Apollo Moon Landing Hoax - More Photographic Evidence
Another problem with the photos can be seen in the next two 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!
Many 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 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 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 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.
Popularity: 77%
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