Another problem with the moon landing photos can be seen in the next two Apollo images below. Several astronauts seem to be lit up, as […]
Continue Reading Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Proof
Yes indeed, the surface of the moon has the same reflective qualities of common asphalt. Without any tar. Asphalt is grey-white. And unfortunatley for your experiment, the sun is many, many magnitudes brighter and has a much wider spread than any spotlight you will get your hands on. You know, it might be a better idea to stand someone on a large grey plain (Like a salt lake) with the SUN behind them and see if you can make out any of their features. can you? Yes? DEBUNKED.
The astronaut and the dirt are moving at different velocities because they were not dropped at the same time. Astronauts possess their own propulsion (Those leg things we all have) and they like to leap about in low-G situations. They’ve been training most of their life specificly so they CAN leap about in low-G situations. Dirt has no propulsion and no will of it’s own and drops at a constant rate. Newtonian physics are not absolute and universal, hence why astrophysicists explain away the inexplicable with dark matter and neutroniums etc.
Had you been alive in the middle ages you would have been screaming “DEBUNKED!” in Galileo’s face. It’s good that you’re questioning, we should ALL question, but question EVERYTHING, including your own findings, otherwise your just as bad as anyone else who has held back progress to massage their ego.
Did asphalt all of a sudden become light grey while I was away?
Nasa can tell when deadly amounts of radiation will hit the moon. So they landed when it was safe.
The moon’s reflective surface highlighted the parts of his body that were not facing the sun.
The flag moved because the flag pole was touched. Considering it was aluminum, the flag pole would be a little springy. With no atmosphere, there was nothing resisting the movement of the flag. They walk by it and it doesn’t move. So clearly there is no air.
There are no stars because with the intensity of the sun the camera cannot register the dimness of the stars.
There was more than one astronaut. Another astronaut took his picture.
interesting debate. with regard to actually searching the lunar surface for man-made artifacts from Apollo, the Paranal observatory in Chile claims it could see a man standing on the moon. whether or not they have looked I don’t know. But the Clementine probe took an enormous amount of photos from lunar orbit (I don’t know what percentage of the lunar surface they covered) at a resolution of 7-20 meters. pro-Apollo people have scoured these photos and have not found any clear shots of any Apollo remnants.
they do claim to have found the landing site of I think it was Apollo 15. but they claim to have a photo of the landing crater left by the LEM. as I am sure all of you are aware, no LEM left any landing craters which was proven by NASA’s own photos.
What is interesting and should get more interesting is that for one, we are NOW 10-15 years away from a lunar landing. why so long if we have been there before. second is if NASA or the Chinese or the Indians or the Russians all fail to get to the moon by 2020 or so, given the technological leaps we have made since the 60s, that would put a real dent in the pro-Apollo people. The pressure is on for NASA. we wil see what we will see.
what i am glad to see is that young people still hold this debate. it is important because powers that be often use the passiage of time to allow things/problems/conspiracies to die and then a new script can be written. by keeping this debate alive all of you are performing a great service.
it is the 40th for Apollo 11 this July. we will see what armstrong has to say. he is a great man but i personally think he got caught up in a great debacle.
Conspiracies theories are very interesting, but some fail to have a point. The Apollo conspiracy is one of the pointless ones. At the time of the first landing, the conspiracy theory might have had great implications, but now it is obsolete. Did NASA fake the first lunar landings? Maybe, maybe not. Has NASA since, beyond a reasonable doubt, landed on the moon? A very resounding yes to that one. So what is the point of this whole debate? If it is about government lies, then that my friends is the ultimate pointless battle.
The point of the whole debate is to give the inbred toothless morons something to do until their welfare cheque shows up.
you guys are wrong, the reason why you could see the astronuat in the shadow was because the lunar dust on the moon reflects most of the light shined onto it
I offer this to conclude the debate:
I whipped this up to settle the question.
Where are the tire tracks?
I think of heard almost every argument against the landings, and they are easily answerable. The picture of Aldrin shown above for example, is over exposed to make the astronauts suit brighter. Proof: Look at the surface that he is standing on, does it look like aspalt, which is what is said to be the reflectivity of the surface. If you put it in photoshop and lower the brightness so that the surface is not overexposed the suit is not that bright, and therefore we can conclude that it is due to reflection from the surface and not spot lights.
What about the flag waving in a vacuum. Answer: it’s not. It is supported by a horizontal rod at the top of the flag pole to make it fully visible. If you watch the video you can see that it only moves when the astronaut are in contact with the flag or the pole.
The reason for no stars in the black sky is another point. Anyone who goes out at night with their 35mm camera on a tripod,100 speed film, will realize that doing a 1/100 sec exposure at f16 or f11 will result in a black sky with no stars. This is what is needed in bright sunlight to get the surface, the equipment and the astronauts to be exposed properly. If you were on the moon and wanted to get a picture of the stars, you would need to do a 15 to 30 sec exposute at a low f number, which would cause everthing else to be hugely overexposed. It was necessary for the astronauts to use a high f number to avoid overexposure. This has the added benefit of giving a lot of depth of field. Meaning more is in focus, and therefore not requiring accurate focusing. By the way, this is why most cheap point and shoot cameras can get away with a fixed focus lens (no focusing).
One thing that I have done is to watch the video of apollo 11 while looking at the high res photos. I have all of them on my computer. You can tell when almost all of them are shot by mostly Armstrong during the 2.5 hour moon walk. Meaning that there was no need to fake the photos since we can see the photographer (Armstrong) as he takes them.
As for the dust. If you watch the videos you can tell that it is done in a vacuum, because all of the dust which is kicked up by the astronauts or the luner rover, just falls back the the surface. On earth when you do the same thing you get a dust cloud of fine particles that stay suspended in the air for some time. Because of the vacuum even though there is only 1/6th gravity, this does not happen.
One comment about the Clementine probe above, says that the resolution is 7 – 20 metres, ignores the fact that the lunar module (the largest man made object on the moon) is only about 5m, and would therefore be smaller than one pixel in size, so it would not be visible on any photos.
As for the retroreflectors that were left on the moon. When a extremely bright laser is aimed at the sites of the apollo landings that left them, the reflection can be detected with the telescopes at certain observatories. The reflection will only be detected when aimed at these sites.
It’s actually quite funny reading all of the conspiracy sites. I came across one yesterday, which said that Armstrong was contacted by aliens, who told them not to come back. Also that there is an alien base on the other side of the moon/ Hmm, so which is it, did they not really go to the moon, or did they, but aliens told them not to come back. I’ve come across a lot of conpiracy theories over the years, you know: The Kennedy Assassination ones, 9/11 conspiracies, and of course the moon hoax ones, and the all have similar things in common. There’s usually someone who was about to spill the beans (often to the one who is writting the book) but passed away just before they could tell all. (possibly the goverment had them killed, OOOOOh). This idea probably started because of the Oswald killing, which led to that conspiracy theory. Usually the conspiracy theorists claim that the reason the ones in the know (such as the astronauts) can’t say anything, because their lives are in danger. Oh please. Do you really thing that the lives of these astronauts in their 70’s or 80’s are being fallowed by govermnent agents (who by now would also be that old, unless they keep passing it down to younger agents who would now be part of an even bigger conspiracy). Also no evidence of the moon hoax is ever given. Where are all of the people who built the sets. You would have to have alot of truck drivers bringing in loads of gray dirt, and back hoe operators, digging all of those craters. Did you ever see an interview from some 80 year old guy, saying, yup, back in the 60’s I spent years working on the moon sets. Oh ya I forgot, his life would also be in danger if he gave an interview. Think about it people the hoax theories are all rediculous internet nonsense. The idea that all of this was done in a studio doesn’t add up. There is 16mm film of the rover driving long distances with the LM off in the distance. What kind of spot light could light this, without there being multiple shadows from singe objects. Answer: Here’s how they did it. Get ready – Brace yourself. They got in a Saturn V rocket, flew to the moon, landed, and returned, with all of the evidence: rocks dust, photos, film and video, that any person who actually looks at them, will know (not think, but know), that they actually did this. Nine times they went to the moon. that’s right NINE TIMES. Six of which they actually landed (Three they only orbited the moon), and returned, and most amazingly, they did it in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s.
