Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence
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 if they were standing in a spot light, even though they are in a large shadow on the moon!
Many moon landing hoax debunking theories have been made to explain this. The most popular explanation is the Earth gives off its own light that highlights the astronauts. But if the Earth gave off that much light, then a shadow would appear behind each person, and there would be multiple shadows in every moon photo. The Earth does give off some light but not enough to hi-light.
Instead, this anomaly is due to the reflectiveness of the moon. The sun light hits the moons surface, and reflects onto the astronaut ‘hi-lighting’ him.
This also happens on Earth. When you wear a white top in the sunlight, – even if you have a cap that forms a shadow – your face will still be lit up by the reflective sun light, when it hits the reflective surface of your white t-shirt.
Conspiracy believers also think that many of the moon landing photos have been doctored. This is because the quality of the photos are constant with every picture. All of the photos are focused and every thing is in view.
This at the time was a remarkable feat, as the cameras were attached to the astronauts chests (see next image) so the astronauts couldn’t see where they were shooting on the moon or whether the picture was focused properly.
If this was true then it would be suspicious. But simple sifting through files shows the real story. NASA wouldn’t print a moon photo took by Buzz if he chopped off the top of Neil’s head. And it definitely wouldn’t appear on the cover of The New Scientist magazine.
At the time it was costly to develop photos, so NASA wouldn’t waste money on faulty photos. The same as you and I wouldn’t show all of the faulty photos, to our friends. But now vast libraries can be put online for free, so all of the faulty photos can be seen in all there glory.
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?
Popularity: 94%
Permalink to Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence
RSS feed for comments on this post
April 30, 2006at 3:14 pm
[...] More Photographic Evidence [...]
April 30, 2006at 3:33 pm
[...] More Photographic Evidence [...]
August 15, 2006at 4:28 am
I have a picture of Edwin Aldrin’s visor that pictured by Armstrong in high res.
You can see clearly that Armstrong is in a spot of bright light (sunlight?).
The whole picture is quite good in exposure, contrast and brightness, and the color balance etc.
But seeing the condition and position when taking that picture, there is a lot of strange happen.
Looking to the length of shadow and the angle, the light is coming from about 1 and 2 oclock in front and hand right of Armstrong, and a height of light is about 30 to 40 degree.
The conclusion, he and with his camera, is almost frontally hit by Direct Light Exposure without any hid or shade cover him!!!
If you go to my URL (edit by owner of blog: URL link didn’t work, can’t have spaces in there! so go to this image http://yovitadiah.bravehost.com/visor%20of%20edwin%20aldrin.jpg), I just pick up 2 of the basic theory that explain of “Avoiding Direct Light Exposure”
I just thinking that photo at least taking twice, and the helmet visor then copy paste to the other …
October 24, 2006at 3:51 pm
well i’ve got a pic. of armstron next to the USA flag, and the flag is moving, that completely imposible, because there no wind in space.
November 27, 2006at 3:39 pm
ur the hoax!
1 the appolo13 pics wer black nd white btw
2 they wont interveiw armstrong on 60mins and not ask that Q? unless theyr sure of it
3 ok i dnt hav 2 think of 1 but i hope u kno that if they dd i bet the 12 ppl evr 2 go r vry offended
December 6, 2006at 5:24 pm
i will have to say to all the hoax believers out there. it is good to see you all keep such a close eye on whats going on. using your brains, not just taking someones word for what they have done. we need that to keep he liars in check. but if you were to stick to UFOs it would be much appresiated, and pleaze spend some of that cash you all make and buy a telescope and take a look at the moon and you will see the landing site for yourselfs. it still there and always will be. For the appollo 11 Crew.
March 7, 2007at 3:23 pm
This argument is bullshit. Any light coming from the opposite direction of the sun will come from light being reflected off the earth. Its a dumb arse theory
April 6, 2007at 3:52 pm
It’s almost impossible that the Apollo 11 landing was a hoax. Obiviously if it was filmed in a studio this large, we would either see it or they would have to film out in the desert which would render the reported “C” on a rock unnecessary, for that matter, why would they even need to mark a rock. The reason that no stars are showing is because, as said, there is no atmosphere on the moon and extensive amount of stars showing would cloud the picture. The flag looks like its moving because, also as said, there is little gravity on the moon, so something in motion would stay as such. They have also compared moon samples to those found in Antarctica. In closing, if the first moon landings were convincing, why would NASA keep on landing on the moon when it wasn’t that big of a deal. People want conspiracies so that they think that there is hidden meaning in things and that they can control events.
May 1, 2007at 2:22 pm
blah blah blah its all BS i think that they did land on th moon and you are just all so lame to spend days looking at photos and making a website, and looking for things to critisize! i mean ? cant you guyes all take it that some one got to the moon b 4 you did? and why would neil armstrong become religionus for a big ass ‘hoax” he saw the universe and thought- there must be a god who made all this it cant have just happened?!
GET OVER YOURSELVES AN GET A LIFE!
for th apolo team – ur welcome!
May 1, 2007at 8:06 pm
karl aka katie have you READ this page and the associated pages?
I ask because the writer obviously beleives there was a moon landing and it WAS NOT a big hoax!
Those who landed on the moon, rocks!
