Moon landing photographs are the main argument for the Apollo conspiracy believers, as there are thousands of moon photographs that have anomalies on them. (i.e.: […]
Continue Reading Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Photographic Evidence
Saying the moon landing happened is just like saying aliens exist. There may be some proof but loads more prove them wrong.
I beleive that the ANUNNAKI have been on the MOON for 450,000 years and they have controlled everything on Earth for that time–Thanks!!!!
I beleive that there was a hoax-but I beleive the anunnaki had furnished us with the pictures!!!!
Like the conspiracy!!!!
Guys, my question is very simple and I hope it will help us understand the truth or the flaw in the facts…….
How do you direct your rocket to another rotating sub-planet, which rotates around your planet so fast that you can see it move around with your own eyes through the sky within one single night. Its like you are riding a unicorn on a marry-go-round and you plan to jump to another unicorn on another marry-go-round. You can visualize the fact by keeping the fact of the size of someone riding on a planet, instead of the unicorn. To which direction did the fly and how they calculated that they would land precisely on the moon? In the space, propelling is not an option, so the velocity shall remain constant. So you are never able to land your spaceship right on its bottom S.A.F.E.L.Y.
In addition to that, when you pay billions of dollars to reach moon, its ridiculous if you use a low def cam. Those are not your vacations videos and images that you can take with anything like stone carving or something. You can expand your thoughts furthermore while concentrating on WHY DID WE DO THIS WHEN WE PAID BILLIONS?
The reason the moon appears to move across the sky in one night is because the Earth is rotating.
Pay attention to the phases of the moon. If the moon were moving that fast you would also see the shadows change (waxing or wanning). You don’t do you?
The amount of time for the moon to orbit the Earth is about 28 days. Thus moving slow enough for a rocket to safely land on it.
Photographs are not evidence, either way.
See hundreds of photos of ghosts, spirit mediums ectoplasm, fairies, aliens, UFOs, and the like.
It is all too easy to claim a genuine photo is a fake, and also too easy to present a fake as genuine.
I watched the first landing, on a black & white TV, in bed with my wife, late at night. I didn’t need photographs to convince me it was genuine, we didn’t have the technology back then to create a convincing fake.
We couldn’t even do it on a cinema film. Stop-motion plaster monsters was the best we could manage.
The hoax fans think that modern photoshop was available in the 60s? Well it wasn’t.
I agree. We can’t even fake something like that convincingly today, never mind 40 years ago.
Just watch movies like Apollo 13, From the Earth to the Moon, or the trailer for Transformers 3. You’ll find all sorts of flaws like dust floating in the air when the astronauts walk on the moon. You don’t see that in the real Apollo footage.
NASA would have had to be pretty stupid to think they could fake the moon landings and fool everyone forever. And getting caught in a lie that big would be far more damaging to the reputation of the United States than simply admitting that they couldn’t go to the moon would have been. So it’s ridiculous to believe the whole thing was a hoax.
Sounds to me you all don’t want to accept the fact that our country is lying to us. It’s ok my goodfellows, they’re lying to all of us! So we’re together on this, but the disbelief is what’s stopping us from stopping them.
I agree with the person above me. In the 60’s there was no possible way to fake something like that. Imagine making a movie like Avatar back then….there is no way! There is simply no way to fake that.
What do you mean there’s no way to fake it. Look at the pictures! It looks like it’s a movie from the 60s! It’s so cheap looking and not a sophisticated looking photo. How can you compare Avatar??? That movie is computer generated and obviously they didn’t have that technology back then. I feel like my drama teacher can make a set like this on my school auditorium stage. Accept the lies dude! And forreal think about this, how could the astronauts have known the cameras were focused before they took each pic if they weren’t looking through the viewfinders. It’s strapped to their chests. But ok, when we’re all slaves to the Illuminati you’ll wish you had believed then.
It does not matter if a lot of people believe the moon landings were faked. The truth is not determined by a vote. If a lot of people believed in the tooth fairy would that make it true?
What matters are the facts, and the facts support Apollo having really landed on the moon.
We’re all entitled to our own beliefs, but we are not entitled to our own facts. It does not make one bit of difference whether you agree with the facts or not.
But what about the facts that prove they didn’t land. Shadows, camera focus, lighting, dust being pulled down to a rate equivalent to the Earth’s gravity. Once again, you guys don’t want to accept the fact that we’re being fooled.
But what about the facts that prove they didn’t land. Shadows, camera focus, lighting, dust being pulled down to a rate equivalent to the Earth’s gravity.
People have been explaining on these pages and elsewhere why these “facts” mean nothing of the sort. Uneven terrain results in uneven shadows; you see it all the damned time on Earth, why shouldn’t it be the same case on the Moon?
