Periods of time
My personal Concern
My personal Concern
Dear visitor to my website nomoonlanding.ch
As an engineer, I am simply interested in the truth. The media's incompetence, its subservience to official statements, and its inability to deploy competent people to investigate dubious reports are sometimes frustrating.
While war reporting often works quite well, it usually fails when it comes to supposedly scientific events. And this regularly happens when there is only one independent source for the report.
As the head of a forensic cyber crimes group, I have learned not only to analyze technical issues but also to realistically contextualize them within the political context. As a retiree, I have the time and peace of mind to thoroughly examine the facts, at least regarding this story.
I earned my living working for my country's government and would like to give something back to the public and use my knowledge to better educate people about certain issues. Information warfare and cyber threats are my specialties.
I don't earn any money from it, and I don't depend on the success of my site for my livelihood. But I would appreciate some recognition for my thorough work. I would therefore be delighted if you would share with me any satisfaction you may feel, given the fact that, although there have been justified, widespread doubts about this story for over 50 years, so far no one with the necessary credibility has been able to dismantle this gigantic lie in a way that people can understand.
I am also analyzing the response to my site and have found that it is currently most popular in Germany, especially in the federal state of North Rhine-Westphalia. Please give me some feedback either by email or in the guestbook with an emoji or a comment!
René Droz
E-Mail: info@nomoonlanding.ch
Can we know?
There are enough indications that a lot of things about the official Apollo moon landing can't be right. A lot contradicts physics and the scientific knowledge of engineering art,
while the staging thesis corresponds to the competencies of Hollywood, the efforts of the information war, the experiences with the state doctrine of great powers as well as the knowledge about the psychological consequences for the employees involved.
For example, did you know that Apollo had too brief delays in Houston's dialogue with the astronauts on the moon? So just like in the movie Capricorn One by Peter Hyams (1978)?
And: That these Apollo sound recordings exist on DVD and have been sold?
Do we want to know?
Well, as an engineer, I want to know. I let myself be guided by scientific analyzes and findings and not simply by government regulations or majority opinions. And you?
May be this the reason, why you don't want?
Do we have to know?
No, we don't have to! Many people in the world are happy with the firm belief in myths: from the heroic William Tell to Putin's invention of a Ukrainian genocide against Russian citizens. In our liberal society we can believe
what we want and therefore must not be prosecuted: We have freedom of belief. We shouldn't call ourselves 'scientists' then.
The official science will not deal with it either. Why? Because she does not receive any order from politics!
Politics will not issue an order. Why? Because it's of no use. And because no claims for damages are pending that would damage the image of the state. This applies both to the USA and to Switzerland, which sailed under the splendor of Apollo with the solar sail experiment.
And the media will be silent. Why? Because it is of no use to them either. And because the customers simply don't want to hear it or most of them are no longer interested in this story.
But does it really not matter whether the whole world was lied to and cheated at that time? Read comparable examples in history !
Is the ARTEMIS mission real?
The ARTEMIS mission makes - in contrast to the Apollo mission at that time - a professional impression is probably intended as real. The technological prerequisites for controlling such a mission are largely available. However, the survivability of the people is uncertain. That's why the unmanned first mission again precisely measure these radiations.
In addition, there are all the uncertainties that always accompany astronautics in general. The intentions for Human Transport are certainly genuine. However, since no precise results are available yet, the success of the mission cannot yet be assessed. A cancellation is still possible, this time without any major loss of image for the USA.
Image loss is limited to NASA. Should the suspected difficulties prove to be insurmountable, it is an open question whether one will resort to the formula: 'It will be too expensive after all' or whether another production will be planned, which should be much better today and therefore also harbors risks.
What one can safely assume is the assumption that the Apollo mission would in no case be compromised by revealing the technical or space problems so completely that there is no longer any room for the Apollo myth stay.
Should we be outraged?
Yes, we are outraged, but about what? About the astronauts and NASA for doing what they had to? About Nixon for bringing his country back to fame? Or about the media who didn't understand anything and us served up a story that we wanted to hear? Or about ourselves: that we consume everything uncritically if it's good for us, or that we talk about scientific facts when we read something on wikipedia but don't understand the connections at all? Or outraged we ourselves because we have to learn more if we want to get ahead? Or are we outraged by the disappointed trust we have shown?
As Lenin said? "Trust is good, control is better".
