the moonlanding was a hoax
Nardwuar: For years, Bill, I've heard the rumour that Disney faked the moon landing. Now you're here, Mr. Kaysing, to prove it's true, aren't you? R.E.M. sang, "If you believe they put a man on the moon", you're here to prove it, aren't you, Mr. Kaysing?Bill Kaysing: I'm here to prove that no man has ever landed on the moon.
What's the background for that? There are lots of books on this subject, aren't there?Oh yeah, there are quite a few and there are more coming all the time. Interestingly, several people have, and will, produce videotapes based on my material.
There's a new book out, N.A.S.A. Mooned America.Yes, that's by a man named Ralph Rene, who lives in Pasaic, New Jersey, and the book is very well-done. It's far superior to my book because Rene is essentially a self-taught engineer, and he's come up with a lot of important points that I missed completely.
Well your book, We Never Went to the Moon, Bill, was probably the first book to expose the moon hoax, wasn't it?Yes, it was written in 1974 and has essentially been available ever since.
Rene calls astronauts, 'astro-nots', which is very interesting.Yes, that is true. He has a good comic sense.
Bill Kaysing, can you give your background of your involvement in the space program and what the official government line is about people landing on the moon?I was for seven years head of technical publications for the Rocketdyne Research Department at the Propulsion Field Laboratory in the Simi Hills, that's near Kenoga Park, California, and during that time I had top-secret clearance and Atomic Energy Commission (A.E.C.) clearance and of course I was in on all of the top secrets about the development of Mercury and Gemini and, of course, Atlas, and, eventually, Apollo. And my experience as a technical writer led me to believe that a lot of the things that the aerospace industry and NASA preferred to have done, were never done. And they were not as successful as they pretended to be. [As to the second question,] the government claims that the reports of astronauts and photographs and some rocks prove that we went to the moon and my feeling is that some photos and some people who have been under military pay or military jurisdiction all their lives and some rocks don't prove a thing. In fact, there is so much contrary evidence to going to the moon, such as solar and cosmic radiation, micro meteorites, the temperature on the moon, the fact that the astronauts never reported how magnificent the stars were or they never showed a picture of the crater that should have been dug underneath the lunar lander - it goes on and on. I have hundreds of pieces of information that any really intelligent person could review and then decide for themselves.
Well, particularly, Mr. Kaysing, could you just prove it here with some little points, that we actually did not go to the moon. In your book you mention that there were no stars in the photos that NASA took.That's right, and they had the most marvelous opportunity to take pictures of all the stars in the universe visible from the moon. I've talked to a number of top-level astronauts, both locally and elsewhere, and they say that the astronauts would have been overwhelmed by the sight of trillions of stars, not to mention Jupiter and Saturn and the other planets and so forth, but not one picture has ever come back from the alleged trip to the moon showing the stars in all their magnificence, nor do any of the astronauts comment on the stars. They completely ignore it. It would be like going to Niagara Falls and talking about the hamburger you ate.
Doesn't NASA say that the reason there were no stars is because their cameras weren't set for the proper exposure, isn't that their line?That's their line and that's pure baloney, because I've talked to photographic experts who say that NASA have all the money in the world to have a camera that would have taken magnificent pictures of stars. But there's a little problem, you know, the temperature on the moon is 250°F during the lunar day, and a friend of mine put some film in an oven and ran it up to 250 and the film just curled up. If you notice that the Hasselblad camera is worn outside of the astronaut's suit and it is not curled in any way. So that camera would have heated up to the temperature to bake cookies in a very short time, because the Sun on the moon is absolutely relentless, there's no atmosphere to mitigate the heat of the Sun. So it's obvious that the pictures that they brought back were not taken on the moon, nor could they have actually taken any pictures on the moon, even if they had gone there.
So apparently they faked the moon landing. If the moon landing was faked, how come they didn't include stars in their studio, apparently in the Nevada desert where they were faking the moon landing?They could not fake the stars and maps because there are too many astronomy buffs, and I've talked to a lot of them. They would have measured the angularity between stars and the position of the stars behind, let's say, the Earth. No way, even with the most advanced computers, could they have created star pictures that would have been, let's say, acceptable to the astronomy buffs. So at MIT, where the simulation took place, the planning for it took place, they simply decided to stonewall it and not include any pictures of stars at all.