So why can’t they do it now you might ask. Answer: Because they stopped building the Saturn V rocket, which was the only rocked ever built which can lift a large enough payload into orbit, and instead opted for the reusable space shuttle. So it has nothing to do with technology being better now, and they can’t go so therefore people conclude that they never went. Just try getting on a supersonic passanger jet tomorrow. Oh ya, there isn’t one flying now, because the concorde has been put out of service. Does that mean that there never was supersonic passanger flights. Gee, there was in the 60’s and 70’s when the moon flights were taking place. Perhaps technology has taken a step backwards, or costs for both were just too high so they were cancelled.
I know someone is going to read this and still believe the conspiracy stuff, because I didn’t answer ever question. I can see it now. “There’s too much radiation, so they couldnt have gone” Doh. (as Homer would say).
wow. you are wrong. apollo was fake. bye.
u are wrong, the onlu conspiracy was the conspiracy, the landing was real, all the evidence proves u wrong…… bye…..p
so nasa was fake? wheres your proof? u dont have any. you arent a nasa expert. i saw neil armstrong hit a man in the hall on a video, cause he told him the moon landing was fake. good! maybe knock some sense into those fools…
Almost had me believing it for a minute.
thanks u for saying all that! i get so many emails from nutcases telling me i am wrong.they just dont listen. we landed and thats that, so much evidence proves the hoaxers wrong, they all need to sign organ donor cards, because they are all braindead…..
The organ donor card should make it more clear that they are supposed to wait until they die before they hand over their brain.
Sorry to break the news to you but the government does lie to us.they lied about WMD in Iraq,the gulf of tonkin,etc..those lies not only cost 100’s of billions of dollars,it also cost millions of lives.considering that there wasnt an extroadinary loss of life with the apollo missions,this lie was fairly minor when put on the grand scale of govt lies..im not here to write an essay but ill respond to three of your points. first the flag waving.the flag waves without the astronauts touching it
the dust went up when the rover drove thru it, but there are numerous photos with the rover and no tracks behind it!
how can the rover make (and not make) tracks, but the LEM left no sign of anything kicking up!
lastly the laser refractors, the soviets managed to put them up as well with unmanned vehicles.http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=long-lost-lunar-soviet-laser-reflec-10-04-27
Sorry to break the news to you but the government does lie to us.
I’m sure they do, but how does that prove Apollo was a hoax? Just because someone lied about one thing doesn’t mean that EVERYTHING they say is a lie. If your parents lied to you about Santa Claus does that mean that everything they ever told you was a lie? No, of course not.
they lied about WMD in Iraq,the gulf of tonkin,etc..
Which is totally irrelevant to whether or not they lied about Apollo. If you want to accuse NASA of lying about the Moon landings you have to prove it with evidence related to Apollo.
considering that there wasnt an extroadinary loss of life with the apollo missions,this lie was fairly minor when put on the grand scale of govt lies..
The Apollo program cost billions of dollars. IF it was a hoax then I consider that to be pretty major. I therefore don’t take accusations against NASA and the US government lightly.
first the flag waving.the flag waves without the astronauts touching it
What other possibilities have you considered before jumping to the conclusion that the entire Apollo program was a hoax? It could be vibrations from the astronauts jumping around that moved the flag pole and disturbed the flag. Or it could be kicked up Moon dust hitting the flag. Or it could be static electricity between the astronauts and the flag. The point is that it could be something you haven’t considered… but instead you jump immediately to the belief that the whole thing is a hoax.
the dust went up when the rover drove thru it,
Yes… and in a way that could only happen in an airless environment like the Moon. The dust kicked up by the rover follows a ballistic path (an arc) because there is no air to cause it to billow like dust does on Earth. Drive down a dusty dirt road to see what I mean.
but there are numerous photos with the rover and no tracks behind it!
This argument is actually pretty funny. Do you really think it makes sense? Why would they move a wheeled vehicle around by lifting it with a crane if they could just drive or push it to where they wanted it?