This is your challenge
1 | You must know the historical events and connections in the 1960s and recognize the importance of this mission. |
2 | There are a large number of inconsistencies that have to be studied individually in order to classify them according to relevance and then appreciate them in their entirety. This requires a lot of time and attention. |
3 | You must critically analyze these technical, physical and behavioral inconsistencies and not be too quickly satisfied with supposed explanations. Always study the counter-theses too! |
4 | You have to get rid of the idea that the moon landing was primarily about scientific findings. |
5 | You must understand that NASA is a strategic organization reporting directly to the President. |
6 | You must note that the astronauts always work on behalf of NASA. |
7 | They must break away from the idea that governments would put the truth before reason of state. |
11.09.2024: A risky Mission!
CTV-News 10.9.2024
They want to start a spacewalk at 700 km, where the Van Allen belt begins.
They want to fly up to 1400 km (elliptical orbit 100km...1400km). Everyone will get a great dose there. Original sound: "A risky mission". They want to examine the astronauts BEFORE and AFTER the mission and then determine the changes. Which ones were not mentioned.
Sure, they want to test the space suits. But do they block the radiation? No expected values are given. The critical limit values found by NASA (45 mSv) are not mentioned either.
There are also different types of radiation that have different effects on the body. None of them have been researched in detail. Even in Wikipedia you can read that radiation levels can suddenly be measured 1000 times stronger locally. One influence is solar activity, but we don't yet fully understand that.
Are there perhaps differences between NASA's findings and those of Space-X?
What happens if the astronauts get sick? Will we find out?
If not: Don't forget that the Van Allen belt only ends at 58,000 km!
The question is: Are the astronauts aware of NASA's findings on the radiation intensity in the VAB and the studies on the health damage caused by X-rays?
View of the live exit broadcast by Polaris Dawn. They actually exited at an altitude of 740 km for a few minutes. That's about the limit where you get a small dose of radiation from the V.A.B., but it's probably not dangerous. The new space suits seem to balance out the temperature and pressure well. Nobody is talking about the radiation. It won't be easy to measure it and estimate the consequences. The choice of altitude shows that the problem has been recognized and that practical values are needed... (which have been lost 😁) The doctors will then have to make an effort...
Blue Ghost landed softly!?
GMX-News 03.03.2025The newspapers are full of praise. As a company, you should show as many good pictures as possible to strengthen confidence in the technology: Commercial mission planned!? That is not happening. Obviously
it is not necessary, because no one in the press is critical of it. But if there were better pictures, they would still be shown!
Is the picture shown real? Is that supposed to be the earth in the background? Why is it so small? Why is the light so dim?
If you hardly show any good pictures, you probably don't have any
that could strengthen confidence and not perhaps raise new questions that might be of a fundamental nature and could call into question the trustworthiness of the moon trip.
It cannot be that on a mission like this, you are not primarily concerned with being able to show more good pictures. How good is the landing technology really?
Artemis 2 was delayed for a long time but is successfully back now
How and what is communicated?
One can never assume that the real reasons for delays will be published. 'Technical difficulties' are always credible and therefore the first choice for describing any difficulties. Otherwise, only good news is reported.
My assessment
The mission was real and successful, but significantly easier compared to all Apollo missions, as a less critical orbit around the moon was chosen.
The safety mechanisms during reentry into Earth's atmosphere apparently held.
Whether the astronauts are truly healthy, or whether they received a dangerous dose of radiation, will only become clear in a few years.
Until then, no one will care about their health.
Insight
Now the competitive situation with the Chinese is once again in the foreground. Thanks to Trump, security compromises will be made. Former NASA chief Griffin has warned that it would be better to start over. because the risks are not under control.
There will hardly be any open reporting on the long-term health of the Artemis II astronauts. However, the moon landing (originally planned for Artemis III) has now also been postponed in favor of further operational approaches to it, just as was planned back then with Apollo.
The protection of the Apollo myth will certainly be the absolute priority. The American government will definitely not want to abandon it. A more likely scenario is the cancellation of the entire program due to a lack of funding or because of disputes with Elon Musk.
One cannot be certain that Musk knows about the Apollo hoax, nor necessarily that he would cover for the government if he did. Unless, of course, he is financially supported and allowed to pursue his moon ideas…
Artemis 3 was supposed to include a landing, now they'll practice in Earth orbit first
After former NASA chief Griffin advised redesigning the entire program ("starting from scratch") following the successful Artemis 2 mission, it appears that the decision has been made to practice lunar orbit maneuvers, including the landing of a Moonlander, in near-Earth orbit.
This not only revives the Gemini mission but also tests the Moonlander's capabilities. The previous exercise demonstrably went wrong.
Rocket braking systems have only been functional since 2015, and the new unmanned missions have shown that such a landing still presents considerable difficulties, even with state-of-the-art navigation systems.
