NEW UPDATE: Slow Motion Astronauts on the Moon? |

Published on May 29th, 2024 | by

Slow Motion Astronauts on the Moon?

NEW UPDATE: February, 2015 A new video has surfaced, “Make Believe NASA Moon Missions” (above). It is more than 2.5 hours of in depth analysis of NASA’s on film and video record of the Apollo Moon Missions. In this video the producer analyzes the apparent “slow motion Astronauts” on the Moon as well as so many other mysterious and questionable aspects of the film and video record of the Apollo Moon mission. The second part of this video is also posted at the bottom of this article.


I believe I have found the most conclusive evidence to support the that the Apollo missions to the Moon were hoaxed; in fact, I have proved it. I detail this below.

I live in London and recently saw a documentary [It seems these normal speed movies of the astronauts on the moon have been deleted now…] which showed the Apollo footage doubled in speed, giving the appearance of Earthlike gravity. Quite apart from demonstrating that NASA could have filmed on Earth and halved the speed, there is much more here.

Here are a couple of ‘normal speed’ moon walks. This is obviously slow motion…

To increase the speed by a factor of two and achieve the appearance of Earthlike gravity means the gravity on the Moon is one quarter of that on Earth–but it is not; it is one sixth. Thus, to achieve Earth-like gravity would require increasing the speed of the footage by the square root of 6: aprox 2.45.

In order to prove that the videos were not shot on the Moon, you need to observe the footage from Apollo XV, where David Scott demonstrates the Galilean principle by dropping a hammer and an feather to the ground in a vacuum, i.e., on the Moon. The hammer is in free-fall for at most 1.1 seconds. The distance it would therefore travel is:

0.5 x gravity x time x time =
0.5 x (9.8/6) x 1.1 x 1.1 = 0.99

Thus the hammer could not have fallen a distance of more than 99 cm, or 0.99 m.

I have not been able to find David Scott’s height; however, looking at photographs, he is clearly taller than Armstrong, who is 5’11”, by several inches. David Scott is also wearing “Moon Boots”. The hammer is dropped by David Scott from shoulder height, easily 150 cm, or 1.5 m. This is not possible. David Scott cannot have been standing on the Moon when he dropped that hammer.

However, if we assume that NASA did indeed film the action on Earth, then halved the film speed, the distance the hammer would travel is:

0.5 x 9.8 x 0.55 x 0.55 = 1.48 m = 148 cm.

I rest my case.

My calculations have been verified by several of my friends who are maths geeks like myself, and I hope you will also verify them. I look forward to hearing from you.

Mr Freedom (from NEXUS Magazine Oct-Nov 2002)

Another View on Slow Motion Astronauts

The biggest smoking gun, in my opinion, the one that pervades nearly all the Apollo motion picture footage showing “astronauts” moving about on “the moon” is something so visible and so obvious that it has literally been hiding in plain sight. It is the slow motion character of all the movement which exists in nearly all the Apollo footage. We accepted it as real due mainly to Hollywood’s depictions of men on the moon, especially in Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey which was released the year before Apollo 11. The Apollo “astronauts” appear to move as if underwater, walking along the sea floor. All in slow motion. Even when they jump upwards it’s all shown in slow motion. But, there is no scientific basis for this. There is no reason that someone walking or moving on a low gravity planet or moon would be moving in slow motion like this. At least not while jumping upwards. What would slow them down? They are supposedly moving in a low gravity, no atmosphere environment. What is there to slow them down?

We’ve been conditioned to believe the slow motion image of men in space by 2 major factors: Hollywood movies and footage of astronauts and others in zero gravity environments such as real astronauts in orbit and others in zero gravity simulators which are inside airplanes that dive at just the right speed to match gravity. We’ve seen astronauts floating and moving slowly while suspended in zero gravity. But this is slowness is deliberate. Making sudden movements while floating in zero gravity can have grave consequences so such personnel are trained to move very slowly and deliberately. They could, if they wished, move very quickly, even more quickly than in normal gravity if they wished. There is nothing stopping them from doing so. But, the moon is not zero gravity anyway. It is, we are told, low gravity — about 1/6 that of Earth.

But, if this is so obviously an error in the Apollo footage why didn’t NASA catch it? Surely the NASA scientists would know that showing the astronauts moving in slow motion on the moon would be unrealistic. How could they miss such an obvious error?

I believe the answer is that they didn’t miss it — they simply had no other choice. Motion picture technology of the time simply could not realistically depict men walking in low gravity in the way that it would really appear. The problem is that free falling objects in low gravity would move more slowly than on earth but other motions would move at normal or perhaps even faster-than-normal speed. This must have presented a technological nightmare for a 1960s film maker. There was no way to depict such a thing with live action “astronauts” moving around on a dusty set, handling objects, etc. It was simply impossible to do at the time.

So, the probable solution was to create and release a major motion picture just prior to Apollo 11 showing men in space and on the moon, all moving in slow motion and tell the public that this is the most technologically accurate movie ever made about space travel. They would even include a short scene showing men walking on the moon, also in slow motion of course. This pre-conditioned the public to expect that men on the moon would walk in slow motion. NASA, would act as consultant on the movie which would receive much pre-release hype informing the public that this movie accurately depicted men and women in space. That movie, of course, was 2001: A Space Odyssey. For good measure they also included long boring scenes of moon ship stewardesses moving ever so slowly around the craft and other tedious scenes all in slow-slow motion. And, since no one noticed the slow motion error in the men on the moon scene when the movie was released they knew they had a green light to shoot all the Apollo sequences in slow motion. They knew the public would buy it and this “solved” their production nightmare of depicting men moving about on the moon in a way that would be believed by the public. After all, who here on Earth has been in a low gravity environment and would know that the slow motion depiction was not accurate?

Oddly enough, a number of post-Apollo Hollywood movies depicting men moving about on Mars show them moving more-or-less normally (except when falling).

But, NASA tells us that Mars is a low gravity environment too. They tell us it is only about 1/3 the gravity of Earth (they say the moon is 1/6). So, the appearance of men walking about on the moon should be very similar to such motions on the moon. Yet for some reason the public accepts slow-motion “astronauts on the moon” but not slow motion Hollywood actors on “Mars.” Go figure.


Make Believe NASA Moon Missions Part 2 — Appedix

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

About the Author

45 Responses to Slow Motion Astronauts on the Moon?

  1. Jaymz says:

    Such a hoax couldn’t have been kept secret during 50 years…

  2. aneesa says:

    You have 2 assumptions in the Galileo “hoax”. First, you assume to know the height which the hammer and feather traveled (about 150cm). Second, you assume what ratio NASA supposedly adjusted the footage: why use 1/2 the drop time instead of 1/2.45? It’s almost like this time assumption adjusts the distance result to confirm your previously assumed drop height (neither of which are concrete).

    One more issue is how they got the feather and hammer to actually drop at the same rate. They created a vacuum chamber big enough to contain an entire moon set just for this? Even the training vacuum chambers were only big enough for a couple people, let alone the lander module along with space for people to move around in, AND let alone enough room to look convincing on camera. Fake feather perhaps? lol

    Let’s challenge the drop height assumption in detail:

    * The ground seems downhill from the camera to the astronauts; the camera seems to be looking down on the scene.
    * Especially at the end of the video when Scott bounces to the left, then exits the scene to the right. He comes closer to the camera, but his head grows taller than his feet grow lower.
    * That means when facing the camera, the ground arm’s length in front of him is higher than where he stands

    * Also, Scott appears to be bending over a bit (lowering drop height), and he probably lacks easy flexibility to raise his arms perfectly to shoulder height.

    * The above website calculates proportions. Using 1.828m (6ft) as the height, shoulder height is 1.495m as you predicted, but elbow height is 1.152m. This 1.152m elbow height is pretty close to the calculated 0.99m, especially when you consider Scott is holding the hammer by the handle and not the head, choked up an inch or two.

    * All this (downhill ground, bent posture, elbow height, choked hammer grip) makes the 1 meter drop plausible, rather than the assumed ideal shoulder height of 1.5m.

    The next assumption is the camera speed change.

    *You pointed out that the video speed must change by 2.45 times, not merely 2 times in order to account for gravity. Why assume NASA only slowed the speed by 1/2, instead of slowing down by, say, ~1/2.5?
    * If you plug 1.1/2.45=0.45 into the equation instead of 1.1/2=0.55, the distance comes out exactly the same: 0.5*9.8*0.45^2= .99m. Even assuming the video was edited, the 1.1s drop time in the “faked” Moon footage is to be expected.
    * How do you know the exact ratio which the footage was supposedly edited? Was it just technologically easier to get exactly half rather than 1/2.45? You might have an argument if you could justify that assumption, setting speculation about the drop height aside.

  3. Bob William says:

    If you are interested, here is the complete restored audio and text version of Smoke & Mirrors.

  4. Dominic Paulin says:

    The only proof I need is that Srila Prabhupada said they didn’t go to the moon.

  5. Carolyn Keene says:

    The following statement of Srila Prabhupada which is really beautiful and a matter of common sense is enough for anyone who understands or does not understand the fact that man didn’t go to moon…

    “Life in the higher planets, known as the abode of the denizens of heaven,
    is obtained not by the strength of spacecraft (as is now being contemplated
    by the inexperienced scientists), but by works done in the mode of goodness.

    There is even restriction on the very planet where we are now living for
    entrance of foreigners to a country where the citizens are more prosperous.
    For example, the American government has many restrictions for entrance
    of foreigners from less prosperous countries. The reason is that the Ameri-
    cans do not wish to share their prosperity with any foreigner who has not
    qualified himself as a citizen of America. Similarly, the same mentality is
    prevailing in every other planet also where there are more and more intelli-
    gent living beings residing. The higher planetary living conditions are all in
    the mode of goodness, and anyone desiring te enter the higher planets
    like the moon, sun, Venus, etc., must qualify thoroughly by activity in
    complete goodness.”

    -SB 2.2

  6. JTB says:

    What’s with the sound quality on the video at the bottom that does work. I can’t understand what the guy is saying. Is that deliberately garbled for effect? Or is something else going on? But obviously nobody is taking care of this page.

    • Hare Krishna

      Yes. The guy who made this video deliberately garbled the audio because he did not want to be recognized. But I think he garbled it too much and it is very difficult to understand. I think the video has actually got some good information in it and someone should try to understand the audio and rerecord the sound track… But who has the time and inclination to do this I do no not know…

  7. Spacer says:

    You can’t hide anything in space. The Soviets watched the Apollo missions with their instruments too. Wouldn’t you think they would have blown the whistle on the USA if they thought they faked the landings?

    • Rubbish!!!

      You can’t see anything in space. You can not watch anything in space. What do you think the soviets would watch with? You can not see anything. All there is is a radio signal. The Soviets could pick that up, anyone could pick that up. But that only has to be transmitted from a point somewhere between the earth and the moon. And NASA had a satellite they used for training simulations and even the people in NASA could not distinguish a simulation transmitted from this satellite from the ‘real’ transmissions from the astronauts lost in space…

      If you just make a small effort to look at what NASA has given us and if you consider that now, more than 50 years later, with technology that is thousands of times better than what they had in the 60s, we can not send men to the moon. NASA openly admit that there are still many problems to be solved before we can send men to the moon. So it is not possible to send men to the moon now, it was obviously not possible to send men to the moon in the 1960s….. Get a brain they say…

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

    • Rukmini says:

      So your question is : If there was a cold war going between Russia and America, why didn’t Russia expose America although they knew the truth??? OK, let Srila Prabhupada directly answer your question( in a conversation):

      ” Prabhupāda: Yes. Simply propaganda. They are not going. Now the Russian scientist and American scientist are combined. Because both of them thieves, so one thief is asking, “Don’t expose me. I will not expose you, so that our business will go on.” This is the way. “Let us combine together and cheat these rascals, and otherwise, if you expose me, then I will expose you. Then our business will stop.”

      Got it!!!?

  8. atmaramabhaktadas says:

    hare krishna

  9. John says:

    The astronauts walked normally in their spacesuits before take off here on earth so they should have moved faster in less gravity not slower

  10. Bob says:

    I to don’t believe that man landed on the moon. However, I have been made aware of a fact that I can’t counter: how did the mirrors that scientists use to bounce a laser of get there?
    Any ideas/comments?

