Q: Why is Jarrah so actively involved in the Apollo hoax conspiracy movement?
A: Since he was a child, Jarrah has been fascinated with astronomy, astrophysics and space travel. He dreamed of being the first man on Mars. But that dream was shattered when he learned of the Apollo moon hoax theory. He initially took it with a grain of salt but decided to analyse both sides of the argument to find out whether there was any truth to the accusations. He also went back to studying what he previously learned about space.

In his studies it quickly became clear that the pro-Apollo websites were not trying to prove that Apollo was real, but rather manipulate their readers through flawed science, logical fallacies and character assassination of those who believe the missions were faked. Feeling it was time to stand up against these propagandists, Jarrah took it upon himself to defend the hoax evidence and its supporters from the numerous lies. Following in the footsteps of the two leading hoax advocates of the time, Bill Kaysing and Ralph René, Jarrah subsequently became known as The Grandson of the Apollo Hoax Theory.
Q: What are Jarrah’s credentials?
A: Jarrah White holds Certificate III & IV with distinctions in Screen (a Film & TV course) at Sydney Institute of TAFE and is currently doing his BSc with a double Major in Astrophysics and Geology. As of December 2017, he has completed all core subjects to satisfy a Major in Geology.
Q: Is Jarrah some kind of anti-science crank who hates progress and wants to destroy the good work done by NASA and other space agencies?
A: This is a frequent accusation from the pro-Apollo camp but... definitely not! Jarrah is a keen enthusiast of space travel and supports the idea of manned travel to the moon, mars (and beyond...). He gives NASA and other space agencies credit where credit is due. In fact, he praises both Neil Armstrong and David Scott for proving space docking is possible with their Gemini 8 mission. But so far he has not seen any evidence to convince him that manned moon missions have occurred.

Jarrah believes the technology for safely achieving moon and interplanetary travel will become available in the coming decades. And in fact, believes the basics for it are already available from private companies. SpaceX has unveiled plans for their Falcon XX, a rocket with a lifting capacity of 140 metric tons, more than enough to lift a shelter module surrounded by two metres of water shielding. Jarrah has theorized on how SpaceX might use this technology to get to the moon and mars for real. see video

Ironically, many of Jarrah’s opponents support much the same goals. But for some reason, appear not to care whether the missions take place or not and will defend them regardless. Jarrah demands real missions!
Q: How was the hoax pulled off?
A: There are two scenarios that we have to consider. On one hand we have missions in which the Apollo astronauts stayed in low earth orbit (Apollo 10 for example), and on the other hand we have missions in which the crews stayed on the ground the entire time (such as Apollo 15).

In the former case, the Apollo 10 astronauts were launched with the Saturn V and simply orbited the earth for the duration of their mission. In the event that any independent party made an attempt to listen in, Apollo telecommunications were relayed to an unmanned cislunar craft, which then repeated or reflected the signals towards the earth. To account for the time that the CSM went behind the earth, three geostationary relay satellites would be required to maintain a continuous connection with the unmanned moon craft.

In the Apollo 15 scenario, the astronauts went up the gantry elevator and boarded their capsule. Then prior to launch they got out and went back down the elevator or, quite possibly, down the emergency chute to the blast shelter under the launch site. They were then picked up by NASA and went into hiding at a military base for the duration of the mission.

Meanwhile the Saturn V was launched unmanned and jettisoned into the South Atlantic. All the voices and videos came from scripted pre-recorded tapes that the NASA Manned Space Flight Network (MSFN) relayed over the landlines to Houston. An unmanned cislunar probe was used to broadcast identical signals for any independent party who tried to listen in.

Evidence that the Apollo 15 crew stayed on the ground can be found in the fact that the in-flight television transmissions from that flight show no evidence that the crews are in space. It only shows the astronauts standing around in the LM with their backs to the camera. Unlike the videos from Apollo 10 and 11, on Apollo 15 the only hints of zero gravity are few and far between and only last thirty seconds or less. These scenes were clearly pulled off by loading a CSM/LM mock-up into a KC-135 ‘Vomit Comet’, which was used to train astronauts for zero gravity by performing 30 second parabolic dives.

When it was time to return, the astronauts were loaded into a command module which was then air dropped over the splashdown site by a C5A transport plane [Fig-1]. During Bill Kaysing’s interview on KOME radio, an airline pilot called in to say that he saw the Apollo 15 command capsule dumped out the back of a C5A above the Pacific1.
Q: Weren’t there independent parties tracking Apollo all the way to the moon and back?
A: No. There are some known Ham radio operators who attest to having picked up signals from Apollo (Paul Wilson, Richard Knadle, Larry Baysinger, Sven Grahn), but none of them can attest to having tracked these probes all the way to the moon and back. Grahn for example only testifies to having picked up signals from Apollo 17 when it was in earth orbit, when it was on the moon and in lunar orbit. He openly admits to not tracking it the whole way there and back. Baysinger only received communications from Apollo 11 during the alleged moonwalk, again not the way to the moon and back. Wilson & Knadle received signals from a diversity of Apollo missions2, but again only when the crafts were in lunar orbit – an exception being Apollo 15 in which they received a handful of signals on the alleged flight home. The two were quoted to saying: “The moon is always in view of two of NASA's primary tracking stations in Spain, Australia and California, but not so for the amateur. Some of the most exciting events and transmissions from the Apollo mission always seem to occur when the moon is below the horizon for the continental United States astronomer!”
Recently, Jarrah met with CSIRO professor Ray Morris, who as a kid received signals from Apollo 13 – but only during the time they were said to be in earth orbit.