Where was the moon landing faked? Somewhere in the Nevada desert? What's the deal on that, Bill Kaysing?Well it's said that there's an area near Quebec that looks just like the moon and that the astronauts spent some time up there. They spent lots of time in the Nevada desert and it looks a great deal like the moon. But here's the kicker - there's an Air Force base near San Bernardino, called Norton Air Force Base, and they have the world's largest sound stages under tremendously efficient security. They could have easily created all of the moon sets in those sound stages and filmed to their hearts' content.
This was in the Nevada desert.Well, this was in Norton Air Force Base in San Bernardino, but they could have done it in the Nevada desert in an area called 51, which is the north-east corner of the A.E.C. base there.
They have a lot of UFO stuff going on around Area 51.Oh yeah, 51 is a place where you don't want to be found at all. All the guards carry submachine guns and they are told to shoot to kill if anybody gets inside the base.
So continuing on, Mr. Bill Kaysing, author of We Never Went to the Moon, to prove that the moon landing was faked, you mentioned that there were no stars in the photos that the astronauts brought back, but also you mentioned it was impossible for the United States of America to actually make it to the moon at that time, that there had been some problems, and that you were involved with the program at this time, so you knew about those problems.Oh yes. One of the major problems, of course, was trying to get things to work in essentially an alien environment. Outer space is no picnic. You've got the Van Allen belt around the Earth, you know, about twenty miles up, the Van Allen belt would probably have cooked any astronauts who ventured into that area. Then you've got outer space where there are billions of micro meteorites zipping around at speeds up to 60 000 miles per hour, and these would have gone right through the command capsule with the astronauts in it, and kept right on going, and these micro meteorites are all different sizes, from the head of a pin to, say, the size of a grapefruit and larger.
Weren't there actual events, though, that happened to NASA that made them realize they couldn't send somebody to the moon? When did NASA realize that it was impossible for them to send somebody to the moon and that they would have to fake the moon landing?Well, initially, they realized it in 1959 when I was privy to a study made by the Russians. The Russians discovered that the radiation on the moon would require astronauts to be clothed in four feet of lead to avoid being killed. NASA picked up on this study and, of course, did some studies of their own and, subsequently, other studies were made about all of the different hazards on the moon, particularly something as benign, you might think, as temperature. The temperature on the moon during a lunar day is 250°F. Now, trying to keep either the suits or the lunar lander cool during that tremendous heat from a blazing sun would have been impossible because they did not have enough air conditioning power.
So you're saying in 1959, the USA realized that they couldn't put a man on the moon?That's when they got hold of the Russian studies. The Russians never intended to land men on the moon. They concentrated on unmanned vehicles. And the so-called space race was just a lot of baloney.
Well, Bill Kaysing, what I don't understand is, if NASA realized they couldn't put a man on the moon in 1959, what about those astronauts who died in 1967 on the launch pad? Did NASA know that those guys were going to die on the launch pad? Were they sacrificed to make the space program more realistic?Aah...I would say that's - you're pretty close to that. A fellow by the name of Gus Grissom was very disenchanted with the Apollo program and he, on the day that he was burned to death, he hung a lemon on the command capsule to let people know what he thought of it. Prior to that, he made many trips to the rocket down in Downey Plant to examine the equipment and he realized that it wasn't going to work. A few minutes before he was burned to death, he said, hey, you guys in the control center, get with it. You expect me to go to the moon and you can't even maintain telephonic communications over three miles. But my theory about Gus Grissom was that he was about to blow the whistle on the entire project and that he was murdered.
What was the intention of those astronauts - what Apollo mission was that, the one that the guys died in?That was Apollo 1. Grissom and Chaffee and White, his two companions, were supposed to take off in the fall of 1967 and go to the moon.
