Editing Moon Hoax (section)

===Flight-specific===
{|class="TablePager"
|-
!Statement or document of NASA and/or its defenders
!Statement of Moon sceptics
|-
|
;Strange rotating object
Snoopy (the Apollo 10 Lunar Module) rose up from the Moon to join Charlie Brown (the Command Module).<ref>[http://lunar.arc.nasa.gov/archives/videos/apollo10.html Apollo 10: To sort out the unknowns], NASA, 19/12/01 (also [http://vimeo.com/5415277 available] as a Flash video at Vimeo)</ref><sup>(20:59–21:01)</sup>
|What is the rotating object flying past the lunar module at 21:00?<ref>[http://vif2ne.ru/nvz/forum/archive/264/264023 NASA problems. A film about Apollo 10], 13/11/09 (Rus.)</ref>
|-
|
;"Flight" over a Moon globe?
[Stuart Roosa] It's 2001 type stuff. That old moors just growing magnificently fast, and it's just filling up that hatch window... and you're drifting into the shadow.<ref>[http://movie.subtitlr.com/subtitle/show/279937#line521 For all mankind (1989)], Database of film dialogues</ref>

04 06 54 42 LMP ([Apollo 10] Lunar Module Pilot) [Eugene Cernan] ''"OK baby."''

04 06 54 47 CDR (Commander) [Thomas Stafford] ''"2, OK, 12, 10''"

04 06 54 53 LMP ''"8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1"''

04 06 55 O1 LMP ''"Burn."''

04 06 55 02 CDR ''"OK. OK, it's burning down."''