In the nineties, David Percy contacted Jodrell Bank Observatory technician Robert Pitchard. He stated that they too only tracked Apollo when it was close to the moon, not the trip there and back: “The Moon probes were observed with a 50ft radio telescope which at the frequency used (2300MHz) had a beam width of 5/8ths degrees
In round terms this allowed us to pick up signals from up signals from up to about 1,000 miles above the moon’s surface, although small corrections had to be made to pointing as the probes orbited the Moon.
Voice signals (of good quality) were received from both the orbiting spacecraft and the Lunar Lander but television signals were only picked up from the spacecraft on the surface of the Moon. As we were not actively involved in the tracking of these spacecraft, we did not track them after they had left the Moon. And with regard to Apollo 10, I have no details of any observations, after all this time – the reason escapes me.”

And on the Russian side, for the most part the Soviets had relied heavily on Jodrell Bank just to track their own moon-bound spacecrafts because they lacked the capability to do it themselves (this was discussed in the BBC series, The Planets). Although later in the early 60s they were able to build deep space network tracking facilities with a 100million kilometre range, none of these radio telescopes were tuneable to the 2.3GHz (2300MHz) signals used by Apollo. Only at the last minute in November 1968 did they manage to equip their TNA-400 * facility in Crimea with suitable receiving equipment.
And even then, because NASA did not supply them with the ballistics data, the Soviets were limited to listening to it during the time Apollos 8, 10, 11 and 12 were supposedly in lunar orbit.
* In Russian. Can be read using google translate.

Only the NASA Manned Space Flight Network can attest to having tracked these vehicles all the way to the moon and back. This Network comprised of Goldstone Tracking Station in California, the Madrid Deep Space Communications Complex, and various facilities in Australia; most notably Parkes Observatory, Honeysuckle Creek and Tidbinbilla. In the case of Parkes, it was (and still is) owned by the Australian government but was under control of and under contract to NASA during the time of the Apollo missions. It was NASA’s very own Robert Taylor who controlled the release of any data from Parkes during the Apollo 11 mission and his team were responsible for the reception, recording and transfer of audio, video and telemetry at Parkes. And on the subsequent flights technicians and engineers from NASA’s Tidbinbilla complex were heavily involved at Parkes. It’s essentially a fox guarding the hen house scenario.
Q: So was the MSFN part of the conspiracy?
A: Maybe. Maybe not. For awhile Jarrah was convinced that they were, but has since reconsidered and remains undecided. Because of the way telecommunications were handled, it’s hard to say for sure.

The MSFN simply relayed the signals it received over the landlines to the technicians at the Mission Control Center in Houston. These technicians didn’t need to know or care where the data came from. So since it was purely NASA’s MSFN who were allegedly tracking Apollo all the way to the moon and back, regardless of whether the crews were actually in LEO or on the ground; all they would need do is relay pre-recorded tapes or LEO signals or both over the landlines, claim it was from the moon, and the MCC controllers would’ve called it a day.

This was little different to the pre-flight simulations. The MCC controllers were trained for actual space missions by being fed simulated data over the landlines. Flight Director Eugene Kranz, in the documentary Failure Is Not an Option, was quoted to saying that the simulations were so realistic that no controller could distinguish the training from the real mission. (see time codes 4:40-4:54)

On the other hand, the MSFN could easily have been in the dark too. Honeysuckle Creek for example had developed their own simulation system for specifically training the operators. The computers were even capable of simulating the Doppler shift! These simulators were also designed to be indistinguishable from the real thing. But while it could be argued that a similar simulation could have been used, it ultimately was not required to fool the MSFN.

As explained below, the Soviet Union had successfully faked telecommunications by transmitting the voices of cosmonauts to the unmanned Zond 5, which in turn relayed them back to earth. At the time the Americans and Jodrell Bank thought the spacecraft was manned. There was nothing stopping the Americans from also flying an unmanned spacecraft to the moon and using it to relay data. So if the MSFN operators were not involved in the conspiracy, they were probably receiving telecommunications from an unmanned craft.

In summary: because the MSFN facilities were either NASA owned or NASA contracted, it is not an outside possibility that they were involved in the hoax; but on the other hand, they could just as easily have been left in the dark and NASA could have pulled a Zond 5 on them.

Jarrah has personally asked various radio operators how they know Apollo telecommunications were not just another Zond 5 stunt, and so far none of them have given him a direct answer. And considering the Zond 5 hoax has been officially revealed, Jarrah is amazed that anyone would cite telecommunications as evidence for Apollo, let alone consider it their best evidence!
Q: How were the videos and still pictures faked?
A: They were filmed either in a studio or on location in the Nevada desert. When it came down to filming the moonwalk scenes, lunar gravity was simulated by suspending the astronauts on wires to reduce their weight. And to complete the look, the videos of the astronauts on wires were played back in slow motion.

Ironically, the Mythbusters recently tried to debunk this by filming Adam Savage running around in a replica spacesuit. They filmed him both with and without wire suspension. But the only slow motion footage shown was of when he was not suspended by a wire. If one takes his wire jump footage, slows it down to 67% and then plays it alongside the original Apollo 16 footage, the two are a near-perfect synchronization.