And what did NASA have for that, like, what was going to be the plan? They were going to actually make it to the moon? That was actually a moon flight?Mmm...no. Not really.
What did NASA have planned? If NASA was faking the whole moon program, what was going to happen to the astronauts , what was their mission? What was NASA trying to achieve or prove to the public?Well, by simulating a trip to the moon, they could easily then justify the $30 billion that they spent. They intended to get Gus Grissom, and Chaffee and White, to actually lie about their trips to the moon, just like Armstrong and Aldrin and all the other astronauts here lied about their trips to the moon. I call astronauts who allegedly landed on the moon bald-faced liars, and particularly Alan Shephard.
Why is that?Well, Alan Shephard is one of these particularly obnoxious people. After Grissom was murdered, he refused to help Grissom's wife, Betty Grissom, get a settlement from N.A.S.A and from North American Aviation, which she held responsible. And Shephard didn't approve of this at all. He said that we should accept the deaths of astronauts and you don't need any money.
So, Bill Kaysing, nobody ever landed on the moon, right, Bill?That is absolutely correct. I will stake my life on it, and I have many, many, many people who will support this view with technical information, including a man who as at the Goldstone tracking station during all of the Apollo flights and he is absolutely convinced that they were faked.
What, exactly, brought him to this decision?Well, he realized that all of the input to the Goldstone tracking station came from NASA in Washington. Well, that certainly made it convenient for them to fake any communications that they wished. In other words, they were not picking up data from Apollo on its way to, or on the moon, or on its way back. They were getting communications from NASA Greenbelt in Washington, DC, which had complete control of all the communications. And at this point I'd like to mention that Walter Cronkite was the father figure that NASA chose to essentially hype the whole project. Cronkite is a rather big liar.
Well, he was in on the Kennedy thing, too, wasn't he?Oh yeah. Recently, he did a film that completely disputed the truth about the Kennedy assassination.
What I'm still curious about, Bill Kaysing, is that - did NASA kill those astronauts in 1967, did they kill them on purpose because they knew too much? Or was it actually an accident that happened?No, it was no accident. They murdered them because, you see, I found out just recently that whenever NASA was in trouble they would call on the CIA No we all know that the CIA has and can kill anybody they want without any feeling of conscience whatsoever. So it's my feeling that the CIA was hired by NASA to very adroitly kill Grissom, Chaffee and White.
Let's get a timeline here, Bill Kaysing. You're working here with Rocketdyne, on the space program?I was working on the space program from 1957 to 1963.
With probably a lot of ex-Nazis from the Ghelen organization, I bet.Oh, I met some of them. There were a lot of Nazis including, of course, Werner von Braun. And an interesting sideline is that, after the Apollo project was over, he completely lost interest in space travel, retired and went to work for Grumman, then he died of cancer. This also evokes the recollection that, after Apollo 11 allegedly returned to Earth, three of the leading NASA investigators resigned without an explanation. Now this tells you that there were some men of integrity who would not go along with this scam.
So you're working at the rocket place developing, working for the space program. You eventually leave the space program. At that point, did you know that the moon landings were going to be faked. 'Cause you said in 1959 the USA realized they couldn't put a man on the moon, so they started faking stuff. Why didn't you spill the beans right then?Well, I don't know. What motivated me to spill the beans was a young man from the Vietnam wars by the name of John Grant. He said that he was sent to Vietnam to kill people with no good reason and he also got a heroin habit, and he says, "Bill," he says, "what I want you to do is blow the whistle on this rotten, corrupt government." He says, "Why don't you say something outrageous, like, we never went to the moon?" So I attribute my interest in this project to John Grant.
If the moon landings were faked, why did they continue faking the Apollo flights. Like, in the movie Apollo 13 it points out that nobody really cared about the space program at that point. You know, America had made it to the moon, why continue faking moon landings if they already made it to the moon?Well, the plan was to have something like eight or ten Apollo flights to the moon and they had been given the money to build all the vehicles to do it, and they felt obligated to carry on with the simulation. But remember this - by the end of Apollo 12 people in America, possibly elsewhere, were completely bored with the project. So what they thought they would do, and did, was they would create a cliffhanger. And Apollo 13, which didn't happen at all, despite the movie, was simply a simulation inside of a simulation to get people's interests back into the space program.
