By Clyde Lewis

There is a great lesson that I have learned being a talk show host. It is not rocket science. At least not in the eyes of many NASA faithful who have leaned on science to lend them the opportunity to be salacious. I remember when I first interviewed Bill Kaysing who is notorious for offering up arguments that we never went to the moon. He told me that he was hounded, harassed, and threatened after he had spoken his mind about the moon. He went on about all kinds of other paranoid rants that I kind of smirked at and thought this guy is a little kooky and harmless.

Well I was wrong.

After the airing of Foxís Conspiracy Theory: Did we land on the moon a little article that I wrote delivering what I thought at the time was earth shattering conspiracy theory became the ire of a lot of people who say that I needed to get some evidence.

Some of the more memorable letters and posts in my forum were:

"Your whole site is horse puckey. Get some evidence"

"The flag appears to be waving in this picture, because the horizontal rod that holds it along the top edge is bent, jackass!"

"Never before have I ever heard such a well planned load of bull crap. Arguing that we never landed on the moon is just as idiotic as arguing that the pythagrian (spelled wrong, Pythagorean) theorum (spelled wrong theorem) doesn't work."

"I have come to what I feel is the theory to explain all of it. He doesn't believe any of this conspiracy shit! He is playing devil's advocate. He'll clasp onto whatever conspiracy tripe comes down the turnpike and splash it on his page like it was gospel. Then, if anybody has a problem with that, rather than debating with them, he will just attack them and see how riled up he can get them. He's having fun! He wants to see what kooks he can reel in and how pissed off he can make other's get."

"There Clyde is, now in his late thirties, long past the point of growing up - at least in a physical sense-, when most people find more rewarding things to do with their time than playing pranks on their peers, and yet he has nothing better to offer than just that. If this is the only way for you to get attention and confirm your ego, I feel truly saddened."

Once again this demonstrates the old saying that anyone can be tough behind a keyboard but face to face we play nice and try not to offend. It is so easy to hide behind your computer screen and someone else who has done all of the homework for you.

Phil Plait who is a scientist and has done his homework on the Moon Hoax case has developed a website to try and refute the claims made by Conspiracy "trouble makers" like me.

I have always said "if we have gone to the moon then I want the proof, I want my questions answered."

He has answered them and everyone is expecting me to refute them. Well I canít just pull an answer in rebuttal out of my hatÖ I am not a Moon Hoax crusaderóJust a guy who has questions. I stand by my questions.

The "revelations" that I delivered in my articles have been the speculations of both Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene, and other questions that have been raised in Magazines like Omni and Fortean Times.

The same questions have been proposed by Jonathan Vankin and Doug Meonch among others.

Granted they are not Scientists but they are writers who had the balls to question.

Now when we question the Moon Landing we are questioning many things.

We are questioning Science, and why not?

Science has become a big ego trip that lately has been humbled, as technology exposes the faulty logic that has been taken as fact. And yes it would be disingenuous of me not to include Moon Hoax theories.

After all we are only human. We are most likely to believe something if it confirms what we have suspected all along. We can all make mistakes and science can get it wrong because science is nothing more than hit and miss and trial and error.

Another thing that we do when we question the Moon landing is we are questioning our own Government. It puts into question oneís patriotism.

But who isnít feigning their patriotism? Who isnít faking their lack of outrage?

Americans have put their government on the lower end of the confidence curve and is it any wonder?

We live in times where bombing countries smaller than us have become "routine." Where media propaganda has convinced us that there have been successful recounts in elections, where privacy rights are being taken away from us on a daily basis and where Nobody has blind faith in our politicians today.

We are also questioning the veracity of the space program.

Many Americans remain convinced that NASA has been covering up a lot of things in Space. From little ETís to even greater threats.

You can throw out all of the old arguments that purport to show that we never landed on the moon but are you willing to answer the questions as to why NASA speaks out of both sides of itís mouth when it comes to other matters of space?

For example NASA had the astronauts quarantined when they returned to earth.


For the longest time NASA had been the chief hucksters in trying to disprove anyone who even thought that life could exist beyond the realms of earth.

Does that include Microbial life forms?

So lets throw away all of my arguments about not going to the moon.

For the time being anyway.

It is curious to me that Astronauts upon returning from the moon spent time in quarantine in order to determine if they carried any kind of extra terrestrial bacteria that could destroy the earth.

This very practice indeed takes away any doubt that perhaps science knows more about the possibility of microbial life living in space. It surely was a safeguard for any future contamination.

Now they are looking into bringing something back with the Stardust Missions.

They donít fear Contamination any more. They are going to crash land the samples in the Utah West desert.

They say that there is no danger of contamination.

So I am supposed to believe that? This discredits the whole reason for quarantine. Doesnít it?