Jarrah White told this to Savage during the Q&A session at Tam8 in Las Vegas 2010, to which Savage replied that their TV show was “entertainment, not science”, that he shouldn’t be cited as the definitive defacto place for scientific analysis of the moon landings, and that “We might be wrong!”
Q: How could so many people have kept quiet about the hoax?
A: Secrets of such magnitude have taken place. The Soviet N-1 program alone involved hundreds of thousands of scientists and engineers; yet the designing, developing, and launch of the N-1 rocket remained a well-kept secret for forty years until the USSR collapsed in 1991.

Bottom line, if Russia could keep a secret that involved thousands of people for so long, so could NASA. And anyway, not everyone at NASA would have needed to be in on the conspiracy. For example, as stated above, the technicians at Houston Mission Control Center would be unable to distinguish the difference between simulations and the real missions. Hence there is no need for them to ‘keep quiet’ about anything.

Likewise for the remainder of NASA staff and contractors located on the ground. Once the rockets were out of sight they had no way of knowing whether the CSM continued to the Moon, came down shortly afterwards, or just stayed in earth orbit. Everyone just assumed it happened the way it was reported and they had no reason to suspect otherwise. Ultimately there were only three eyewitnesses for each mission, not thousands.
Q: Why did the Russians remain silent?
A: Jarrah can see three reasons.

Firstly, if you really want to know what Russia thought of manned lunar exploration, just ask Jodrell Bank’s Sir Bernard Lovell. In May of 1963, the President of the Soviet Academy of Sciences Mstislav Keldysh instructed him to inform NASA’s deputy administrator Hugh Dryden that Russian had to postpone manned moon flights indefinitely, because they could see no way to protect their cosmonauts from the insurmountable dangers posed by solar flare radiation3, 4, 5, 6. Well into 1966, around the time Russia put Lunik 10 in lunar orbit, Sir Bernard remained in contact with the Soviets asking when they intended to send a human to the moon.
In 1999, Sir Bernard was quoted by the BBC along these lines: “I had frequently asked my Soviet contacts when they intended to send a human being to the moon and their response was always ‘when we can be absolutely certain of getting him back alive’. And they did not believe the Americans would do this and in fact it’s pretty clear that the Americans did take considerable risk.”

Well into December 1968, Alexei Leonov and his comrades pleaded the politburo to let them pilot Zond 7 around the moon, as the Zonds 5 & 6 had already flown around the moon and returned to earth in September and November of that year – the former of which was successfully recovered. But their pleas were rejected despite having proven their capabilities with Zond 5.

Jarrah believes that Russia may likely have planned to fake their manned moon flights too. Aboard Zond 5 was an audio cassette player which played back the voices of cosmonauts Pavel Popevich and Vitali Sevastyanov7, 8, 9. At the time many thought Russia had sent the first men around the moon, but upon return of the capsule it was revealed that it was only a tape recording. NASA, who at the time weren’t officially planning a ‘manned’ moon mission until April or May 1969, responded to the tape recorder stunt by changing Apollo 8’s flight plan from a high earth orbit flight to a lunar orbit flight in December 1968.

Russia had the opportunity to claim victory over the Americans, but they let it slip through their fingers. But even if they were to cry foul on the Americans, it would only jeopardize their own program. If the USSR was to come out and say that Apollo was faked due to lethal radiation, the Americans would just as easily cry foul if the Soviets proceeded to fake their own for the same reason.

The second reason for their silence would be because of free trade deals. Since the Kennedy administration, the United States government and its allies had been selling tons of American wheat to the Soviets. It’s no different to modern times: the US cuts multi-billion dollar trade deals with the Chinese and in turn China gets kicked off America’s list of human rights violators, likewise Russia gets tons of wheat in return for silence.

Thirdly, nowadays the Russian and American space programs are partners in crime. In the early 70s the US and Soviets agreed to work cooperatively in the exploration of space. This international cooperation became a reality in 1975 with the Apollo Soyuz Test Project, the first joint mission. Many other missions followed and Russia essentially became the United States’ best ally. In the 1990s, with the Buran program cancelled, the Russians had no shuttle to get to their Mir space station, only Soyuz. And the US had no equivalent to Mir. The solution was the Shuttle-Mir program, in which US shuttles carried astronauts and cosmonauts to and from the Russian Mir space station. Now the US and Russia have collaborated towards the construction of the International Space Station, involving not only them but also every other space nation – except for the US’s best trade partner, the Chinese.

The Russians were also kind enough to give American astronauts a ride to space aboard the Soyuz during the time the shuttle was grounded. And with the termination of the shuttle program, the US will now be reliant on Russia’s Soyuz to get to the ISS. It’s essentially a one-world space government, one big happy family. No one will blow the whistle on anybody.
Q: What is the most compelling evidence that the moon missions were faked?
A: Jarrah can nail it down to four pieces of evidence.

First, as demonstrated by James Van Allen’s own findings, the radiation belts that surround earth would have been lethal to astronauts10, 11. It began in 1952 when James Van Allen & his team at the University of Iowa began launching Geiger counters into space aboard rockoons. Although these did not have enough lift to get into orbit, these experiments were able to detect radiation levels higher than what Van Allen had expected. Later in the late 50s and early 60s, his Geiger counters were carried aloft by the Explorer satellites and Pioneer space probes. Each time the spacecrafts entered the radiation belts, the Geiger counters would become continuously busy. They encountered protons and electrons with fluxes of 40,000 particles per square centimetre per second and average energies ranging between 1-100 MeV.