Apollo 13 was totally faked.Totally faked. It never left the earth.
The movie that was up for nine Oscars™ never even happened.It never even happened.
But that guy wrote such a realistic book.Well, sure. He's paid to write a realistic book. You know, many of the Apollo astronauts have become multimillionaires. Where do you suppose all that money came from?
Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this?Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one.
Well, let's get a little bit more into the proving part of We Never Went to the Moon, Bill. You mentioned before that there were no stars in the photos. NASA says the cameras weren't set properly - you say, well, they could have been set properly, they just didn't do it properly. There was no crater beneath the lunar lander. What's the significance of that?
Well, the significance is that the lunar lander engine developed 10 000 pounds of thrust and I've seen many, many rocket engines of that capability in action and they are so powerful that they will move giant rocks across the canyon. A 10 000 pound thrust engine would have dug a hole right down to bedrock and it would have stirred up an enormous cloud of dust, and that never appeared in any of the so-called films that they took of the lunar landing. So, the absence of the crater in any photograph of Apollo lunar landers is actually probably the only real proof that you need. You don't need much beyond that and the fact that there weren't any stars.
What about the operation of the lunar module, in the sense that it takes place thousands of miles above the moon, this is what NASA says. The big explosion that comes from the lunar module, when it lands on the moon, it happens way up above the moon, and that's why there's no crater. What about that explanation?Well, you know yourself that the lunar lander eventually had to, according to NASA, land on the moon. Well, as it approached the landing point, the engine still had to develop enough thrust to keep the lunar lander, which weighs, in lunar gravity, about 3000 pounds, they had to develop enough thrust to keep it floating above the surface in order to let it gently land on the surface. But that obviously was not substantiated by any crater under the lunar lander engine.
Furthermore, the radiation should have turned the astro-nots into crispy space bacon.Yes, it would have. And it also would have pierced them with thousands of micro meteorites. The moon is not a place for human beings, ever.
And Russia did a study in about '59, and this is what the U.S. picked up on, when the U.S. realized in '59 they couldn't go to the moon because the radiation was so bad - is there any background for this, are there any records that prove this, about the radiation out there in space?Well, I think any good astro-physicist could give you all the data, because it's been pretty well documented by studies. It's not hard to find basic information on flights in outer space, and what you'd come across when you do investigate it is how hostile the universe really is once you leave the Earth's protective atmosphere.
Do you believe that rockets ever made orbit; did Surveyor or Pioneer actually happen?Possibly. Possibly not. I'm not absolutely certain about that. I will concede that certain unmanned vehicles might have made it to the moon. The Russians are supposed to have sent some unmanned vehicles to the moon. And possibly our Surveyor did land on the moon. But units with people in them, never.
How 'bout any actual atmosphere, like John Glenn in space, Yuri Gargarin - were they actually in space?I doubt it.
So the Soviet Union faked that Yuri Gargarin was in space, and that dog that died, Laika, really didn't die?Mmm...I don't think he was up there. See, there was a fellow by the name of Lloyd Mallin in the early '70s who wrote a very detailed book saying that all - well, nearly all - possibly all of the Soviet space exploits were faked, and he proved it with photographs and technical data and so forth. I still have a copy of that book.
So continuing on with reasons that we didn't make it to the moon here - there were various lighting anomalies?Oh, a lot of lighting anomalies. Some friends from Europe came over recently and what they did, they're very interested in this project, they analyzed NASA films supposedly taken on the moon, frame by frame. And you know what they found out?
