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
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?)
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
3 (-2)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence
@ Hardy:
“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.”
This is true. To resolve an object the size of a LM descent stage from Earth distance, you would need a telescope with an objective on the order of 25 meters (if I’ve done the math right). It’s pretty safe to say that we’re never going to directly image the Apollo landing sites using equipment on Earth or in Earth orbit.
“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”
It’s not just the Moon’s surface, though; the astronauts are wearing these big white reflectors. There’s more than enough illumination provided by the reflection from the space suits to fill in shadows.
“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”
The lunar surface is a Lambertian reflector, and the reflected laser pulse would be too diffuse to detect from the Earth’s surface. No, there has to be a mirror of some sort on the lunar surface.
“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”
As expensive as those suckers are, they’re not going to be handed over to just anyone to examine.
“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?)”
From all the video I’ve seen, I haven’t seen anything like what you describe. Can you point me to a specific video that exhibits what you’re talking about?
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
0 (+1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence
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
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
2 (-1)
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
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
2 (-2)
Again, Myth busters.
Dare to grow a brain.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
Leave the thinking to people that are equipped to do it. You’re doing a fine job transferring petroleum.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
0 (0)
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.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
0 (+1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence
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.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
1 (-1)
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.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
3 (-3)
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.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
3 (-3)
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.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
2 
0 (+2)
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?
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
2 
0 (+2)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence
Kate, valid argument.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
2 
0 (+2)
Leave a reply to Apollo Moon Landing Hoax – More Photographic Evidence