04 06 55 05 LMP ''"Burning? OK. Got 60 to go; 34 to go; 100 to go; 78 to go, 50 to go; 20 to go; stand by, Tom."''<ref>[http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/mission_trans/AS10_LM.PDF Apollo 10 Lunar Module (LM) Onboard voice transcription], NASA, 6/69</ref><sup>(p. 218)</sup><ref>[http://imdb.com/title/tt0097372 For all mankind (1989)], Apollo Associates, [http://youtube.com?v=DQfiwf58C9U#t=6m57s Part 1], 18/6/07</ref><sup>(6:57–7:29)</sup>
|The ring-shaped structure gets dark in 11 seconds, but the terminator (the border between the light and darkness) on the Moon moves only 70 m for such a short time, whereas the distance to the horizon for an orbit height of about 110 km is about 600 km. 70 m vs 600 km is a too great discrepancy. And why it suddenly gets lit up shortly after that? All this is explainable if we assume that NASA used their huge Moon globes<ref name="reality"/> for filming.<ref>A. Popov, [http://manonmoon.ru/book/6.htm Did the "Apollos" fly around the Moon?], 16/3/09 (Rus.)</ref>
|-
|
;Prevention of destruction or of reconnaissance?
On 16 July 1969, from 8:00 to 9:00 EST (Apollo 11 was launched at 8:32),<ref>[http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4012/vol3/table2.39.htm Table 2-39. Apollo 11 Characteristics], SP-4012 NASA historical data book: Vol. III, Programs and projects 1969–1978</ref> near the Cape Canaveral Space Centre, 7 Soviet trawlers with reconnaissance equipment on board<ref>[http://manonmoon.ru/articles/st4.files/image007.jpg Soviet military radio-electronic intelligence vessel—a re-equipped trawler]</ref> were met by 15 US surface ships, 7 submarines and an unspecified number of P-3 Orion-type maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft with electronic warfare equipment on board, of US Second Fleet. 12 minutes before the Apollo 11 launch, all US coastal, ship and aircraft radio jamming equipment was switched on full power and then switched off 4 minutes after Apollo 11 reached Earth orbit. The operation was justified by an alleged danger that the Soviet ships can try to radio-jam the Saturn V electronic equipment and thus destroy the flight. The danger was later recognised as non-existent, and the $320 million spent on the operation as wasted.<ref>"[http://cosmoworld.ru/spaceencyclopedia/publications?zhelez_32.html Ghost chase on tax payers' funds]", Secret Materials, Vol. 13, Mega-polygraph, Kiev, 6/05 (Rus.)</ref>
|To destroy the rocket would be suicidal for the Soviets as it would equal to declaring a nuclear war. The real reason why the Soviet reconnaissance was suppressed was to not let it receive the Saturn V telemetry data, which would reveal the non-conformance of its real speed and altitude to the declared values and that the flight does not proceed as declared.<ref name="Popov1"/>
|-
|
;1000 page TV scenario
Astronomer Richard West of the European Southern Observatory (ESO) who commented the Apollo 11 Moon landing at the Danish TV says that they had a manual of 1000 pages or so where it was exactly described what the astronauts had to do at what time (in <ref name="akte"/> at 9:21).
|How can it be relied that everything would go in accordance with the 1000-page instruction manual, when every detail was done for the first time? But if it was a play, then an instruction (or scenario) is absolutely necessary. If the actors don't strictly follow the instructions of the director, the show will inevitably fail.<ref name="Popov17">A. Popov, [http://manonmoon.ru/book/17.htm Results], 2/9/10 (Rus.)</ref>
|-
|
;Famous shot of Aldrin "walking on the Moon"
Astronaut Buzz Aldrin, [Apollo 11] lunar module pilot, walks on the surface of the Moon near the leg of the Lunar Module (LM) "Eagle" during the Apollo 11 extravehicular activity (EVA). Astronaut Neil Armstrong, commander, took this photograph with a 70 mm lunar surface camera.<ref name="famous"/><ref>[http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2001-000013.html Buzz Aldrin on the Moon], NASA, 20/8/09</ref>
|
#The face shield (right) shows inconsistent ground lighting, left side spot lit.
#Ground hotspot around astronaut (top left) but dark horizon, unlike sunshine.
#Rock in the distance (left) front lit, while astronaut is back lit. Rock shadow should be parallel to astronaut's.
#Dark side of astronaut fully lit, but no flashbulb, while his shadow is solid black.<ref>[http://rense.com/1.imagesH/11_2dees.jpg Apollo 11 / Famous shot of Aldrin "walking on the Moon"—signs of fakery], D. Dees</ref>
|-
|
;Splashdown
