There are people that say that anyone who believes the United states didn't go to the moon is someone who questions too much and has no respect for the astronauts who went to the moon or died trying. But the question to those people is: what respect? And where do moon landing hoax theorists question too much? After all, it is possible the moon landings were faked and that the people who died trying were the only ones trying at all. If you don't know they went to the moon, how do you know that the astronauts are being disrespected? Mankind is a liar. At the same time that NASA claimed to go to the moon, Richard Nixon was President. The people who thought he was an American hero through his support for NASA would never have lead them to guess that Nixon and members of his campaign were cheaters or that Nixon would ask to leave the White House. It's the same way with the astronauts. If you assume they're American heroes and then refuse to question their claims, you have no idea whether you are right are wrong on the moon landing.
There are some important questions to be answered that involve this subject. They include: what really happened to the 10 Apollo astronauts claimed to be killed in freak accidents, what does the lunar surface on the moon really look like up close, what are the rocks on the moon like, who killed President John F. Kennedy, how advanced are we in our ability of space exploration and how could the moon landing or, the moon landing hoax affect the future.
There is powerful evidence people use to pull toward both theories. From the rocket going off the earth to the craters on the moon and from the suspicious political events to the flaws in the pictures of the moon landing this debate is very important.
NASA cannot prove man ever went to the moon.
The scientist- claimed evidence is often no more than claimed rocks from the moon, insignificant video clips, the sight of a rocket going into the sky, and the experiments put on the video clips that would prove many common theories.
But there is one claim that can convince many people we went to the moon. There is an observatory in Mexico that sends lasers to the moon and the lasers look for a reflection higher than the natural reflection on the moon's surface. The people inside see a reflection coming back assume it's remains of the moon landings.
* The 12 observatories that shoot lasers to the moon only detect a strong reflection coming from the moon, not necessarily from the retro-reflector the astronauts of Apollo 15 claimed to leave on the moon. In order to be for sure what all objects are on the moon's surface, we would have to really go to the moon, many times in many places. See:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=orvMZn8L1f0
The reflection was said to reflect a retro reflector. That's something that reflects light directly back at the source. Normally, light reflects at an angle. The people who believe in the moon landings because of those observatories assume there is no retro-reflector on the moon other than man- made equipment, when they would have to go to the moon themselves to know it. And the observatories themselves could be pulling off a hoax. There are only 12 of them.
* It wouldn't be hard for the government to hide a studio where they faked the moon landings. There are several places in which they could have done it. There is one particular area where a lot of the moon hoax theorists say NASA faked it: Area 51. It's claimed to have military flight testing, but Russians claim that through spy satellites, they saw more than that. They say that there was a studio inside, where only military personal is allowed. And there are obviously easier ways than area 51. They could have gone to a low populated place like Antarctica. They could have even faked the videos within NASA's own training center.
* The rocks they claim came from the moon could have been from earth. NASA says that the rocks had material affects that could only come from radiation as powerful as solar flares. But the radiation affects doesn't depend on how powerful the exposure to radiation was, but also how much time it was being affected by the radiation. And the marks on the rocks didn't have to be meteorites. If NASA just had lasers, water- jets, or etc with just the right amount of power, they could have left any marks on the rocks that they wanted to. There are ways mankind can destroy the most powerful things, and now, NASA says the marks on a rock couldn't have been faked? Maybe NASA even made the rocks from scratch. And, the way the rocks have lack of moisture could have been from the same radiation- using tool that they used in the first place. And off course, they claim that the glass particles in the rocks couldn't be faked because they appear to have been caused by meteorites affected by volcanoes, and that they are billions of years old and water from earth breaks down such volcanic glasses in a few million years. But the method that scientists use to determine how old something is is radiodemetric dating. That works by the scientists measuring the amount of radiation- material affects on something and then using the low data they have to determine how old it is. But this is inaccurate. See: www.radiodemistake.blogspot.com. Radiation material affects don't depend only on time, but also exposure. That means it's the opposite mistake of examining those rock's radiation- material affects and assuming you can know all of the exposure that they've faced. Radiodemetric dating and making the assumptions that most moon landing theorists- geologists who have examined the rocks make are also contradictions. Again, NASA may have even made the rocks from scratch.
