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
Reflectors sitting on the surface could have been dropped to the surface by ubmanned missions. The only photo I’ve found of a reflector on the Moon, is a NASA photo from Apollo 11.
To this date, no one seems to be able to take images of the junk on the surface, so they show us reconstructed photos, like from SELENE in 2008. A few years ago, there was an hour long program showing our landing on the Moon, 98% using reconstruction, from SELENE, What sort of proof is this? And do they think the population is that dumb?
From Wikipedia/third party evidence:
“As with SELENE, the Terrain Mapping Camera of India’s Chandrayaan-1 probe did not have enough resolution to record Apollo hardware”
So, they show us nothing as proof. Brilliant!
May be it was a conspiracy by US government to beat USSR… But there is no way to find the truth now when Neil Armstrong is no more…. The human civilization will always accept his as truth unless some clear evidence proves the conspiracy if it was at all!!!
Did you know that many of the people involved in the moon landing died from a car crash? I find it funny that the could fully operate a space shuttle, but they can’t drive a car right. Anyone agree?
Did you know that many of the people involved in the moon landing died from a car crash?
Upwards of 90 people die *every day* in car crashes in the US; it’s not at all surprising that a lot people “involved in the moon landing” died in a car wreck when a lot of people *period* die in car wrecks. In the ’70s and ’80s something like 20 out of every 100,000 people died in a car crash.
I find it funny that the could fully operate a space shuttle, but they can’t drive a car right.
The shuttles weren’t dodging eleventy million other shuttles at rush hour, piloted by people who were drunk, distracted, barely competent, etc. Not that the shuttles had anything to do with the Moon landings, but hey…
Not surprisingly, astronauts or astronaut wannabes like to go fast. Jim Lovell drove a corvette in Apollo 13, for example. Car crashes aren’t that unusual.
It seems you think that Neil Armstrong was the only astronaut to set foot on the moon? There were 11 others you know?
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has directly imaged all of the Apollo landing sites multiple times, from multiple altitudes, and with different angles of illumination. Those images have been collected into “flipbooks” as follows:
The LM descent stages are clearly visible, with very prominent shadows when the sun’s at a low angle. You can also clearly make out the astronaut footpaths, and the tracks from the LRV at the 15, 16, and 17 landing sites. Depending on the angle of illumination, you can see reflections from the equipment and detritus left on the surface.
I notice the proof photos of the landing sites come from NASA and not another country. JPL has had the tech to create any 3D image on anything for years. Real proof would be a radar ping from another countries mapper or even one picture of the stars while the ship was on the way to or circling the moon. No one had a Hubble telescope in 1969 and no one had ever seen the stars outside the atmosphere, but the Apollo program thought it was not worth the time to even take one picture. They say the earth and moon were too bright. That is not true. The major stars can be seen anytime the capsule was turned from the sun. And one of the reasons the dark side of the moon is called the dark side is because the sun is blocked.
even one picture of the stars while the ship was on the way to or circling the moon.
I’ve explained this before, multiple times. You simply cannot expose for the sunlit surface of the Moon and the stars at the same time; photographic film simply does not have the necessary dynamic range. Expose for the stars and the sunlit lunar surface would be a fuzzy, detail-free white blob. Expose for the sunlit lunar surface (which was the primary focus of the Apollo missions, after all) and the stars simply don’t register.
The Apollo missions didn’t carry any equipment that wasn’t devoted to exploring the lunar surface, period.
The rest of the world doesn’t feel any pressing need to image the Apollo landing sites because a) they’ve already taken the physical samples, instrument readings, radio telemetry, and yes, even the photographs, as sufficient evidence that the US put men on the moon and brought them back (along with several hundred pounds of rocks and regolith), b) there’s plenty of interesting science to be done at sites other than the Apollo sites, and c) most of this work can be done from orbit, without a camera capable of resolving the equipment left behind.
The pictures from the LRO are about as fake as they could get away with. A few shadows do not prove anything in an age where a computer enhanced photo can show individual stars on the flags. If they are trying to prove they went then have another country supply the area photos such as the European or Indian moon missions. Not A Straight Answer is not a source for anything but Apollo lies. I know your argument is the camera wasn’t good enough or the sun was too bright or the non-exsistant atmosphere clouded the pictures. Time to look hard at what is missing from the record not at what has been faked.
No information gotten from a Wikipedia site is credible.
I watched Channel 4 news (UK) last evening 16 July 2019, of a series of televised clips from the moon landing and have not been convinced since I saw the original back in 69.
The last shot last evening was the televised lift off from the moon’s surface and lo and behold the camera panned obligingly to follow the craft upwards.
Who panned the camera?????
His name was Ed Fendell, a controller in Houston in charge the remotely-controlled camera on the LRV.