At 13:35 P.M., as the [Apollo 11] command module with its human passengers and its cargo of Moon rocks sped on a north-easterly course 80 [nautical] miles above the Gilbert Islands, it slammed into the atmosphere and streaked like a flaming meteor towards a soft landing in the water below. Fifteen minutes later the command ship's three parachutes lowered it gently, at 21 [nautical] miles an hour, into the Pacific 950 [nautical] miles south-west of Hawaii, 2.7 [nautical] miles (5 km) from its aiming point and 13.8 [nautical] miles (25.6 km) from the [aircraft] carrier Hornet, the recovery ship. Man's first expedition to another world was over. President Nixon watched the recovery from one of the Hornet's two bridges. He caught a glimpse of the spaceship's fiery re-entry into the atmosphere, but shared in the disappointment of the crew and millions of television viewers when the craft splashed down out of sight of the ship.<ref>[http://manonmoon.ru/addon/look/img_3233.html Apollo 11: On the Moon], Look, 8/69, p. 63</ref> [Apollo 11] capsule was first righted by flotation bags.<ref name="life">[http://manonmoon.ru/addon/life/img_3162.html To the Moon and back], Life, 8/69, p. 90</ref><sup>(left photo)</sup>
|If Nixon could see the spacecraft's entry into the atmosphere down its sloping trajectory, the sky must have been exceptionally clear, assuring direct visibleness of hundreds of kilometres. Then the craft descending on three huge parachutes at only 25 km should have been noticeable too: aircraft carrier's bridges are 40–50 m above sea level, corresponding to a horizon of 20–25 km, so the high flying parachutes would be visible. But only a helicopter and the capsule were filmed, without even its parachutes.<ref name="life"/><sup>(left photo)</sup> And if the splashdown accuracy was only 5 km, why was not the ship at the aiming point but stayed 25 km away? Finally, even today Soyuz spacecraft's landing accuracy (50–60 km)<ref>[http://buran.ru/htm/gud%2023.htm Manned spacecrafts "Soyuz", "Soyuz T", "Soyuz TM"], E. Gudilin, 1/6/04 (Rus.)</ref> is an order of magnitude worse than the average of 4 km Apollo could achieve back then,<ref>[http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029/Apollo_18-40_Entry_Splashdown_and_Recovery.htm Entry, splashdown, and recovery], NASA, 23/9/05 (see the "distance to target" line)</ref> which makes such high accuracy unreal.<ref>A. Popov, [http://manonmoon.ru/articles/st7.htm The super-accurate Apollo splashdown—one more link of the lunar bluff], 8/10/09 (Rus.)</ref> All issues vanish if we assume that the crew did not fly but the capsule with it was dropped in advance far enough (25 km) from the ship. Craft entry into the atmosphere can be imitated by a ballistic missile with a suitable head surface material to produce enough fire.<ref name="Popov"/><sup>(pp. 254–257)</sup>
|-
|
;18-day quarantine
As [Apollo 11] astronauts in special isolation suits watched, frogman scrubbed the capsule down with disinfectant.<ref name="life"/><sup>(right photo)</sup> Apollo crew waved as they entered quarantine trainer aboard Hornet.<ref>[http://manonmoon.ru/addon/life/img_3163.html To the Moon and back], Life, 8/69, p. 91</ref> The astronauts then settled down for an 18-day quarantine to make certain their contact with the Moon had not contaminated or infected them in any way.<ref>[http://news.google.ca/newspapers?id=PU4LAAAAIBAJ&pg=7174,1327597 'Houston, Tranquility Base here'], W. Wisniewski, 26/7/69</ref>
|What bacteria can there be on the Moon, tilled already for several billions of years every 27 days now by space cold of −150°C, now by Sun heat of +150°C, and irradiated by streams of radiation from the Sun flares? Do Earth medics have such sterilisers? And why scrub the craft down with disinfectant if it had flown through the atmosphere in a cloud with a temperature of several thousands of degrees on its return? And, if lunar bacteria do exist and are so hardy, then what quatantine, and what disinfectant can help against them? But if there was a hoax, the quarantine was important for its success. The black [gas] masks on the astronauts' faces<ref>[http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/s69-40753.html S69-40753], NASA, 3/4/09</ref> helped them avoid unwanted sights by the welcoming people (and questions from the press during the whole quarantine)<ref name="Nardwuar"/> while getting used to their most important role (Moon flight stories), having ensured three weeks later that the world public opinion had already believed  Apollo Moon landings. It did, so next Apollo crews had no quarantine.<ref>A. Popov, [http://moon.thelook.ru/book/18.htm The difficult burden of glory], 27/12/06 (Rus.)</ref>
|-
|
;TV camera failure?
The [Apollo 12] colour television camera provided satisfactory television coverage for approximately 40 minutes at the beginning of the first extravehicular activity. Thereafter, the video display showed only white in an irregular pattern in the upper part of the picture and black in the remainder. The camera was turned off after repeated attempts by the crew to restore a satisfactory picture.