Before Van Allen began shielding his Geiger counters with a millimetre of lead, the instruments detected radiation with a dose rate equivalent of 312.5rad/hr to 11,666rad/hr for the outer belt and inner belt respectively [Fig-2]12. These instruments quickly became jammed by the radiation. Even to this day, the belts are so severe that satellites must operate outside the belts: geostationary satellites operating beyond the end of the outer belt (but still within the protection of the magnetosphere) and GPS satellites operating in the gap between the two belts. Meanwhile low earth orbit satellites like the Hubble must shut down some of their instruments during South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA) transit. Even after Van Allen shielded his Geiger counters with lead, the results were still equivalent to 10-100rad/hr. He concluded that effective shielding of astronauts was beyond engineering feasibility available at the time, that even a rapid transit through the belts would be hazardous, and that for these reasons the two belts must be classed as an uninhabitable region of space that all manned space flight must steer clear of.

Even if we discount the Van Allen belt, there are still other dangers to consider. The sun constantly bombards the earth-moon system with solar flares. Regardless of whether these flares deliver x-rays or protons, or are minor or major, both are a hazard to humans. A major flare delivers in excess of 100rad/hr, a minor flare can deliver 25rad/hr depending on how many centimetres of water shielding is used. The minor flares of May 10th and July 15th 1958 for example, would have required 31gm/cm2 of water just to bring their dose rates down to 25rad/hr [Fig-3]. The Apollo capsule, with its aluminium honeycomb hull and outer epoxy resin ablator, was rated at 3gm/cm2 on the walls and 8gm/cm2 on the aft heatshield. The thicker portion of the spacecraft walls would bring the dose rate of such flares down to around 1,000rem/hr. The records show that 1400 of these minor flares occurred over all nine moon flights (Tables 1 & 2). NOAA’s Comprehensive Flare Index for Major flares, also reveals that thirty of the major ones took place during the Apollo missions. By any definition, these astronauts should have been as dead as spam in a can.

The second smoking gun is the fact that the Apollo 10 telecasts were proven to have been pre-filmed and edited together. After every space mission, NASA releases a ground-to-air communications transcript covering everything the crew and capsule communicators (Capcoms) said during the flight. The company Spacecraft Films sells what they claim is complete and unedited television transmissions and 16mm reels from the Apollo missions. Jarrah purchased the Apollo 10 DVD set and compared the in-flight videos with the transcript. To his astonishment, Jarrah found numerous occasions in which the views of earth and even interior shots would cut from one angle to another and yet the audio would remain perfectly synchronized to the video with no signs of interruption when the video cut. So we know that the astronauts didn’t simply cut the camera and then begin rolling moments later.

The Apollo astronauts had only the one television camera hooked up to the S-band antenna, so these broadcasts should be one continuous shot with no edits – as per the false claims made by propagandists. Because these edits only take place during post production, not whilst the video is being recorded, it would not have been possible to cut and paste LIVE video. The only logical conclusion is that the views of earth were pre-filmed, edited together, and then sandwiched between the interior shots with the ground-to-air communications dubbing the video regardless of the edits. Transitions from these fake views of earth videos to interior scenes were pulled off by conveniently cutting the camera or blacking the scene from interior to exterior and vice versa, in one circumstance Eugene Cernan went as far as putting a piece of paper in front of the camera lens during this switch from exterior to interior!

By comparing the videos with the transcript, Jarrah also discovered that there were sections of video missing from the “complete” Spacecraft Films DVD set. Jarrah knows these missing pieces of video exist, because in the transcript the Capcom confirms that the MSFN was ‘receiving’ them. For reasons unknown, Spacecraft Films omitted minutes of footage from Apollo 10 and then sold their DVD set to the world as “complete & unedited.”

After Jarrah released his video covering this, ironically titled “Flagging The Gems”, Mark Gray of Spacecraft Films flagged it for copyright infringement and had the video pulled along with Jarrah’s entire Youtube account. Gray’s copyright claims are fraudulent and thus he is guilty of perjury, because NASA’s in flight telecasts are PUBLIC DOMAIN. They are not copyrighted.

      <----  Flagging The Gems  video

The third piece of evidence that the Apollo missions were faked is the fact that the moon rocks actually on the moon later turned out to be different to the ones the astronauts supposedly collected. See below.

Fourth, and probably the most visually identifiable, is the fact the framerate of the Apollo 11 telecast is not what NASA claimed it was. NASA claims that the only television camera that recorded the Apollo 11 EVA was a B&W non-interlaced Westinghouse camera that ran at 10fps. As this framerate is lower than both conventional television framerates of PAL (25fps, interlaced) or NTSC (30fps, interlaced), the video allegedly received by the DSN and MSFN needed to be converted to NTSC. NASA says that this was done by pointing an NTSC TV camera at a screen that displayed the 10fps feed. The unfiltered 10fps was recorded on 1inch reels, but only the 2inch reel containing the NTSC conversion have survived.

Nonetheless, it is important to note that at least 24fps (cinema) is sufficient to show fluent motion. Framerates lower than 24fps, especially as low as 10fps, will appear very jumpy. Because fourteen important frames of natural motion are missing. Additionally, in a 10fps to 30fps conversion, the motion on screen would update only once every three frames. Because the camera pointed to the screen would have recorded the same display three times.

