In 1959 Bill Kaysing predicted that at that time, the chances of getting a man to the moon and back alive were 0.0014%, taking into account radiation and micro meteors.
Just 2 years later US president J. F. Kennedy made his famous speech.
“I believe that this nation should commit itself. To achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind or more important for the long range exploration of Space.”
Eight years later in on the 16th of July 1969, Apollo 11 was launched on a mission to the moon and back, carrying three people. On the 20th of July Apollo 11 landed on the moon. Neil Armstrong stepped out of the Lunar Module (LM) in front of a watching world, climbed down the ladder and said those famous words.
“One small step for man one giant leap for mankind”
And in doing so, Neil Armstrong won the moon race against Russia for America, and proved to an entire world that the sky isn’t the only limit.
Or so NASA said!
Ever since 1969, a small but loud crowd of people have doubted that America did send a man to the moon, and the Apollo Hoax was born.
There are three basic kinds of arguments for this hoax: Photographic, video, and scientific. See the links below for moon landing hoax research and discussions.
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?
105 responses to Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
It’s 2009, and two years after this idiotic post, I ask: how does it feel, you retarded theory conspirationist, to have all of your “proof” debunked by renowned scientist around the world?
Aaah, sweet victory. Too bad you’re too busy making up crap with the Illuminati and the Amero nowadays to even pay attention to the enormous bunch of idiocy you tend to create every year to at least ADMIT you were wrong.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
11 
13 (-2)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
What is it with the conspiracy non believers assuming this website is run by a conspiracy theory believer?
I own this website, but it was my eldest son who created this and the related Apollo Moon Hoax articles (all linked at the bottom of the article above) in 2004 (I updated the site to run in WordPress in 2007).
He wrote them when he was around 13 years old and if you’d actually read them you’d see he came to the conclusion the Apollo Moon Landing was real: he, like me, did and still (now 18 years old, his birthday is July 20th
) does not believe in the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Theories or any conspiracy theory for that matter**
** I’m sure there’s some conspiracies that have something to them, but I couldn’t guess which ones, a few have been proved in the past and now treated as fact, but they are the exception.
You have made the mistake as others have of reading the comments as the view of the sites owner, each comment is independent and does not express my beliefs. Many of the main conspiracy articles are created from the perspective of what the conspiracy theory believers think, not what I believe, it’s a way to generate open discussions.
On another article I just got accused of deleting a non believer comment, it was held for moderation (it’s how WordPress works). This site has no agenda beyond gaining lots of visitors looking to openly discuss conspiracy theories (no non SPAM comments are ever deleted).
David
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
13 
2 (+11)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
Better to have said:
“That’s one small step for man in a pressurized space suit; one giant leap for mankind.”
The moon does not support life. Without the suit they would die instantly.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
4 
2 (+2)
Barbican There is one at http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2008/09/06/apollo-moon-hoax-there-is-a-prop-rock-labeled-with-a-c/
I do believe the Americans did get men on the moon ( or i truly want to believe) but with American governments having a histoty of bending the truth, it’s hard not to believe that one or more of the apollo missions wasn.t partially faked, to gain the support ( and funding ) of the American public. Alan Shepard is one of my childhood hero’s, and it pains me to be concerned that something smells, and apollo 14 smells a lot..
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
5 
5 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
Can you actually see the lunors rover from earth? How about any of the debri left behind? How about the US flags that where planted? Can not Hubles camera catch any of this on film?
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
8 
4 (+4)
Yeah the moon landing was faked. Elvis is still alive, now living with Jim Morrison and Michael Jackson.
Oh, and don’t forget we also sent our own planes into the WTC and Pentagon just so we could attack Iraq.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
8 
17 (-9)
Forty years ago, I woke up in the middle of night to watch moon landing. I saw it with my own eyes ! For people who have not been part of 500 million, it is difficult to describe how it felt. It felt real. We felt like undivided human race.
But was it real? Saturn Fau blasts were real for sure, witnessed by hundreds of thousands of people. But did they carry crews on top? Did crews reach the Moon, landed there and came back?
I do not know. What me and 500 million other people actually saw was a result of double conversion between original 500 low scan electronic feed, recording of it on film and then telecine conversion to NTSC. No different than old use of
telecine to show movies on television. Original low scan tape was recycled and allegedly found again recently. Yet, NASA celebrates 40 years with new enhanced footage.
I believe that what we have been presented is a forgery and manipulation of enormous proportions.However, faked photographs are only the proof that the footage is forged, not the proof that NASA was not on the moon.