(Horizontal velocity cannot be completely eliminated, landing site with obstacles) It is claimed that this is primarily due to the lack of human intervention.
While the problem may well be overcome with human control, this is only possible if precise measurements are available online at all times. Today, of course, that's possible, but back then it was simply impossible.
The problem now, therefore, is how to explain the Apollo landings of that time? With the astronauts' fantastic intuition during their navigation? Why didn't anyone talk about that?
[B12] : Images/Soundtrack not credible from the moon
Video Mazzucco
[B12] Untouched waving flag (6.1)
Waving flag by air blast, cannot exist on the moon. (Physics: Bernoulli effect)
[B01] : Moonscape was staged!
Apollo-11 landing site
No rocket engine brakes here. No craters, no scratches, not even sand swirls. But at least 1 paper picture laying on the landing foot, makes no sense.
The technology, then completely insufficient
[T01]:Apollo moon landing technically not possible with this ferry!
Lunar module crash 5/6/1968. Neil Armstrong ejected to safety.
Video Wisnewski
Nobody saw the lunar module work! This was NASA's own handicraft construction, which for various technical reasons could not be controlled at all. You can see that in how working rocket engines are built today.
The behavior of the astronauts, unbelievable
[A01] : Staging caused severe mental stress to the astronauts!
Aldrin, Armstrong, Collins 1969
Video NASA
1. Press conference after landing: No euphoria! With their body language, they seemed like rascals who had been caught who had discussed their prank, like good actors who followed the script exactly, or like the military (“Mission accomplished: What else do you want?”).
The technology, then completely insufficient
[T02] : Apollo moon landing unthinkable with this concept!
View from Apollo Capsule
This is where the astronauts should control the docking on the return launch? Without powerful computers on board? Without beacons? In less than 4 hours? It took over 30 hours for Gemini!
The behavior of the astronauts, unbelievable
[A02] : Staging burdened the astronauts!
"Many achievements are possible for those who can break down layers obscuring the truth".
Video NASA
Again, body language says more than words. He says it like a penitent - eyes helplessly searching for understanding - in front of the public and the President. It seems obvious: it would be important to him that the slate should finally be wiped clean. He can't say it any clearer than that!
The behavior of the astronauts, unbelievable
[A03]:Staging caused severe mental stress to the astronauts!
Video Mazzucco Beweis
Armstrong refused any interviews for years! He never swore on the Bible that he was on the moon. For Americans, this would have been proof that it was true. But he was a man of honor! He swears no perjury.
The decisions of the NASA leadership, irritating and therefore unbelievable
[V03]:Successful moon landing with Apollo very unlikely!
Robert Seamans 
Webb would not have missed his triumph in 1969 if the project had been on the right track. Nixon wouldn't have fired him in that case either, and would have looked for a new one. T.O.Paine was evidently a Johnson-loyal executor of the project who, miraculously, had to vacate his post shortly after the first Apollo missions, allegedly because he "wanted too much". He was hardly ever noticed in public. Maybe he just didn't want to keep lying...
The decisions of the NASA leadership, irritating and therefore unbelievable
[V02]:Real moon landing Apollo classified as impossible by NASA!
James WebbNASA Director 1961-68
Discussion with L.B.Johnson about the desastrous situation 1967(Video Mazzucco)
James E.Webb, the scientist, knew that the radiation and lunar module problems were not solved. He therefore resigned as soon as the time was opportune, 1 year before the "Event of the Century".
[B02] : Moonscape was staged!
Apollo 11 landing site
Probably took place in a large hangar. Moonscape too small. If it's a hill, that wouldn't be a landing pad. Danger of tipping! But here in the "Sea of Tranquility" it should be flat anyway! Where is the horizon? (Video Wisnewski)
[B03] : Moonscape was staged!
Apollo 11 landing site
[B06] : Moonscape was staged!
No stars to be seen. Even Collins in the pod "can't remember".
Aber so stellt man sich auch in Animationen bei der NASA den Mond vor:
Klick
"Yes because of the contrast with the bright landscapes". Yes of course! However, it would have been possible to record the wonderful moon-star sky (possibly with earth!) without bright landscapes, if one had wanted to. It doesn't make any sense at all that one could not have wanted this.
[B07] : Images/Soundtrack not credible from the moon
"Re-ascending" an airpropeller-controlled dummy?
Video Wisnewski/NASA, Apollo-14
No flare visible on re-ascent. Acceleration reason not recognizable. Take off explosively. Sand stays in the air instead of falling back.