* The reasons why someone would fake it, are interesting. One reason is to be known as the "American hero." Another reason is to get money. NASA had billions of dollars and might have saved much money if it was faked. Another is the race with Russia. There's also the possibility the government was trying to trick people into doing something. Either the government or NASA could have been wanting to lie their way into being trusted with things they shouldn't have. During the first moon landing, Richard Nixon was president, and then he turned out to be a cheater at politics. Scientists along with politicians have often said different things at different times to turn things to their advantage.
* NASA also claims that the government could not hide something like this, because of the way there were so many people in the project that they couldn't keep this secret. But they are wrong. First, it isn't a secret. There are definitely people who believe in the moon landing hoax. And most of the people obviously didn't know about the hoax. In fact, any astronaut who tried to get to the moon died trying and any astronaut who lived faked it.
* The videos said to be of "man on the moon" are inaccurate. The background could have been artificial. There are tools from the 60s they could have used to fake the motions that seem to be in 1/6 of the earth's gravity: doubled speed, wire supports, hot- air balloon supports, fake and lightweight suits and others. And it wouldn't take a computer to use the blue screen technology. In a theater, they "shoot" the movie at the screen. Maybe NASA put the camera in front of a screen with several images put in one during some of the shots and clips. That would explain why you can barely see through Neil Armstrong in the part of this video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=16Bus5clfrw&feature=channel_page
* The experiments in the videos that some say could only occur on the moon are not more than what could have been done with an airplane, fake objects or the same manipulation they did with the rest of the videos. For an example, when Neil Armstrong supposedly dropped a hammer and a feather and they landed at the same time, you can't say for sure that he wasn't in an airplane- vacuum room or that the "hammer" and the "feather" were made out of their natural materials.
But there is one claim that can convince many people we went to the moon. There is an observatory in Mexico that sends lasers to the moon and the lasers look for a reflection higher than the natural reflection on the moon's surface. The people inside see a reflection coming back assume it's remains of the moon landings.
* The 12 observatories that shoot lasers to the moon only detect a strong reflection coming from the moon, not necessarily from the retro-reflector the astronauts of Apollo 15 claimed to leave on the moon. In order to be for sure what all objects are on the moon's surface, we would have to really go to the moon, many times in many places. See:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=orvMZn8L1f0
The reflection was said to reflect a retro reflector. That's something that reflects light directly back at the source. Normally, light reflects at an angle. The people who believe in the moon landings because of those observatories assume there is no retro-reflector on the moon other than man- made equipment, when they would have to go to the moon themselves to know it. And the observatories themselves could be pulling off a hoax. There are only 12 of them.
* It wouldn't be hard for the government to hide a studio where they faked the moon landings. There are several places in which they could have done it. There is one particular area where a lot of the moon hoax theorists say NASA faked it: Area 51. It's claimed to have military flight testing, but Russians claim that through spy satellites, they saw more than that. They say that there was a studio inside, where only military personal is allowed. And there are obviously easier ways than area 51. They could have gone to a low populated place like Antarctica. They could have even faked the videos within NASA's own training center.
* The rocks they claim came from the moon could have been from earth. NASA says that the rocks had material affects that could only come from radiation as powerful as solar flares. But the radiation affects doesn't depend on how powerful the exposure to radiation was, but also how much time it was being affected by the radiation. And the marks on the rocks didn't have to be meteorites. If NASA just had lasers, water- jets, or etc with just the right amount of power, they could have left any marks on the rocks that they wanted to. There are ways mankind can destroy the most powerful things, and now, NASA says the marks on a rock couldn't have been faked? Maybe NASA even made the rocks from scratch. And, the way the rocks have lack of moisture could have been from the same radiation- using tool that they used in the first place. And off course, they claim that the glass particles in the rocks couldn't be faked because they appear to have been caused by meteorites affected by volcanoes, and that they are billions of years old and water from earth breaks down such volcanic glasses in a few million years. But the method that scientists use to determine how old something is is radiodemetric dating. That works by the scientists measuring the amount of radiation- material affects on something and then using the low data they have to determine how old it is. But this is inaccurate. See: www.radiodemistake.blogspot.com. Radiation material affects don't depend only on time, but also exposure. That means it's the opposite mistake of examining those rock's radiation- material affects and assuming you can know all of the exposure that they've faced. Radiodemetric dating and making the assumptions that most moon landing theorists- geologists who have examined the rocks make are also contradictions. Again, NASA may have even made the rocks from scratch.