Why the forgery has been made is another question altoghether. There must be a reason for such effort.It strikes me that too many self-proclaimed skeptics throw an easy ball to catch to NASA and self-proclaimed hoax busters. Logical fallacies are dominant.
It is possible that shady agencies are propping up shadows issue to keep the real questions well hidden in the shade. It seems to me that fluttering of the flag serves to distract our attention from gapping errors that can not be logically explained.
How about some Earth-bound experiments?
1. Everybody speaks of allegedly fake photographs, but few of the camera. Hasselblad 500EL was a manual camera fitted with Biogon 60 lens. This lens is mild wide angle lens, i.e. produces minimal distrtion while still having a wide view angle. The minimum apperture was f5.6 so it means that it need not be focused to have everything sharp in focus. Photographer, Neil Armstrong only had to concentrate to compose the picture. The question is – how? Camera was strapped to his monkey suit, and he was not able to check composition because of the helmet restraint. He was shooting “from the hip”. He had 450 frames to shoot and all of them came properly exposed and excellently composed. I’d love to see NASA handpick an aviator of it’s choice (i.e not professional photographer with Hasselblad experience) and three proffesional photographers and have all of them try to do the same, shoot 450/450 perfectly composed photographs with camera attached to their chest.
2. According to Zeiss, Hasselblad lens was equipped with polarizing filter. Polarizing Filter is used to cut unwanted reflections or to enhance colours of the sky when there is atmosphere. Neil’s self-portrait on Buzz’s helmet is a proof that polarizer was either removed or rotated in such fashion that it does not block the reflection. Try this at home, with welder’s gloves and camera strapped to your chest.
3. This Neil Armstrong’s famous self-portait wa made by using highly convex Buzz’s visor as a mirror. Yet, there is no deformation of his portrait. It looks like he made it in a flat mirror. Yet reflection of his visor shows
distortion due to convexity. It was long before Photoshop plugins, it had to be done right on film. How? Again, it can be demonstrated here on Earth in a vacuum chamber to rule out paralax.
4. Marketing departments of Hasselblad camera, Carl Zeiss optics ,Omega Watches, Fischer pens, Technica Spa (moonboots)
flogged to death their products being on the Moon. One company is suspiciously absent – Kodak and their Wunderchrome
film. We were never told what kind of film it was, was it slide or negative? What was the ASA value of this film? What was the grain value, tollerance to under and over exposure? How this film was able to withstand crinking at 120 Celsius and not breaking in subzero temperature? How it was resistant to radiation? Generations not familiar with the film will not ask such questions.
Is this film still in production, or the formula was destroyed along the blueprints for the LEM ? Allegedly, this film was
highly classified. Heck, we know the specs of other highly classified equipment, this is 40 years old technology.
5. What technology kept LEM feet dust-free as can be seen on all photographs? It can be demonstrated here on Earth and make a killing, more than Roomba.
Only when it is proven without resonable doubt here on Earth that the photographs are forged and NASA forced to admit they forged them, then we can ask the real question. Not how, but why? Why it was forged?
Before that, we play NASA’s game giving the right answer to the wrong question.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
15 
3 (+12)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
I wonder why there is never a “Moonscape” in the background. It is always black like the view is looking out over the curvature of the moon. One would think that there has got to be hills and rises in the background landscape caused by craters and Highlands but there is nothing even when there IS sunlight. I wonder why, after all that supposedly walked on the moon, Why they never took pictures of distant landscapes in an alien world?!
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
8 
3 (+5)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
You really haven’t looked at much Apollo footage or photographs, have you? Yet YOU ARE AN EXPERT! LOL
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
8 (-7)
The reality is this……10-15 percent of people understand the truth of our government cover-ups, military psyops and the criminal actions of the CIA and FBI…….The rest of this country are sheep……Simply a product of brain washing, inferior education and inability to think logically……..
Anyone who thinks we landed on the moon has the reasoning skills of a child…….It wont matter what facts you present to them, they could not comprehend it due to the state of their mind…….The government knows this……Hence 9-11…….It will only get worse from here…..This country is becoming so dumbed down, its embarrassing to be an American…….People are more concerned about what entertainers are doing and defending their own political party, which is just as corrupt as the other ones……
Hey America……Turn off your TV……Read a book……Think for yourselves……Stop being sheep…….bahhhhhhh…….lol Read 1984……Use your brain……Question authority………wake up……..
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
12 
5 (+7)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
I believe that astronauts acutally landed on the moon and walked there.
There were too many people involved in send astronauts up to the moon and landing them there. If it was a hoax, one of these people would have come out by now and said publicly that it WAS a hoax. Nobody can stay silent that long, especially if there are large amounts of money to be had for telling the truth.
There were too many people involved to make this work – possibly in the thousands. You can’t keep that many people quiet if it was a hoax.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
6 
9 (-3)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
As a newbie to this subject I thank everyone for their fascinating posts. Armed with this new knowledge, I am thrilled at the prospect of how many people I can really piss off.
The points that particularly intrigued me were:
1. the solar flare fx on astronauts and the basic shielding required.
2. Russia giving up developing a one man lunar landing project yet America proceeded with a three man crew and the kitchen sink.
3. the Only in America Folks! aspects of all conspiracy theory the high fatal accident rate of astronauts, Alldrin’s breaking down episodes, NASA,s administrator resignation and the loss/destruction? of all ML deevelopment material.
4. Stargazers excellent unique post and the tiny yet utterly significant detail of the film manufacturer not exploiting his products moon landing contribution.
Again many thanks to all who contributed to both sides of the discussion.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
10 
3 (+7)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
you forgot to mention the 5 miles deep radioactive belt around the moon,you would need a ship with shielding of 6 feet of lead to get through it alive. when russia found this out they cancelled all work to land on moon as its not humanly possible. if you made a ship out of lead 6 feet thick the lead would molten on impact with earths atmosphere.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
8 
6 (+2)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
Just a few observations:
1) The onus is on NASA to refute each and every argument challenging the moon landings. This may seem strange, but the logic is quite clear: I can make a dozen arguments arguing that NASA never put a man on Mars. Even if eleven of those twelve arguments are false – only one correct one is sufficient to demonstrate that NASA did not put a man on Mars.
The same principle holds true of the moon landings.
2) There is a tendency of those defending NASA to use ad-hominem or ad-personam attacks; those questioning NASA tend to be more polite. It seems that the former are somewhat insecure.
3) A question that continues to puzzle me: why didn’t the Soviets put a person on the moon? Even if the Americans had put the first man on the moon, the Soviets could have had the glory of putting the first woman on it.
4) Final point: there are two distinct points that need to be proved:
a) Whether NASA could land a man on the moon in 1969.
b) Whether NASA did land a man on the moon in 1969.
b) presupposes a) – but proving a) does not prove b).
I suppose this post is rather boring… sorry for taking your time.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
9 
1 (+8)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
i find it somewhat amusing that Joe says he wouldn’t be surprised if we were all 40 yr olds living with our mother’s. I’m17, and a girl & I still believe that we didn’t land on the moon and that 9/11 was an inside job. It’s called NOT being an idiot. Idiot’s believe everything they hear, even if it’s obvious that the moon landing was faked and that the destruction of the twin towers and tower 7 we’re obviously planned demolitions, now shut up & get a damn education.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
11 
12 (-1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
You may not be an idiot, but you are gullible. Instead of believing the foolishness you read on websites like this, get thee to a library.
Go to the beach. Sit your mum under a beach unbrella. Despite being in ALL THAT SHADE, she is clearly illuminated! How can that be?! Because all that sunlight being reflected off the beach sand is going somewhere, and that somewhere is to illuminate your mummy.
And so on and so forth.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
7 
10 (-3)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
i think you need to sort out your sick head sicko-1 twin towers was not a demolition job unless your a terrorist which to me sounds you are. 2 your correct there was no moon landing,a further update is that area 51 roswell is the base of the fake moon landing in 1969 and not where aliens landed. aliens would look just like us an not green big eyed things that people have been made to believe look like.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
1 
12 (-11)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
Hoax fans neglect to consider how many governments, their spies and their telescopes were monitoring those flights; in addition to 99% of the telescopes located in astronomy centers across the Earth? The “Cold War” was at its peak, so you can be certain the Soviets and Red China would have been THRILLED to catch the USA “faking anything” so monumental? Plus, as others have mentioned there were “many thousands” of people involved in Florida, Houston, as well as Military bases and vessels… from too many countries?
I am “beyond skeptical” when it comes to our government. But, not at all regarding the Moon landings… no way.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
6 
14 (-8)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
moonwalk fans neglect to realize that none of the telescopes or radio equipment could monitor the spacecraft once it was outside of high orbit. All radio transmission was relayed between earth and the astronauts via a module that was placed close enough to the moon to relay transmissions from the moon. There isn’t a damn thing that shows where the astronauts transmission came from before it hit the relay module. They could have been on the earth side of the module for all we know since we couldn’t track them with our telescopes. We didn’t and still don’t have anything earthbound that sees that far with that tight of a resolution.
As for other governments and the cold war… Russia DIDN’T think we went. To this day only a minority of their population knows about the lunar program and of that minority, over 20% believe it didn’t happen. Cuba actually teaches in their schools that the U.S. faked the landings. There is a huge population outside of the U.S. that doesn’t believe we went, but U.S. citizens are too ignorant of the rest of the world to realize that. If the rest of the worlds scientists and astronomers believed we went to the moon they would have designed a lunar module after our own instead of trying to make their own lunar modules… eta on the soonest one to be built is China in 2025. U.S. may be able to make one by 2028. huh… that seems odd doesn’t it? You’d think at the very LEAST they could build one in the 6 years it took them back in the ’60s.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
15 
6 (+9)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
Exceptional points. Look forward to reading more soon. Nice to see you are not content to be a mindless unthinking sheep in the flock. Remember that independent logical thinking threatens members of the flock. Please read some of my Hub pages if you have the time (Stendek). Peace.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
3 (-2)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
Exceptional site. Sorry I have not noticed it before now. I am a conspiracist. I was an investigative reporter for decades before eyesight failed.
Never thought much about fake moon landing until Edwin Aldrin sucker punched an American citizen in an unprovoked attack then received a pat on the back from corrupt American legal system.
Foolishly accepted NASA claims on faith alone. I was naive teenager in 1969. Actions by this astro-not caused me to examine possibility that the moon landings were just flights of fancy.
My focus went from federal government sponsored domestic assassinations (JFK, RFK, MLK, John Lennon) and 911 official fantasy (federal government sanctioned 911 report pure fiction paid for by wasted tax dollars) to moon. All pseudo scientific balderdash compiled by folks with personal agendas.
No Elizabeth, Americans never landed on the moon. Astro-nots under secrecy oaths. Many citizens/astro-nots who did blow whistle or attempt to do so are in final resting places (http://hubpages.com/hub/NASA-Mirder-On-Pad-34).
Reason for hoax? Suppose president proclaimed that USA WOULD land on moon when though technology was not available at that time (as now) to do so? Delay at first. Then thoughts of unaccounted billions of taxpayer dollars for project magically overcome technology problem. Many hoaxes can be and have been staged for a lot less money!
Know what really bothers me? Rest of world already knows NASA and astro-nots like old sucker punch presented a piece of wood to the Dutch people as a genuine moon rock (http://hubpages.com/hub/NASA-Moon-Hoax-Exposed-With-Commentary).
This is fully verified. Why has NASA never been brought to task for this national disgrace? Where is the accountability? Righteous indignation? Oh well. Thanks again for forum. Peace.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
4 
4 (0)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
I dont care much for these conspiracies. Not that i dont belive that they faked it. But that their is more important stuff then this like 9/11
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
3 
2 (+1)
Hey, i think that these forums are awesome. and so far no one has shunned me for my theories like other forums so heres what i think about the moon landing:
i didnt believe for one minute that planets were real when i was a child – how the hell does something that big just stay in the sky???? i think that the moon is just a giant camera manufactured by the US government to spy on the russians during the cold war. unfortunatly the Russians suspected this and the race to the moon began. the US knew that the russians would never be able to reach the moon as the government had complete control over its movements but they also knew that their chances were no better so they staged the landing to stop the russians attempts to reach the moon.
This theory then pretty much follows all of those signs on the picture of it being staged.
Gerald
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
3 
4 (-1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
Greetings fellow forum readers. I am about to reveal a conspiracy so crazy that you may not believe it. IT began in 0 AD Jesus Christ was born and with his birth a massive explosion of holiness happened blasting a hole in the carpet covering earth. Now you may be thinking ‘hold on a minute Heninrick Van de Fodern, a carpet round earth?’ but yes it is true. In 7000BC a Alien time traveler saw a future human movie called ‘Bruno’ after seeing it he was so disgusted that he thought no other Quanisialorian should have to watch it and so covered it in a pitch black blanket and constantly watcher it surrounding it by torches with only one original hole… The sun. He watches us all the time through the ‘sun’. Anyway the moon was a hole in the blanket. This is why it is bright.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
3 
0 (+3)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
the comment from Heinrick Van de Fordern about why it is bright is crazy. i know there are many things the government hides from us…. but serously! only idiots would believe that. as a matter of fact im going to use this as an example in my government class.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
3 
0 (+3)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
The man on the moon hoax is actually true. The thing is they did land on the moon but they found species of what we call extra terrestrials. NASA actually has footage of extra terrestrials and UFO’s they just choose not to reveal it. If you go on to youtube and look up some of the videos it proves that NASA is trying to hide a lot of things. For instance that mars is actually not red it actually looks like a huge desert and is very closely the same to the sahara desert. They have also found pyramids and statues on mars including the moon. The government does not want you to know this because they are very secretive and do not want our society to be chaotic.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
0 
1 (-1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
I thought the moon landing was already validated when dozens of observatories (Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur, Mcdonald observatory, Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation, and Haleakala High Altitude Observatory just to name a few) use a retroreflectors that were left on the moon during apollo 11 by man who landed on the moon to measure the distance between the earth and the moon.
I thought the moon landing was already validated when satelite stations from all over the world (Soviet Union’s Space Transmissions Corps, Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station in Australia, Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station in Australia, Carnarvon Tracking Station, Pic du Midi de Bigorre in France, and The Madrid Apollo Station in Spain, and Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK if you want specific examples and there are a LOT more that i’m not listing) were monitoring the apollo missions as they traveled to, and landed on, the moon. ALL of them I have listed and many more have confirmed the moon landings of the apollo missions.
I thought the moon landing was already validated when the lunar orbiter recently took pictures of the apollo landing sites which shows equipment and manmade tracks left on the moon.
I thought the moon landing was already confirmed by the astronauts and hundreds of thousands of people involved in the apollo missions.
I thought the moon landing was already validated when the apollo missions brought back 382 kilograms of moon dust and rocks.
I thought the moon landing was already validated by the pictures and videos of man on the moon.
If the moon landing was a hoax to win the cold war then why on earth would the Soviet Union have several observatories that confirmed our lunar landings?
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
2 (-1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
Brian:
Laser reflectors and Unmaned remote rovers were also left on the lunar surface by the rusians long before the U.S. allegedly landed on the moon. The russian devices were deposited there by unmaned missions. Why would you think the presence of lunar based laser reflectors prooves that astronauts went there?
The observatories that you listed did not monitor the astronauts landings on the lunar surface, they were able to monitor the vehicles from launch through high orbit, but were not capable of monitoring a craft that small past high orbit around our planet. All monitoring past that point was done by radio transmission through a relay transiever placed between the earth and the moon prior to the mission launch.
The lunar orbitor that recently took photos of the landing sites was only able to take low resolution pictures where the craft appeared as 6 pixel^2 blob and could not be readily identified. The fact that you can see a trail of footprints on a picture with 3 meters/pixel of resolution only supports the theory that the photos were doctored. Those footpaths would have to be 9 feet across to even show on the images and the equipment cart the astronauts allegedly pulled was only 2 feet wide. The tracks were more likely a natural anomoly of the surface.
There are no observatories that confirm the landings
Moon rocks are the same as earth rocks. In fact it is theorized by nasa that the moon is a chunk of the earth.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
2 
0 (+2)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
how come with all the technologies that have improved since that time, we have not sent anyone to the moon since? It is a hoax.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
2 
1 (+1)
First of all, from what I have seen, the radiation dose estimates hoax theory believers suggest are invalid (more to come later).
Secondly, I don’t think anyone pro or con on the hoax debate is a “sheep”, “idiot”, etc. Many do get the entirely human emotional response of being defensive when their own views are challanged. This cannot help either side to present their particular view in a logical way. That being said, the best way to scientifically attempt to validate a point is to present the best known facts from the most reliable sources. The problem with conspiracy theorists seems to be (from what I have seen in the many web-based posts, videos, articles, etc.)they generally believe only their own sources, as any other source “must” be influenced by whatever or whomever the conspiracists are arguing against. On the other hand, they do bring up some valid points (many seem laughable to those who have real expertise in some areas, but even experts are not experts at everything, so why should they expect everyone to have the same amount of knowledge in their field of expertise as they do?) which should be considered. And dismissing them or calling them “whacky” does not provide any logical rebuttal.