Frame by frame analysis of the digital transfers of NASA’s 2inch reels however reveal this not to be the case. The motion of the astronauts’ movement is very smooth and not jumpy at all. And frames update not once every three frames, but four out of every five frames with the odd one out being an overlay of the frames before and after. This clearly indicates that the Apollo 11 EVA video playback speed was not 10fps but 24fps. Meaning the EVA was shot with a camera that reportedly was not in the Apollo 11 crews possession during the time they were supposedly on the moon.

Viewers are offered this video:
      <----  False Frame-rates  video
Q: How were the moon rocks faked?
A: Apollo samples have a chemistry that can be matched fairly closely with terrestrial basalts and eucrites, a basaltic meteorite [Fig-4]. The same is true for the mineralogy: “The minerals found in JSC-1 (lunar regolith simulant), plagioclase, pyroxene, olivine, ilmenite, and chromite, are also characteristic of many lunar basalts and mare soils (Figure 5). The compositional ranges of these lunar minerals generally overlap the ranges of their terrestrial counterparts.” Apollo samples and earth rocks have oxygen18 to oxygen17 ratios of around 5:3 per mil. Although Eucrites are generally slightly less than this, there have been exceptions in which their oxygen isotope ratios are the same as earth (DaG 872 being a good example [Fig-5, 6]).
The three groups of rock are as identical as three of a kind.
Additionally, some scientists such as John O’Keefe have also noticed similarities between lunar glasses and tektites, leading to theories that tektites are lunar in origin, not terrestrial13 (Table 3 & 4).

Because of the similarities in age, chemistry, mineralogy and oxygen isotope ratios, as well as the alleged lack of water in Apollo samples, this has led William Hartman to believe that the moon was formed when a mars-sized planet collided with the earth. All water was vaporized in the impact and the moon formed out of the terrestrial debris knocked off into space. To account for the similarities between Apollo samples and eucrites, some such as Ruzicka et al have proposed that the mars-sized planet had a eucritic composition14.

Clearly, NASA’s Apollo samples are a combination of terrestrial basalts, eucrites and tektites. Terrestrial basalts are plentiful, but the advantage of Eucrites is that they show signs of solar and cosmic radiation, which is absent in earth rocks. Things like ‘zap pits’ (micrometeoroid impacts) can be added by firing projectiles from high-speed multi-stage gas guns which existed at the time. To hide the fact that these Eucrites fell through the atmosphere, the first millimetre was chipped away to remove the fusion crust (the outer burned layer due to atmospheric entry). Contrary to what propagandists claim, removing of this layer will not subsequently remove a large portion of helium3 or other solar wind induced isotopes, because solar wind penetrates a few millimetres into the rock– not 1 micrometre as the propagandists claim. And while chipping away the fusion crust may leave traces of themselves in the rock, these tools are little different to the tools used by NASA to chip the samples into the tiny sugar-cubed pieces that they send to geologists. In short, if a geologist found traces of these tools, he/she would be unable to tell whether they got there through chipping off fusion crust or by chipping free the sub-sample from its parent body.
Q: How do you know the moon rocks are fake?
A: If Jarrah picks up a rock from the moon to analyse in a lab and then send up a probe to the moon to kick up plumes of dust for analysis via radio telescope, he expects to find the same chemical signatures and mineralogy. This assertion is supported by the lunar maria samples from Apollos 11, 12 and 17 being virtually the same above and below ground, the fact that NASA claims their Lunar Prospectors and Clementine spacecrafts indicated that the lunar geology is the same as Apollo throughout, and the fact that the vast majority of official lunar meteorites are the same as NASA’s samples. Yet when the European Space Agency’s SMART-1 probe crashed into the Lake Of Excellence, a lunar maria region, it was reported that the minerals kicked up were different to the Apollo rocks.

In recent years correlating evidence has immerged from China. In 2013, they landed the Chang’e 3 lander which deployed a tiny rover carrying an Active Particle X-ray Spectrometer to analyse the soil. Analysis of the spectral peaks show the chemistry of the actual lunar soil to be completely unlike any rock from the Apollo missions or any rock we know about. The soil detected by the Yutu rover is chemically 43% by weight calcium oxide, 39% titanium oxide and 4% silicon dioxide. It also contains chromium oxide as a major element (>1% by weight) and strontium, yttrium and zirconium as minor elements (0.1-1% by weight). For direct comparison: Apollo soils are generally 10% calcium oxide, 0.5-10% titanium oxide and ~45% silicon dioxide; with chromium oxide as a minor element and strontium, yttrium and zirconium as trace elements (<1% by weight).

Readers are offered these slides and this video for the full analysis:
      <----  Chinese Roadtrip  video

Likewise, although most “lunar meteorites” can be closely matched with Eucrites, there are known exceptions in which the meteorites have gone on the record as being “distinct from” or “unlike any basalt from Apollo or Luna” ( Yamato 793169, Asuka 881757, Miller Range 05035, Dhofar 287, NWA 773). These include differences in chemistry and even oxygen isotope ratios. One such meteorite, Dhofar 280 [Fig-7], contains an iron silicide mineral Hapkeite [Fig-8, 9]. Which is believed to be formed through micrometeorite impacts with the moon [Fig-10], and due to billions of years of such bombardment, the mineral is believed to be common on the lunar surface. Yet Hapkeite has never been found in any of the Apollo samples.