* The reasons why someone would fake it, are interesting. One reason is to be known as the "American hero." Another reason is to get money. NASA had billions of dollars and might have saved much money if it was faked. Another is the race with Russia. There's also the possibility the government was trying to trick people into doing something. Either the government or NASA could have been wanting to lie their way into being trusted with things they shouldn't have. During the first moon landing, Richard Nixon was president, and then he turned out to be a cheater at politics. Scientists along with politicians have often said different things at different times to turn things to their advantage.
* NASA also claims that the government could not hide something like this, because of the way there were so many people in the project that they couldn't keep this secret. But they are wrong. First, it isn't a secret. There are definitely people who believe in the moon landing hoax. And most of the people obviously didn't know about the hoax. In fact, any astronaut who tried to get to the moon died trying and any astronaut who lived faked it.
* The videos said to be of "man on the moon" are inaccurate. The background could have been artificial. There are tools from the 60s they could have used to fake the motions that seem to be in 1/6 of the earth's gravity: doubled speed, wire supports, hot- air balloon supports, fake and lightweight suits and others. And it wouldn't take a computer to use the blue screen technology. In a theater, they "shoot" the movie at the screen. Maybe NASA put the camera in front of a screen with several images put in one during some of the shots and clips. That would explain why you can barely see through Neil Armstrong in the part of this video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=16Bus5clfrw&feature=channel_page
* The experiments in the videos that some say could only occur on the moon are not more than what could have been done with an airplane, fake objects or the same manipulation they did with the rest of the videos. For an example, when Neil Armstrong supposedly dropped a hammer and a feather and they landed at the same time, you can't say for sure that he wasn't in an airplane- vacuum room or that the "hammer" and the "feather" were made out of their natural materials.
The Van Allen Belts, the re- entry and the lunar surface
There are several arguments that involve radiation in deep space. They are about: The Van Allen Radiation Belts, the re- entry and the moon's harshly powerful surface.
The VAN ALLEN RADIATION BELTS would have killed the astronauts
The radiation belts were first discovered by James Van Allen.The Van Allen Radiation Belts are great amounts radiation belts trapped inside the earth's magnetic field. Some say that the astronauts could not have survived them. Others say they were well protected enough that they could get past the radiation belts and the re- entry.
If the radiation couldn't kill the astronauts by over heating the area where they were or melting the material of the rocket, the radiation would have sent way more than a spark to the fuel of the engine and the oxygen tank. That should have blown up the rocket.
The VAN ALLEN RADIATION BELTS would have killed the astronauts
The radiation belts were first discovered by James Van Allen.The Van Allen Radiation Belts are great amounts radiation belts trapped inside the earth's magnetic field. Some say that the astronauts could not have survived them. Others say they were well protected enough that they could get past the radiation belts and the re- entry.
How this works:
The Van Allen Radiation Belts are high amounts of radiation trapped in the earth's magnetic field outside of the earth's atmosphere. The radiation comes from the sun. The magnetic field is able to trap some of it in two belts outside the earth's atmosphere. How? In that area, there is no atmosphere. The atmosphere protects the life on earth from lethal radiation. The earth's atmosphere consists of cold air, which has less energy than hot air, so the hot air rises and the cold air sinks. Eventually, the hot air leaves the atmosphere. Without an atmosphere, it takes longer for the hot air to leave and the heat from the sun comes a lot faster. When heat goes to something quicker than it leaves it, how hot the object is starts to increase. Now, the moon's surface is over 250 degrees during the day. This means the sun's energy heats up something over twice as much if it has no atmosphere. Obviously,the heat would leave more than twice as slowly. So the Van Allen Radiation Belts would have been getting stronger for every moment, for the thousands of years the earth has existed, until they reached reached their limit, which would have extremely high radioactivity.
So, how do we know the Van Allen Radiation Belts would have reached an extreme amount of power already? How powerful is their radioactivity and how do we know? To find that out, we would have to know the three main places from where they come from. First, the main place is obviously every day energy from the sun. Sometimes, a solar flare occurs and the sun sends out storms that fortunately, for us, don't get past the magnetic field, but some of the energy is trapped in our magnetic field. The third energy source of the Van Allen Radiation Belts that we know of is Galactic Cosmic Radiation. Though we don't know how often our solar system is attacked by cosmic radiation, solar flares usually happen once every 11 years. The earth is around 10,000 years old. That's obviously long enough, even if regular heat from the sun was the Van Allen Radiation Belt's only source. How hot is it? We may never know exactly.
Are the Van Allen Radiation Belts as powerful as a powerful solar flare? Could the earth's gravity hold such a tremendous amount of radiation? The answer is yes. It has to be able to. The magnetic protects the earth during solar flares by collecting energy in the Van Allen Radiation Belts, shielding the earth's atmosphere of most of the heat and the only thing it does to the earth's atmosphere is let us see a lunar eclipse. An amount of monstrous energy we are spared from is kept in the part of our magnetic field right outside the earth's atmosphere. See, some of the heat coming to the earth is completely blocked, and the part outside is collected. Without that system, we would all die out. It's hard to believe that there is a part of the earth's magnetic field that mostly blocks a solar flare, a part that somewhat collects it and no part in between that completely collects it. Explorer 1, 3, 4, Pioneer 3, Sputnik 3 and Luna 1 seemingly only got close to the Van Allen Belts, not into them. Even if they could, a human couldn't.
There are also different beliefs of what kind of radiation the Van Allen Radiation Belts are made out of. First of all, how powerful the radioactivity is in an area depends not only on what kind of radiation it is, but also on how much radiation is trapped in the area. Secondly, since the Van Allen Radiation Belts get their energy partly from Solar flares, it should have the same types of radiation. Solar flares can produce gamma rays, radio waves X rays and UV radiation. They obviously include both fission and fusion. The Van Allen Radiation Belt is like an extremely powerful series of nuclear bombs going off all the time.
But does this mean that they couldn't pass it? James Van Allen himself believes the protection the astronauts had were powerful enough for the to survive the belts. But the protection the astronauts had was a paper- thin layer of aluminum around the spacecraft, the armor of the rocket, armor on their suits, fibers in their suits and a cooling system in their suits. If that is enough protection, NASA should see if they can re- test it by placing the rocket in a 4,000 degree area with lethal amounts of radiation and then leave it there for about 45 minutes- that's around how long it took for them to get past the Van Allen Radiation Belts. But off course, NASA is not going to do that anytime soon. And aluminum hull reduces energy from radiation only by around 75% if there is enough aluminum for the speed, intensity and amount of the radiation it's trying to resist. The aluminum hull was just paper- thin.
If the radiation couldn't kill the astronauts by over heating the area where they were or melting the material of the rocket, the radiation would have sent way more than a spark to the fuel of the engine and the oxygen tank. That should have blown up the rocket.
Even if the radiation belts couldn't kill the astronauts, or hurt them, they still prove the moon landing a hoax because it would have disrupted the communications and because NASA claims the astronauts only picked up one rem of radiation the entire trip. A rem is only 1/25 of what it takes to give someone radiation poisoning. If anyone went to the moon, they would know better than that. The Van Allen Radiation Belts are completely indisputable evidence of Apollo mission fraud.
The MOON'S DEADLY SURFACE and the supposed Apollo "moon landings."The moon is not like the earth. The earth has a highly humid atmosphere. Without it, we could not survive. That's what the moon is like. It's supposedly 200+ degrees during the day and 200- degrees during the night. We aren't sure that NASA's suits would be able to survive that. Moon landing hoax theorists are wanting a test on the suits that proves that ability, but NASA hasn't. Instead, NASA claims the astronauts landed during the early morning of the moon which lasts longer because the moon spins a whole circle every 27 days.
