Have one to sell?
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

Moon Landings: Did NASA Lie? Paperback – Oct 2003

See all 2 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
"Please retry"
£55.39 £12.45

Trade In Promotion

Product details

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, and more.

Product Description


Why do anomalies exist in the official photographs NASA released to the press? And why were no further photographs released. Did NASA lie about the moon landings? The questions remain. That discrepancies are evident in NASA's Apollo Mission photographs is undisputed. The big question is "why?" One by one, this investigation outlines the specific "aberrations" in NASA's well-documented photographs and explains how and why the equations simply don't add up.

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?

Customer Reviews

There are no customer reviews yet on Amazon.co.uk.
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)

Amazon.com: 9 reviews
32 of 40 people found the following review helpful
Poorly researched drivel 29 Mar 2005
By Jason Thompson - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback
Phillipe Lheureux claims to base this entire book on an analysis of 225 images of the Apollo missions. This is inadequate, since there are in excess of 20,000 images and several hours of film and TV footage. Lheueux clearly has not even glanced at any of the other material.

He asks how Armstrong descended the LM ladder with a camera attached to his chest. He implies that no effort was made by Armstrong to make sure he could get back up to the lowest rung of the ladder (a jump of about 3 feet) before calling Aldrin down. He asks how a picture that was clearly not taken by the type of camera the astronauts had could have appeared in the record.

All three of these are answered within 30 minutes of the start of the Apollo 11 moonwalk TV broadcast. Armstrong DID check he could get back up to the lower rung of the ladder. He did not have the camera strapped to his chest when he descended: it was lowered down on a line later. And Aldrin had set up a film camera (known as the Data Acquisition Camera) in the LM window to record the action from a different angle during the moonwalk. Lheureux's 'mystery picture' is from this camera.

In short, Lheureux has looked at a few pictures, seen some things he can't understand, and then concluded that it was all a hoax. No effort to try to find explanations was made. Since all this material is freely available if you bother to loko for it this is inexcusable.

Save your money and leave this book on the shelf.
28 of 37 people found the following review helpful
The only real mystery here is how this drivel gets published 18 Sep 2004
By Randy - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback
This book and it's kind are essentially made up of arguments based on ignorance. An example that appears early in this one is from a familiar Apollo image ([...]) of Alan Bean from the Apollo 12 mission - but it might be applied to numerous other space suited astronaut-on-moon images. The suit appears (the author states) too wrinkled to be under pressure in a vacuum environment. I suppose the writer figures that the suits should balloon out because of all that internal pressure (actually around 3.8 phi as they were using pure oxygen - see [...] for more suit info) - however no attempt at understanding the actual design or function of the suits are in evidence here and the author quickly jumps to yet another "anomaly". This argument is typical of the type used by moon hoax conspiracy exponents. Ignorance and innuendo are so much easier to acquire and use than real knowledge.
15 of 24 people found the following review helpful
Severally Flawed and Silly Moon Hoax Book. 16 Jan 2006
By John R. Keller - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback
In his book, Moon Landings: Did NASA Lie?, Philippe Lheureux claims to have reviewed a staggering number of 225 photographs from the nearly 25000 photographs taken by the Apollo astronauts during their mission to the moon (This does not include the photographs taken by Apollo 7 and 9 which orbited the Earth). After this extension and extremely thorough review he has concluded that NASA has lied to the public about the missions to the moon. To further validate this conclusion, he also looked at 250 photographs of the 1.8 million images returned by the Department of Defense's Lunar orbiter mission Clementine. I hope the reader can tell I'm being sarcastic, because as will be pointed out shortly, the author's lack of research is staggering and mind numbing.

The first photograph presented in the book is from the Apollo 12 mission and shows astronaut Alan Bean holding the Special Environmental Sample Container (AS12-49-7278). The author asks seven questions about this photograph and then a few paragraphs later states that "Thousands of scientists, including many from Russia, had seen these photos. Why were they silent about this? Was is not their responsibility as scientists to ask these questions?" I feel that at this point the author should have ended his book. If he felt he still wanted to write a book, he could have at least asked these leading scientist why they didn't come forward. The real answer of course is that ten of thousands of scientists and engineers have already answered these questions and have found that they no validity. In other words, they realize that the moon landings are real.

Here are the seven questions that Lheureux asks in his book. As an engineer, I give the reader the answer to his questions.

1) The space suit does not seem stretched by its internal pressure.

The space suit consists of two major layers; the inner layer is the actual pressure containment system and holds the pressure at about 4.0 psi, while the outer is simply a covering made up of thermal protection material to keep the astronaut cool. It is similar to putting a coat out in the winter. A simple internet search could have found the design drawings.

2) The camera is not protected against the hazards of the lunar environment (270 F in the sunlight and -240 in the shade, not to mention the harmful cosmic ray and the absent of atmospheric pressure). Why isn't it in a pressurized box?

