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?
192 responses to Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence
No stars
Where r all the stars, the back ground it plain black!!!!!!!
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
4 
13 (-9)
Obviously not a photographer.
One of the weakest “arguments” there is.
It’s for the same reason you can’t see the stars during the daytime here on earth.
A basic photography 101 lesson would answer your question. It’s called “Exposure.”
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
12 
9 (+3)
Try this handy experiment. Grab your favorite camera, film or digital. If film, load it with 400-speed film; if digital, set the ISO to 400.
Go out and take a picture of the full moon (at night, obviously); for a decent exposure of the moon, the shutter speed should be 1/500th of a second and the aperture should be f11.
Now, tell me how many stars you see in that picture. I can virtually guarantee the answer will be 0; the stars are too dim for that level of exposure to record. You’ll have to expose for several seconds to capture the brightest stars, which will leave the moon a fuzzy white blob.
It is simply not possible to capture the range of brightness between the moon and the background stars in the same exposure, especially not with film. That’s why you don’t see any stars in the Apollo photographs. It’s also part of why the shadows on the surface look so stark; again, the range of brightness between the lit surface and the shadows is at the limit of what film can record.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
8 
7 (+1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence
Photographs of Moon ... No Stars
Nice experiment and camera lingo; my wife is a photographer … and believe me, I could care less; I’m neither for or against the argument either way, but your Moon photos analysis isn’t quite the same … the Earth has a thick multi-layered Atmosphere; with light deflections and refractions; the Moon has neither, Zip … so, if we can see stars from Earth, with or without a camera, “unfiltered” starlight” (thus Stars) could, or should be possible to see, at least in some of the lunar pictures … so the “same-same” camera photo theory wouldn’t really apply here is what I’m saying.
The greater camera/photo analysis or experiment should be the 1969 camera and film itself. They had a camera with (non-modern) metals, glass, and plastics; even some “gasketing” I’m sure, and who knows what else … and the film itself is possibly of some “X” Mylar-type coated material.
Now, everything known to science has very different expansion and contraction ratios … and any failure at the camera level, would completely destroy the thin film and its coating … here’s why … the “lit” surface of the Moon if I still remember my school boy literature, is roughly (plus) 250 degrees F or, beyond normal boiling temp of 212 F … the dark side is just the opposite … roughly (minus) 250 degrees F (at super-cooled gases level, like liquid oxygen and liquid nitrogen) … with those two extremes, how could any circa 1969 cameras and Mylar-like films withstand these temps-expansion-contraction ratios, if even today’s modern cameras and films can’t hardly withstand the Antarctic extremes of 60 to 80 degrees below zero? Just asking…
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
5 
3 (+2)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence
The presence or absence of an atmosphere would make little difference; the stars really are that much dimmer than the sunlit surface of the moon. Photographic film has a dynamic range of about 1000:1; that is, the brightest object in a scene can’t be more than 1000 times brighter than the dimmest object if you want to be able to record both in any detail in the same exposure, The brightest stars are about 30000 times less bright than the sunlit surface of the moon. There is simply no way to expose for both at the same time.
As for temperatures, remember that the concept of temperature doesn’t really apply to a vacuum; a vacuum is neither hot nor cold. Heat can only travel in a vacuum via radiation. The camera bodies were reflective so that they absorbed little heat, meaning they didn’t experience wide temperature fluctuations. xsd
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
6 
4 (+2)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence
I know a guy that has a friend that’s related to a girl that went out with a photographer. That must make me an expert photographer too. Yippee!!!
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
4 (-3)
Yeah
Yes, you’re right. You cannot compare capturing the moon and stars. The conditions are even worse -- you have the sun in the sky, it’s reflection from the moon’s surface (imagine sunny day in snowy mountain (may be I over exaggerated with the snow)) and as you said lack of the atmosphere (which means more sunlight on the surface). So even with the widest dynamic range camera (digital CSMOS/CCD sensors or films they had back then) you’ll not be able to capture the stars (may be Venus???) at this low exposure value (what ever combination between exposure time(shutter speed), ISO and aperture). If on the other hand you or you wife knows how to do it -- I’ll talk to my boss to invite you for an interview for a nice job position in our company cause after over than 10 years with digital photography the wide dynamic range is still one of the biggest issues we have (just to mention that the conventional film has a lot wider dynamic range but still not enough for what we’re talking about). On the other issues you were talking about is the temperature -- you’re again right -- no way the camera film to survive at the heat, BUT -- the temperature of the surface cannot be transferred into the camera cause there is no atmosphere -- nothing to conduct the heat -- actually the COLD here will be the problem if the camera is well covered from the sun so we should ask the guys how their cameras were able to work at such low temperatures…. And if everyone doubts -- please read around the net to see how much is the difference into the temperatures between the sun illuminated surfaces and the ones in shadow(consider it this as a homework) in vacuum. And just to inform you -- I use to doubt about all moon landing stuff but after I’ve read and watched all of the conspiracy theories -- I’m telling you -- I cannot be more sure that the guys HAVE LANDED on the moon -- just there is no way to simulate the reality as we know it so well in studio -- there should’ve been at least a single mistake (for example at least one object with two or more shadows as if there were more than one light source over there as our not very well educated (or if there are please give your diploma back the the university and ask them to give you money back) conspiracy theorist friends insist). And finally how come we’ve got this nice reflector on the moon surface people use every they since then? May be our guys got in orbit of the moon, drop the reflector and it lent nice but our guys couldn’t that’s why they come back (or before that) into a special studio to make all of this fake? Guys just get over it. All of this made possible because of the work of 1000 extraordinary people (not like me and you (obviously)). So if for a some reason the man walking on the moon doesn’t seem to you as possible especially for 1969 cause your brain doesn’t get it well think of heart transplant operations -- can you do it? Do you know what it takes? Have any idea about what 25nm smei conductor technology is? I guess no. But is in you packet. Or under the keyboard (or around it) which you’re now thinking to use to argue with me?… Have a good day everyone. I like you all. Without your arguments I would still think the lending of the moon was fake