But if the astronauts were able to survive the moon's surface, what about the American flag and the feather Neil Armstrong used in his experiment? They weren't the least bit protected. In fact, the flag was waving in some of the clips. If the astronauts needed suits to protect themselves from the heat, then the bare flag and the bare feather would be burned up easily. Some say that's impossible because of the fact that there is no oxygen on the moon. But they are only part right. The fact that there is no oxygen on the moon is only proof that the flags and other heat- vulnerable objects wouldn't catch on fire. It's like how it is with the sun. The sun isn't on fire, but it still has the amount of radiation it takes to totally destroy things.
The RE- ENTRY INTO THE EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD would of killed or hurt the astronauts.
Coming back to the earth and surviving would have been a very hard part of the trip. They came from outside of the earth's magnetic field to inside the earth's atmosphere, unlike any other man- space mission.
The astronauts had to go from space through the magnetic field, and then from the magnetic field into the earth's atmosphere. This would have probably have doubled or added to the friction by around 50%. The method NASA used was they came into the magnetic field, bounced of the earth's atmosphere and then re- entered. That probably wasn't enough.
When NASA hoaxed the moon landing, they left us some hints of the hoax inside their media by accident.
There are many photos that nasa claim is proof of the moon landing that others say is proof of the moon landing hoax. But the fact is, is that their are pictures with errors nasa has trouble giving a reasonable explanation for.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTBIr65cL_E&feature=related shows video footage from when the astronauts were supposedly about to go on the moon and when they "landed." Off course, the 1960s camera and the distance between the earth and the moon would easily have made the images grainy. But if you notice it, the image of the moon from the rocket and the image on the moon tself seem to have a big difference between their clarities. The images from the rocket on the moon and on the surface itself shouldn't have that difference in how grainy it is, because the surface and the rocket weren't that far from eachother in any of the footage, especcially during the landing. But there is a huge difference. It's as if before the supposed "moon landings" the shots were faked, and NASA, for some reason, ended up using different level- technology cameras for the landing and the surface itself. Look at another video, www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SPMOXfELAA. You'll see that at the supposed "surface of the moon," color seems undetectable, unlike the video footage from inside the rocket during the landing.
In this photo, there appears to be an extra lighting on the astronaut, since he's bright in a very dark shadow.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtWMz51eL0Y&feature=related shows a clip of mythbusters looking at this photo from Apollo 11 that was said to prove the moon landing hoax. Mythbusters tried to prove that the photo was real. But they were to quick and seemed to have a will to believe the astronauts.
In the image, you can see that even though Buzz Aldrin is in a shadow, he is brightly lit. The people believing the moon landing hoax theory point out that the shadow should have easily covered him and prevented him from being very bright, in fact, he would be very dark. In the mythbusters video, they said that the reason the astronaut was so bright in such a dark shadow, was because of the moon's reflection hitting the astronaut. It sounds like it makes sense at first, because of the astronaut's white suit. But the moon's reflection is caused mostly by the heat on its surface, not just its sand. Mythbusters didn't use much heat in their experiment to prove this photo real. Compare these three photos:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTBIr65cL_E&feature=related shows video footage from when the astronauts were supposedly about to go on the moon and when they "landed." Off course, the 1960s camera and the distance between the earth and the moon would easily have made the images grainy. But if you notice it, the image of the moon from the rocket and the image on the moon tself seem to have a big difference between their clarities. The images from the rocket on the moon and on the surface itself shouldn't have that difference in how grainy it is, because the surface and the rocket weren't that far from eachother in any of the footage, especcially during the landing. But there is a huge difference. It's as if before the supposed "moon landings" the shots were faked, and NASA, for some reason, ended up using different level- technology cameras for the landing and the surface itself. Look at another video, www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SPMOXfELAA. You'll see that at the supposed "surface of the moon," color seems undetectable, unlike the video footage from inside the rocket during the landing.
In this photo, there appears to be an extra lighting on the astronaut, since he's bright in a very dark shadow.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtWMz51eL0Y&feature=related shows a clip of mythbusters looking at this photo from Apollo 11 that was said to prove the moon landing hoax. Mythbusters tried to prove that the photo was real. But they were to quick and seemed to have a will to believe the astronauts.