    • Hi Bob

      Firstly do not believe everything you hear. This ‘Luna-laser Ranging’ experiment is only regularly performed at one telescope in Texas on a regular basis. And I have spent some time there with the people who are doing this experiment personally. The experiment is ‘rigged’ to a great degree. It is not that they can fire a laser at the mirror on the moon and wait and get a reflection back from it… It is a long explanation but because they are trying to aim at a one foot wide mirror on the moon, 250,000 miles away, and they are sending their laser up through a one foot telescope, by the time it gets to the moon that laser has spread out over hundreds, maybe thousands of square miles on the moon… So you can imaging how little light from the laser is going to fall on that one foot wide mirror… Then the reflection from the mirror on the moon is going to spread out over hundreds or thousands of square miles on the earth and of course most of it will be lost in the trip from the moon to the earth and going through the earth’s atmosphere. So actually it is realistically more-or-less practically impossible to perform this experiment.

      They way they do it is by firing constant pulses from the laser every few seconds and then they have a computer that opens up the detector that is also in the same telescope as the laser that is firing the pulses at the exact moment they expect to get a return from the moon from each pulse. And if they find some green light in the detector at that instant they call that a ‘return’ from the mirror on the moon… But they don’t really know it is a return from the mirror on the moon… It could be anything.

      This is not a very repeatable or consistent experiment. It is very dependent on which technician is doing it. Some are better at getting returns than others. And they can actually go for weeks or months without getting any significant results, then suddenly, for no apparent reason, they start getting ‘returns’ again.

      I have spoken to the scientist in Australia who was in charge of the Luna Laser Ranging experiment when it was also being done in Australia some years ago and he frankly told me that although in Australia we are in the best position in the world to perform this experiment they were never able to get any conclusive results. So they were never able to confirm that there were any mirrors on the moon, even though they were in the best place to do it.

      This Texas experiment is funded by NASA and they have to get positive results otherwise NASA will cancel their funding. So the have to report successful results for the experiment even if the experiment is not successful.

      So you can see that actually this ‘Luna Laser Ranging’ experiment is not at all conclusive. There is no proof that there are mirrors on the moon.

      Even if you can bounce a laser off the moon you do not require mirrors on the moon to do that. The moon is itself reflective. It will reflect a lot more of the laser because it will reflect from the hundreds or thousands of square miles where the laser hits the moon, if it actually really can hit the moon, a quarter of a million miles away… Than the tiny amount of light that could possibly fall on a one foot across mirror on the moon… So if the laser actually hits the moon there would be a lot more light coming back from the moon than from the mirror. The mirrors are designed with prisms so they reflect the light back in exactly the same direction as it comes but still it will spread out to be very wide by the time it travels 1/4 of a million miles back to earth…

      Anyhow my point is that if you point a laser at the moon and you are able to get a reflection back that does not mean there has to be mirrors put on the moon. Because the moon has a reflective surface anyhow that is capable of reflecting back the laser.

      And one of the mirrors on the moon is supposed to have been put there by the Russians and they never had men on the moon. So even if there are mirrors on the moon there is no need for men on the moon to put them there. They could have been put there by unmanned missions.

      So the conclusion is that the ‘Lunar Laser Ranging’ experiment is inconclusive and does not prove conclusively that there are mirrors on the moon and even if there are mirrors on the moon they could have been put there by unmanned missions. So in no way does the “Luna Laser Ranging” experiment prove that there has ever been men walking on moon…

      Chant Hare Krishna and be happy!

      Madhudvisa dasa

  11. David says:

    I recently talked to a man who called himself Mr. Bell who had a job at NASA back in the 60’s working in Calfornia. Sorry, but I can’t remember the name of the town. Mr. Bell found my handyman business on the internet and called me looking for some work to done at his house. Since he had a computer background I just felt like asking him if he really felt we had gone to the moon. I had always doubted we had. My argument to him was if the USA had really gone to the moon, why haven’t we been back and why was the there no evidence like a flag or something that we could take a picture of today with the HUBBLE?