Yes, he had to take the signal delay into account – he had to anticipate the liftoff and rate of ascent. He was a little bit off on the azimuth so the LM eventually falls out of the frame faster than he can correct, but he was able to track it for 30 seconds or so.
There’s plenty of photographic evidence showing the Apollo lunar landing sites, but apparently you’re not very good at doing a simple google search. Here’s a link to the Apollo 17 landing site photo, clearly showing the equipment left behind, and the tracks made by the astronauts and the lunar rover.
What about the sheilding of the craft? This question has been raised a number of times. Supposidly, the trip each time through the Van Allen belts was made when it would be at it’s lowest for radiation. Even so, I’ve heard estimates of 6 feet thickness of lead or equivalent for protection. That sounds high. Let’s say one 1mm thickness of lead would be enough. Even so, that would be a thick hull as they used basically, aluminum.
It takes about 1mm of lead to block 99% of 100keV x-ray radiation.
Lead 0.12 mm
Copper 1.8 mm
Iron 2.6 mm
Aluminum 15.9 mm
Water 41.5 mm
Air 35550 mm
Aluminum is a terrible radiation shield. A sheet of lead as thick as a piece of paper works as well as a block of aluminum thicker than your finger. Aluminum is more than 10 times worse than lead. It’s more than 6 times worse than iron.
We can’t tell the true composition of the materials and thickness used, as all the plans and drawings from the Apollo missions was destroyed because they didn’t have room to store it. What would be probably the greatest feat of man to date and the paperwork is destroyed due to lack of storage. Makes no sense.
No paper trail has probably made me question the whole program more than anything. Today, someone would have to construct plans from scratch. Even with todays technology and all the years that have passed, I’ve not seen any plans, by anyone. Russia or China has not landed a man on the moon. Seems strange, if it could be done, why they haven’t.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_metal_is_an_effective_radiation_shield#ixzz1w4ShTHQA
X-rays aren’t the problem in the Van Allen belts; high-energy charged particles (protons and electrons) are the issue (which makes sense, since charged particles can be easily trapped in a magnetic field, as opposed to high-frequency EM radiation like X- or gamma rays). As such, the shielding requirements aren’t quite so severe (charged particles are more easily blocked than EM radiation).
And since the transit times through the belts were so short, the total exposure was kept around 5 REM.
so tell us why the most incredible journey humankind ever undertook… destroyed all blueprints of craft and equipment, space suits as well…. and all first generation photographic evidence destroyed? those two pieces of evidence MUST throw red flags…
Paper copies were destroyed because storage costs money; many (not all) documents were saved to microfilm for long-term storage. Some of these documents are available online, such as:
That’s far from a complete list; I’m sure there are more. A random Google search of “apollo spacecraft technical drawings” will show dozens of diagrams, schematics, and other images.
It’s also worth remembering that the whole Apollo project was distributed among multiple contractors – North American Aviation built the Command Module, Grumman built the Lunar Module, Rocketdyne built the F1 and J2 engines, etc. Each owned their own set of construction blueprints, and each had their own long-term storage policies.
We also have hardware that was built but never flown that can serve as reference articles.
Some futher googling indicates that the original Saturn V plans are stored at MSFC in Huntsville, AL (which would make sense); however, the source I found isn’t authoritative (it’s a forum discussion with no links), so don’t take that as gospel.
What is true is that all the tooling and equipment required to build the Saturn V was destroyed after the Apollo program was canceled.
Not that we’re ever going to build it again; not only is there no tooling, it used components and electronics that are no longer manufactured anywhere. NASA’s new heavy lifter will use some legacy Shuttle technology (the SSMEs, the SRBs, etc.), but the electronics and guidance equipment will be fairly current.
In these videos I absolutely and unequivocally prove that the Apollo moon landing footage is manufactured on Earth through extensive analysis of falling objects and sand seen in the TV footage. However the complete analysis is far more involved than just that. I believe you will be impressed.
The Presentation videos are YouTube and Vimeo upload-ready. I would also appreciate if you would post all of the video links provided below for download by anyone.
A kind citizen has already uploaded the main videos to his site. You can view them here:
The more the merrier!
I thank you.
Make_Believe___part_one___MAIN_____.mp4 5.94 GB
Make_Believe___part_two___APPENDIX_.mp4 1.88 GB
TVcamera footage edits:
A11_tvcamera_raw_and_retime_f4v.zip 641.7 MB
A12_tvcamera_raw_and_retime_f4v.zip 160.1 MB
A14_tvcamera_raw_and_retime_f4v.zip 1.93 GB
A15_tvcamera_raw_and_retime_f4v.zip 2.89 GB
A16_tvcamera_raw_and_retime_f4v.zip 3.97 GB
A17_tvcamera_raw_and_retime_f4v.zip 4.10 GB