NASA Finally Reveals the Truth About Fake Moon Landings

The video features a preview image that gives the impression of a NASA press release along with a ficticious "fake moonlanding" image. It starts with "Did you know that NASA has finally revealed the truth about the fake moon landings..... etc....revelations... NASA has admitted in the last 12 months." Which isn't true.

It then changes to "all but admitted the landings were faked".

It then claims that "anyone who works in the space industry or has any knowledge in rocket science has quietly accepted that the whole thing was a charade" which isn't true.

00:40 shows a fake Photoshopped image implying blue screen technology was used.

The argument that the Apollo Guidance Computer being extremely primitive compared to todays computers or even mobile phones and that NASA now claims to have lost the technology to go to the moon is a crooked argument.

The ‘Destroyed Technology’ to go to the Moon –

5:35 "Lets face facts; everything that was done 50 years ago is a 1000 times cheaper and easier to do to day, are we actually expected to believe that we went to moon with this piece of shit 50 years go"..

The first claim is probably not true. There are quite a few technologies and skills involved in the Apollo program that we currently don't have. Second claim is not true, they did not go to the moon with only the moonlander.

5:38 Moonlander insulation

5:50 Who shot the event from outside:

5:51 How is the American flag waging:

5:55 Inconsistant shadows:

6:00 Letter C on rock

6:15 How Alan Shepard snuck golf club / ball to the moon

7:07 "In 1969 we sent a tiny little homeless tent covered in aluminium foil 250000 miels away to a precise location when even being 1/1000 inch off in any part of the launch would have caused the ship to miss the moon by thousands of miles and yet we landed there, we played golf, and..."

It was not a tiny little homeless tent as outlined above and the second part of the paragraph is not true.

7:50 Buzz Aldrin:

Hello Cybe. First off I am not a flat-earther many of your links seem to imply you have to be a flat-earther to disbelieve we went to the moon, this is a strawman argument and probably why the whole Flat-Earth psyop was started in the first place. The film that convinced me we never went, was Bart Sibrel's "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon",which includes NASA footage of them faking their distance from earth:

Bart Sibrel has probably done more than anyone to expose NASA's moon landing hoax, and he believes in globe earth too by the way.

Do you think establishment sites like Forbes and Quora and Fox News are credible? By the way how did we send humans through the Van Allen radiation belts? LANDING HOAX - Bill Cooper On why 1/6 gravity on the moon, doesn't correspond to NASA's footage:

Moon Landing Fraud in 3 Minutes:
Bart is a film director, he may know a thing or 2 about lighting, both natural and artificial.

As for the Lunar Lander, this humourous analysis of the photos, sums it all up:

Have a nice day...

1 Like

I mainly wanted to point out the issues in that one particular video. I'm not a fan of NASA.

In your reply you've actually done something flat earthers usually do; you've shot the messenger (the forbes, foxnews, quora links) and added a handful of new videos and new arguments.

Do you think the explanation for how NASA lost the technology to go to the moon is not credible or did you not read them?

Van Allen radiation belt explained by Van Allen himself:-

Since you posted this it seems you did not see my two links explaining why the lunar lander looked like that?

Pararell shadows can appear to look not pararell depending on perspective, see:-

The one particular image that Sibrel analyses is a bit trickier since the shadow behind the rock is not very long. I do believe both shadows do however point to the same vanishing point.

Here's an example of a similar image. See the shadows on the rocks on the right (and left) that appear to point to the sides instead of the same direction as the shadow of the men.

If there were multiple light souces there would be multiple shadows (for the same object)

In the part which claims to show the astronauts faking the distance to the earth in "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon", (which from some reason has an image from the Hollywood movie Capricorn 1 as it's thumbnail) at 33:28-> I believe the documentary is leading and misinterpreting. (Transcript). I could go through it bit by bit and explain but that would take too long to document.

Some analysis from: This conspiracy is a conspiracy!

As far as Bart's much ballyhooed "never-seen", secret NASA Apollo videotape was neither
"never-seen" nor secret. It was all taped footage from the Apollo 11 CM Westinghouse three-color camera telecasts that were broadcast live on NBC, CBS, ABC, the BBC and every other decent network on the planet back in July of 1969. Many ordinary citizens have documentary videos that show the same broadcasts. The times and dates of those broadcasts have long been a matter of public record and the documentation can be viewed in the NASA Apollo 11 Post Launch Mission Operation Report (Number M-932-69-11.