[B08] : Images/Soundtrack not credible from the moon
Hasselblad Camera on the moon
Frühere Warnung an den Flughäfen
Of all the materials, Kodak film is the most sensitive to heat. Temperature above 100° C in the moon sun. No discoloration on the photos? Not possible! (Physics: Temperature calculable through radiation compensation)
[B04] : Images/Soundtrack not credible from the moon
LEM "Lunar Excursion Module, Apollo-16"
No lanes from the lunar module to here? There's sand everywhere. You can see that in the footprints of the astronauts.
[B05] : Images/Soundtrack not credible from the moon
Video NASA, Apollo-16
Not only are the movements slower on the moon. This could be filmed well recreate. But the jump height would have to be much higher than on Earth. Jump height only 40 cm?
[B09] : Moonscape was staged!
Comparison with real moon photo.
Apollo-14
Is that supposed to be the Hadley groove? (Video Taranda) Real lunar landscapes are rugged, have many craters, ridges, boulders and canyons. The Apollo images show slightly hilly, washed-out, round shapes with lots of sand.
[B10] : Images/Soundtrack not credible from the moon
Original sound document.Apollo-11
No engine noise on takeoff and landing? Not possible! The engine was physically connected to the astronauts.(Physics: solid-state acoustic transmission)
The decisions of the NASA leadership, irritating and therefore unbelievable
[V05] : The scam must remain secret!
Michel D. Griffin
NASA Director 2005-2009
Video Mazzucco
2006: 2006: Missing Original Recording Tapes and Apollo Artifacts. NASA Director Griffin searched for a year. Someone before his time secretly cleared them away. Telemetric data was also stored there [B16], which can prove that the distances in radio communication with the moon were too short. During the technical update there was an opportunity to correct this data and so the pitches in the data that is now publicly available are correct. (However, the DVDs from Spaceraft are still provided with the original data.)
Klick
More question marks in the NASA environment
[F01]:Real moon landing with Apollo was considered endangered at least in 1967!
Click on picture
Gus Grissom was an internal critic of the Lunar Module. He died in the Apollo 1 accident. The case of Gus Grissom seems extraordinarily improbable with natural causes. This has never happened before.
More question marks in the NASA environment
[F02] : Real moon landing with Apollo was considered endangered at least in 1967!
Thomas Baron prepared a 55-page report on the Apollo abuses on behalf of the NAA. He had an accident just before he was about to present the report in the Senate. The case is extremely improbable with natural causes. The case should have been better investigated. One should have looked for his report.
The decisions of the NASA leadership, irritating and therefore unbelievable
[V06]:Lab landing staging was one of the plans!
Video Wisnewski
Original NASA Beschreibung: L(unar) O(rbit)&L(anding) A(pproach) Simulator, 63 as request, 65 functional.
The LOLA simulator, the black mats and the anti-aircraft spotlight as the sun were only commissioned to produce deceptively (real) images. These were found there in the archive.
The behavior of the astronauts, unbelievable
[A04]:Real moon landing with Apollo would have been irresponsible!
"Before we send someone out there, we must first be sure that it is possible. Today we are not!"
Today's astronauts and scientists speak plainly about the facts about radiation outside the VanAllen belt. Alan Anderson, NASA chief scientist, also gives the Apollo fake in the context -Moon landing, but obviously doesn't want to be quoted for it.
[B11] : Moonscape was staged!
Video Wisnewski
Moon sun is an anti-aircraft searchlight with a cone of light instead of uniform lighting. The suspension can also be seen somewhere.
The decisions of the NASA leadership, irritating and therefore unbelievable
[V04]:NASA has never been interested in transparent information!
From a certain point in 1969, technical questions were no longer answered at press conferences. To date, NASA has not made any statements and invokes "onus probandi".
More question marks in the NASA environment
[F03]:No human can safely travel beyond the Van Allen Belt!
Video NASA
At NASA, scientists do not believe that the problem of radiation exposure has been solved yet. "The earlier technology was destroyed and must be rebuilt" (NASA Astronaut quote) [R4]. Apparently, as a NASA scientist, this is the only way to continue working without destroying the myth of "Apollo".
The decisions of the NASA leadership, irritating and therefore unbelievable
[V01]:The moon landing had to be...
...at all costs!
The strategic brains behind the US ideology of being the sole superpower was Zbignew Brzezinski, adviser to President Johnson. There is no better symbolism for this than being the only nation to land on the moon. Regardless of the technology.
(Of course, the book came out much later.)
The behavior of the astronauts, unbelievable
[A05] : TV broadcast was obviously staged
Aldrin says to the moon landing broadcast today: "No, you didn't see us on TV. There was no TV there."
