A miscellany of bits and pieces debunking tired old crap and utter stupidity.

An April Fool’s joke got posted claiming alien what-nots on the moon and secret stuff.  People believe it. Here’s why they shouldn’t (Spoiler alert: it’s bullshit)

A Lunar Orbiter photograph from 1967 is claimed to show a road and a UFO parked in a crater. It’s bollocks.

UFO nuts think NASA is hiding alien bases in Zeeman crater. They’re idiots.

Syfy channel’s “Aliens on the moon: the truth exposed’ has more bullshit than a field full of beef cattle. Read why here.

Alex Collier claims alien space beings told him sooper seekrit stuff, like “there’s a hole in the north pole and a NASA photo proves it”. My alien contacts tell me he’s full of it.

Hoax nuts love the story that Apollo astronauts gave a fake moon rock to a Dutch dignitary. Unfortunately for them it’s just not true.

Maansteen Apollo 20 - Mona Lisa Manilius Silliness Zeeman Stains SyFy Fiction Collier Wobbles

They’re everywhere. The stupid. Some of them walk among us, but the rest stay inside making up shite to put on the internet. The rest of this page is for one-off observations made by the stupid, dedicated to pointing out to the stupid that they are wrong, and stupid, one bit at a time.

This idiot a) thinks this is an Apollo astronaut’s description. It isn’t, as he should know because he got it here and b) doesn’t know that Starry Night is a piece of astronomy software.

The description’s wrong, it was actually taken some time after LOI, as detailed here.

He compounds his error later by saying this:

“ in a later interview, Neil Armstrong said, "we couldn't see any stars from cis-lunar space" and that is just a flat out lie”.

Nope. He never said that.

The same user (who claims to work for the CNSA but really doesn’t) claims to have worked out that the sun angles for Apollo, and says Apollo 12’s is all wrong.

Well, he had no need to work out, they’re all here.

Apollo 12 may have had a sun elevation of 18.6 degrees when they left for home, but when that photo was taken during EVA-1, not long after its start, so the sun elevation is nearer 6 degrees, not 18.

Starry Night fail

Sun elevation fail

Moon boot fail

This one gets posted a lot, so it’s not fair top pick on one individual loser for posting it without doing the tiniest amount of research.

The pattern is made by the overshoe, worn over the suit. This page does a thorough debunk of it.

Death Bed Confession

A video claims there is a death bed confession of Apollo 11’s staging. One problem: it’s a lie.

Low Hanging Fruit

Unhappy Astronauts fail

Another example of an actual lie that gets thrown around a lot.

Both of the alleged ‘before’ photographs are actually post-mission shots in the Mobile Quarantine facility. The ‘after’ shot is cherry-picked from the Apollo 11 press conference, where some tired astronauts are plonked on a stage in front of the world’s press. How happy would you be?

Hoaxtards usually miss out the happy shots from the conference, like the one below.

Flag Fail

Michael James Myers thinks the Apollo 11 flag was deployed too soon.

He claims, here, that you can see it reflected in the LM window before it was deployed live on TV to an audience of most of the planet with access to a TV.

Two small problems. One, its not the flag - it’s a piece of card inside the LM combined with the Landing Point Designator markings on the window. Two, the flag could not possibly have been visible in that window.

Below left is the LM interior showing the LPD on the left (CDR) window as we look at it. It does not appear on the right window. The card hanging down is clearly in line with the window.

Below centre is a view of the flag and LM as well as the window in question. The flag is not visible from that window. All photographs of the flag from inside the LM are taken from the other (LMP) window. Below right is the flag, notice the window we need to see is not visible at all.

It’s not the flag.

Photography fail

Michael James Myers again, this time with an issue over this photo. He thinks its too dark, when all the other photographs are lighter.

Leaving aside the fact that several other photos are also dark, if only there was some way of, oh I don’t know - maybe actually researching this stuff to see if there was an explanation? How about the Mission Report?

So, as is clearly documented, 1/250 was the standard exposure, the ladder shots were longer exposure.

The reason it’s dark is because the photographer is standing completely in the shade, and hasn’t used the correct setting.

It proves nothing other than his lack of knowledge about basic photography and the mission records.

Photoshop fail

This bright spark has been hard at work looking at LRO images of Earth.

Look, he says, evidence of Photoshop!! He uploaded this file to here. Let’s have a look at that image.