What, Bill Kaysing, author of We Never Went to the Moon?Shadows diverged. In other words, if you have a point source of light, like the Sun, and you can see this anytime outdoors, all shadows will parallel - telephone poles, trees, you name it - all the shadows will be parallel. Well, these men found, in analyzing frame by frame movies, that there was more than one lighting source for this film. Now that proves beyond any doubt, in my mind, that these pictures, these motion pictures, were taken inside of a movie set, using gigantic spotlights to simulate the Sun. But because they would pan shots and show, like, the Rover or astronauts running around and so forth, if you analyze them frame by frame, you find out that the shadows are not parallel. This, to me, is one of the most significant breakthroughs, and I only learned it about two months ago.
Well how 'bout NASA countering that - they say that in some pictures astronauts are lit from more than one side because the sunlight is reflected off the lunar surface, or off the lunar vehicle.Very unlikely in a vacuum, because light doesn't go around corners unless it's assisted. If you look at NASA pictures allegedly taken on the moon, all of the potholes, the little mini craters and so forth, have completely black shadows. Well, any picture of any device on the moon should have had completely black shadows where the Sun did not illuminate them.
How about the pictures of the moon where there are curves in the moon, how did they achieve that if they faked the moon landing, Bill Kaysing?Oh, well - when I was in Frankfurt, Germany recently I saw about a six-foot diameter moon, a model, and it was absolutely perfect. So all the NASA people had to do was create a model of the moon and they could shoot any curvature they wanted.
Did people see Apollo 11 take off?Well, yes, certainly.
So what happened, then, if they saw it take off? The rocket took off - if we didn't go to the moon, what actually happened when Apollo 11 took off?The Apollo 11 vehicle, or Saturn 5, was sent out of people's sight, and then it was jettisoned into the South Atlantic, where all of the six that were launched now reside. There were no astronauts, of course, on board. They were hidden away carefully, to be returned, allegedly in their command capsule, by being dumped out of a C5A transport plane. It was easy to do all of this, because they had total control of everything.
So they were not on the rocket when it took off, then?No, they were not.
And then they were picked up - now, you talked to a pilot who saw all this happen?Yes, a pilot came on the air when I was doing a broadcast and he says, "Bill, I agree with you 100%. I was flying from San Francisco to Tokyo and I saw, along with several passengers, a command capsule dropped out of a C5A and the red-and-white candy-striped parachutes opened and it descended to the surface of the ocean."
And what happened then?Well, they were of course picked up and put into biological suits so they wouldn't afflict anybody with moon germs, but my theory on that is they couldn't tell these big bald-faced lies this early. So they were actually kept from the press for approximately a month until they could sort of reconcile themselves with telling a lot of big lies.
No, but I'm just curious, Apollo 11 takes off, the rocket dumps in the South Atlantic - what happens then, are the astronauts just hiding somewhere, and then eventually they get on a plane and jump out of the plane and they've landed - that was it?That is correct.
No moon involved at all.No moon involved at all. I am 100% positive of this, and every day when I get information from people who support my views, I'm more convinced than ever.
How did they make the astronauts float, Bill Kaysing, 'cause it seems pretty convincing when you seen them floating around there. Like, a lot of people when you say, "hey, you know, we never went to the moon", they went, "I saw it! I saw them floating there! I saw them on the moon right there!"Well, that could have been done just like they did the Broadway play Peter Pan. In other words, [they] used wires and suspended the astronauts from an overhead crane and had them leap gaily across what actually was a moon set. No, it's not difficult to show astronauts taking big leaps, nor is it difficult, for example, to put them in a simulated command capsule and have them go through an anti-gravity curve.
Another point here is that the moon rocks were fake. Are the moon rocks real?No, they are not real. NASA has a well-developed ceramics laboratory with high-temperature ovens-
That's another way NASA could prove they went to the moon, 'cause they brought back these rocks. Interestingly enough, at the University of British Columbia here, David Strangway, the President of U.B.C., was the guy in charge of inspecting the moon rocks.OK, fine, why don't you call him up and ask him what he thinks about them.
So what happened, the moon rocks were not real?No, they were manufactured on Earth to look like moon rocks, but since nobody has any moon rocks to compare them with, it's very simple to make up a moon rock and say, hey, this came from the moon.
