Apollo Moon Landing Hoax - Photographic Evidence
Moon landing photographs are the main argument for the Apollo conspiracy believers, as there are thousands of moon photographs that have anomalies on them. (i.e.: different directions on shadows, things ‘highlighted’.) Because of these anomalies, the photos are believed fake by the conspiracy followers. These people reason “why create fake photos of something that really happened?”
Either.
l. The moon landing was faked.
OR
2. Aliens are on the moon, and are seen on many of the photos and have been replaced with fake ones 
The most constant argument that the moon landing photos (and the videos) are faked is simply that there are no stars in the sky. (See all Apollo images).
But there is a very reasonable explanation, the cameras that the Apollo mission used, had manual light filters, (a bit like the pupil of your eye). The Sun reflects off of the moons surface and the white suits of the astronauts. Making both exceptionally bright, while the stars (because they are so far away) are quite dim.
The cameras on the Apollo mission would be set at a bright setting, so the moon and the astronauts are visible, but the stars are missed because of the flood of light, from the moon and astronauts.
But even if there’s is an explanation for no stars, many photos seem to have multiple light sources shining on the surroundings, casting shadows in different directions, even though there is only one (bright enough) light source visible on the moon (the Sun). The conspiracy believers argue, that the only way multiple light sources could be shining on the ’set’, is if the LM landed in Hollywood.
For example, in the two images to the right, the shadows of objects are in different directions. (In fig one the Landers shadow is pointing east, while the rock shadows are pointing south-east). The conspiracists explanation for this is that more than one light source is shining on the moon, a trick used by movie producers, to highlight certain areas. But common sense then tells us, that there then should be more then one shadow. For example, football players have multiple shadows while playing on the pitch, because of the multiple lights cast upon them.
Instead these bent shadows are caused by the uneven ground of the moon surface, if an object is on a hill or a slope then the shadow will ‘bend’ into the incline. Brilliant pictures demonstrating this can be seen at GODDARD’S JOURNAL under Are Apollo Moon Photos Fake?. You can try this yourself, with a bucket of sand, two poles and a light source.
There’s also a different conspiracy theory about the bent shadows. It is said that the different angled shadows, come from one long artificial light. This could possibly work, as movie lights do cause that effect. Though it is more likely to do with perspective. If you viewed the landscape from a bird’s eye the shadows would be parallel. Though, the conspiracy theorists explanation could work.
Thanks to Aulis, for bringing this to my attention
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 - Photographic Evidence
RSS feed for comments on this post
April 30, 2006at 2:51 pm
[...] There are three basic kinds of arguments for this hoax: Photographic, video, and scientific. [...]
September 8, 2006at 2:28 pm
There are an awful lot of cosmic rays hitting the moon; so the astronauts are walking around and detecting frequent flashes in thier eyes and the same principle aplies to the cameras. There are more than just cosmic rays that far out into space and all these particles are flying around and smashing into each other, so the film inside the camera would be exposed. Its simpley impossible to take photos in deep space using ordinary film, it cant be done. You can send pictures back to earth using various wave frequencies, you can take digital pictures, but you simpley can not go into space with a camera and celuloid film and take pictures, the laws of physics just do not allow for such events. Black box radiation and cascades would utterly destroy the film no doubt about it and that simple fact alone suffices to expose this whole apollo fraud.
I rest my case
September 30, 2006at 12:06 pm
This wasn’t an ordinary camera we are talking about. The entire camera was protected in one way of another. The films were protected with a lead casing while inside and outside of the camera, the only chance of contamination being while the picture was being taken, and most of this was effectively stopped and the outside of the cameras. Which was covered in heat /radiation protection.
If getting live feed from outer space impossible, then how does the Hubble telescope, and all of the voyager missions do it?
November 30, 2006at 7:20 am
Has anyone at all thought that, hmmmmmm, you know, if there were a conspiracy to committ a fraud, that thousands of people at NASA and elsewhere would have to be in on it, and that by now someone would have blown the whistle and made money by writing a book? Conspire on that!
April 26, 2007at 10:06 am
If I can see my house and back lawn on Google Earth why doesn’t someone point a hubble at the moon and show us the lander there in all it’s glory, and the foot steps, flag, gold ball etc? Surely tha would put an end to all this?
May 25, 2007at 8:20 am
i think it is fake ithink they did it in a bid were house
June 3, 2007at 5:43 pm
Dave.
That picture of your house on Google Earth was taken by a guy in an aeroplane or helicopter. There may be intelligence satellites that are capable of that resolution but they are not being used to amuse internet users.
