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?
18 responses to Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems
I would like to say how you can’t see the stars in the background of the photos. The answer to this problem is simple. Ask any photographer, they will explain how you can not get a bright object (astronaut) and a a very dim object (stars) on the same piece of film.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
3 
0 (+3)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems
two fibres on two different rocks, on the same picture in the same formation of a c?
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
2 
3 (-1)
if its hair..then what is it doing on the rock wouldent the astronaut like u know..die if they took their helmet off
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
6 (-5)
it fell onto the photo when it was getting enlarged idiot
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
5 
0 (+5)
It’s not saying the hair’s on the rock.
It’s saying the hair must hav fallen on the negative when they were enlarging them because the ‘C’ is not present on the original negative.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
5 
1 (+4)
There are simple answers related to the photography questions. Many photographers and cinematographers can tell you the answers. 9/11 Conspiracies also have simple answers that could just be answered with a simple answer from a photographer who knows his/her stuff.
Wikipedia even has a ‘Conspiracy-Argument’ section on the Moon Landing Hoax page.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
2 
0 (+2)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems
I love the whole “C rock as a movie prop” argument. As a set designer for smaller budget films, I have never, nor ever seen anyone (feature or indy film) mark any prop that was to be placed on a set. No one does this and people that believe they do have never worked on a movie set before
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
8 
1 (+7)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems
I have to say for a hair to form the letter c on a negative is highly improbable. especialy on a rock which it turns out is often used as props. That is a lame excuse.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
3 (-2)
LOL. Biggest problem is..
The foot print photo.
The foot print photo shows the moon having a very FINE dust particles and able to hold its shape w/o moisture..
But all of the pics of the landing sites shows a rougher sandy grain… LOL
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
1 (0)
retard its in a vaccum so the particles can stay alligned watch the moon landing mythbusters
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
1 (0)
The letter “C” is actually a Moon Worm.
They are fairly common as they feed on the cheese (that the moon is made out of).
-Me
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
5 
1 (+4)
Good gosh. This is the first time I saw pictures with the cross-hair and the first time I heard of the “conspiracy” involving the cross-hair being in front of objects.
It’s obvious that the part of the cross-hair that is missing is always over a bright, white object. Simply put, the white overexposes the picture, obscurring the cross-hair.
Geezus, I like a good hoax as well as the next person, but this isn’t one. I’m going to use my valuable time shadowing Elvis because he’s much more fun than cross-hairs.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
2 
1 (+1)
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….
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
3 
2 (+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…
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
8 (-7)
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”.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
6 
1 (+5)
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.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
2 
3 (-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.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
2 
2 (0)
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.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems
Leave a reply to Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – Camera Problems