In the image, you can see that even though Buzz Aldrin is in a shadow, he is brightly lit. The people believing the moon landing hoax theory point out that the shadow should have easily covered him and prevented him from being very bright, in fact, he would be very dark. In the mythbusters video, they said that the reason the astronaut was so bright in such a dark shadow, was because of the moon's reflection hitting the astronaut. It sounds like it makes sense at first, because of the astronaut's white suit. But the moon's reflection is caused mostly by the heat on its surface, not just its sand. Mythbusters didn't use much heat in their experiment to prove this photo real. Compare these three photos:
They have unequal amounts of brightness. NASA claims that the astronauts set foot on the moon during the morning, so the areas where the astronauts first set foot on the moon should be getting brighter and brighter after they first set foot on the moon. But that's not the case. And the photos after the astronauts supposedly "set foot on the moon" go back and forth, getting brighter and dimer. It's as if NASA had different spotlights in different places in different photos. Whether the photo of Buzz Aldrin getting of the ladder is real or not, it still proves the moon landings hoaxed.
And it turns out, any of NASA's photos or video footage of the first moon landing is proof the first moon landing's were all hoaxes. There were missing stars . NASA claims that the stars weren't able to be seen, especially on camera, because of the way it was too dim on the moon's surface. But off course, it would have to be dim for a reason. But stars are their own source of light. And there were no clouds seen in the footage, either. Others for the moon landing theory claim that the moon's brightness with space darkness would be too hard for a 1960's camera to adjust to. But the moon's surface was at the bottom and the dark sky was at the top.
Look at this photo:
Even if some of the photos didn't have to have stars in them, this one and others pointing at the earth should.
And in this picture, there appears to be a crosshair behind an object instead of in front. It looks like during the manipulating of the photography, nasa was putting two or more different images together, when they had a few technical difficulties including whether or not all of the crosshairs were in front of objects. To some people, this is the result of either the camera, the computer or both not being able to show the film clearly. Or maybe NASA did it on purpose, because they thought some people would think it was evidence we did go to the moon because the objects in the pictures were reasonably bright. However, some claim it was bad filming or that it was so bright that through the camera or TV, the light was caused to somewhat "bleed" through the object.
> If you click on this picture and examine it closer, there is a crosshair in front, of the top of Alan Bean's spacesuit, an object bright in a way that part of the lunar rover (in picture above) with a crosshair behind it! The crosshairs behind objects are both flaws and contradictions.
> Whether an object is in front or behind is more powerful than which object is brighter and which one is darker.
> The crosshairs are either perfectly behind or perfectly in front of an object in the pictures claimed to be taken on the moon. If it was an error on the camera or computer, why would appear a "neat" mistake that just happened to appear first on the lunar surface? Something that would cause this is an unnoticed error that accrued while NASA was trying to put different parts together to make one video.
If you also notice, while the astronauts are wearing protective suits due to the heat while the flags placed "on the moon" aren't protected at all from the heat on the moon's surface. In fact, they were even waving in some of the shots. The flag's material would have somewhat melted. If you think about it, the moon has no air with high humidity that could protect the American flag from the powerful heat.
Speaking of flags, if you look in this picture, from Apollo 11, the flag is not producing any shadow that we can see, while the other shadows seem to be close to total darkness. And Buzz Aldrin's shadow is not shaped right, while the spacecraft's shadow is. Some say it's because the sun was either rising or setting and in just the right direction from them.But if you look closely at the plastic on Buzz Aldrin's face gear, on this picture, the upper 2/3 is reflecting, the lowest third isn't. If the sun was setting, in the right position for those kind of shadows, all of the plastic on his face gear would be reflecting, like in this picture:
And if you look at this picture at the "landing" of Apollo 11,
the sun doesn't seem to be in the position for those shadows in the second picture above.
This picture has an error like the one with the American flag. Buzz Aldrin's shadow is reflecting a thin, partly filled in triangle with a line protruding from the top. But his experiment is reflecting a shadow almost as thick as itself. I can see how they would both be long, but why would Buzz Aldrin's shadow look nothing like him, while the shadow of his experiment was shaped like itself and almost as thick as the experiment was? And there are also blobs in the background. NASA says that is a result of bad filming. But the position the blobs are in are in just the place for extra lighting to be, considering the direction of the shadows. Maybe NASA did that on purpose as part of making the filming look bad, which looked realistic for the bad filming that came from cameras at that time, and also for light sources. And now, we notice it.