I doubt if the Hubble could focus at that distance and is not designed for that kind of imaging, Anyway, you wouldn’t believe it if they did would you? You’d say its a fake.
You need to prove it by yourself, so make a powerful laser and bounce it off the ranging reflector left on the moon.
August 4, 2007at 12:25 pm
#
>Dave said,
>
>April 26, 2007 @ 10:06 am
>
>If I can see my house and back lawn on Google Earth why doesn’t someone point a >hubble at the moon and show us the lander there in all it’s glory, and the foot >steps, flag, gold ball etc? Surely tha would put an end to all this?
well Dave, the difference is that 1st of all your house measures at least 15 meters across and is easily visible from an equatorial sattelite orbiting at 100 to 1000 miles overhead (check out http://www.spacetoday.org/Satellites/SatBytes/SatOrbits.html to see about satellite orbits)
In contrast to that, a lunar lander measures only about 4.5 or 5 m across (much less than your house) and is about 320.000 km (250.000 miles) away!!! and that is very far if you are looking for a 5 m object, even for a telescope! Also check out http://www.tass-survey.org/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html which says about “Can we see Apollo hardware on the Moon?”, if I didn’t convince you, this will…
September 24, 2007at 2:48 am
The moon pics are real taken by men on the moon.
The USSR had tracking that would easily have blown any attempt to fake a landing.
Multiple lights would cause multiple shadows and they can’t be found on any of the moon pics. The understanding of perspective is nexessary to explain the non paraellel shadows so go look it up.
Google earth images were taken by satellites not airplanes.
October 2, 2007at 1:36 am
Well you also want to know what the only nation in the world to not allow its citizens to watch the lunar landings was the U.S.S.R and the main reason was that they did not believe that the landing was real.
If you want to prove me wrong please do, I love learning, but this is the god dead on truth. Trust me I am from Russia, on June 20, 1999 the T.V networks on HTB(that is in Russian letters) had a whole special on how these landings were fake.
January 15, 2008at 11:19 pm
You idots of course the astronauts landed on the moon how the hell else would in some of the photos the earth be in the background
March 17, 2008at 1:21 pm
John: I don’t even know if it’s worth commenting on your comment.. BUT, they have used green screens, before, still do, and always will. Insert image in the background, poof. There’s your Earth in space.
March 24, 2008at 5:44 am
The landings ALL were real you bunch of wankers, it was the astronauts who were fake
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah, burp.
April 17, 2008at 3:34 pm
i believe that the landing was a hoax!
April 19, 2008at 12:23 pm
I suspect that the Apollo missions did no more that just orbit the moon
and that the only people who were aware of this were the astronauts
themselves, the president and his close advisers. I do not believe that
any of the so called evidence supports this hoax theory though. I just
believe that the missions were so complex and the chances of a disaster
were so high that common sense dictated that it just wasn’t worth the
risk. American astronauts crashing into the moon, failing to take off
again or failing to rendezvous in orbit would have been the certain
outcome and that would have been very bad for American prestige. As the
president had already pledged to go to the moon a hoax landing was the
only logical solution to the problem. The missions therefore left earth
with a full mission payload for a landing plus a bag of rocks from the
desert and some exposed film from a film set. The landing payload was
jettisoned into space for the return trip and the rocks and film were
handed over as evidence of a successful mission.
May 28, 2008at 1:06 am
Gordon Sheppard is the ONLY person who has the right idea. Thousands of people were involved in planning building and coordinating the equipment and space-craft required to land on the moon. Gordon Sheppard is the ONLY person commenting on this page to realise that if it was fake one of these thousands of people woulde have talked already! For the love of God get over yourselves and stop fearing space travel and worming around the truth. AND if that doesn’t convince you, look in the reflections of the astronauts helmet visors. NO studio! The flag waves because the engine exaust gasses expand rapidly into the vacuum space! Yes if you play the moon landing a 6 times speed it looks like jumping on earth, gravity on moon is a sixth of that on earth! Put 2 and 2 together you get 4 not 3. Get the point! IT WAS NOT FAKE, YOU CANT PROVE TRUTH WRONG.
June 1, 2008at 6:04 pm
am still bit confunsed to dicide who’s wrong or right,but my question is,if the flag waved because the engene was running,how come it did not sweep away footprints?but if they were taken here on earth and the flag waved because the was air,wouldn’t be dust in the air and in the land lunner? please convince me
June 29, 2008at 12:13 am
The Moon Hoax enthusiasts have a lot to say regarding things they know very little about.