Further evidence that the samples are faked can be found even without comparing them to the real stuff. Contrary to what NASA and propagandists claim, the rocks contain water within the same ranges as their terrestrial cousins [Fig-11, 12]. * Any water deposited in the equatorial region of moon by comets or solar wind, or any water not vaporised by the alleged giant impact, should have been vaporised in the vacuum of space and >100C daylight temperatures. They also contain water or air induced minerals and secondary oxides that would only have been present if the samples were exposed to an atmosphere [Fig-13]. These include ferric iron oxides [Fig-14]. Sample 66095 is only one notorious example of such oxidation. The majority of Apollo 16 rocks also contain abundant rust. Other samples show ferric iron to total iron ratios that are comparable to terrestrial rocks that underwent two days of heat treatment in evacuated quartz tubes [Fig-15]. Some geologists acknowledge this ferric iron, yet others dismiss it – attributing it and the water to terrestrial contamination!
  [* The range for water in terrestrial basalts is between 150-10,000ppm (see 13 & 15), Fig-11 & Fig-12 together clearly illustrate water contents for lunar rocks within those ranges. Alberto Saal recently confirmed the presence of around 46ppm of water in lunar glass spherules, and estimated that they contain contents within the terrestrial rane of 240-750ppm.]

Some geologists acknowledge this ferric iron, yet others dismiss it – attributing it and the water to terrestrial contamination! By comparison, none of the soil samples remotely collected by the Soviet Union were reported to contain any oxidation and the only sample containing water was Luna 24, which is only found by drilling nearly 1.5meters under the surface. They found 1,000ppm drilling this deep, the other two Soviet samples collected from shallower depths were bone dry. By comparison, Apollo samples supposedly collected from the surface contained up to 6,000ppm of water. Something’s wrong!
Q: But hasn’t water been found on the moon remotely by Cassini, Chandrayaan-1 & Deep Impact? Not to mention kicked up by LCROSS?
A: The only significant findings were in the lunar polar regions. Regions were the daylight temperatures drop below the boiling point of water [Fig-16] and where some craters are permanently shadowed [Fig-17]. The highest water detected in the remote sensing data was at the North Pole: 3,000ppm. By comparison, the only signs of water outside the polar regions were so low that they didn’t even register in the Chandrayaan-1 data [Fig-18, 19, 20, 21].
Q: What about the laser retro-reflectors on the moon?
A: The Russians successfully placed such retro-reflectors on the surface of the moon, yet they have never claimed to have put a man on the moon. The Russian reflectors were carried by the unmanned rovers Lunokhod 1 & 2. One of these reflectors is still in use. The recent Mythbusters show claimed that the only way retro-reflectors could have got there is by astronauts. This was said while on a visit of the APOLLO laser ranging facility which uses the Lunokhod 2 mirror.

If there are reflectors at the Apollo sites, they were dropped there by unmanned probes. The US certainly had the capability to do this since they had earlier placed several Surveyor probes on the moon. In fact, the lunar retro-reflector experiments were originally intended for the Surveyor missions. Hence similar probes carrying reflectors would have done the trick.

Some propagandists claimed that if there was no reflector on the lunar surface, we’d never get the laser signal back because the moon would not reflect it. This false claim even found its way onto Mythbusters. When it was pointed out that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)16 and the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory17 were able to bounce lasers off the moon and back to earth without the aid of any retro-reflector, propagandists have now switched the statement into saying the retro-reflectors can reflect lasers with better accuracy than the bare lunar surface. They even tried to use Jarrah as a fall guy for the propagandists’ erroneous claim that the moon is unable to reflect lasers back to earth!
Q: What about the Lunar Reconassiance Orbiter photographs which show the lander, rover and tracks?
A: The important point to consider is that LRO is a 100% NASA-run project and hence NASA could have altered the images prior to releasing them. In fact a close examination indicates this to be the case. For example, in some cases the Lunar Rover and Surveyor 3 probe shows as being black [Fig-22, 23, 24], despite their many bright and reflective surfaces [Fig-25, 26, 27] and with the sun overhead. In the one case when Surveyor 3 did appear, its white boxes appeared to be aligned east and west, not north and south as seen in the Hasselblad still-pictures [Fig-28].

There are even anomalies that contradict previous landing site photos. Prior to LRO, the most commonly cited images were pictures of the Apollo 15 landing site taken by NASA’s Clementine spacecraft and JAXA’s SELENE spacecraft [Fig-29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36]. These images showed what they described as a bright “halo” within a 150metre radius around the landing site. This “halo” was attributed to dust that was disturbed by the engine exhaust during touchdown. NASA, propagandists and scientists at large have insisted that the disturbance caused by the engine should be easily seen from orbit. David Scott & Jim Irwin even claimed to have seen it themselves after their alleged departure from the lunar surface. But by comparing these Clementine & SELENE images with the newer LRO imagery, Jarrah discovered that the “halo” was nothing more than the sunlight sides of some giant impact craters [Fig-37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42]. The alleged lunar module is not even within this halo, but on the outermost edge of it. In fact the halo exists in the pre-Apollo photos taken by Lunar Orbiter [Fig-43, 44, 45]. The total lack of a visible soil disturbance is one of the most conclusive pieces of evidence that the ‘artefacts’ were added into the LRO image.