In the process of moving the camera on the lunar surface, a portion of the target in the secondary-electron conductivity vidicon must have received a high solar input, either directly from the Sun or from some highly reflective surface. That portion of the target was destroyed, as was evidenced by the white appearance of the upper part of the picture.<ref>[http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/A12_MissionReport.pdf Apollo 12 mission report], NASA (12 MB), p. 14–50</ref>
|However the camera is not securely locked into position, and then for over a period of time the camera changes its view as you can see. And as you can hear, everyone thinks it's all very funny.<ref>[http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.tvtrbls.html#1155945 TV troubles], NASA, 14/5/09</ref><sup>(0:45–1:37)</sup> But as the fixing on its stand is not tight enough, the camera is slowly drooping and this fact is demonstrated by the changing images captured over a period of time.<ref>[http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.tvtrbls.html#1161340 TV troubles], NASA, 14/5/09</ref><sup>(2:14–2:18)</sup> (At that time—116:16:02—Alan Bean says that he hit the camera on the top with his hammer.)<ref>[http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.tvtrbls.html#1161548 TV troubles], NASA, 14/5/09</ref> It would not have been possible to see this differential imaging if the camera had really been destroyed by being pointed for a while directly into the Sun—the official reason for its failure.<ref name="what"/><sup>(1:20:19–1:20:52)</sup>
|-
|
;A studio photo?
This view of the damaged Apollo 13 Service Module (SM) was photographed from the Lunar Module/Command Module following SM jettisoning.<ref>[http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-001119.html Explosive Evidence], NASA, 20/8/09</ref>
|The rear side of a spotlight is clearly seen on the top right edge of the photo. When brightness and contrast are increased, a halo due to reflection of its light by dust is seen. So the photo was made in a studio.<ref>A. Popov, [http://manonmoon.ru/book/14.htm The special case of Apollo 13], 16/3/09 (Rus.)</ref>
|-
|
;Apollo boilerplate found by the USSR
In early 1970, the Soviet Union recovered an empty Apollo capsule and returned it to the US several months later. The capsule was identified at NASA as the BP-1227 training capsule lost a while back.<ref>[http://astronautix.com/articles/sovpsule.htm Soviets recovered an Apollo capsule!], M. Wade, 31/7/08</ref>
|It was on the night of 11–12 April 1970, the night after Apollo 13 was launched, and it was its capsule and not BP-1227.<ref name="Popov2"/><ref name="Popov4"/><ref name="Popov5"/><ref>A. Velyurov, [http://free-inform.narod.ru/pepelaz/pepelaz-10.htm A return match: NASA versus the Main bureau of finds], 13/11/08 (Rus.)</ref>
|-
|
;The solder ball "bug" in the LEM
Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14): ''"Our next major problem was the well-known one of the solder ball in the abort switch, which happened just two hours before we were scheduled to go down to the lunar surface, and we noticed as we were on our last circuit of the Moon before starting down, while checking out the lunar module and getting ready, that the abort light came on in the lunar module. And that was a surprise. It shouldn't do that."''<ref>[http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/MitchellED/EDM_9-3-97.pdf Oral history transcript], E. Mitchell, interviewed by S. Scarborough, NASA, 3/9/97, p. 12-19</ref>
|Harry Hurt explains what happened after the mission: "Only after their return to Earth did they learn that the bug illuminating the 'Abort' light was a loose solder ball in the wiring." <ref>H. Hurt III, "For all mankind", Atlantic Monthly Press, 1988, ISBN 9780871131706, p. 225</ref> How did NASA discover that drop of loose solder after the [Lunar Excursion Module] (LEM) was dropped back onto the Moon? I'm really beginning to believe that the CIA resurrected Merlin the Magician and gave him a job with NASA as the assistant to the Wizard of Oz.<ref name="Rene"/><sup>(p. 117)</sup>
|-
|
;The Galileo's experiment
Apollo 15 astronauts repeated Galileo's experiment.<ref name="A15"/><ref>[ftp://nssdcftp.gsfc.nasa.gov/miscellaneous/planetary/apollo/AS15_Ham_feath_drop3.mov Apollo 15 hammer and feather drop] (78 MB)</ref> (Apollo 15 TV camera frame rate was 20 fps.)<ref>[http://honeysucklecreek.net/station/technical.html A technical description of Honeysuckle Creek tracking station during the Apollo era], H. Lindsay, 15/4/09</ref>
|More than a half of the frames in the NASA (.mpg) film are repeated, and after removing them, the acceleration it was taken under was calculated as 9.5 ± 2 m/s². The experiment may have been filmed at NASA's Space Power Facility (SPF) vacuum chamber.<ref name="veche"/><ref>A. Popov, [http://manonmoon.ru/book/11.htm That Moon gravitation], 16/3/09 (Rus.)</ref><ref name="mustdie"/> Also, the same experiment was conducted in a London studio without a vacuum chamber and with the same results in the film "What happened on the Moon?".<ref name="what"/><ref>[http://youtube.com?v=dM0FDGOsslU Moon landing hoax—hammer & feather], Youtube, 21/6/07</ref>
|-
|
;Composite photo?
A view of the Apollo 15 Command and Service Module from the Lunar Module.<ref>[http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a15/images15.html#11963 AS15-88-11963], NASA, 12/11/09</ref>
|If it were an actual three-dimensional scene, the spaceship would be 69 miles above the lunar surface—which would, I would think, make it difficult for a portion of that lunar terrain to obscure part of the ship's S-band antennæ assembly.<ref>[http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo4.html Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 4], D. McGowan, 25/11/09</ref>
|-
|
;Shrink-wrapped photo on Moon surface?
Charlie [Duke, Apollo 16] put a picture of the Duke family—Charlie, Dotty, and sons Charles and Tom—on the surface and took several pictures of it. This image is the best of the series.<ref>[http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/images16.html#18841 AS16-117-18841], NASA, 26/11/09</ref>
|But why did Charles Duke have it shrink-wrapped in plastic? First of all it would puff up and lose its seal or burst in the vacuum when the lunar module's atmosphere was removed. Then there is the question of what would happen when Duke placed it on the Moon's surface at 100°C. Would he succeed in photographing it before it melted and became ugly and deformed?<ref name="step"/><sup>[http://books.google.com?id=EwEEIzdTfW0C&pg=PA159 (pp. 158, 159)]</sup>
|-
|
;Lifted by a wire?
Charlie [Duke, Apollo 16] has dropped the hammer. He tries to bob down to get it but loses his balance and lands heavily on his hands and knees... Charlie wants John [Young] to push back on his head so he can rotate his torso up and over his knees. Instead, John goes to Charlie's left side and holds out his hand... Charlie takes John's hand and rises, albeit awkwardly.<ref>[http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16.sta8.html#1473136 Geology Station 8], NASA, 2/8/09</ref><sup>(0:54–1:20)</sup>
|David Percy comments: ''"The astronaut is getting up with the wire taking the weight, relieving him of five sixths of the Earth's gravity. A magic trick? No, just the help of a wire man."''<ref name="what"/><ref>[http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2681698310485866108#2m06s Moon landing hoax—Wires seen in videos], Google Video</ref><sup>(2:06–2:36)</sup>
|-
|
;Docking in lunar orbit
177:38:58 [Thomas] Mattingly (Apollo 16): ''"OK, about 5 feet."''