There are plenty of out-of-focus, badly-exposed, badly-framed shots taken on the surface, such as
As for lighting, in addition to the Sun you have sunlight being reflected from the Earth, the lunar surface, the LM and equipment, and the spacesuits. The spacesuits especially are responsible for the light fill in some of the images that look like they might have been taken with a flash.
As for “dust being pulled down at the same rate as Earth’s gravity”, well, I’d like to see the math on that. What I see interesting about the dust is how it doesn’t float away; it all crashes back down onto the surface. There’s no billowing, it doesn’t stay suspended.
You clearly have issues with the conduct of the US government. Great; so do I. Yes, we are turning into a police state. Yes, we have committed atrocities against our own people and others for decades. Yes, the government has put out propaganda and disinformation aimed at American citizens.
That can all be true, and it can also be true that the Apollo program really existed, that we really landed men on the Moon and brought them back safely. There’s simply too much evidence to think otherwise.
I’ve said it here before: if you think that the Apollo program was a hoax, the burden is on you to provide evidence for your case. If you think the photographs were shot on a sound stage, it’s not enough for you to blather about shadows and lighting; you have to provide evidence that such a sound stage existed, and that the mission photographs were taken on that sound stage. Where was it built? How did they simulate the effects of 1/6 gravity and no atmosphere?
SHOW ME A PICTURE FROM BACKSTAGE, not an image from the public archives that’s been repeatedly compressed, rotated, filtered, manipulated, etc., to emphasize a strange reflection on Buzz Aldrin’s helmet. Show me a grip smoking a cigarette on the lunar surface. Show me the wires used to simulate lunar gravity. That’s the kind of evidence you need to provide.
its so nice to see people have sense. the moon landings were real. i read all the so called know it alls that think they know everything about the moon and the earth. conspiracy cheerleaders will do anything to keep their scam alive. saying nasa killed people, come on! grow a brain. i have heard many intelligent people make very unintelligent comments. many things can be explained if they would just listen. two shows like mythbusters and fact or faked, did their tests and concluded we really went to the moon. of course, theorists believe that both are paid by nasa to keep quiet. and lie. that shows how they think. no need to even bother, they will never listen.
umm excuse me for interupting yall but,,,
NASA was created by ex german “nazi’s” remember them?? project papreclip??
do your research.
do u think nazis who create a space program ,post creating a series of death camps in europe, would be trustworthy to deliver u ” advances” like moon landings??
our country has been sideblinded by the banker gangsters long time ago!!!!
why is going to the moon for milluions to billions of dollars a human advancement??
we still deny our ancient ancestors claims of ufos, “flying carpaets” and glowing “flying chariots” in the sky since antiquity!!
google mayan airplanes
..google the fact google is owned by big brother, along with facebook!!
google 9-11 truth, or pilotsfor911truth.com
what/..controls the u.s.a.??
oh yeah…whay was there no jet propullsion marks under the lunar craft when it leaves the moon headed back?? ummm, no dust moves, no marks
wake up, its after the snoring,, so easy to do.
Its plan to see you don’t have much knowledge in the way of rocket technology.
Jet and rockets are vastly different. Remember, the “rocket” fuel for the lunar Lander was Hydrogen and Oxygen. If you look at the liftoff video of Apollo 11, you will see dust being speud out from under the craft and the flag waving fiercely from the exhaust.
If you were expecting scorch marks, there is no carbon to burn. Hence no scorch marks.
As for Nazis, the scientist in Germany during WWII were not Nazis. Get you facts right before posting. You’re making a fool of your self.
von Braun was a member of the Nazi party and a commissioned SS officer. He claimed that he joined solely so that he could continue his research (the Nazis banned all civilian rocket research); other people have disputed that account.
I don’t doubt that at least a few of the scientists brought to the US as part of Operation Paperclip were true believers in the Nazi cause and genuinely evil people. I don’t think von Braun was a true believer, but he was willing to let other people suffer and die in order to continue his work (which is evil enough).
None of that has any bearing on the reality of the moon landings, though. von Braun could have been every bit the evil sonofabitch that Hitler himself was; the rockets he built still flew people to the Moon and back.