The video was so blurry and fuzzy that Houston had to prompt the characteristically un-talkative Apollo 11 commander, Neil Armstrong to describe what he was pointing the camera at so that NASA could correlate what he was shooting with what he was describing on later tape playbacks. Color TV cameras small enough to fit inside tiny spacecraft cabins were brand new and balky technology back in 1969. Global communications networks could not even synchronize the audio and video signals coming back to Houston from receiving antennas in Australia and Goldstone, California.

The only thing new and weird revealed in Sibrel’s A FUNNY THING HAPPENED ON THE WAY TO THE MOON is his bizarre personal interpretation that the video views of earth were shot through a small hole (template) to give the impression that Apollo 11 was not in low earth orbit. Sibrel insists that none of the Apollo spacecraft ever left low earth orbit because of the “radiation barrier” called the Van Allen Belts. This radiation barrier is greatly exaggerated by all of the “moon hoax” proponents. Sibrel’s misinterpretation of the archival Apollo 11 video results from a combination of Bart's longing to see something awry and his lack of understanding about the Apollo cabin and TV camera configuration.

Sibrel attempts to describe to the viewers of his documentary what is going on inside the darkened Command Module while the crew was attempting to give the TV viewers back the best possible view of earth with the primitive handheld color TV camera carried aboard Apollo 11. The problem with his explanation is basically that he does not know what he is talking about. Sibrel may know a lot about current video editing and production technology, but he does not have expertise about Apollo. In order provide 1969 TV viewers back on earth with the best possible view of our planet from space, it was necessary to eliminate the glaring reflected light and direct sunlight that was streaming into the spacecraft and interfering with the shot. The official Apollo 11 mission documentation from 1969 contains astronaut Michael Collins’ own discussion of these lighting problems and the difficulties he experienced with the window shades in the Apollo spacecraft. Unfortunately for Bart Sibrel, he is obviously unaware of astronaut Mike Collins documented statements. The astronauts shuttered most of the capsule windows with special shades that blocked most of the glaring direct and reflected sunlight coming off of the bright, shiny Lunar Module which was docked in close proximity to the location of the windows.

The earth was then clearly visible out of the other "unblocked" cabin window when the shades were closed. What one actually witnesses in the video are not cutouts or templates passing between the earth and the TV camera, it is the communications headset wiring, arms and body of astronaut Michael Collins as he reaches over to remove the shade blocking one of the spacecraft windows. As soon as the shade is removed, the video shows the cabin immediately illuminating with glaring reflected sunlight. We also see that Collins is the one opening the window shade and that another member of the crew is obviously handling the camera from the vicinity of the foot area of the crew couches. Sibrel expressed the mistaken impression that the hand-held Westinghouse TV camera was hard-mounted to the face of the cabin window. Sibrel, as well as his devoted followers are the victims of misinterpretation and apparent misinformation.

Bart is far from what you would call a space expert (although he does have good TV editing and video production skills). He does not appear to possess an understanding of the basic layout and configuration of the Apollo Command Module or the procedures followed by NASA during the Apollo telecasts. Bart has misinterpreted things that are immediately obvious to anyone who has extensively read Apollo history and documentation or anyone who has ever been inside an Apollo Command Module or accurate mockup.

A more detailed coverage of Van Allen than a meme:

I would imagine the radiation belts are there to confine the human lunatics to this prison planet.

NASA's Logo with its forked serpent tongue tells you all you need to know about who controls them. The Apollo program is named after Apollyon the destroyer.

The Occult Roots of NASA and the Ongoing Fraud : The Occult Roots of NASA and the Ongoing Fraud | The Liberty Beacon

Anyway Cybe believe what you want, I won't waste anymore time on trying to convince the deceived. As for Bart Sibrel, I know the guy, I will ask him if this footage was shown on the BBC back in July 1969, next time I see him, sounds like the usual garbage fact checkers throw out knowing full well no footage exists out there, to disprove them.

1 Like

Well, I just wanted to point out the poor/missunderstood and deceptive details in the the original video and not debate the whole subject.

Some more debunking the "never-before-seen" footage and alleged trickery (With for instance a comparison between Apollo 11 photo* *AS11-36-5337 and the Sibrel image)

It doesn't seem like the Van Allen Belt is a silver bullet in this argument.

Like I said you are welcomed to be fooled. Trust the science eh? In our few interactions you always seem to take the mainstream establishment line. Kind of interesting

I'm curious, from any of the arguments that I've presented do you believe any of them are valid or is everything rubbish?

I believed we went to the moon until about 8 years ago. Try opening your mind sometime and do a bit of critical thinking instead of parroting the MSM

I can bombard you with evidence of where they have been caught lying but it is pointless with a closed minded individual, you will always have a SNOPES fact checker link handy.

Understood, you do not wish to reply to my question.