    He said that whole operation in California was under super high level security. He said he seen the Gemini’s or Apollo’s being built and he felt we had gained so much through the mission. He said that thousands of American computer people and engineers were out of a job and that space program put everyone to work, so he was really grateful for the whole thing. One thing that he remember was that styrofoam was invented but not really used until the mission. A young Chinese kid who worked at the NASA base brought the idea back home to his family business in California and that is where the idea of fast food in a styrofoam container got it’s roots.
    Mr. Bell then told me dirty joke about Neil Armstrong and I thought “why would an American citizen dishonor a astronaut by telling a dirty joke about him.”

    After reading a few articles I am convinced that the moon landing was a hoax.

    • Piper98 says:

      Dunning Kruger is the answer to your question about the Hubble telescope not being able to resolve a flag on our Moon. The answer to this question is VERY easy to find, and VERY much sound in logic, math and physics. Everything you are reading on this site, however, is a direct result of not understanding the math and/or science they are attempting to debunk. People who “believe” the moon landing didnt happen, or that the Earth must be flat, are misapplying real science, cherrypicking some real science and claiming other science isnt correct, which is a garbage method of anything,or simply do not begin to understand *anything* they are talking about. They use fancy words, and try to do math, but the problem is, the math they do IS WRONG. It doesnt describe what they are attempting to debunk. Nor does their logic, which is beyond flawed.

      If you want your question answered without any further “insults” to “skeptics”, read on. Skepticism is healthy, and is in fact what science is all about in the first place. Reading “a couple articles” should not ever convince you of anything being a hoax. You must learn to recognize your fallacious logic, your cognitive bias, and your faulty methods of investigation. Investigating whether something is true or not requires objective methods and sound logic.

      Hubble cannot resolve any small object on the Moon. Hubble cannot even resolve PLUTO hardly. To Hubble, Pluto is but a blurry couple of pixels. Why, you ask? But Hubble shows us amazingly detailed images of things billions of light years away, you say? Simple. The objects Hubble images are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF LIGHT YEARS ACROSS in size. Despite their distance, they still have a much larger angular size than the Moon, or Pluto, or anything in the solar system. Despite their huge distance, the difference in their real size/diamter is still much larger than the difference in distance. Take a galaxy vs Pluto. Even though the galaxy might be 50 billion times more distant than Pluto, its size difference is in the trillions of times bigger than Pluto. Therefore, Hubble can resolve it.

      Hubble has an angular resolution of about 1/20th of an arcsecond. Objects whose angular size is less than this value are not resolved by Hubble. A second is 1/60th of 1/60th of a degree of the sky. For each degree of the sky around you, if you cut up the arc of the sky into pieces, there are 60 minutes of smaller pieces, and then 60 seconds of even smaller pieces. One arcsecond is 1/3600th of one degree. 1/20th of an arcsecond is .05 arcseconds. This means Hubble is designed to resolve CLEARLY objects of the size of roughly 1/72000th of one degree.
      On the Moon’s surface, for Hubble, only objects the size of a football field can be seen. So not even the rovers. The Moon is VERY bright when lit (which is the only time it would be appropriate to take an image of something on the Moon, right?), and Hubble’s sensors are particularly attuned to NOT be looking at things as bright as the Moon with the Sun’s light reflecting off. Hubble is set up to look at deep space objects, and it therefore has to be extremely *sensitive* to even faint light. This means when Hubble looks at the lit Moon, it’s sensitive instruments are hit with an amount of luminosity it isnt intended for. This could actually damage it’s sensors. This is a fact, not a convenient excuse. Hubble HAS looked at the Moon. You can see those here:

      Anyhow, the angular size of the American flag on the Moon is much MUCH too small for Hubble to resolve it. To be seen by Hubble, an object would need to subtend an angle greater than 0.05 arcseconds, it’s limit. The Moon is, on average, about 384,400 km away. At that distance, 0.05 arcseconds is equal to a size of 93 meters (101 yards), or the length of a football field. An object on the Moon must be a few football fields in size, or Hubble cannot resolve it.

      None of this is excuse. Its just trig.

      As for larger objects that are farther away- take Pluto. At its closest point to the Sun, Pluto is about 30 times farther from the Sun than Earth, which is a distance of about 4.5 billion km. At that distance, an angular resolution of 0.05 arcseconds corresponds to a physical size of just over 1,000 km. Pluto’s diameter is a little less than 2,400 km, making it a little more than **2 pixels** in a standard Hubble image.