Yea saying NASA killed people is kinda farfetch. But who did they kill they’re own astronauts. People are brutally abused by U.S. authorities EVERYDAY. So what’s a few lives to the major branches and corporations of our gov’t. Just like any civilian over in Iraq, expendable if needed and replaceable if needed. Just because we’re the “United States” doesn’t mean we’re all good. In fact we’re savages. Look at some of the ruthless things our gov’t does. Prime example: our troops. They’re expendable, fighting for nothing. We SUPPOSEDLY went over there for W.O.M.D.. Haven’t found any yet. We’re over their to conquer their oil fields, and charge the whole world with OUR prices. Yea your thinking “well I’m in the U.S., so I get exclusive gas prices. Ride down the street to Wawa and tell me if those are exclusice prices. Think on that.
remember what i said…
nasa was created by nazi’s
nazis safely exited europe, came to america via passports provided by vatican, project paperclip!
started the cia…
google “the bush connection” by eric orion
google otto skorzeney
I can’t believe anyone still takes these Apollo photographs seriously… There are so many anomalies with them, and more are being found all the time.
Maybe we did get men on the moon, but no way are those NASA pictures the true record of it.
“There are so many anomalies with them, and more are being found all the time.”
“There are so many anomalies with them, and more are being found all the time.”
What is more believable? That a bunch of amateur conspiracy theorists have found anomalies in the Apollo photographs that professional historians haven’t noticed over the course of 40 years, or that those amateur conspiracy theorists are mistaking completely normal effects for anomalies?
I vote for the latter. But maybe you’d like to show me an example of one of these photographic anomalies that doesn’t have an explanation.
From the article:
“But there is a very reasonable explanation, the cameras that the Apollo mission used, had manual light filters, (a bit like the pupil of your eye). The Sun reflects off of the moons surface and the white suits of the astronauts. Making both exceptionally bright, while the stars (because they are so far away) are quite dim.”
This dances around the truth a bit, and I’d like to expand on it if I may.
It all comes down to the limitations of photographic film, which has a non-linear response to light. Below a certain level of exposure (expressed in lux-seconds), the film simply doesn’t record an image; after processing, that area of film is blank (pure black on a print). Above a certain level of exposure, the film is as dense as it can get, and no more information can be recorded; after processing, that area is totally opaque (pure white on a print). Between these two levels, the response is more or less linear, and you get a steady gradation of tones (black, very dark grey, dark grey, grey, light grey, very light grey, white). If you check the data sheet for the film, such as the one for Kodak Tri-X:
you’ll find a series of charts labeled “Characteristic Curves”, which shows this non-linear behavior for various developers, processes, and development times.
It turns out that the range of exposure levels between pure white and pure black is roughly 1000:1 (depending on the specific film and processing method), meaning the brightest area in the scene can’t be more than 1000 times brighter than the dimmest area if you want to record both in the same frame with any detail. If the two areas fall outside of that range, then you can either capture the dim areas and overexpose the bright ones, or you can capture the bright areas and not record the dim ones. This is why pictures taken on a sunny day have such stark shadows; the range between the shadows and the highlights is approaching the limits of what the film can handle, so the shadows wind up looking extremely dark.
So film can’t capture a dynamic range outside of 1000:1. Unfortunately, the sunlit surface of the Moon is more than 1000 times brighter than the brightest stars. As seen from Earth, a full moon is more than *30,000* times brighter than the stars (see the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_magnitude for an explanation of how that number was computed).
There’s no way to expose for the lunar surface *and* the stars in the same image; it is simply beyond the capability of the medium to record. If they had exposed for the stars, the lunar surface would have been a detail-free blob of pure white. By exposing for the surface, the stars simply don’t register on the film.
I’m limiting this discussion to film since that’s what was used on the Apollo missions, but sensors in modern digital cameras are similarly limited; they can’t capture a much better dynamic range than film.
As I pointed out in another comment, this is something you can test for yourself. Grab a camera with manual exposure controls. If film, use ISO-100 speed film; if digital, set the ISO level to 100. Go outside on the next clear, sunny day in the late morning or early afternoon. Set your shutter speed (Tv) to 125 (1/125 seconds) and your aperture (Av) to f16 and take a picture of the landscape. Now set Tv to 30″ (thirty seconds) and take another picture of the same scene (you will want to put the camera on a tripod for that). The first picture will be properly exposed. The second will be horribly overexposed and show up as a blank white frame.
Now, go outside on the next clear, moonless night and take pictures of the stars using the same exposure settings. At Tv=125, you should have a black frame. At Tv=30″ (and a tripod), you should see at least the brightest stars.
Another way of thinking about this is to realize that the Moon is clearly visible during daylight hours right around its first quarter phase, whereas the stars are swamped by the light scattered by the atmosphere; again, the Moon is just many thousands of times brighter than the stars.
“There’s no way to expose for the lunar surface *and* the stars in the same image”
That should read, “There’s no way to expose for the *sunlit* lunar surface *and* the stars in the same image”.
Obviously, if you’re taking a picture during lunar “night”, you should be able to expose for both the surface and the stars, since the stars are the only source of illumination.