Well, how would you know it is a moon rock? Like, how do you know it's not a moon rock - how do you know it's a fake?I had a Seattle geologist who examined moon rocks and he said, "There's no question, Bill, that these rocks were made in a laboratory on Earth."
The actual astronauts had strange language as well. I know this from your book and also some other articles, like Houston Control said, "Well, it's a good show", and then the command service module replied, "Fantastic", and then Armstrong replied, "Yeah, I'll second that." Like, well, it's a good show. That was interesting language.Yes, and you can find a little more of that in an article published in a magazine called Wired, published in September of 1994. [It's a] 4000-word article by Rogier van Bakel, essentially on my contentions.
Bill, has anybody ever seen the studio that this was faked in? 'Cause it's in Area 51, which you alluded to. It was also alluded to in the films Diamonds are Forever and Capricorn One?Yes, that's right. They did allude to the sound stage, or the hidden moon set. No, the reason no one has ever seen it and come out alive is that they don't intend for anybody to see it and come out alive. You’ve got to remember that NASA is kind of a lethal organization. Jim Irwin - Apollo 15 - was put up to blowing the whistle on the whole project and he called me up, ostensibly to give me the facts. Few days later he died of a heart attack. Now what does that tell you?
Well, a lot of people died when dissing NASA What's the significance of the Baron Report?Oh, that's profound. A man named Thomas Ronald Baron was an inspector on Pad 34, where Grissom, Chaffee and White were murdered. He brought forth a 500-page report on the mismanagement, the incompetence of NASA and North American [Aviation]. And again, like Jim Irwin, a few days after he testified before the Congressional Investigating Committee, he was found dead in his car at a railroad crossing. Now what does that tell you?
A lot of people got knocked off.NASA and the CIA and the whole U.S. government is a rotten and corrupt organization, designed just to get all the tax money they can out of people, to manipulate their minds, to keep them amused with sporting events and silly TV sitcoms. We, unfortunately, in the U.S. are pretty well brainwashed, believing whatever the government says. And they have control, as you well know, of the media.
How much space stuff since 1959 has been real? What space stuff is real today? Did the Challenger blow up? Did NASA know it would blow up?Yeah, and you know why it blew up? Because Christa McAuliffe, the only civilian and only woman aboard, refused to go along with the lie that you couldn't see stars in space. So they blew her up, along with six other people, to keep that lie under wraps. I claim that Christa McAuliffe was murdered.
So when the Challenger blew up, it wasn't because of O-ring problems, it was because NASA murdered the people because they didn't want to go along with the gags?Well, Christa McAuliffe was a woman of great integrity, and she would not agree to say that you couldn't see stars in space.
So, Bill Kaysing, are you saying that Roberta Bondar, Canada's first women astronaut, never actually made it in space, 'cause she was on the Shuttle.Well, I'll tell you what - the Shuttle is a possibility. After all, it's low altitude. I haven't done a great deal of research on the Shuttle, but several people have said that the Shuttle is actually faked, also.
So Christa McAuliffe refused to say that she couldn't see stars in space, which would have verified the moon landing claim of no stars in the photos in the moon, so they blew her up.Yeah, exactly. Once you start telling lies, you've gotta keep on going. And then, of course, you try to cover up lies, like the film Apollo 13.
Which, I'm sure, is not on your favorite flicks list for this year, right?I've seen it, and I examined it very carefully, and I found a tremendous anomaly in it. They show the exhaust of the lunar lander model engine as being a yellow-gold. Well, the fuels used on the lunar module were nitrogen tetroxide and asymmetrical dimetal hydrazine, which produce an opaque red gas. So their technical experts on Apollo 13 weren't really with it.