Actually, the camera was protected from the lunar and space environments, by using several control methods. First, the camera was protected from the sun by the use of reflective metallic coatings, akin to wearing white clothing in the summer months. The film was protected by storing it a metal container when not it use. The final answer would be, why does the camera need to be stored in a pressurized box?

3) The stem of the reflector below the test tube does not appear to be attached to the upper section of the equipment.

The author makes an error typical of those who promote the moon landing hoax. That is, he used a low resolution scan of the photo instead of a high resolution scan (over 6Mb). In the high resolution scan, the wire connecting the container top (he mistakenly calls it a reflector) can easily be seen.

4) The astronaut is strongly lit while the lunar surface remains in darkness.

Again, the author uses the same low resolution scan to make his analysis. In the high resolution scan, the lunar surface and the astronaut's suit are nearly the same brightness.

5) The person taking the photo is lit from the front, while a companion is lit from the side.

In this photograph, Lheureux is describing the reflection of Pete Conrad in Alan Bean's curved helmet visor. Let's see, I'm guessing (I'm being sarcastic here) that Pete Conrad is standing in a different location than Bean and that he's facing the sun, while Bean's side is facing the sun.

6) The lunar surface visible in the helmet is brighter than the one in the background.

Again, the author uses the same low resolution scan to make his analysis. In the high resolution scan, the lunar surface in the helmet and the lunar surface in the background are nearly same brightness and color.

7) Why are the gloves black when the rest of the suit is white?

The gloves are made out a different material. The gloves need to be flexible in order to grip tools and rocks. Furthermore, the gloves became dirty after picking up rocks.

In summary, the author who the book states "specializes in computer technology" could have answered all these questions himself, if he had just spent some time looking for the answers, either on the internet or in a library. The remainder the section on Apollo follows the same general trend, little or no research followed by questions that he can't find answers to, so it his "logical" conclusion is that NASA must be pulling a hoax over the world.

Another example of the author's poor researching ability is his evaluation and description of the moon rocks. He asks why the moon rocks don't contain even a single new element. Answer, there are only 92 natural occurring elements and all have been found on Earth. That's elementary (or at least junior high) chemistry and physics. Next, he waxes poignantly about why no new materials have been found. Again, he shows his lack of research. Apollo 11, the first mission to the moon, brought back the mineral, Armalcolite, named after the Apollo 11 crew. He then makes the bold assertion that the moon rocks must have been fabricated in a lab and of course he provides no references to back up this assertion.

After the section on the Apollo mission, Lheureux reveals his thesis. That is, the Apollo missions were faked, because NASA is hiding the fact that extraterrestrials have visited or are currently on the moon. To prove his point, he examines 250 photographs of the 1.8 million images returned by the Department of Defense's lunar orbiter mission, Clementine and presents some of his findings. In an attempt to prove his point, he reproduces some of the digital scans and gives his interpretation of the scan. He does this by presenting a side by side comparison. He presents the original photograph on the left side and the on right side he overlays some crudely sketched lines which he insists are signs of alien structures on the moon. Again, he does not to do any significant research and clearly fails to recognize three important facts. First, many the features he outlines are simply geological formations that can be found on Earth. Second, many of these supposed alien structures would be gigantic and would be dozens of miles across. Why would a alien spacecraft need a runway 30 miles in length and several miles in width? Finally, he does not compare any of the supposed alien structures with anything on Earth even though there are million of space based photographs of Earth based structures for comparison.

My major complaint about this section is his overlay analysis method. When he sketches his lines onto the Clementine photos, they are much thicker and straighter than those on the original. In other words, wavy lines which look like they were carved lava flows or landslides become straight lines. For example, a half oval shape on page 158 becomes a triangle, two intersecting arcs on pages 152 and 151 become a large Xs and on page 151 two very wavy lines become two straight lines.

In conclusion, Did NASA lie? No they did not lie. The author needs to do much more research

Did Lheureux lie? No, he did not lie, but he falls into the trap common to the moon hoax believers. That is, using low quality digital scans to make an evaluation, and not doing any research to undercover the engineering and science behind the Apollo and Clementine missions to the moon.
2 of 5 people found the following review helpful
Not the whole story, not by a long sight, and not the important part ... 9 Nov 2009
By Marco Buendia - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback
This book is hogwash, but that is not why I have written this review. It is rather a clarification of a previous review posted by a profound scholar of American history who has since departed this planet, alas not a aboard a spacecraft, "Newboy".

My friend Newboy (not his real name) passed away in the autumn of 2006. At the time of his death, he was at work on a book that told the true story of the Cuban moon landing program. As the manuscript has been destroyed by the CIA and the Communist Party and it is unlikely that the research could be replicated, even if a sufficiently unbiased researched could be found, I will state here the basic lineaments of his findings.

In the wake of the Nazi German capitulation in May of 1945, various German rocket scientists who were uncomfortable with both the USA and the (now defunct) USSR looked for a state where they could continue their research. For a variety of reasons that need not be detailed these scientists chose Cuba.