Last time I looked through a telescope there weren’t any labels. Can you think how those labels might have got there? Can you? If only there was some sort of software that would do it…

The fact is that India and China have imaged Apollo 14’s site and found evidence of human activity. The fact is that you can download the raw LRO files and look at them yourself. You might need Photoshop to look at them though.

Nasascam Nonsense & Truth Party lies

The Nasascam & Truth Party websites are full of absolute garbage trying to prove the landings were hoaxed. This is an unfinished work in progress debunking that garbage.

Ex-Pat Twatty

Expat Taffy thinks he’s brilliant. He’s not. He’s a deluded idiot who sees things that aren’t there. This is an unfinished page looking at some of his stupid. There’s just too much of it to finish.

Tracking Stations Fail

Our favourite fake pretend scientist is at it again, this time making a number of claims about the stations used to track Apollo.

He’s absolutely right about the MSFN and DSN, they were actually a thing and did good work. He’s also correct about the Soviet equivalent. The ESA one, not so much. The ESA wasn’t founded until 1975.

The claim that they were all in cahoots, particularly an organisation that didn’t exist, is just a fantasy he needs to prop his delusion.

Then there’s the idea that they were top secret facilities manned by the military.

Nope, wrong again. Some stations did have military personnel, but many were manned by a variety of civilian contract staff. This National Geographic edition describes how:

“"travelling teachers, a chaplain, even an island hopping barber"

would service the stations, along with employees of companies like Bendix, Boeing and RCA.

This article by a self-confessed ‘Range Rat’, describes his fellow rats at Tananarive station in Madagascar as

“high-tech army of migrant workers”

and himself as:

“Fresh out of school and possessing a near-fanatical devotion to the space program”

Certainly not a member of the military. You can look at Tananarive here to see how very military it isn’t.

This Spanish tracking station director talks about being the

“interface between the NASA station management and the local Spanish contractor employees”

and describes himself as a “contractor”. Again, no mention of the military.

Likewise the staff at Australia’s tracking stations at Honeysuckle Creek, made famous in the film ‘The Dish’.

Yes, NASA used the military, why wouldn’t it? The tracking stations of many countries were, however, run by civilian agencies just like NASA, and were not top secret or off limits to non-military personnel.

The poster in question needs this secret military network to exist in order to prop up his fantasy. The reality is that the signals from Apollo spacecraft came from the moon, not orbiting craft that would have required a constant handover to the next station. Far from being “in on the hoax”, the staff at these stations were immensely proud of being involved, like Don Kovalchik:

“I cherished my role; I'd helped NASA maneuver satellites, talk to astronauts, and retrieve untold gigabytes of scientific data.”

Or Valeriano Claros-Guerra

“the astronauts were just getting ready to exit the lunar lander when I finished [my shift], so there was no way I was going home”

Another combination of poor research and delusional fantasy colliding to try and re-write history.

Click here to look at some of my tracking station memorabilia.

Flat Earth Fuckwit

A particularly dumb facebook group (Nasa Hoax) hosts a wide variety  of window licking retards, and one of them posted this gem of a video, also available on tiktok.

It claims to be “leaked” Apollo 11 footage. Leaked? Sure, if broadcasting it live on TV and having it all over the newspapers counts.

It also claims to show flat Earth, when in fact (as we can see on this page) it shows nothing of the sort, it shows part of a live broadcast featuring a hurricane on a globe Earth. The only flat thing about it is the flat out lie it’s telling.

Why are they doing this? Hmm…let’s have a look at the website it’s supposedly from.

These people don’t want you to know the truth, they want you to pay for their lies.

Kubrick: Lies wide shut

There’s a video that crops up from time to time purportedly showing Stanley Kubrick on the Apollo landing set. IT doesn’t, and it looks like the joke’s on landing deniers.

Shadow Shite

This bright spark thinks the flag has a shadow going in the opposite direction to Aldrin’s. For some reason he thinks the big chunky shadow heading from hear the base of the flag to the left of the photo is the thin flag pole.

If only he’d checked other photos available to him, like this one showing the solar wind collector, and the flag shadow. Or if he’d zoomed in to find the actual flagpole shadow.


“Willis Butts”, admin of a particularly stupid facebook group and owner of the “truth Party” website (oh the irony of that name) is a flat Earth science denying moron.

He thinks the people who like his posts are morons too, or he wouldn’t post crap like this.

None of these photographs are at Langley.