November 19, 2007at 1:46 pm
I happen to be doing a report on the conspiracy theories and found out some interesting things that put these theories in check. First of all the flag is most likely moving because of solar ion winds. Try walking under a street light and look at how your shadow changes and maybe you’ll get the point! And yes it was possible to slice videos and remove frames from them until they found one that had a full picture of Neil Armstrong (Therefore it became a picture). So before any hoaxers try and go change history think VERY carefully about the people you’re tryin to diss and the point you’re tryin to make.
June 3, 2008at 8:27 am
I dnt reli no wot 2 believe
Im doin a project on if itz a hoax an i dnt no
bt i have an other issue bout it bein a fraud…
The flag is waving wen they plant it
n as Uu no dere is no atmosphere on
da moon so there4 no wind
June 9, 2008at 5:08 pm
1. You can not see ANY Apollo landing site with ANY telescope. Not even Hubble can get that close. – Do some actual research before telling people to buy a telescope.
2. The illumination from the surface of the moon is equal to that of common asphalt here on Earth. (do this experiment) Stand on asphalt at night with a giant spotlight far behind you (like the sun). From the front, you will be nothing but a silhouette! So the idea that Astronauts with the sun behind them are lit from the front by the moon’s surface is FALSE. Illumination Proof – DEBUNKED
3. Laser reflector on the moon. The Soviets put them on the moon with unmanned missions, so this is debunked too. Also, the moon’s surface itself would act as a reflector. Reflector Proof – DEBUNKED
4. Moon rocks – Again, moon rocks can be brought back with unmanned missions and have been. They say the number collected is too great, HOWEVER, I have seen a moon rock, it was encased in about 6 inches of round glass. It could have been ceramic for all I know. The FACT that not all rocks were examined by independant geologists and that NASA controls the samples given leave the question of doubt. (I’m not even getting into the Vaun Braun expedition to Antarctica) Moon Rocks Proof – DEBUNKED
It seems the last remaining “Proofs” Pro Apollo people have can be debunked with plausible thought.
They still can explain why the rate the moon dirt falls is faster than the rate an astronaut falls (which defies Newton’s Laws of Physics which are UNIVERSAL)… Perhaps it’s because their is resistance keeping that astronaut from falling at the same rate (like wires?)
June 9, 2008at 5:12 pm
By the way, the hoax was filmed in 3 locations (and not the desert!)
1. Langley, Virgina
2. Mauna Kea, Hawaii (at the summit) — TAKE A LOOK!
3. Monument Valley in Southern Utah
July 10, 2008at 4:36 am
[...] 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 [...]
July 12, 2008at 9:45 am
What I have noticed over time is the people who belive we went there have no evidence at all to support that we did go there. It is logisticly and physicly impossible. There is one video of the astronauts jumping next to LM
December 2, 2008at 7:39 am
dear hardy. Go back to school, Why would you use hubble anyway. Thats like a nuke to remove a tooth. The landing site is there. For all you know. The hubble cant see a house on earth. It wasnt designed for it.that why we got lansats. Anyway i say they did land. Do i know. no. Do you. No. but i say see for yourself. Instead of foolish debunks. The whole moon landing hoax is much of a joke as your ideas. 3 sites ya rite. Why would Nasa even need to fake a moon landing. The russians werent even close. Oh yeah they had their own shuttles. But not the know how.
December 11, 2008at 8:26 am
If Neil Armstrong was the first on the moon. Who was video taking
his picture? Like NASA said. The cameras were attached to the
astronaut. Not remotely controlled.
December 17, 2008at 11:25 am
Americans make movies they make special affects. we all know they want to be the best and the biggest. so they have to make a movie to fool us. its simple.
December 24, 2008at 12:19 am
Yeah we faked them there Moon landings. I can’t believe people could be stupid to think we landed on the Moon. Intense radiation prevents any space travel outside of Earth orbit.
December 31, 2008at 3:16 am
Do you know how many people work at NASA? Do you know how many people it takes to make a movie? Even if “the insiders” were lying to the rest of the engineers, technicians, researchers, controllers, janitors – how are they going to keep all those people quiet for THIS long? Someone would peep.
January 6, 2009at 1:34 am
Up until the early 1900’s it was ‘impossible’ to fly, today we can fly up to mach 7 (in the atmosphere) and flying is so common that most don’t even get excited over it anymore…
Now the hoaxers wants us to believe moon landings is ‘impossible’ – get out of your medieval cocoon – most things are possible, given enough time, thought and finances.
Armstrong became a Christian on the moon, will he dare to hoax that? To make a joke out of religion for ‘king and country’? I don’t think so.
Anyway, what is the point in faking it, and running the risk that sometime in the future some other nation will manage to do that and expose the false landings?
January 6, 2009at 1:35 am
Kate, valid argument.
January 15, 2009at 2:32 am
Hardy,
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.
February 6, 2009at 2:58 am
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.
March 22, 2009at 10:11 pm
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.
March 24, 2009at 10:19 pm
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.
March 26, 2009at 8:19 am
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
April 24, 2009at 9:06 pm
I offer this to conclude the debate:
http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/8586/as1611318340hrproof.jpg
I whipped this up to settle the question.
July 2, 2009at 7:59 am
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).