177:40:37 Mattingly: ''"Doesn't look like it. I don't have any barber poles (stripped indicators' output; means it's all OK). There we go. Took a couple of extra blurps to get you. OK. Are you free?"''

177:40:52 Mattingly: ''"OK."''

177:41:00 Mattingly: ''"OK, it looks - looks pretty fair. How about if I just retract you?"''

177:41:25 Mattingly: ''"I believe we're there."''

177:41:27 Mattingly: ''"Casper's captured Orion!"''<ref>[http://history.nasa.gov/ap16fj/23_Day8_Pt2.htm#177_40_37 Apollo 16 flight journal, Chapter 23], NASA, 3/5/08</ref>

The inspection is complete. Command module and lunar module manoeuvre to docking.<ref>[http://lunar.arc.nasa.gov/archives/videos/apollo16.html Apollo 16: Nothing so hidden... (1972)], NASA, 19/12/01 (also [http://archive.org/details/NothingSoHiddenApollo16 available] as a Flash video at the Internet archive)</ref><sup>(24:34–24:44)</sup><ref>[http://footagevault.com/clip/FTV-0000821 Apollo 16 lunar orbit rendezvous (FTV-0000821)], FootageVault.com (the docking sequence in the film "Apollo 16: Nothing so hidden", speeded up several times and lasting longer)</ref><ref>[http://lunar.arc.nasa.gov/archives/videos/apollo11.html Apollo 11: For all mankind], NASA, 19/12/01 (also [http://vimeo.com/5612698 available] as a Flash video at Vimeo)</ref><sup>(28:13–30:18)</sup>
|No control thruster activity is visible<ref name="Popov8"/><ref>A. Popov, [http://www.manonmoon.ru/book/13.htm Leaving the Moon], 8/9/10 (Rus.)</ref> (contrast this with the photo of the Apollo taken from the Soyuz).<ref>[http://gosh100.boom.ru/moon1.htm Inconsistencies in the Moon programme materials] (Rus.) – in the last but one photo, the dark circle is the rear view of the Apollo and the white spots are the control thruster exhaust lit by the Sun</ref> Attitude changes made by the lunar module while manoeuvring in lunar orbit look remarkably like a model is being manipulated in front of a lunar backdrop.<ref>[http://apolloanomalies.com/mech_attitude_changes.htm Mechanical attitude changes], 17/8/08</ref>
|-
|
;Earth angle over the horizon
In each of the following Apollo 17 archive photos, the Earth (with an angular diameter of 1.9±0.1°) is at a different angle over the horizon: [http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo17/html/as17-137-20910.html AS17-137-20910]—16°, [http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo17/html/as17-134-20473.html AS17-134-20473]—32°, [http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo17/html/as17-134-20384.html AS17-134-20384]—34°, [http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html#20957 AS17-137-20957]—16°, [http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html#20960 AS17-137-20960]—16°
|Calculating from the coordinates of the Apollo 17 lunar landing site (20.16° North and 30.77° East),<ref>[http://asi.org/adb/04/01/01/02/apollo-landing-time.html Apollo landing time], Artemis Society International, 5/6/99</ref> the Earth should be at constant 53.4° above the lunar horizon.<ref>[http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo4.htm Various other Apollo image anomalies], D. Wozney, 23/10/09</ref>
|-
|
;Return to orbit
188:01:27 [Apollo 17] lunar lift-off film. The television camera was mounted on the rover which Gene [Cernan] parked about 145 m east of (behind) the lunar module. The ascent stage ignites and climbs, spacecraft foil and dust flying in all directions. Ed Fendell in Houston anticipates exactly the timing of ignition, lift-off, and the rate of climb, and the camera tilts to follows the ascent.<ref>[http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/video17.html#launch Return to orbit], NASA, 3/8/09</ref>
|Awesome! And there apparently either wasn't any delay in the signal or NASA had the foresight to hire a remote camera operator who was able to see a few seconds into the future.<ref>[http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo5.html Wagging the Moondoggie, Part 5], D. McGowan, 25/11/09</ref>
|-
|
;Skylab interior photo
Astronaut Charles Conrad, Jr, Skylab-2 commander, smiles happily for the camera after a hot bath in the shower in the crew quarters of the Orbital Workshop of the Skylab space station.<ref>[http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/abstracts.php?p=3272 Skylab-2 mission: commander Conrad in shower], NASA</ref>
|The towel at the upper right corner hangs as on Earth, so there was no weightlessness and the photo was taken on Earth, not Earth orbit.<ref name="skylab"/>
|}