      Don’t ever assume you know more than the experts. Don’t ever assume it “makes sense for this to be a huge conspiracy”. Because you don’t, and it doesn’t.

      I find it funny that those who swear things are hoaxes, or conspiracies, claim constantly to be “keepers of truth and reality”, when in fact they are doing the exact opposite. They claim to be guardians of logic and skepticism, when in fact when you scrutinize their “logic” it is foundationally flawed in almost every instance.

      A real person of logic, a real skeptic, does not settle on “this is a conspiracy” or “this is the absolute truth”. They know better. In reality, all you can do is state the facts as they are. State the things that are shown to be correct and true over and over and over, and have never been (validly) shown to not be correct. From there, you state them all, and you state the most logical case of all those things being correct. A real skeptic of the world simply states what is able to be shown to be true to any man or woman, repeatedly, and makes very few absolute statements about it. In reality, there IS NO evidence the moon landings were faked. In reality, ALL “evidence” presented of that has been debunked, corrected, and shown to be flawed and incorrect.

      I would advise you to recognize that Occams razor doesnt work when you are using flawed logic to gather facts, and that cognitive bias laced fantasies do not subscribe to Occams razor anyway.

  12. tray ogemah says:

    its all just a conspircy

  13. tray ogemah says:

    it all just a conspiracy i say the movie is fake but the results are real

  14. zambi007 says:


    reg. your calculations “the distance the hammer would travel 0.5 x 9.8 x 0.55 x 0.55 = 1.48 m = 148 cm.”

    if nasa indeed filmed the video on the earth then instead of halving the speed they would have employed the 1/2.45 rule to slow down the video.

    then 0.5 x 9.8 x 0.45 x 0.45 ~ 0.99m which would be reasonable. simulating any video to be in 1/6 gravity would require shooting the video at 2.45 times the normal film rate. this means shooting at 73.5 or 74fps. then slowing it down to 30fps would simulate the moon gravity. however, trust me, i’ve myself carried out this experiment at 70, 72, 74 and 76 fps. all those slowed down to 30fps videos of dust blowing, my colleagues jumping, everything, just looked like some really super slo-mo sequence like the ones they do in time warp.

    however, due to film requirements and changing etc in the vacuum, nasa had employed a slow scan of 15fps. that translates to about 6fps for 1/6 gravity. for a smoother video, nasa should shoot at 60fps on earth then slow it down to 24fps for a truer 1/6 gravity reproduction. trust me on this too because i’ve tried even this. the result again is the same slow motion effect. i don’t jump like the astronauts but i take 2.45 times more time to land.

    the problem, i figured, lies in taking time as 1/2.45 for a 1/6 gravity simulation. if we calculate the time taken for a hammer on the moon to fall to the surface from 1m, then 1 = .5 x 1.6 x t² which leads as t = sqrt(2/1.6) = 1.11 seconds. this closely agrees with the video footage.

    hence, the videos could not have been shot on earth. please correct me if i’m wrong.


  15. Mauro says:

    What’s going on with you people?

    Sure we can’t see the stars on the sky because they are too faint to be captured by a camera which is set to capture the shinning white space suits the astronauts were wearing.
    About the wind on the flag, it’s not wind its just a ripple movement. It doesn’t need air to happen on fabric. A great amount of lunar rock was brought to the Earth by the astronauts and studied by thousands of scientists from all over the world “including Russia”. There is no doubt by the scientific community the rocks are real. For the last, in 1969, even the Soviets recognized the American moon landing.

    This is History people, please wake up.

    • Ron Expeth says:

      Please check how lethal radiation is in space beyond 400 miles from the Earth. Low Earth Orbit, where the Shuttle travels, is “relatively” safe because of the protection provided by the Earth’s magnetic field and the Van Allen Belts. Beyond that protection, more than 400 miles out, space is lethal. One high energy Solar Flare can deliver 900 rem of radiation which means INSTANT death for Armstrong and Co in their tin can of a space craft. The supposed 1969 “Moon Landings” took place during Solar Maximum, when as many as 3 flares a day were recorded. There is no way men walked on the moon and came back alive. The basic science speaks for itself but it’s amazing that so few people can see they have been lied to for so long.