However, the scientists who had chosen Russia or America were intent on destroying this Cuban space program, which had already projected a manned moon landing as its preliminary goal. They were able to enlist not only the respective governments, but actually persuaded both super-states to cooperated in this dishonest endeavor. There is evidence that President Dwight David Eisenhower assigned then Vice-President Richard Milhous Nixon to super-coordinate this undertaking. This would, by the way, explain why the young Nixon left the Vice-Presidency with no significant public achievements; his entire energies were absorbed in stopping the Cuban space project. The Soviet operatives used code-names which my friend was never able to decipher, but all available evidence suggests that Stalin was resistant to the program to destroy Cuba's space program and that it was only with his demise (still not explained, by the way, and for that reason quite suspicious in this context) that US and Soviet cooperation actually became effective.

So, the "Cuban revolution" was instigated. It is not widely known that there were in fact three, not two, Castro brothers and that these brothers are actually natives of Birmingham, Alabama, and learned Spanish from a retired Havana prostitute turned schoolteacher. The third brother, Jesus, would be the first man on the moon. But this is to anticipate the story.

It is well know that the USSR sought to foment rebellion and revolution anywhere it could. Alabama had been their first post-war goal. When revolution proved impossible there, because the natives were completely incapable of following directions, the scene shifted, in an act of genius, to Cuba. The USA, relieved to be rid of Soviet interference in the South, gladly agreed to this. Nixon, who had proven so adept at slander his Congressional campaigns, quickly constructed a "Cold War" scenario that would provide the perfect cover for the conspiracy. Here was the perfect way to destroy humanity's first venture into space.

All three Castro brothers were shifted from Alabama to Cuba. Fidel and Raoul immediately became trouble makers in the ghettos and mountains (here the history books speak the truth) and Jesus, who excelled in physics in Birmingham public schools, became a spy in the Cuban space program. However, as sometimes happens in espionage, Jesus "went over to the other side" and ultimately, due to all-around aptitude and personal charm, became the world's first astronaut. However, because he was a good family man, he could never bring himself to betray Fidel and Raoul.

Let me be brief. We all know the outcome of the "Cuban Revolution". The consequences are visible even today. However, Castro, possibly under the influence of Ernesto "Che" Guevara, refused to cooperate and, to the surprise of all on and off the island, continued the Cuban space program. Uneasily, as his Soviet taskmasters had branded it "bourgeois escapism", and, by now, the Castro brothers were estranged. (My friend "Newboy" surmised the relationship had been strained by dispute over a female but was not able to confirm this.)

Now everything changed. The Cuban space program was continuing, and the Cuban Revolution was taking on genuine life, much to the dismay of the puppeteers in Moscow and Washington. What could be done? The Soviets assured the Americans that they had in fact intended to destroy the Cuban space program, and that the Castro brothers were the problem. In the meantime, though, "regime change" had occurred in Washington and a new, more bellicose President was in office. Though he had been briefed by the previous Administration on the situation, Kennedy chose to pretend that Castro was indeed a genuine enemy, and, eager to jumpstart the American space program ("We choose to go to the moon" etc) for his own political purposes, it was important to take up the cudgel of the Nazi rocket scientists in America and Russia, and end the Cuban program once and for all. Hence what we have come to call "the Cuban missile crisis". There were no atomic missiles in Cuba; the entire scenario was agreed to in advance by Kennedy and Khrushchev. The agreement? The Americans would remove their atomic missiles from Turkey, and, in exchange, the Soviets would lean on Fidel Castro to eject the space program from Cuba, and, furthermore, shift the emphasis of their own program to a space station.

There was no doubt that Kennedy's threats were not just empty bluster, and that he was perfectly ready to kill everybody in Cuba in order to eliminate Cuba's moon mission.

The program was expelled from Cuba. Where did it go? To Southeast Asia. Now it is obvious why the Kennedy Administration became so intent on escalating the American involvement in that region of the world. In spite of the increasingly vicious assault on the area, first by Kennedy and subsequently by Lyndon Johnson, aided by the Communist government in Moscow, the Cuban program continued. The space vehicle was launched from a hidden compound in Laos, and, sometime during the first week in September of 1965, Jesus set foot on the moon.

After this epochal accomplishment, little was left for the Cuban, German, and Alabama space pioneers. Most of the participants disappeared, mysteriously, before Nixon's resignation from the Presidency. However, Jesus Castro died in Birmingham Alabama, shortly after the death of my late friend Newboy.

So, there is no reason to dispute NASA's story. Yes, the USA DID land men on the moon, just as they claim and as it appears to have happened on network television. But Neil Armstrong was NOT the first moonwalker. That honor goes to Jesus.
0 of 2 people found the following review helpful
were the Moon Landings Real or Fake? 21 May 2014
By iruri - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback
This is a good book. Asking questions is a great start to finding the Truth about the Fake Moon Landings.
Were these reviews helpful? Let us know