So, who else is gonna get murdered, what else is coming up? What's the future? What is real that's in space that we can see out there, Bill Kaysing?Well, I would say this, that the number of people that believe my version of Apollo are increasing in great numbers. I had a fellow come up from LA He borrowed all of my papers, materials, video and film and so forth, went back and did an hour-and-a-half tape on We Never Went to the Moon. The book is being translated into German and Italian in Europe. I've had inquiries from Australia, from Hawaii, from essentially all over the world. And all of them are highly supportive and have given me a lot of brand-new information which I never knew before. So my feeling is that, within a short time, the Apollo hoax will be exposed and that will open Pandora's box. After that, the U.S. government is going to be hard-pressed to keep the lies about the Federal Reserve Bank, about the IRS being the Gestapo of America, about the fact that all silver was taken out of circulation in 1963, the fact that Canada does not import our meat because it's so full of rotten chemicals. I'm sure you knew that. The Canadians are pretty smart, because they don't import American meat. So, you see, in this country, we're at the short end of things because of the corruption of the government.
There are some people who believe that the moon landing was faked because the U.S. government didn't want to disclose that they'd been on the moon since 1910!No. My feeling is that no human being has ever landed on the moon, because of the lethal environment on the surface.
How do you deal with people who you're trying to convince? Isn't it like trying to convince people that the Earth is flat? How do you distinguish yourself with these people, Bill Kaysing?Well, it's easy. I've got the proof. I've got the photographs, which are available to anybody. All it takes is some study. If you look at the pictures taken of Aldrin by Armstrong, you can find so many mistakes in those photographs that anybody in his right mind would realize, just by those photos alone, that they were faked.
Well, how did the media fall for this?Well, the media doesn't fall for anything. The media is controlled by the government. The Dutch papers on July 21 [1969] said that the moon landing was a hoax, was a fake, and I have been unable to find any of those Dutch papers, although it's well documented that they did publish information, with proof, that the U.S. was spoofing everybody.
Didn't the National Inquirer have stuff, too?Well, I did send some of my material to one of their subsidiaries, called The Weekly World News, and they did a marvelous job of presenting my material. It was extremely accurate. So, I've been in newspapers, I've been on Oprah Winfrey's show, and quite a number of leading television shows.
What did Oprah want from you?Well, she wanted me to talk about the moon book. I did that July 5, 1981 in Baltimore, Maryland.
Have you ever talked to any astronauts at all? Oh yes. I've talked to Edwin 'Buzz' Aldrin. I was invited to appear on CBS television in Los Angeles with Colonel Aldrin. And they called him up, and he wouldn't appear with me. So I called him up, and I said, "Buzz, why don't you appear with me?" And his exact words were, "That is something I do not want to do," and he hung up. Now if, in reality, they had gone to the moon, wouldn't they put me on the air with a genuine astronaut, and let me debate with him. You've got to remember, too, that Neil Armstrong has not given more than three interviews since he allegedly returned from the moon. A friend of mine went to see him, to question him, and he not only refused to talk to him, he said, "If you hang around my farm much longer, I'll call the police." Now, here's the most famous man of the twentieth century, Neil Armstrong, allegedly set foot on the moon, July 21, 1969 - why won't he talk about it?
Maybe he's just tired of talking about it.No, he couldn't be tired of talking about it, because it's his duty and obligation to be a national hero. He took NASA’s money, he was supported by the government for many, many years, and here he is, in a position of, let's say, talking about Apollo in a very convincing way, but he won't talk at all. Now, he lives on a farm in Ohio, near Columbus. Anybody can find his address and go see him.
Bill Kaysing, you've been trying to prove that we never went to the moon for twenty years now. What new information have you garnered?Well, as I said, most recently the divergent shadows. Ralph Rene has done a very comprehensive study on temperatures on the moon. He's proved that, in no way could the lunar lander, where Aldrin and Armstrong slept, have been cooled down, because they did not have the power. What's happening now is that a lot of technical information is coming on stream. Also, I'm on the Internet, and my book's on the Internet, and I'm now getting 'phone calls from many different people who believe in my contention that Apollo was a hoax, and they have contributed a lot to the body of information that I have managed to acquire.
Is there any way of going to the Smithsonian in Washington and looking at the stuff and seeing that it is fake?Oh, yeah. One of my friends went to the Smithsonian and he measured the exit door of the lunar lander and found out that astronauts wearing their life-support systems could not have gone out that door, they were too big.
