On all of the Apollo cameras used to take pictures of the moon landing there is a + in the middle of the lens to help with distance but on some of the pictures objects overlap the plus.
This suggests that the plus was added later.
But the answer for this is simple.
If you notice, all of the overlapping objects are bright and white. Because of this, the colour background bleeds into the thin cross, making the cross fade/disappear.
The two images below especially show that if the plus is on a bright colour photograph, then the plus disappears.
But there is still one problem with one of the Apollo moon photos, on the bottom left corner of a photographic, there is a moon rock with the letter c ‘engraved’ on it. What more, the letter c is commonly used on movie props.
But again! There is a answer. For a start, if NASA really did use the alphabet as coding for movie props, then NASA would be limited to only 26 props, which on a ‘set’ as big as the moon landing would seriously limit a billion dollar funded project. What’s more, the photographic negatives, and the smaller prints of the same photo doesn’t show the letter C.
If you zoom into the C you can see a shadow on the top bit of the c. This suggests that the c wasn’t flat on the rock. You can also see, that the c is a different colour to the rock (a dark yellow).
This points to a bit of fiber or hair, which dropped onto the smaller image when it was being enlarged. (Special thanks to lunaanomiles.com).
See our Apollo Moon Landing Forum.
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Photographic Evidence
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Video Evidence
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Scientific Evidence
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Why Fake a Moon Landing?
26 responses to Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems
cripes…is this the best people can come up with? a letter C on a photo so it must be a hoax!!! give me a break….
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
8 
7 (+1)
it is impossible to have a “hair” on the moon as no one has EVER been to the moon before without having a helmet on as they would die from the chemicals up there…
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
4 
27 (-23)
Clown...
The hair wasn’t on the moon. It was on the gate of the photo processing equipment on planet Earth. The best things about you moon hoax clowns is your deep lack of basic film production techniques or the fact that now, 40+ years later we still can’t make a “hoax” that convincing.
…Rock “C”…yeah…like everybody puts a giant letter on their props so that the camera can see it…
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
0 (+1)
The “C” was not on the rock, it was only on a duplicate photo, but not the original. The “C” rock photo is AS16-107-17446 you can do a search of the original on NASA’s archive.
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
The same rock also is on photo AS16-107-17445, but the “C” never appeared on that photo, proving that it was a flaw or debris on the copy or duplicate negative of only photo AS16-107-17446.
As for the crosshairs, the camera had a glass plate with fine aluminum, crosshairs imbedded in the glass. When a very bright area over a crosshair was exposed, the bright light bled into the film, exposing the small area that was to be blocked by the crosshair, and therefore the crosshair disapeared. You can prove this by looking at all the photos where this happens. It never disappears behind any colored object, only white that is overexposed. End of conspiracy. Now in the words of William Shatner, “Move out of your parents basement, and get a life”.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
16 
4 (+12)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems
For one thing, all cameras that have wire cross hairs in them are used for focusing techniques. Take a look at a door that has horse hair in it, which is what cross hairs consist of or probably consisted of in that day. Because of a structuring anomaly besides the fact that you have absolutely no solid proof what so ever, and the fact that you weren’t there, makes this argument completely irrelevant. Spend your time doing something else.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
6 
5 (+1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems
“Spend your time doing something else”
…like querying how the camera film used on the moon managed to survive the radiation levels that would be present (at least in this context) on a celestial body without an atmosphere or magneto sphere. DSO 318, carried aboard STS-48 (launched September 12, 1991) involved a “lead-vinyl lined Kevlar bag designed to hold one sample film canister”. The end result being (drum roll please)…”The bag offered very little protection from the penetrating space radiation”. Please note that this is all contained in “NASA Contractor Report 188427 -- The Effects of Space Radiation on Flight Film”, currently available online through Google Docs.
You’re up, Shitstorm.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
8 
7 (+1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems
You moron. You should be held up as a glowing example of abject moon-hoax dimness. Talk about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing… the film test you are talking about is so far removed from your argument I’m left assuming you needed someone else to do your typing for you. Radiation has been found to effect modern high speed films, causing contrast loss, graininess, slight fogging. So, moving quickly past your “survive” hyperbole, how about we concentrate on the fact that radiation effects in high speed film have only been a concern since the days of Skylab (and that was after the Apollo missions, numbskull). Maybe your daddy showed you the famously crisp Skylab shots of Earth from space when you were widdle? Did you tell him Skylab was a hoax too? Next time, try READING your source material, then asking someone to explain the big words to you. I can’t even say this was a nice try at creating a new conspiracy factoid. You’re up, Shithead.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
7 
5 (+2)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems
From that same paper:
This is after roughly 130 hours of radiation exposure, with total exposures in the range of 313-361 mrad, or roughly 62 to 72 mrad per day.
In short, the film was fogged a bit. Not burned up, not melted, not damaged.
I’ve found a couple of papers online that give estimates for radiation dose equivalents on the lunar surface of between 225 to 259 mSv/yr on average. Unfortunately, converting between rads and sieverts is not straightforward, so I don’t know how the numbers from STS-48 would translate. But, I strongly doubt that the radiation environment on the Moon would be so severe as to significantly damage photographic film over the period of a few days.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
2 (-1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems
Well on this page you’re showing two photos in which the “bright white” removes the black cross, to prove that this is a natural occurence. I have to admit that you convinced me for a while. But it appears that these two photos are doctored, and in fact the original same photos do not show this “bright white” vs. black bross phenomenon. I’ve checked this on other photos on: http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
5 (-4)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems
Aliens out the C on there themselves. It stands for “coming”. And means “coming for you ugly human beings”.
-Marvin The Martian
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
3 
3 (0)
woohho
this is bullshit
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
3 (-2)
Not proof
These things do not prove that we never went to the moon.
The time we did not go back to the moon makes me wonder why? And if Nasa says that there is a very small chance of making a moon landing a success because of technology, the whole moon landing, 40 years ago, is a big hoax, I believe…
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
2 (-1)
The main reason we haven’t sent people back to the Moon is $$$$$$$$$$$$, even if we don’t take the pork-barrel nature of the American space program into account. Building and launching spacecraft capable of keeping people alive in deep space is fiendishly expensive. The engineering isn’t trivial. There have been advances in materials and electronics since the 1960s, but that has a minimal effect on the amount of mass you have to shift. We could do it again if we really wanted to; the problem is, when it comes down to it, we (or at least our elected representatives in Congress) don’t really want to. The Constellation program was supposed to be a sequel to Apollo, but it was never funded to the level necessary to be successful; all that survives of the program is the Orion capsule. And, FWIW, I agree that sending people back to the moon is not and should not be a priority.
Note that we have sent a number of unmanned missions back to the moon since Apollo: Clementine, Lunar Prospector, Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. LRO has sent back images of the Apollo landing sites with high enough resolution to make out the footpaths the astronauts left behind. Unmanned missions offer much better bang for the buck; they require far less mass, they can stay on site for years at a time, they can perform tests in situ, and they don’t have to come home. For the cost of one manned mission we could pepper the surface with MER-style rovers that could do pretty much the same job.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
0 (+1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems
really people it was sixty-nine. . . let it go, its getting sad!?!
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Leave a reply to Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems