Q1) Why are there no stars in the back sky in the Apollo photo's? The first man in Space, Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant".

A) You can't see stars from the Moons surface as the light you are standing in is too bright. Cameras set to take pictures in that type of light can't register relatively weak starlight. Yuri Gagarin saw stars from Earth orbit, not from the Moon, so his inclusion in this question is misleading.

Q2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

A) After the Apollo 1 disaster, the Lunar Module did not use a pure oxygen atmosphere, so this question is entirely without foundation.

Q3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?

A) Some dust did blow away - but not all of it - disturbed by the LEM thruster, which at the moment of landing delivered 3,000 pounds of thrust, not ten thousand. Also the blast from the LM thruster would behave differently in zero atmosphere, having less impact on the local Lunar environment. Essentially there would be plenty of soil/dust left both beneath and around the LM for an Astronaut to stand in. Furthermore, the LM drifted as it landed...it did not land vertically, so the displacement of Lunar detritus was varied.

Q4) When the LEMs were supposedly leaving the Moon, they should have produced a large bright exhaust flame from the rocket propellant. Instead, zero exhaust. (I have turned this one around and have found evidence of a flame on one ascent of the LEM... just to prove the sceptics wrong!)

A) Difficult to answer a question that argues against itself. Again there is no atmosphere on the Moon and little gravity. This affects the familiarity of certain mechanical processes, like the movement of dust, exhaust, flags, etc, etc.

Q5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.

A) The dust on the Moon has undergone no erosion (there is no Lunar weather) so dust grains are angular and bond together under compression. The above description of the formation of footprints does not apply on the Moon.

Q6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.

A) New technologies are improved upon constantly. Mistakes are made and learned from. Not difficult to understand is it? Also, what does the above statement suggest? That the Apollo 11 mission was faked because of poor tv footage, but the subsequent missions were not, or vice versa?

Q7) In most Apollo photos, there is a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background.

A) One can define a clear boundary between foreground and background in any photo. Most Apollo photos also present some difficulty when it comes to scaling the images, what with the Moon being a completely different environment than anything anyone is used to.

Q8) Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon - the Sun and the Earth... That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles.

A) Sceptics do not say there are two light sources, quite the opposite. The light from the Earth is reflected light from the Sun and hardly registers on the Moon due to the brightness of the Sun itself. There is one light source in the Apollo photos, which incidentally accounts for many hoax theories. One light source (The Sun) means one shadow per object which absolutely all Lunar photos exhibit. Non parallel shadows signify a cameras eye view of a non parallel landscape. The ground is uneven and it appears as though the shadows lie in different angles. Note that all shadows fall in the same direction, which the above statement claims should be the case in the last sentence.

Q9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital "C" on it and a 'C' on the ground in front of it?

A) It didn't. The original photo doesn't have this mark. The "C" shape comes from a copy of the photo and is either dust or hair (or even faked to prove a hoax....imagine that). Also this is very much an inaccurate question, as the rocks in the photos are not props.

Q10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?

A) Again, it didn't. A new one was raised immediately after re-entry.

Q11) In Ron Howard's 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun's rays would rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.

A) The Apollo 13 film was not a science fiction movie. Also this question/statement implies that it is possible to heat up an object in a vacuum without that object losing any heat at all, which is simply totally wrong. Also the fact that the Command Module contained its own atmosphere and shielding is ignored, as is the temperature of open space: minus 273C. Basically the Sun heats up the Command Module at a similar rate at which the same loses heat, the vehicle contained an atmosphere of its own which is why the interior of the vessel became colder rapidly.

Q12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when it was never, ever tested successfully? Would you send a relative to the Moon in a vehicle that had never been driven before?

A) Everything ever used has been tested by someone. The LM was tested as thoroughly as possible considering the fact that it was not designed to operate on Earth. The Moon missions were incredibly dangerous and those who took part were exceptionally courageous. Questioning the validity of Apollo upon this evidence (along with no small amount of conjecture) is disingenuous to say the least. However...

Q13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.

A) Signifying the author of this statement doesn't understand the meaning of the word "gravity" or the force of attraction between all masses in the Universe. Also, no variables what-so-ever are (as usual with these questions and statements) allowed to be noted by the casual reader. EG: Why would an Astronaut not be able to jump 10 feet high on the Moon? Is it because the missions were faked? What other explanation could there possibly be? The reality is that the Astronauts were wearing HEAVY spacesuits that LIMITED their MOVEMENT. A jump of 19 inches is testament to their fitness. The fact that the Moon has one sixth gravity of the Earth does not mean a person should be able to jump six times higher on the Moon than in the local park, just that it requires less effort to jump a little bit higher. Bouncing around in the restrictive environment of a spacesuit is hazardous and tiring and uses up vital oxygen reserves.

Q14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts traveled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.

A) Yet another wrong statement that disproves its own arguement. Why risk your life to leap as far as you can in an unknown environment like the Moon? The Astronauts travelled as well as they could, encumbered as they were by their suits (see above) The claim regarding the photography is nonesense. Merely speeding up the Apollo footage makes the Astronauts appear to be walking at a normal speed but the dust they kick up still behaves as it would in zero atmosphere and less gravity than Earth, proving the film was taken on the Moon.

Q15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.

A) ...and its centre of gravity prevented it from flipping over, which was obviously in its design (that bit seems to have been missed out of the above statement)

Q16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation?

A) Firstly, name the Astrophysicist who worked for NASA. Wasn't really the cleaning lady was it? Yet (Yet) again, a wrong statement. Two metres of what type of shielding? Cardboard and cotton wool? You don't need heavy shielding to protect you from the Suns radiation as long as your exposure time is limited. The Astronauts were protected in space by their vehicles and suits. See this site for an in depth explanation of radiation in space.

Q17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of air since even a pinhole deflates a tire in short order.

A) Astoundingly stupid statement, worthy of utter contempt. Try this site for an explanation.

Q18) The astronauts in these "pressurized" suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer's 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.

A) Again, total ignorance of seemingly any aspect of spaceflight abounds. See the above site for an answer.

Q19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? in the documentary 'PaperMoon' The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the 'official' measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM...

A) They came out backwards. (I started answering these questions with some enthusiasm, expecting there to be a sound scientific basis for them, but there isn't any and I'm getting annoyed)...evidently an organisation like NASA would make spaceships their Astronauts obviously couldn't get out of.

Q20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapor discharges. They never did.

A) Vapour cannot discharge explosively into a vacuum when the amount being released is MINUTE....that means little, small or tiny. It follows that the explosion of this vapour would be small. You would hardly notice it would you? That's the answer then.

Q21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.

A) No atmosphere. No atmospheric pressure. Nothing to stop the flag moving after the Astronauts fixed the pole into the ground. So the flag would move about for a bit. If it was wind blowing the flag, how come the dust doesn't get blown about too? Did they use selective wind? Or did they glue the dust down? Or was it fake dust? Any idea how ridiculous these arguements are?

Q22) With a more than two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM?

A) Like everything else to do with Apollo, highly trained and motivated people were involved. But this question again proves its originator doesn't think before making accusations. A two second delay? Does that mean they had to pan the camera two seconds before the craft launched? That would be it, then.

Q23) Why did NASA's administrator resigned just days before the first Apollo mission?

A) I actually don't know, but I'm willing to bet the reasons for his resignation were made public. Perhaps he was at retirement age? Also, I don't normally pick up on mistakes in basic grammar, as we all do it, but "why did NASA's administrator resigned" is perhaps a huge pointer towards the basic mentality of the author of these questions and statements.

Q24) Another overlooked intriguing fact is that NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could "rehearse" the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.

A) Where is the proof of this accusation? Who are the 100 or so NASA employees who were "in on it"? Furthermore, why didn't the employees who were not "in on it" notice that their communications were coming from a satellite that traversed the sky in 92 minutes, rather than a constant direction (the Moon) The alleged NASA employees both "in" and "out" of the plot had a somewhat legendary reputation for tracking craft in the sky. How come those in the "out" bunch lost their abilities and talents, honed on previous Apollo missions? Why was the TETR-A not used on Apollo 8, 9 & 10? The truth is that the only "misinformation lie" is the Apollo hoax theories.

Q25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!

A) The hoaxers arguements regarding the Van Allen Belts are refuted by Van Allen himself, perhaps not only because they are scientifically incorrect, but because they show a total lack of knowledge regarding the subject of radiation or indeed, anything. Imagine what it would be like to endure several stupid questions....oh....I don't have to. Funny how the author believes in the Space Shuttle though...

Q26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions).

A) Yet again, where is the evidence for these claims? Simply saying it is so or concocting a favourably edited video proves nothing. Grissom had his doubts, that is well known, but to suggest he and his crew were murdered without presenting any evidence is disgraceful. Also, which of Grissoms sons "personally" retrieved forensic evidence from the Apollo 1 capsule? Was it Scott - then aged 17 or Mark - then aged 14? Did NASA give security clearance to minors in the 60's? Grissom could also have walked away from Apollo, as could his crew. The Apollo 1 fire serves as a reminder of how dangerous spaceflight can be, not proof of a public, pointless and expensive murder.

Q27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."

A) So? The Apollo craft were exposed to the Van Allen Belts for a very limited period. The above report is not connected to Apollo in any way. Modern space missions fly below the Van Allen Belts. The fact is that you cannot stay in these regions for very long, not that you cannot enter them at all. So that statement is irrelevant...as are most of them.

Q28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.

A) ...and yet they did it, proving what a remarkable achievement it really was. Actually the computers used by the Apollo spacecraft were entirely different than the computers people use today in home and office. The computer used in these missions was NOT used to store data, but merely a number crunching machine, so it did not need a lot of physical memory.

Q29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently maps the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LEM go?

A) So which is it, the telescope or the probe? Hubble can't see anything of a lesser size than about 200+ feet. The images from Clementine that I have seen appear to be of a similar resolution, so nothing man made would show up as they aren't big enough. Also, the Clementine images show no evidence of small craters or rocks, does this mean there aren't any? Hmmm....

30) In the year 2002 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.

A) Incorrect. NASA does not have the FUNDING nor the NEED for further manned Lunar missions YET.

Q31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mislabeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, dated by NASA three days after they left for the moon. It shows the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!".

A) ...and you have to pay to see this "evidence", even though if you are an American, you or your parents taxes have paid already and it is also in the public domain, so its a bit like paying for a mystery tour around your own house.

32) Why did ALL of the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History's greatest accomplishments?

A) The machine had served its purpose and wasn't going to be used again. I am guessing here, but you might find a Lunar Rover on a trip to NASA.

There we have it then. My own answers to 32 questions originating from an Apollo hoax believer website. I am not scientifically educated, I am not an expert on spaceflight or stellar radiation. I am not even a "keen" photographer, but I do possess a modicum of common sense and a small amount of reading and interest in Apollo. I have seen websites dedicated to the Apollo hoax which merely personally insult those who believe the hoax to be ridiculous. I have seen no evidence at all that the Moon landings were faked, but I don't believe that people who think they were faked are stupid - just wrong.

I also don't believe it is stupid to ask questions like the ones above, if you aren't familiar with the technical aspects of Apollo, but when the perpetrators of hoax theories like Kaysing, Sibrel and Rene ask stuff like "Why is the American flag lit on both sides?" seemingly unaware that the sun can shine through a flag, one can only derive from this that these people are merely in the game of conning people out of their money.