Doesn’t it make more sense that the tire tracks were disturbed by the astronauts walking around, or that they simply weren’t visible from the angle that the photograph was taken from?
how can the rover make (and not make) tracks, but the LEM left no sign of anything kicking up!
I suggest you watch the Apollo 11 landing again. As they approach the surface you can clear see dust being disturbed by the rocket engine. Buzz Aldrin even says “we’re kicking up some dust”.
lastly the laser refractors, the soviets managed to put them up as well with unmanned vehicles.
Yes, but don’t you think it would be pretty stupid to tell the entire world exactly (with laser precision) where they landed if they didn’t really go to the Moon?
Eventually someone else in the future will go to the Moon and one of the first places they will go is the Apollo 11 landing site. If the landings were faked there will be nothing there to see… so it would make no sense at all for NASA to give us the precise location of the landing sites if they are lying.
THINK before you speak.
those were EXAMPLES of govt lies, and they havent lied about “just one thing” as you stated (there is actually 16 million on record), no where did i say those lies were related to the apollo missions. first, my parents didnt tell me santa was real, they told me the truth that they worked hard for and paid for the gifts under the tree. “The Apollo program cost billions of dollars. IF it was a hoax then I consider that to be pretty major. I therefore don’t take accusations against NASA and the US government lightly.”-do you work for the govt? lol, iraq was a lie, gulf of tonkin was a lie, all of which are costing/costed us billions, not to mention the human toll. and i dont think just because the flag waved when no one touched it that the whole program was a hoax. that is just one in MANY inconsistencies with the whole apollo missions. thats why i gave other examples. if you look at some shots of the rover there is no tracks or nothing behind it. of course they couldve lift it with a crane, there was probably more than one there like on movie sets..as far as the LEM kicking up dust. sure the astronauts said they were kicking up dust. but when you look at the pics, there is no dust no disturbance no nothing..lastly, NASA couldve easily sent an unmanned probe to the apollo sites and have the probe set up the laser refractors..and then easily say yeah thats where we landed..NASA couldve easily sent unmanned probes to the landing site with “apollo equipment” and when photographed say oh yeah there is remnants of the apollo mission..keep believing the govt dude. maybe you should find work there.
those were EXAMPLES of govt lies,
Examples which were totally irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if the US government lied about a billion things, it does not prove they lied about Apollo. Even habitual liars tell the truth sometimes.
If you want to prove that Apollo was faked you have to prove it with evidence relevant to Apollo.
i dont think just because the flag waved when no one touched it that the whole program was a hoax. that is just one in MANY inconsistencies with the whole apollo missions. thats why i gave other examples.
And your other examples were just as flawed as your flag example. You have ignored other explanations and jumped to the conclusion that Apollo was a hoax. You haven’t done any research, you have simply chosen to believe what you want to believe.
of course they couldve lift it with a crane,
Sure they could, but WHY would they do that? Why lift something with a crane if it has wheels and can be pushed or driven to where you want it? Do you think NASA is a bunch of idiots? Don’t you think they would have realized that the rover should be leaving tracks?
It makes a whole lot more sense that the rover tracks are just not visible from the angle the photograph was taken or that the tracks were disturbed by that astronauts.
there was probably more than one there like on movie sets..
Show me a picture of one of these cranes then. The astronauts took 360 degree panoramic photographs and video of the lunar surface… where is the support structure for the crane?
as far as the LEM kicking up dust. sure the astronauts said they were kicking up dust. but when you look at the pics, there is no dust no disturbance no nothing..
Yes, there is. You just aren’t looking hard enough.
If you look at the following picture you’ll see the lines in the lunar surface caused by the blast from the descent engine.
NASA couldve easily sent an unmanned probe to the apollo sites and have the probe set up the laser refractors
You think that is plausible? I think it’s ridiculous.
In order to do that NASA engineers would have had to design, build, test, and launch those robotic landers without anyone spilling the beans. And how did they hide the rocket launches that sent the robots to the Moon?
and then easily say yeah thats where we landed..NASA couldve easily sent unmanned probes to the landing site with “apollo equipment” and when photographed say oh yeah there is remnants of the apollo mission..