And all this was faked somewhere in the desert.Well, either in the desert and/or Norton Air Force Base. I suspect that a lot of the real fine photography and action was done at Norton, where they were able to create what appeared to be solar lighting. That was one of the most difficult things to do, was to simulate the Sun, 'cause the Sun's light is so glaring, so powerful, that it would have taken a tremendous arc lamp to simulate the Sun. And they could have actually created a vacuum inside the sound stage. See, if you have $30 billion, it's no problem to do just about anything you want, including murder people, eliminate anybody who comes on stream and tells opposing stories. I have been invited to talk on radio many times, and I have been immediately discredited.
In what sense?Well, for example, Chuck Ashman in LA called me and he said, "I understand you say we never went to the moon." And I said, "Yes, and here's my proof." Well, he clicked me off and said, "Well this is what I call an irresponsible journalist, a man who has no real proof that we didn't go to the moon, but he's running around telling people that it was all a hoax."
Are there any other points that we haven't [covered] here today, Bill Kaysing, about not making to the moon, more proof?Well, I think we've covered the very important general ones. There are a lot of details. For example, Edwin Aldrin, when he came back from his alleged trip to the moon, wrote a book called Return to Earth. Well, I've read the book three times, and in it we find a man who is trying desperately to tell the truth, but he's unable to. In other words, they put the wraps on him, they told him, don't ever talk about the moon as a fake. But an interesting thing happened to Aldrin when he was speaking at Edwards Air Force Base to some of his fellow pilots, he was asked by a TV interrogator, "What was it like to be on the moon?" And Edwin Aldrin at that point could not answer that question. he began shaking and trembling, he walked off the stage into an alley and later got drunk. Now, if you'd done something, honestly and truthfully, you can talk about it without any problems. Well, it was obvious that, here was an occasion when Aldrin could not tell that lie one more time.
Have you been threatened at all, Bill Kaysing.Oh, death threats and letters with skull and crossbones on them. I've been called a Commie sympathizer, a traitor to the United States. Many things have happened to me. One time I was on KOME radio doing a three-hour show, and half-way through the show someone dropped napalm on the transmitter in the Gilroy Hills. They wanted to cut our story off. Police came, they offered us police protection, and KOME was off the air for three days until they could a quarter of a million dollars' damage.
Boy, Americans really care about the moon landing, don't they?Oh yeah. Well, it's like Pearl Harbor. They managed to cover up the truth at Pearl Harbor since December 7, 1941. Everybody that was in W.W.II, including me, knows that the Japanese were set up to do it. In fact, some people told me that two shiploads of gold were sent to Japan to finance Pearl Harbor, they were sent by the British. So the British wanted us involved in the war and Pearl Harbor seemed like a good way to do it.
So the Americans bribed the Japanese into bombing Pearl Harbor?Yes, and Roosevelt not only knew about the attack, he helped arrange it, and he suppressed the information about the Japanese attacks from Kimmel and Short, the naval and army commanders at Pearl Harbor. This was one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated by the U.S. government to get us involved in a deadly war. There's no question that it was all set up.
If people want to get a hold of you, Bill Kaysing, what is your address?PO Box 832, Soquel, CA, 95073 and I would be happy to correspond with Canadians about these subjects at length.
Why should people care about the moon landing, Bill Kaysing, why should people care that the moon landing was faked?Well, I think we should care because it proves that the U.S. government is just a body politic of lies and falsehoods. They have been for many, many years on all of the important subjects. Social Security is bankrupt, the food in America is all weak poisons, people are put under the thumb of the IRS There are so many things wrong with the U.S. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't dislike the people - it's the government that I call public enemy number one.
Anything else you'd like to add to the people out there?Well, I'll say this - whether you believe my story or not, go to the library in your spare time and take a look at some N.A.S.A books and study the photographs, use your own intelligence to analyze them and see that they could not have been taken on the moon. That's the number one proof.
All right, Bill, keep on rocking in the free world and doot doodle oot do-What's that?
Bill, doot doodle oot do-
Ha, ha - whatever. I'll take it easy.
No, doot doodle oot do-Doot do.