Here’s a list of things to go look up: 1. Basic photography - This’ll help you understand how many shadows an object has to have if lit from multiple sources.
2. Image flattening - Photographs are 2 dimensional renderings of 3 dimensional objects. The shadow irregularities are a result of subtracting depth (breadth) and leaving only height and width. We can no longer perceive the irregularities in the Moon’s surface that influence the orientation of shadows. 3. Film developing - Because the astronauts wore fairly cumbersome gloves, they were not able to do more than pull a shutter trigger on the Hasselblad cameras harnessed to their space suits. Neither could they look through the veiwfinder. They simply pointed and shot. The cameras were designed for automatically setting the aperture and shutter speed. Even then, the high contrast of the Moon’s surface and the blackness of the sky caused some exposure problems. These were addressed back on Earth when the films were developed and printed. This in part explains why astronauts in the shadow of any object are not completely obliderated from view. On the other hand, go outside on a sunny day and stand in the shadow of your house. Hold your hand out in front of you. Surprise! You can still see your hand. 4. The Moon’s surface - It’s useful to know that the Moon’s regolith (dirt) is pwdery in texture. It’s even more helpful to understand it’s composition. Under electron microscopes, the regolith proves to be tiny beads of volcanic glass. This gives the Moon’s surface extraordinary refractive and reflective properties, much like the heiligenschein produced on dewey grass. This helps to further explain why the astronauts are not obscured by shadows as well as the so-called “hot spot” created by studio lighting.
Spend as much time researching the science of Project Apollo as you have wasted reading conspiracy theories and you’ll probably learn something.
July 10, 2008at 4:15 am
[...] Moon Landing Hoax Apollo Moon Landing Hoax - Photographic Evidence Apollo Moon Landing Hoax - More Photographic Evidence Apollo Moon Landing Hoax - Camera Problems [...]
July 10, 2008at 4:18 am
[...] Moon Landing Hoax Apollo Moon Landing Hoax - Photographic Evidence Apollo Moon Landing Hoax - More Photographic Evidence Apollo Moon Landing Hoax - Camera Problems [...]
July 10, 2008at 4:19 am
[...] Moon Landing Hoax Apollo Moon Landing Hoax - Photographic Evidence Apollo Moon Landing Hoax - More Photographic Evidence Apollo Moon Landing Hoax - Camera Problems [...]
July 10, 2008at 4:24 am
[...] Moon Landing Hoax Apollo Moon Landing Hoax - Photographic Evidence Apollo Moon Landing Hoax - More Photographic Evidence Apollo Moon Landing Hoax - Camera Problems [...]
July 10, 2008at 4:29 am
[...] Moon Landing Hoax Apollo Moon Landing Hoax - Photographic Evidence Apollo Moon Landing Hoax - More Photographic Evidence Apollo Moon Landing Hoax - Camera Problems [...]
July 12, 2008at 9:38 am
There have been several people who have come forward from NASA who admitted to NASA airbrushing out pictures because they were taken on a set at an undisclosed location. Scientists who have examined the supposed moon rocks have stated the moon rocks are identical to our earth rocks. How could anyone identify or compare rocks from earth - from rocks from earth that were supposedly taken from the moon especialy 800 plus pounds? Secondly if you watch alot of the different videos out there you can see the spotlight images in the backround, off the reflective visors of the astronauts along with my favorite the flag waving. Not when anyone was touching it, but after several minutes when it was still and an astronaut walked by and it started to wave. there was about 5-7 feet between him and the flag. Also its obvious they were using wires. The videos show numerous shots of the astronauts falling on the ground and they are trying to get up, and it looks like they are getting YANKED BACKWARDS up to thier feet. I used to admire the Apollo program until I started noticing these little discrepancies and i had no idea there were was this HOAX about the program. The more I watch the more bogus it seems. The reason HUBBLE can survive is because it was made for this enviroment within the close proximenity of earth. Why dont the space shuttle travel out further or why isnt the ISP out further. We could have built a station right on the moon and launched form there we could have conserved on gas and sent out deeper probes. And with moons unobstructed atmosphere we could see much further. Another question I want to pose is this. How big is the moon compared to the earth? Home come it only takes a minute or so to land on the moon but it takes close to several hours for the shuttle to land, besides atmospheric issues?
August 27, 2008at 1:54 am
i think you are right about this and according to the info and pics you have a lot of evidence!!. well done,good job,nobody would have found out but you!!cya later
from Teasha Mcinnes