    • Ron Expeth says:

      The Russians recognized the American “Moon Landings” because they had a few secrets of their own they wanted kept quiet – like Yuri Gagarin was NOT the first man is space. Sputnik 3, way back in 1958, revealed to the Russians that a trip to the moon was not feasible. Why do you think the Russians have not been to the moon? Because the Yanks got there first? That’s like saying nobody wants to climb mount Everest because its already been climbed! As for the Lunar Rocks, see my earlier post above. It pains me to say it as I watched them all happen back in the 60’s but unfortunately all the Moon Landings were a fake.

  16. David McCall says:

    The video does not work, the link is not working to the video, I do not believe we landed on the moon either, if the then president Kennedy did allocate 40 billion dollars then where did it all go, certainly not to the so called space program.

    Kind Regards


  17. Matthew says:

    I don’t think the multibillion dollar space program would fake the moon landing. I think you just don’t want to accept that the little human race is growing up and can develope techknowledgy that can get them somewhere other than earth. There is no conspiracy, the moon landing is real, and there is plenty of proof.

    • len says:

      Why wouldn’t a multibillion dollar space program fake a moon landing when the entire world is watching and the lunar module tips over on landing, and the whole world watches as two astronauts die a slow and gruesome death on the moon as their spacecraft runs slowly out of oxygen hoping to die by Carbon monoxide posioning first .

      • Sticklebrick says:

        The Apollo missions returned with an awful lot of moon rocks that have been bombarded by the sun’s radiation for billions of years. These rocks haven’t had the protection of an ozone layer or any other layers of the atmosphere that would protect them from the intense solar radiation. These rocks have been tested and probed by scientific institutions all around the world, not just NASA and nobody in the scientific community is shouting “FAKE!” It would cost more money to fake these rocks than it would to just send someone to the moon to collect them.

        • Ron Expeth says:

          I have lots of pieces of Moon rock. They are called Lunar Meteroites! They cost quite a bit but are authentic pieces of the moon thrown into space by massive explosions as asteroids hit the surface. These rocks orbit the earth for millions of years before coming down to earth. They are found in the Antarctic and in desert regions of North West Africa where they are more easily spotted from ordinary rocks. It would have been easy for NASA to collect such rocks and palm them off as collected from the Moon during Apollo. Wernher Von Braun, the Nazi/NASA rocket scientist, was sent on an expedition to Antarctica just prior to the Apollo program to fetch just such rocks. Check all this out, it’s perfectly true. The manned moon landing were NOT REAL – for one simple reason. Man cannot survive in deep space without considerable shielding from lethal radiation. No practical shielding was available in the 1960’s or indeed even today. The tin can space craft and space suits they used were a joke when radiation is taken into account. Manned deep space exploration is a long way off just yet unless we meet some Aliens!!

    • dd says:

      then why do they have no idea how to put a man on the moon today? We still don’t have the technology.

      • BertL says:

        It’s not that the technology isn’t available, it’s that the motivation isn’t available. Plus, whenever the space agencies consider manned missions to the Moon, the focus is on colonizing the Moon. The Apollo program only stayed on the Lunar surface for a couple of days; NASA’s recent plans (now scrapped by the Obama administration) were to build a permanent Moon base there. This requires completely different and previously unresearched technology.

  18. AJ says:

    If the lunar landings were fake, and cost lots and lots of money, why did NASA have to do these manned lunar missions 6 times? I believe that the lunar landings are real.

  19. kevy says:

    if the luna surface is dust as fine as concrete dust no air 13rd gravity the thrust from the luna landing rockets both take off and landing should have blown up a very large amount of dust no dust fake landing what do u think ?

    • BertL says:

      What are you trying to say here? There should have been dust but there was no dust when the lander was taking off/landing? Look again; there are several clips of Apollo ascent modules taking off (and landing, too) where one can see dust going all ways. Bear in mind though, that even though the grain and dust is pretty small, it wouldn’t billow around in the sky, because there is no atmosphere.

      Should the lunar modules (MODULES, not ROCKETS) have blown up a very large amount of dust? How large is very large? Dust was picked up alright; should it have been more? Why or why not? Also, don’t forget that when the LM lands it “blows away” dust, so there would be less dust on the ground to blow away during takeoff.