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence
Allow me to correct myself for a few things I missed. The conduction of the heat happens through a electromagnetic radiation also not just by friction of the air molecules so it happens but with well covered camera -- except the lens aperture will prevent the fast heating process. Also why nobody questioned all of the videos and pictures we’ve seen from missions into the Earth’s orbit on a direct sunlight -- of course it’s not the same as the moon since you have additional reflection which adds up to the overall radiation but still -- why nobody questions those pictures? What about the orbit telescopes too. Why we don’t doubt them? Don’t throw the Earth’s magnetic field stuff -- it doesn’t change the Gamma rays or any other electromagnetic radiation coming up -- it changes only Alpha (neutron’s stream) direction and Beta (electron beam) radiation’s components -- both reflected easily by not so tick let’s say (1/4 inches) metal surface in our open space conditions. I’ve heard also about this argument that the radiation was too high on the moon -- haha -- it is not higher than the one in Earth’s orbit (alt least the electromagnetic and Gamma component) which are not stoppable by 1/4 inch metal or deflected by the Earth’s magnetic field. Again -- why nobody argues about those pictures and videos? I say they’re all fake and they used it to lie to us that the Earth is a sphere -- you know I think actually it’s flat and all we’ve been told is lie
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence
Example is faulty.
You are asking someone to go out on earth and duplicate what needs to be done on the moon. Won’t happen.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
4 
2 (+2)
The whole point behind this example is that it doesn’t matter whether you’re on the Moon or not; the issue is the dynamic range of film, which simply isn’t wide enough to capture both the sunlit surface of the Moon and the background stars in the same exposure. You need to expose for at least several seconds to capture the brightest stars, whether you’re on Earth or the Moon. If you’re trying to photograph the sunlit lunar surface (which is what the Apollo missions were interested in), that level of exposure would leave you with a detail-free blob of solid white. To properly capture the lunar surface, you’d only have to expose for a fraction of a second, which is too short for the background stars to register.
Photographic film simply cannot capture the same dynamic range as our eyes.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
2 
2 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence
I wonder who is this non educated, not able to think person who gives you minus points?? Hi all of you, whatever this guy said is 100% fact and even you can test it. How can you dare to say the opposite? I will never been able to understand the people who just stand a point just like that….
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
So please try and explain the shifting points of light. The moon has one light source THE SUN and there are more than one picture were objects cast shaddows in aposing directions. Which even the lamest excuse does not excuse this is absolutely imposible and it leaves only one answer which is there is of course multiple light sources. The cameras had no flash and nether vehicles posesed the lighting to cast shadows right to the edge of the foreground. You could also explain why the rusians gave up all efforts to get to the moon are you dumb enough to think they would just give up. Why was the footage only broadcast after being projected onto a screen and then re filmed for networks and in black and white when colour footage that is dated on the same days they were supposedly half way to the moon has been released which leaves no doubt why did colour photos cone back and not colored film. Come on seriously. There’s one easy fix the richest country on the planet should send in maned probes to the moon and take pictures of anything left behind with all the probes sent into deep space it never occurred to them to give the public fresh new pictures of such amazing things like the rover or the flag still there flapping away. Or not. Load of absolute bull.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
5 
7 (-2)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence
Multiple light sources would cast multiple shadows, not single shadows pointing in different directions.
Shadows pointing in different directions is a result of uneven terrain; you can reproduce the effect right here on Earth.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
6 
4 (+2)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence
From the Wikipedia page on the N-1 booster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_%28rocket%29):
Frankly, the Soviet government under Brezhnev cared more about extending military influence on Earth than sending people to the Moon.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
5 (-4)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence
Myth busters moon landing hoax episode.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
2 (-1)
Is it a special school where they teach you how to create so many contradictions with so less words? First contradiction: you involved the Russia. If there were any doubts about the moon landing they would be the first to say it. But since they’re smart and since the people in the communist countries were well educated they will know that those arguments are big lie not representing the truth and the reality. There are no scenes with the shadows in opposite directions -- they look in different angles and you can observe this into a daylight if you go out in a field and OPEN YOUR EYES. To explain this -- simple geometry -- paralax and with combination of wide angle lens can see miracles. Here is the Second contradiction:
If there are more than one light sources why there is no single object with more than one shadows? Cause they were in different distance pointing at different objects but yet the whole surface appears equally illuminated??? Well cause you don’t know what you’re talking about that’s why. And you were saying about the richest country -- you think Russia -back then Soviet Union was not richer than USA -- ahahahahaha. They just failed that’s it. The USA won the space battle as many others -- get over it.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence
End of dumb debate
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1109/apollo17area1_lro.jpg. End of debate.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
7 
3 (+4)
That pic has been doctored, look at the surrounding craters, you will see hues of gray that part of the shadowing…go to the areas that are listed for the crash site, the pixels are all black, there is no graying as in the crater photos. DOCTORED!!!
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
1 (-1)
I take pleasure in, result in I discovered just what I used to be taking a look for. You’ve ended my 4 day lengthy hunt! God Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
So how will the discovery of FTL particles change all this? I see people talking like scholars about light, yet these FTL particles will change everything you know!
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Leave a reply to Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence