moon. Despite the
fact that the VLT had taken pictures of The Sea of Tranquility (albeit at only 100m/pixel resolution), he
was told that they “really have never looked at the moon since it is so close that it
is not considered a good use of time” and was directed to the Pic du Midi observatory
archives, despite the fact that it’s telescopes were much smaller than VLT and would
not have been able to resolve the artefacts. ESO have since gone on record to state
that the VLT-I “cannot be used to observe the moon”, but offer no explanation as
to why it can’t be used.
For more information along these lines, readers are offered this video :
Q: What about Apollo 13?
A: The fact is, none of the Apollo missions ever left earth orbit.
In some cases they didn’t even leave earth! After interest petered out following
Apollo 12 (the second landing mission), an element of "jeopardy" was introduced
to draw attention back to the alleged drama of the missions.
The "near disaster" also contributed to another purpose. It got the program cancelled.
As a military and political operation, Apollo's ultimate goal was to beat the Soviet Union
to the moon. That objective was achieved with Apollo 11 and this pretty much nullified
any point in continuing the project. But the scientific community already had even
more ambitious plans: a base on the moon, manned missions to Mars by 1982, even
a manned fly-by around Venus as early as 1973!
These proposals certainly sound spectacular, but they served no purpose to a
military objective. The point of Apollo was to get to the moon first, that's all.
NASA couldn't just simply call it quits once they completed Apollo 11. Not when
all these other space travel ideas were rearing to go. They needed a convenient
excuse that would prevent all of this and also reduce the amount of fakery they
needed to do. So on Apollo 13 they pretended that an oxygen tank exploded and nearly
cost the crew their lives. As a result the Apollo program was cancelled, Apollo's
18-20 were scrubbed, and all proposals of moon bases and exploration of other planets
They still had Apollo's 14-17 to go. But much like Apollo 11 with its grainy pictures,
NASA found ways to decrease or degrade the remaining footage they had to fake. The
aftermath of Apollo 13 enabled NASA to stay closer to home and focus on real stuff
for awhile, like the shuttle and ISS. This makes Apollo 13 the most deplorable of
all the missions. The nation held midnight prayer vigils for the astronaut's safe
return, all the while they casually coasted around the earth in a completely sound
orbiting vehicle - just so NASA would have the excuse they needed.
Q: What do you mean by ‘finding ways to limit or degrade the footage?’
A: What the world saw was not the original footage, but rather a copy
of a copy. Rather than take a direct feed of what the MSFN was ‘receiving’, the
networks had to broadcast a feed from a television camera that was pointed at one
of the monitors at the tracking station. This was done on all the moon flights and
each time NASA pulled various other stunts that degraded the pictures.
Apollo 11 had its black and white and fuzzy TV pictures; on Apollo 12, Al Bean conveniently
prevented any colour moonwalk telecasts when he pointed the TV camera at the sun
and destroyed the Videocon tube; on Apollo 13, the in-flight transmissions were
all cancelled after the alleged explosion so they could ‘save power’; on Apollo
14 the lunar surface was overexposed making all but two brief 16mm clips virtually
unwatchable; and on the last three missions, although they took a Lunar rover to
traverse vast distances, the on-board television camera was not used on the trip
from station to station via rover. There was only audio communications and stop-motion
16mm reels. And remember on all these missions, the broadcasts the world saw were
filmed off television monitors, thus further degrading the already poor quality
Q: What will it take to convince Jarrah that the moon landings were
A: As stated above, the VLT-I has the perfect resolving capabilities
to see the artefacts that NASA claims is on the surface. He will accept a view through
a ground-based optical telescope as proof [Fig-48].
An equally fair question to ask would be: What would it take to convince the pro-Apollo
side that the landings were fake? As far as Jarrah can tell, the opposing side has
not put forth any criteria that they would accept as proof on this point. This is
neither fair nor scientific. In fact, a poll on the Bad Astronomy forum (a pro-Apollo site) revealed
that no amount of evidence would sway the majority of its members to doubt the Apollo
Q: Where can I send Jarrah a donation for his Lunar Tourism fundraise?
A: You can send a donation via PayPal to FlyJarrahToTheMoon@gmail.com
For other methods of payment, please contact Jarrah on Jarrahw@gmail.com
Q: You claim that the radiation would have killed astronauts on their
voyage to the moon. Well what about the Zond 5 turtles? They flew around the moon
and returned safely to earth.
Q: Post Apollo spacecraft have photographed the landing sites, and
the terrain photographed by these probes looks exactly like what was seen in the
Apollo film and videos. How did NASA accurately fake these landscapes?
A: Prior to the Apollo missions, NASA launched their unmanned Lunar
Orbiters 1-5 to specifically map the lunar surface at 1 metre resolution. All six
Apollo sites were mapped by these probes. So all NASA would need do is model their
sets and probes using the LO imagery as a reference.
Q: When astronauts kick up dust, it does not form clouds. It forms
an arc and then falls back down to earth. Does this not prove that they are in a
No, it doesn’t. Propagandists say this is evidence that the
footage was filmed in a vacuum. But dry beach sand behaves the same way, and by
using gray sand, it wouldn’t look any different from what we see in the Apollo footage.
So all NASA would need do to fake the dust movement is carpet the studio with a
layer of dry gray sand. In fact in a particular Apollo 16 scene, the rover’s dust
arcs backward, appears to hit a ‘wall’ of air and then fall down. This
demonstrates an atmosphere was present.
Q: But what about the boot prints? The dust kicked up in the videos
can’t be dry sand, because I’ve seen pictures of distinct boot prints in the still
pictures. Dry sand does not leave clear prints.
A: Keep in mind the still pictures were not necessarily done using
the same materials as were used in the videos. The famous Aldrin print for example [Fig-50]
could have been made in a lightly-moistened fine-grained sand and cement powder mixture,
as this close-up seems to indicate. The picture quality in the videos
is too poor for distinct bootprints to register. This likely explains why we almost
never see such prints being formed in the videos. In the few cases where we do,
the soil appears reflective. This is probably due to a moist layer of sand beneath
a dry top layer.
Propagandists have claimed that the formation of distinct prints is due to sharp,
irregular edges on each dust particle, which causes them to connect together. However,
experiments conducted by Jarrah, in which NASA’s official JSC-1A lunar regolith
simulant was used,
demonstrated this not to be the case. That even with their irregular surfaces,
distinct boot prints in such surface material are not possible.
“Radiation Belts Around The Earth”, James Van Allen. Scientific American, March
“The Danger Zone”, James Van Allen. Space World, December 1961.
“Radiation Protection During Space Flight”, E.E. Kovalev. Aviation Space & Environmental
Medicine, December 1983.
“Tektite glass in Apollo 12 sample”, John A. O’Keefe. Science Vol. 168, 1970.
“Response to the comment by G. Dreibus and H. Wanke on "Comparative geochemistry
of basalts from the Moon, Earth, HED asteroid, and Mars: Implications for the origin
of the Moon”, Ruzicka et al. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta Vol. 66, 2002.