Wouldn’t it be easier to just send astronauts to the Moon? This is what I find so funny about conspiracy nuts like you… your theories are more complicated than actually sending people to the Moon would be. Your theories are a joke.
the flag waves without the astronauts touching it
Not in the linked video. The only times the flag waves are when they’re trying to set it into place, and towards the end when one of them brushes against it while moving across the frame. Without air to damp the motion, it waves for a little longer than we’d expect down here.
the dust went up when the rover drove through it, but there are numerous photos with the rover and no tracks behind it!
Uh-huh. In some cases it’s due to the angle of the photograph; in others it’s because the astronauts have obliterated the tracks by skipping through them (you can see the bootprints all over the place in one of them).
but the LEM left no sign of anything kicking up!
Not if you look carefully; you’ll see the rays of ejected material radiating from the descent stage.
Two things to remember about the descent stage:
1. In a vacuum, the exhaust plume expands immediately upon leaving the nozzle, so that the exhaust was hitting a much wider area than just under the nozzle (check out the videos of Falcon rocket launches at SpaceX.com; you’ll see the exhaust plumes expand and get much less flamey as the vehicle climbs out of the atmosphere);
2. The descent stage was throttled down to roughly 10% of total output for landing, or about 4000 N of force, compared to over 40,000 N at full power.
So you had a diffuse exhaust at low power. You’re not going to be digging any deep craters; you’ll blow off the lightest surface material, but that’s about it. It’s similar to a Harrier landing (except that you’re using a rocket instead of a jet).
lastly the laser refractors, the soviets managed to put them up as well with unmanned vehicles.
Yup. We decided to do it with people.
The challenge I’ve made several times is, if the Apollo scientific instruments were delivered by unmanned missions, where were those missions launched from? When were they launched? Where’s the paper trail for them (this is the government, there is going to be a paper trail)? You can’t launch a lunar mission from just anywhere on the Earth; your inclination must be favorable for a trans-lunar injection orbit, or you have to burn a lot of fuel to change your orbital plane (meaning bigger boosters which are harder to hide). The boosters must have been big enough to lift a few tonnes into high orbit, meaning they weren’t bottle rockets, meaning they would have been very visible. The Soviets would certainly have noticed and called us on it.
So, where were they? Come up with solid evidence for those launches, and you’d have some credibility.
Of course the Government lies. DUH!!
Let Myth busters help you sprout a brain.
After debating all this; I still dont seem to understand WHY would they do all this …
So that NASA puts itself in an humiliating position when someone later discovers that they werent on the moon ?
STMan has summed it up alright …
The fake photos were because Nixon was told it might not be possible to get good tv reception from the moon but he wanted to flaunt the landing because of the cold war race we were involved with. Pure political propaganda. The fakes were originally made to be used in the event we could not get the actual transmissions from the moon. This was political hi-jinks and had nothing to do with the question of NASA’s technical capabilities of putting a man on the moon. They could, we did.
As feared the transmissions could not be received (or possibly for security reasons, shown) so we showed the fakes. The still photos were released as the scenery (rocks, background, etc.) had to match the tv transmissions.
Defending the intelligence and/or integrity of the men and women who accomplished this is not even relevant to the question of hoaxed pictures.
One of the major problems here is that people on both sides of the argument fail to realize that faked moon pictures are only evidence of faked moon pictures, not a faked moon landing.
A little logic please. Consider:
1. Faked moon pictures do not mean the landing was faked.
2. That the landing was real does not mean the photos are real.
Stop debating until you at least know what the subject is. I tell you the photos are fake, you try to prove the landing was real. You cannot see the disconnect? Your lack of critical thinking demonstrates you would all make very poor quality researchers, scientific or otherwise.
Wow.. with the all of the technology of a digital watch, switches, and a few feet of wire…. “To the Moon.” Just think of what we could have accomplished with a Commodore 64 and some bailing wire… “To Mars, or perhaps.. Pluto…”
nasa woulds spend millions of dollars on a fake moon landing but they wont spend money on the costly fake photos your a moron. dude get a life and stop this your an insult to the american way how about gets some pride man or go move to russia. You saying this is an insult to the great american men who went to the moon and the men who helped get them home get a life