      Personally I think you hardly have any idea what you are talking about, didn’t think this through and just parrot what someone else told you without giving it much thought.

  20. kevy says:

    there are no stars in any of the moon pictures patric moor said on tv that humans cant see stars due to no atmosphire rubbish any way if this is true y did neal armstrong say quote we calibrated our instruments by the aligment of the stars its a case of little lie big lie any way these people are highly educated scientists they shouldnt get basic physics wrong

    • BertL says:

      You’re mixing up two things here: human eyes seeing stars, and cameras seeing stars.

      Fact is, it was quite bright on the moon when the astronauts were there. Stars, on the other hand, are pretty dim. Human eyes can usually compensate and see bright and dim things together (though it’s pretty imperfect). Cameras are completely different from our human eye.

      The way a camera works is that you can set it to see a certain brightness best. When you try to photograph someone in the shadow with the sun behind him, chances are that the sun is overblown (too bright), and the person is too dark (because of the shadow). Works the same way with the Moon: the Sun is very bright, and so are the stars. The Hasselblad camera used had roughly the same settings one would use for daylight pictures on the Moon (which is usually a 1/125th or 1/250th second exposure, depending on the aperture and ISO settings), while one would still need exposure settings of several seconds at least to capture stars. The difference of the brightness is simply way too big; anyone with basic photographic experience would understand this concept.

      Now, I don’t know what Patrick Moore said (hell, I don’t even know who he IS), but the idea that humans can’t see stars because there’s no atmosphere is quite rubbish. Who is this person and where did he say it?

      • Sticklebrick says:

        Patrick Moore is a British Astronomer famous for his extremely long running TV show from the BBC called The Sky at Night. He was one of the team that helped to map the moon for the Apollo landings.

        I very much doubt he said what Kevy claims he said. You can of course see more stars if there is no atmosphere to distort the light. I believe this is one of the reasons we put telescopes in space!

  21. Steven Novella says:

    If we use 1.62 m/s accelaration, 1.2 seconds as the time for the drop, that yields 1.72 meters, or just over 3.8 feet for the height of the hammer.

    It is NOT accurate to say the hammer is shoulder height. He could not get his arms fully straight, they are angled down slightly, and the head of the hammer is below his hand. The head of the hammer is at about bellybutton level. That is just about right.

    Therefore – that was filmed in lunar gravity and you are a jackass.

    • Steven Novella says:

      Correction – I meant 1.16 meters, which is 3.8 feet.

      1.72 meters is what you get for earth gravity at 1/2 speed – which would be much higher than the hammer head in the video.

  22. Nukem says:

    Your calculations are correct, however, they are based upon a flawed value – resulting in you actually proving the video was taken on the moon, not on Earth.

    Apollo XV landed near the Moon’s equator, where gravity is only 5.32 ft/sec^2 (1.622 m/sec^2), not the 9.8 ft/sec^2 you erroneously chose as gravity. That’s Earth gravity, and not even earth’s gravity in a vacuum.

    1.1 seconds of freefall at 1.622 m/sec^2 means the hammer would fall for just shy of 1.8 meters. With his natural height and moon boots David Scott was easily two meters or more, so a shoulder level drop of ~1.8 meters is entirely plausible.

    • anon says:

      Nukem – did you do the calculation?

      0.5x 1.622 x 1.1 x 1.1 (with all your ‘correct’ measurements

      = 0.98 meters, on the moon.

      The calculation that the original guy did using 9.8 meters per second was demonstrating the distance ON EARTH.


  23. jay says:

    Also just to say that gravity on the moon is much less then 9.8 (thats the acceleration due to gravity at the EARTH’S SURFACE)

  24. BertL says:

    Hello, I just wanted to say that the object is in freefall for not 1.1 seconds, but 1.2 seconds (36 frames in a 30FPS video downloaded from the Apollo Archive). This would result in a 1.17 meter figure for an “on the moon” scenario, and a 1.75 meter figure for a “faked on Earth” scenario.

  25. Dave Raum says:

    The video does’nt work.

Leave a Reply

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


Back to Top ↑