Sorry for the long-winded intro, but I just want to say that I have found contradictions in some of the debunkers statements, but far, far more in the statements and “evidence” presented by the hoax supporters. I am going to provide you with one clear example on which I have 29 years of associated expertise (part of my job involves measuring and documenting radiation levels involved with nucleear repair work) where the conspirators have it flat wrong.
One of their main “smoking gun” arguements is that no astronaut could survive the trip(s) thru the Van Allen radiation belts. Now I do not have all the data from those belts, but I can tell you how fields of radiation work. The conspiracists perform their math for the Van Allen belt(s)(including the South American Anomoly) using the estimated travel time thru the belt(s) multiplied my the MAXIMUM radiation dose(s) recorded. In fact, any entire radiation field, is NOT uniform. This can easily be confirmed for the Van Allen belts just by visiting the history of their discovery. They were discovered when geiger counters on rocketships noticed an “increase in the amount of “clicks” (or detectable radiological interactions). This would be where the Van Allen belts start – at rather low levels, then increasing as you get to the denser flux (or more radioactively hazardous) portions of the belts. The maximum flux tends to be towards the center or central regions of the field. There is no physically possible way for the astronauts to be exposed to the MAXIMUM radiation levels for their entire trip thru the Van Allen belts. Also, NASA would do whatever they reasonably could to prevent their spacecraft from entering those areas of MAXIMUM radiation. From the data presented from the dose assignments I have seen given to the various astronauts for their trips, their exposures seem quite reasonable to what I would expect based on my own experience. Also, to illustrate what I am saying for those who would like an analogy, I would compare going thru a Van Allen belt like jumping thru a ring of fire (this is not meant to be a “perfect” analogy, but does represent many of the actual physical characteristics of a radiation field). If you were to approach the ring of fire there would be a point where you could feel the heat of the flame – this would be the beginning of the Van Allen belt. You could stay there for quite some time without coming to harm. If you were to get much closer to the flame you could indeed be injured, and, depending on the amount of time spent close to or in the flame, even die. But if you jumped thru the hoop you would likely feel only momentary heat resulting in no injury, even if you pass thru the flame. In conclusion, I just want to re-iterate the hoax theory proponents have their radiation estimates drastically wrong.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
1 
0 (+1)
Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
6 Trackbacks / Pingbacks to
More Photographic Evidence Comment on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax : April 30th, 2006 at 15:15
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.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
5 
4 (+1)
Camera Problems Comment on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax : April 30th, 2006 at 15:30
On all of the cameras there is a + in the middle of the lens to help with distance but on some of the pictures objects overlap the plus. This suggests that the plus was added later.
But the answer for this is simple. If you notice, all of the overlapping objects are bright and white. Because of this, the colour background bleeds into the thin cross, making the cross fade/disappear.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
3 
6 (-3)
Photographic Evidence Comment on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax : April 30th, 2006 at 15:01
Photographs are the main argument for the conspiracy believers, as there are thousands of 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?”
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
2 
4 (-2)
Video Evidence Comment on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax : April 30th, 2006 at 16:00
The most consistently seen argument of moon hoax believers, is why, in a land with no air, the American flag stands up and waves, instead of falling down to the ground? And yes, if you look closely at the moon flag video clip, (Realtime player required.) it does appear as if Neil is fighting with the USA flag. But, if you look even closer, you can see that the flag is only flapping when Neil is holding it, and trying to twist the flag into the ground. (You can’t see this that well because of convenient editing.). Because of this the flag waving can be accounted for by Neil twisting the pole.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
3 
7 (-4)
Scientific Evidence Comment on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax : April 30th, 2006 at 16:30
Radiation would kill the astronauts
Many conspiracists believe that NASA never left the Earth’s atmosphere, because of the amount of radiation in The Van Allen radiation belt would kill an astronaut. But with help from other sources (thanks clavius moon base) We can determine if this is true. The American legal radiation limit below are a helpful.
Like or Dislike this Conspiracy Comment:
3 
2 (+1)
Why Fake a Moon Landing? Comment on Apollo Moon Landing Hoax : April 30th, 2006 at 17:00
Wether the conspiracy was possible or if there was a motive for faking the landings, is a big part of the moon hoax.
Many conspiracy debunkers say that there was no reason for the US to fake the moon landings.
This is false, as at the time America was publicly losing the space race, as Russia had put the:
First man/woman in space.
First animal in space.
First three person mission in space.
And the first space station in orbit.
Hot Conspiracy Debate. What do you think?
6 
4 (+2)
Leave a reply to Apollo Moon Landing Hoax