Again, I just wished to point out the things in the first video. I thought I was doing critical open minded thinking when analyzing it.

I've gone through a large amount of material on the subject for quite some time...You're welcome to bombard me with your best material, please.

Yeah I will agree the original presentation was over-hyped there was nothing in there I hadn't already covered on my channel, it wasn't new info, but since TPV currently has 182k views for this video in the last day he may well have made it available to a whole new audience.

Overhyped? That is putting it mildly. We are not in agreement there.

Do you believe any other parts of my message are valid?

Do you think establishment sites like BBC News are credible?

Here's another article about it:-

The rock was given as a private gift to former prime minister Willem Drees Jr in 1969 by the U.S. ambassador to The Netherlands, J. William Middendorf II, during a visit by the Apollo 11 astronauts, Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin, soon after the first moon landing. Drees had been out of office for 11 years, but was considered an elder statesman.

Former U.S. ambassador, Mr Middendorf was unable to recall the exact details of how the rock came to be in the U.S. State Department's possession. It is known that NASA gave lunar rocks to over 100 countries in the 1970s, but when the rock was displayed in 2006 a space expert told the museum he doubted any material would have been given away so soon after the manned lunar landing.

Researchers from the Free University of Amsterdam immediately doubted the rock was from the moon, and began extensive testing. The tests concluded the rock was petrified wood. U.S. embassy officials were unable to explain the findings, but are investigating.

So they gave rocks to over 100 countries and one gifted by some old geezer to another geezer (11 years after he stepped down from his post) happened to be immediately recognizable petrified wood... and this is strong evidence?

Thorough analysis here:-

No I don't think Jimmy Savile's BBC is credible, but it was widely reported in many places, I see you found a link, well done, there is an army of people producing this type of stuff, professional liars.

"Yep, as it turns out there are authentic Moon rocks available right here on Earth in the form of lunar meteorites. The Moon lacks a protective atmosphere, you see, so it gets smacked around quite a bit, which is why it’s heavily cratered. And when things smash into it to form those craters, lots of bits and pieces of the Moon fly off into space. Some of them end up right here on Earth.

By far the best place to find Moon rocks is Antarctica, where they are most plentiful and, due to the terrain, relatively easy to find and well preserved. And that is why it’s curious that Antarctica just happens to be where a team of Apollo scientists led by Wernher von Braun ventured off to in the summer of 1967, two years before Apollo 11 blasted off."

The Atlantean Conspiracy: The Masonic Moon Landing Hoax There is a clearer picture of your "C" shaped hair here. Its a C its ridiculous to think otherwise. I still find it curious why you still insist on defending an organization full of satanic freemasons.

Ridiculous to think otherwise?

Here's an even sharper version of the C (I don't recognize this particular font, looks a bit wonky)



Having worked for a number of years in both amateur and professional theatrical and motion picture productions, I can't accept the theory that this is a prop marking. First, no property master would mark a prop in such a way as to be visible. Prop markings, if any are used, go on the bottoms or backsides of objects where they cannot be seen. Second, using only one letter to mark props limits you to 26 props. If a property master is being so anal retentive as to catalogue even the rocks used on the "set" he would certainly need a more elaborate system.

It's more accurate to say that the letter (if it is, in fact, a letter, and not just a semi-elliptical marking) appears on the photograph. The crosshairs also appear on the photograph, but are not on the objects photographed.

In 2001 Steve Troy of Lunaranomalies . com [defunct] undertook a lengthy investigation. After obtaining transparencies from different sources connected with NASA, he failed to see the mark either on the masters used prior to 1997 or on the new masters. Yet the photos on official NASA web sites clearly show it. Following up with the Lunar and Planetary Institute (LPI) in Houston, they discovered that one of the prints in their collection was the source of the mark. At some point that print had been scanned and has since been widely distributed on the Internet.


Troy and LPI officials studied the print under a microscope and discovered that it was indeed far more likely to be a hair or other fiber on the photographic paper onto which AS16-107-17446 had been printed. A secondary mark that appears to be a shadow is clearly visible under the top portion of the mark.

This BTW is Eric Dubay's website...

Additional analysis.

Good point:- "Coincidentally, the alleged letter has one of the shapes that can be most easily assumed by a hair: it’s a C, not a K, F, M or A, for example."

Yeah, like I said I don't believe in his flat earth stuff. But many people are misguided in certain subjects eg Moon Landings. BTW what are your views on 9/11, 7/7, Covid and the Holocaust, do you take the mainstream line on these too, or is the moon landing just an anomaly? I just want to see if I am totally wasting my time here or not

You can check out my website at possibly get a general feel. It's a but crufty and not very up to date, unfortunately.