In this photo, the shadow of Buzz Aldrin looks like the shadow of a pole, while the leg of the space shuttle has a pretty reasonable shadow. It's as if there was some sort of extra lighting on the space suits.
If you notice, many of the pictures on the moon look perfect. So, they probably had a light camera that was easy to take pictures with, right? Wrong. Their cameras were chest mounted on their bulky suits. It's as if the astronauts had help or the photography wasn't done by the astronauts themselves. It would be very hard for them to take perfect pictures like the ones that we see.
In this photo, the towel for the wind experiment and the American flag doesn't seem to have a shadow, while the shadow of the spacecraft is perfectly shaped and looks like it's larger than the spacecraft itself.
Most of these pictures are actually from different pages of NASA's own website: http://www.nasa.gov/. There may be even more picture evidence of the moon landing studio inside their own website than on this page.
What's hard for many people to believe is that the shadow flaws and contradictions suggesting multiple light sources, the crosshair contradictions suggesting technical manipulation and the blobs suggesting a stage is all because of bad imagery from a camera or errors on a computer.
But even more evidence of fraud is being discovered.
If the moon is smaller than the earth, than the earth from the moon should look larger than the moon does from the earth. If you look at a mansion from a small house, it looks bigger than the small house being looked at from the mansion.
But in this photo (below), you can see that the earth looks no bigger from the moon than the moon does from the earth at night.
This is impossible for a real Apollo moon landing. It's really an image from the earth. In real life, what happened is that, NASA took a picture within the Van Allen Radiation Belt, used a small image for it and then put in the background so that it would look as if they were taking a picture from the moon on the earth,or at least to most people. Although you can only see part of the earth in this photo, if you use your imagination or the program paint to "add" the other side or double it, it doesn't look as big as it should be.
One of the best pieces of evidence is that the lunar rover on the moon doesn't leave any tracks on this Apollo picture:
In this picture, you can see the footprints but not the lunar rover's tracks. Off course, as one can imagine, NASA claims that the reason for this error is because the feet of the astronauts would be better at leaving marks than a lunar rover.
> There are no markings from the lunar rover in this photo. There should be at least some.
> There should be a space either in front or behind the wheels of the lunar rover, where it obviously had just rolled.
> Look at www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRSpntQ-VtY&feature=related. It shows that the lunar rover should be making completely visible tracks with visible markings on the ground, because of the amount of dust it sends out into the air, even when inside a vacuum.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FGrsXZm-bo shows some evidence that during some of the clips, the astronauts were on wire supports. If you double the speed of the clips supposedly of "man on the moon," you will notice the astronauts appear to be moving in the earth's gravity. David S. Percy is famous for spreading the wired lunar footage theory. But then, mythbusters tried to prove it wrong. See:
www.youtube.com/watchv=YDQPgHkD8A&feature=related
Off course, mythbusters and Percy might both be wrong about the wire supports. Instead, NASA might have used rather lightweight suits and then slowed the motion down by 50%. Or, maybe Percy's right about maybe all of the videos, and mythbusters didn't use the right adjustments, settings or focus that NASA did, faking the lunar landings. There are so many possibilities and pieces of evidence of fraud. Mythbusters didn't do anything near a necessary test.
(Above) This Apollo 16 photo's biggest and most noticeable shadow seems to have a curve, while the object it comes from is definitely not curved. It's as if the shadow was faked in the first place. Shadows of straight objects are straight themselves, except in water. This photo is definitely fake.
Even if the curved shadow was a possibility outside of faked photo, or an area with several light sources, why doesn't the same thing appear to happen in a similar photo from the same mission (Apollo sixteen)? Some who say the shadows on some of the pictures might be curved because of the hill are proven wrong by this photo.
Compare these two pictures, both of Buzz Aldrin from NASA's apollo 11 image galery, www.history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/apollo.html. In one of the photos, Buzz Aldrin appears to have a sign on the top/back of his suit.
If radiation in space or friction of the re- entry into the earth's atmosphere doesn't prove that the moon "landings" were hoaxed, the photo and video evidence still does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)