The top one is part of the “Making of…” footage of the film ‘First Man’.

Bottom left is Wernher von Braun, photographed on an exhibit at the Atlanta State Fair in September 1969. See here for a press photo of the event.

The other two are both taken from the film ‘Moonwalkers’, made in 2016. See here for more debunking of that kind of thing.

Artemissed it

To be fair, it’s a reasonable question. To be unfair, no source is given for who claimed it was taken by the Artemis 1 mission, but had he done some research he’d have discovered it’s actually an Apollo 17 image. The veracity of that image is proven here.

So the reason it looks like an Apollo image isn’t to fake Artemis, it’s because it’s an Apollo image, taken decades before any kind of CGI was capable of producing it.

As for the lack of dark shadows on the lunar surface, the crescent Earth should tell you that the sun is shining directly on to the surface we’re looking at.

That crescent isn’t from the moon’s shadow, idiot, it’s from the sun 93 million miles way.

Luna lies

This contributor to the ‘The Moon-Landing Hoax’ facebook group makes a bold claim, using the data in the table on the right, taken from this page.

Is Neelam being dumb or dishonest? Or both?

Firstly, the Soviet missions are not overlooked - they were widely reported at the time and are the subject of many books and magazine articles. The entire space race was a response to their efforts - it’s hardly a mystery no-one knows about. I have 4 or 5 books on it.

Secondly, Pioneer and Ranger were not soft landing missions. Their entire aim was to hit the moon hard. The Surveyor programme was a soft-landing mission, but of the 7 only two crashed - the other five were very successful indeed. I have the reports from them.

Finally there’s the third ‘fact’ - the success rate of the sample return programme. There were indeed 11 attempts at it, with only 3 successes. However, only 4 of those attempts actually made it to the moon, and only one of those failed on the surface (it fell over). The other failures all occurred either on the launch pad or by failing to leave Earth orbit. All this is something that could have been discovered by scrolling just a tiny bit further down the page. Likewise the ‘success’ rate of the soft-landers (ie, not intended to return) is quoted on the Wiki page as 15.4%, but 7 of the 13 attempts failed at the Earth end, not the moon. Two of the remaining 6 landed successfully, making it a 1 in 3 success rate for those that managed to leave Earth (the others either hit the ground hard or flew straight past).

Something else they could have discovered with a little work is that the sample returns did not rendezvous in lunar orbit with another craft - they took a direct route, achieving escape velocity from the ground. Again, looking at the data on that same page the USSR had more success in the 1970s than they did when they were directly competing with the USA.

The USSR demonstrated many times that travelling to (and back from) the moon, including with live cargo, was perfectly possible - all you needed was to get off the ground, something that they weren’t that good at thanks to the political pressure to launch before they were ready, and to try and bend rocket science to fit Communist Party dogma.

Cherry-picked, poorly researched ‘analysis’ doesn’t help your cause, it just makes you look dishonest.  

Camera Shy

It’s difficult to tell sometimes whether Willis Butts, aka Frank Goodman (see also this page) is genuinely this stupid, deliberately deceptive, or enjoys making his sycophants at his NASA Hoax facebook group look like drooling slack-jawed morons.

In this really piss poor meme, he claims that there is no camera visible, and you never see Aldrin’s leg extended in the footage.

As you can see on the right, however, the TV camera is right there, on the MESA, from where it filmed both astronauts as they descended.

If he’d bothered to watch that TV footage, like this footage here, he’d notice (at just after the 21 minute mark) the ghostly figure of Aldrin’s boot swing out and back again. Armstrong is in the distance, photographing the scene.

Dig your own hole

In another classic own goal, Goodman posts this image as proof that Apollo 11 was faked.

Except this is a still from the behind the scenes footage from the making of ‘First Man’.

The ‘Papier Mache’ is no such thing, it’s actual landscape from the location of the Armstrong biopic’s film set, Vulcan Quarry in Stockbridge Atlanta. It was edited out of the film, because Tranquility Base looked nothing like that.

Putting your foot in it

Again, Frank has to know just how much of a lie he’s telling here. His meme claims that Aldrin couldn’t have taken this photo, because his camera was chest mounted. They could be chest mounted, but they could also be detached, as can seen in the 16mm footage of the exact moment the footprint photo was taken (left of frame).

As for the image he uses, it was actually taken in a studio, because it’s a still from ‘First Man’, not the actual photo. He must know that.