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 […]
Continue Reading Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
i am afraid that i can prove all of the “hoax” theories wrong, sorry to dissapoint. lets start from the begining.(btw im taking time out of my homework on the moon landing to wright this so listen up)
if armstrong was first on the moon, who took the photo?-simple, the camera was on a simple tripod ‘arm’ that extended out from the side of the rocket.
why does the flag move if thier is no wind?- because they had to jam the pole into the earth(which moved the flag), and with no friction to stop it, the flag continued to sway afterwards, and then became stationary again
why are there no stars in the photo?- because to take a photo of whattever they were taking a photo of, they had to use the right exposure, with the sun shining this would of been very hard to see in the photos(btw NASA has some of the greatest minds in the world, do you really think they would forget the stars if they wanted to fake it?seriously people…)
why is there a ‘c’ on a rock in one of the photos- in the origonal there is no ‘c’, this is just a tiny hair that was in the way during the copying process
why is there the same background?- with no atmosphere it is hard to gage distance, it could be 10 or 100 miles away and you wouldnt see the difference
why did was there shadows in more than one direction if the only light source was the sun?-the surface of the moon is very reflective, scattering light in different directions,casting different shadows
why was there footprints if the sand if it was not wet?- barcarbonate of soda is not wet, yes? sprinkle some on your kitchen floor and tread on it it leaves a footprint, yes? i rest my case.
why was there dust on the lander if there was no wind to blow it on it- because with no atmosphere the dust goes straight up and back down again, when the lander landed it blew dust up, it came straight back down on the lander.
theres loads more but i seriously have to get back to that homework. still not convinced? visit http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/index.html
if your still not satisfied then you are a pesimist who cant admit thier wrong about one of the greatest achievments in man kind and i think you need to readjust your perspective on life.
p.s if your someone who i just mentioned than i hope you new the answers behind the hoax theries but wont believe because otherwise you are dumber than a 13 year old [yes, i may be only 13 but at least i dont spend my free time making up conspiracy theries to do with nasa] also, TEST your theries before you make a judgement, it saves a lot of insult to those who gave thier lives work to the apollo missions.
thx for listening
Apollo Moon Landing
Fly me to the moon- or not
If it took rockets full of fuel to get the lunar module into space- outside of the earth’s gravity- and on its way to the moon- what kept it propelled in space after it was just the lunar module on its way to the moon? By what mechanism was used to steer the lunar module so that it would be able to land on the moon? When they landed on the moon- we can assume they didn’t crash. So how did they wind up on the moon’s surface? When they landed- did they crash land- or just stop in mid-air and slowly lower the lunar module to the earth’s surface? When they left the moon- how did they take off? Did they just go straight up- and wizz back to earth like in the cartoons? What power did they use to get the lunar capsule back to earth? How did they steer the capsule so that it would land in the ocean and not on land?
When they were on the moon they were transmitting pictures- not just sound- but direct TV pictures across the solar system- to earth? What satellite was used to deflect this signal to earth- and with what type of equipment did the men on the moon use to send a signal carrying moving pictures- assumingly, in real time? The earth would not be able to receive a signal that was sent from the moon- unless it was relayed from a communications satellite.
What communications satellietes existed in 1969 to able to send and receive signals (not just voice and radio- but video pictures) from such a distance? Here on earth- enormous amounts of computers, simulators, and other very scientific machinery and instrumentation are required to send the signals to the moon so that communications can be maintained with the crew. Wouldn’t the same amount of sophoisticated equipment be required on the other side- the crew on the moon- who are making films of their exploits there- and supposedly- sending them back to earth for use to see.
For the story to be true- the guys on the moon would have have to send their video signals to a communications satellite near enough to the moon where it would then be relayed to the earth- via another satellite which Nasa would have to relayed to a receiving dish on earth. That is how satellites work. In 1969 the most that could be done on earth
The space travellers would have had to carry with them an enormous amount of communications equipment to be able to send and receive video signals with those of us back on Earth. How could that little lunar module been able to transport enormous amount of equipment to the moon?
If the part of the moon they landed in was pitch black- dark, where did they get enough light to broadcast pictures of their activities? Look at the original Buzz Aldrin photograph. How did they create all this light- to not only light him up- but the entire background of the moon behind him? Did they bring extra lighting and camera equipment with them and then use them outdoors- on the moon surface- with their big gloves and space suits? Would they not have had to have cables coming out of the capsule- as it would be in any TV studio on earch in 1969? How could they be sending complete photos across the solar system to the earth- based on the equipment they had with them on the capsule? Would it not have required a huge amount of room to take all that equipment with them and enormous amounts of fuel? If they did- we certainly didn’t see it.
When the guy in the spacesuit takes a step down the ladder- the says those famous words- who was outside the lunar module on the moon’s surface- filming his boots on the last rung of the ladder? Whoever it was- how could pictures be taken without that having connection via cable to the spaceship where the power would come? To film him coming down the ladder- the pictures would have to be taken from outside the lunar module- not from inside.
What took place- supposedly- was a whole series of video pictures taken on the moon’s surface- by the astronauts- and then they sent these video signals (not voice/radio signals- but actual video footage- like on TV. Even sending picture stills in real time would be amazing. But TV pictures of he event?
We are to believe they whole crew are outside the lunar module- on the moon’s surface. There are at least two- one doing the jumping and the other doing the filming. Where is the guy dealing with the lights? How is so much light being created (enough to take pictures) if the moon (at least in the background of the pictures” looks like it is dark? When the one guy was “playing around” on the moon- how was the other guy who was supposedly filming the event- be able to hold the cameras and the lighting and sound equipment in place if there is no gravity on the moon? What stopped the equipment they were using to film the event from floating off into deep space?
Another factor that all the landing hoax retards continue to ignore is that one hour on the Moon is more or less equal to one day on Earth.
just to clear a few things up (although,as i said, it is clearly explained on http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/index.html ), what Joel said about thier being no gravity on the moon, that isnt strictly true. there is gravity, but not a lot of it. also,something i ALREADY mentioned (sheesh did i spend half hour writing to myself here?) about the first footage of man on the moon, is that there is an EXTENDABLE TRIPOD ARM on the side of the ship, seriously, NASA aint dumb they new people would want footage. another thing, they were trained to use the cameras before hand, thats why it dindnt jiggle about.
one more thing, recently ive heard a lot about so called ‘footage’ of Nasa filming fake footage on earth. for this i will explaing using one thing: common sense. seriously people, do you REALLY think NASA would keep evidence that they’d faked a moon landing? it aint exactly something thney would want to keep IF the had faked the landings. another thing, this is NASA were talking about, not some free-lance company! do you really think if they had that stuff theyd let it leak to YOU-TUBE?!!
okay. ive said my bit. let of steam. if you wanna believe it was faked, fine. ignore the evidence, and ignore mans greatest(ish) avhievement. goodnight.
p.s sorry about the typos/spelling mistakes above, i was typing v. quick
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.
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).
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.
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..
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?
No. Earth-bound telescopes, including Hubble, simply cannot resolve objects that small at that distance. You’d need a telescope with an objective on the order of 25 meters across, more than twice as big as the biggest telescope yet made and 10 times bigger than Hubble, and you’d have to get it above the atmosphere.
Ain’t gonna happen.
However, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter *has* imaged the Apollo landing sites, some in enough detail to make out the tracks the astronauts left behind.
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.
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.