Is that a late liberation from the fabric of lies ?
The Soviets had nothing
You can only locate the radio if you are in the area of the radio beam. Directional radio is used for such long distances. The Russians didn't have a chance.
Also: The only Soviet space scientist of stature, Sergej Korolev, was already dead in 1969.
The press is copying wikipedia
As long as wikipedia operates a virtual monopoly on information, scientific knowledge cannot advance.
[B13] : Moonscape was staged!
Video Mazzucco
The sticky sand showed moisture, which cannot be found on the moon.
[B14] : Moonscape was staged!
Video Mazzucco
Some movements on the moon can only be explained with hanging ropes in the film studio.
The technology, then completely insufficient
[T03] : TV broadcast was obviously staged
Video Mazzucco
The TV beam connection via the shaky LEM would have been lost immediately.
The decisions of the NASA leadership, irritating and therefore unbelievable
[V07] : The scam must remain secret!
Video Mazzucco
The only way to silence all these doubts about the moon landing would have been to get independent institutions to do so spacecraft to photograph the Apollo artifacts left behind from close up. In 2007, Google made such a call, offering a $30 million prize for the company that builds a probe that can put a probe on the moon, the sends live images back to Earth over a terrain of over 500m. The second prize was 4 Millions of dollars are being offered to whoever is the first to photograph any Apollo landing site and sends to earth. 20 companies would have been willing to do this. NASA would actually have no reason NOT to have their mission confirmed by external institutions. Only one is believable: the result would not be what they intended. But NASA wasn't happy with that and told participants in 2011 that they couldn't allowed to approach closer than 2 km to the Apollo landing sites: no-fly zone. "To preserve the Landing sites from contamination". But there are no credible images from that far.
[B15] : Images/Soundtrack not credible from the moon
Aus dem NASA Original Archiv gelöscht im Jan 2024: https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-141-21608HR.jpg
The 2nd astronaut can be seen in the mirror image of the first. He has taken off his respirator (backpack). With that he couldn't exist on the moon.
[B16] : Images/Soundtrack not credible from the moon
Video Mazzucco
James Irwin, Apollo-15Telemetric data can prove that radio communications with the moon were too close. Such original tapes were found at the Spacekraft company that were demonstrably not edited.
The behavior of the astronauts, unbelievable
[A06] : Real moon landing Apollo classified as impossible by NASA!
Video Yoice (2022)
A little girl asks him: “Why hasn’t anyone been there for 50 years on the Moon?». He smiles and says: «That's not a question for a little girl. I ask this question. But I think, yes, I know why: because we didn't do it !». He couldn't be any clearer, but it's obviously important to him not to lie to the young girl. He couldn't have meant it any other way, that wouldn't make any sense.
The decisions of the NASA leadership, irritating and therefore unbelievable
[F05] : Successful moon landing with Apollo very unlikely!
Welt (2009)
The Apollo 11 moon rock, which was handed over to the Dutch government via the American government, has been examined contrary to expectations and cannot be from the moon because it contains fossils. But those who believe in the moon landing would rather question the operational management of the museum than the moon landing.
The decisions of the NASA leadership, irritating and therefore unbelievable
[F06] : Successful moon landing with Apollo very unlikely!
Video Haumann
bei National Geographics dokumentiert
The reflector left behind by an Apollo mission, which sends the laser beam back to Earth and allows the exact distance of the moon to be measured, is often used as "proof" of the moon landing. However, it has long been clear that the laser beam is reflected even without this reflector, since after 300,000 km the laser beam is spread out much wider (at least 2000 x 2000 m) than this eighth of a square meter of the reflector (approx. 30 x 40 cm). Incidentally, a fraction of the back radiation is enough to be able to measure the distance from Earth to the Moon precisely. And that was already done in 1966.
[T04] : Images/Soundtrack not credible from the moon
In the video with camera tracking
Video Wisnewski/NASA, Apollo-14
According to NASA, the camera is tracked from Earth, which is impossible: the operator designated by NASA would always have to regulate 2.6 seconds before he sees it.
[T05] : Images/Soundtrack not credible from the moon
Video Wisnewski/NASA, Apollo-14
From the number of images taken at Apollo, the films must have been changed a total of around 800 times. No astronaut has ever been seen to do that. You can't even imagine it with the thick gloves.
The behavior of the astronauts, unbelievable
[A07] : Real moon landing Apollo classified as impossible by NASA!
Video Mazzucco
Astronaut Alan Bean (Apollo-12) was later asked if they had had any problems with the VanAllen Belt. He had no idea about the problem: he says he thinks they wouldn't have flown that far out. He's probably right!