Say that Iím wrong. Thatís fine but when they wanted to kill the Galileo probe they sure as hell didnít want to crash the probe on IO because they were afraid it might contaminate the life forms that may exist thereÖ


Is their life out in Space or not? NASA seems to be as iffy as theorists like me who doubt the full story on the missions to the Moon.

So Yes I question NASA every chance I get.

Is there a reason why NASA has decided to delay broadcasts of their Shuttle Missions?

What do they have to hide?

Dr. Gilbert Levin claimed that the Mars missions yielded microbial life forms which was dismissed by NASA.

Yet they quarantined our astronauts after going to the moonÖ a dead vacuous satellite with no atmosphere and up until recently reported "no water or Ice."

They donít quarantine them now. Is it because there is life in deep space and not 250 miles up?

Now I donít base my whole diatribe on that little tidbit alone. Nor do I base it on the old arguments alone. There are just a few inconsistencies that I see. And I need to have them explained to me without being slammed verbally for being stupid, or misinformed.

But I canít help but see the "besting" matches that want to rise up. I mean hey you can have an encyclopedia in your hand and misspell Pythagorean theorem and still the bastard who questions the moon landings is an absolute moron.

But there are other questions that I am sure can be answered in a "holier than thou fashion" by those who have criticized me in my forums and in my guest book.

So I once again am going to walk sheepishly into the other sideís territory throwing out the argument that we never landed on the moon.

Neil Armstrong is coming down the ladder and the TV images look like hell.


And please, the poor technology argument is as vacuous as the moon is.

The truth is that the TV images were not direct feeds from NASA. That is a Fact!

Every Network pointed cameras at a giant screen within Mission Control at Houston.

They were not directly fed "Live" to the networks.

Direct feeds give superior images. Take a look at the delayed images from the shuttle.

Doesnít that make you the least bit suspicious about the covering up of details?

We made such a mockery about the "Alien autopsy" using the same arguments about details blurring just at the right moment. And yet when the Moon images are fourth generation by the time they get into homes we applaud and say "this has to be real! This canít be staged on a sound stage somewhere."

What if we DID go to the moon. And it was impossible to send clear images. I mean how did they know that all of the cameras would work once they got there? If they fouled up NO ONE WOULD HAVE BELIEVED IT!!

They needed insurance so the Russians would be able to see the feat!

We then could guarantee that the men could make footprints, hoist flags, do Masonic rituals, play Golf and read scriptures "for real" up there.

Oh But no thatís impossible.

Or is it?

Wouldnít it make sense that Astronauts would rather get their work done on the moon and not have to worry about whether or not they are getting the right camera angle for Mr. Kubrick?

Could the Moon Landing Be staged?

Of course it could.

Could the astronauts land on the moon do their work while a pre filmed golf game and Rover drive play, for all to see on National TelevisionÖ

Of course.

But that once again brings up the idea that if you faked any of it why stop at just that? Think of all the tanks and helicopters 30 Billion could buy. Think of all of the money going into the Military Industrial Complex.

The final question.

Would it surprise anyone if they did fake it?

Do you really know the real motives of a government who wanted to Nuke the Moon? Just to show who was boss? Tell me that Project A119 wasnít a dick wagging contest in the Cold War.

The recently declassified project investigated the visibility and effects of a nuclear explosion on the moon. It was obvious that the United States was looking for a PR exercise and the moon was the perfect place to demonstrate our power in the space race. The idea was to create a mushroom cloud so large it would be visible on earth. They were hoping that a detonation much like the one at Hiroshima on the dark side of the moon would have created a Mushroom cloud so huge that the Sun would have illuminated it sending the message that we were ahead in the race for the militarizing of space.

It is obvious that the moon was a PR chip from the beginning and that after the landing of man on the moon we abandoned it and settled for research closer to earth.

The Idea of Project A119 proves that there still is a covert agenda by the military to lay claim on the real estate that exists on other planets.

Perhaps also there is still the secret plan to create the space shielding proposed in Star Wars plans spoken of in the Reagan era. Or perhaps there is more to space than what we are being told?

Now after 33 years we havenít gone back. Itís even a fair question to ask why Corporations donít take the initiative and go. They have billions to build a Trump Tower on the Moon. How about the first company to inscribe a big "M" on the rocks for Macdonaldís?

I mean wouldnít it be in a companies best interest to say that they hired the best scientists and best Rocket scientists to send people to the moon to start businesses up there? Or at least in the Everest spirit of adventure put their flag up there?

The moon has always been a subject of controversy and while it remains an unimpressive chunk of dead weight in space now, at one time mankind needed it to show who was boss.

Even at the expense of Common sense.

Where is our consumer whore spirit when it comes to the moon? Surely itís real estate that is up for grabs.

I know that to a pure scientist all of my rants are purely circumstantial and probably mean nothing to you.

But again I say this.

I am a talk show host who asks questions.

Itís up to you to answer them.

Return To Ground Zero

Voice Your Opinion