Further, the way the LRO operates is suspicious. The images are transmitted in an encrypted format which means nobody that eavesdrops on the signal can decode it. Why encrypt a picture of something that isn’t secret? NASA then holds on to the images for a few days before releasing them to Arizona State University, who then reframes and annotates the images before making them public. Why the delay? For some reason NASA doesn’t want any 3rd party to view a live transmission.

Finally, the LRO images are of very poor quality. The LRO operates at an altitude of 50km and returns images of resolution 0.5 metres/pixel. And the images have an odd striped pattern that reduces the quality further. Equivalent earth-imaging satellites return better resolution from much higher up. The privately owned GeoEye-1 satellite for example has perfectly resolved cars and even individual people at 0.5 m/pixel, in colour, through an atmosphere, and from an altitude 14 times higher up than the LRO [Fig-46, 47]. If NASA had installed a similar camera (which they can afford!) we would be seeing a resolution of 3 cm/pixel and this would allow us to see the hardware in great detail – assuming that it’s there. We would also be able to see the landscape in great detail and compare it to the Hasselblad images. Since the landscape had never been photographed at that resolution prior to the Apollo missions, a match between the two sets of images would provide a good test of Apollo’s authenticity.
Q: Could you see the artefacts (if they were there) with a telescope?
A: Although propagandists say that you can’t, Jarrah disagrees and can prove it. There is a simple formula that scientists use to determine the angular size of an object in space.
(d ÷ D) x 206,265 = α
Where d is the diameter of the object, D is the distance of the object and α is the resolution in arc-seconds.

We know the lunar module is 4metres across and the moon is 380,000km away – or 380,000,000metres. So we plug those digits into the formula and get,
(4 ÷ 380,000,000) x 203,265 = 0.002arc-seconds.
So from this calculation, we know that we need a telescope with an angular resolution of 0.002arc-seconds.

According to a European Southern Observatory (ESO) Press Release, scientists working at The Very Large Telescope Interferometer (VLT-I) array in Chile “were able to see details on the scale of one milli-arcsecond, corresponding to being able to distinguish, from the Earth, the headlights of a car on the Moon”. 1 milli-arcsecond is 0.001arc-seconds. This means the Very Large Telescope Interferometer is perfect to resolve man made equipment left behind on the lunar surface. Indeed, in a 2002 Daily Telegraph article, Dr. Richard West stated that he would use the VLT-I to try and resolve the Apollo artefacts.

In 2011, Jarrah contacted ESO to ask if they had any luck finding the lunar module and to inquire about getting some time on the telescope to look at the moon. Despite the fact that the VLT had taken pictures of The Sea of Tranquility (albeit at only 100m/pixel resolution), he was told that they “really have never looked at the moon since it is so close that it is not considered a good use of time” and was directed to the Pic du Midi observatory archives, despite the fact that it’s telescopes were much smaller than VLT and would not have been able to resolve the artefacts. ESO have since gone on record to state that the VLT-I “cannot be used to observe the moon”, but offer no explanation as to why it can’t be used.

For more information along these lines, readers are offered this video :

Q: What about Apollo 13?
A: The fact is, none of the Apollo missions ever left earth orbit. In some cases they didn’t even leave earth! After interest petered out following Apollo 12 (the second landing mission), an element of "jeopardy" was introduced to draw attention back to the alleged drama of the missions.

The "near disaster" also contributed to another purpose. It got the program cancelled. As a military and political operation, Apollo's ultimate goal was to beat the Soviet Union to the moon. That objective was achieved with Apollo 11 and this pretty much nullified any point in continuing the project. But the scientific community already had even more ambitious plans: a base on the moon, manned missions to Mars by 1982, even a manned fly-by around Venus as early as 1973!

These proposals certainly sound spectacular, but they served no purpose to a military objective. The point of Apollo was to get to the moon first, that's all. NASA couldn't just simply call it quits once they completed Apollo 11. Not when all these other space travel ideas were rearing to go. They needed a convenient excuse that would prevent all of this and also reduce the amount of fakery they needed to do. So on Apollo 13 they pretended that an oxygen tank exploded and nearly cost the crew their lives. As a result the Apollo program was cancelled, Apollo's 18-20 were scrubbed, and all proposals of moon bases and exploration of other planets were rejected.

They still had Apollo's 14-17 to go. But much like Apollo 11 with its grainy pictures, NASA found ways to decrease or degrade the remaining footage they had to fake. The aftermath of Apollo 13 enabled NASA to stay closer to home and focus on real stuff for awhile, like the shuttle and ISS. This makes Apollo 13 the most deplorable of all the missions. The nation held midnight prayer vigils for the astronaut's safe return, all the while they casually coasted around the earth in a completely sound orbiting vehicle - just so NASA would have the excuse they needed.
Q: What do you mean by ‘finding ways to limit or degrade the footage?’
A: What the world saw was not the original footage, but rather a copy of a copy. Rather than take a direct feed of what the MSFN was ‘receiving’, the networks had to broadcast a feed from a television camera that was pointed at one of the monitors at the tracking station. This was done on all the moon flights and each time NASA pulled various other stunts that degraded the pictures.

Apollo 11 had its black and white and fuzzy TV pictures; on Apollo 12, Al Bean conveniently prevented any colour moonwalk telecasts when he pointed the TV camera at the sun and destroyed the Videocon tube; on Apollo 13, the in-flight transmissions were all cancelled after the alleged explosion so they could ‘save power’; on Apollo 14 the lunar surface was overexposed making all but two brief 16mm clips virtually unwatchable; and on the last three missions, although they took a Lunar rover to traverse vast distances, the on-board television camera was not used on the trip from station to station via rover. There was only audio communications and stop-motion 16mm reels. And remember on all these missions, the broadcasts the world saw were filmed off television monitors, thus further degrading the already poor quality footage.

The unfiltered images were recorded onto one-inch, 60fps tape. The Goddard Space Flight Centre held 2614 boxes each containing five reels of tape, for a total of 13,070 reels of tape. In 2006 it was announced that this raw footage had gone missing! Just how could NASA lose over 13,000 reels of tape? Three years later, on the 40th anniversary, it was announced that the Apollo 11 originals had been ‘accidently’ taped over. Didn’t anyone think to make backups?
Q: What will it take to convince Jarrah that the moon landings were real?
A: As stated above, the VLT-I has the perfect resolving capabilities to see the artefacts that NASA claims is on the surface. He will accept a view through a ground-based optical telescope as proof [Fig-48].

Additionally, Jarrah has started up a fundraise to see if any propagandist is willing to make good on the claim that he would not believe Apollo was real if he was flown to the moon and shown the relics [Fig-49]. The private company Space Adventures is offering tourists a circumlunar flight aboard the Soyuz for $150 million per seat. Since then, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk has announced that his company will offer tourists mars landing missions for only $500,000 per seat. He also said he'd fly people to the moon if anyone wants to go there. Jarrah aims to raise $500,000 to pay for himself and an accompanying believer or propagandist to take such a trip and find out first hand whether or not the radiation is survivable.

An equally fair question to ask would be: What would it take to convince the pro-Apollo side that the landings were fake? As far as Jarrah can tell, the opposing side has not put forth any criteria that they would accept as proof on this point. This is neither fair nor scientific. In fact, a poll on the Bad Astronomy forum (a pro-Apollo site) revealed that no amount of evidence would sway the majority of its members to doubt the Apollo missions!
Q: Where can I send Jarrah a donation for his Lunar Tourism fundraise?
A: You can send a donation via PayPal to
For other methods of payment, please contact Jarrah on
Q: You claim that the radiation would have killed astronauts on their voyage to the moon. Well what about the Zond 5 turtles? They flew around the moon and returned safely to earth.
A: A turtle is not a valid comparison. We use “rad” to measure how much radiation a specimen has absorbed. The lethal dose for humans is 500rad. Turtles can take a dose as high as 15,000rad to 60,000rad. Because of this, scientists believe they can use turtle blood transfusions to cure radiation sickness in humans. A dose of 500rad would kill any human, but for a turtle it would cause no cellular damage at all.
Q: Post Apollo spacecraft have photographed the landing sites, and the terrain photographed by these probes looks exactly like what was seen in the Apollo film and videos. How did NASA accurately fake these landscapes?
A: Prior to the Apollo missions, NASA launched their unmanned Lunar Orbiters 1-5 to specifically map the lunar surface at 1 metre resolution. All six Apollo sites were mapped by these probes. So all NASA would need do is model their sets and probes using the LO imagery as a reference.
Q: When astronauts kick up dust, it does not form clouds. It forms an arc and then falls back down to earth. Does this not prove that they are in a vacuum?
A: No, it doesn’t. Propagandists say this is evidence that the footage was filmed in a vacuum. But dry beach sand behaves the same way, and by using gray sand, it wouldn’t look any different from what we see in the Apollo footage. So all NASA would need do to fake the dust movement is carpet the studio with a layer of dry gray sand. In fact in a particular Apollo 16 scene, the rover’s dust arcs backward, appears to hit a ‘wall’ of air and then fall down. This demonstrates an atmosphere was present.
Q: But what about the boot prints? The dust kicked up in the videos can’t be dry sand, because I’ve seen pictures of distinct boot prints in the still pictures. Dry sand does not leave clear prints.
A: Keep in mind the still pictures were not necessarily done using the same materials as were used in the videos. The famous Aldrin print for example [Fig-50] could have been made in a lightly-moistened fine-grained sand and cement powder mixture, as this close-up seems to indicate. The picture quality in the videos is too poor for distinct bootprints to register. This likely explains why we almost never see such prints being formed in the videos. In the few cases where we do, the soil appears reflective. This is probably due to a moist layer of sand beneath a dry top layer.

Propagandists have claimed that the formation of distinct prints is due to sharp, irregular edges on each dust particle, which causes them to connect together. However, experiments conducted by Jarrah, in which NASA’s official JSC-1A lunar regolith simulant was used, demonstrated this not to be the case. That even with their irregular surfaces, distinct boot prints in such surface material are not possible.
Q: Where can I view Jarrah’s videos?
A: Most of them are here

Videos dealing with the Apollo 1 fires are here
And some videos under threat of false copyright claims were placed here

His videos MoonFaker: Apollo 1 and Apollo Zero are also both available from
Q: Can I schedule an interview with Jarrah?
A: Yes. To schedule one, please contact Jarrah at
Q: I would like to donate money to fund Jarrah's research, experiments and productions. Where can I send a donation?
A: PayPal donations should be sent to For other methods of payment, please contact Jarrah on

Donate more than $20, and we'll send you a free DVD containing one JW Studios movie of your choice. If there are any specific research materials you want to donate money for, please specify.