The great american govt fraud: man on moon

Did NASA really go to the moon? Main claim: The US government, in the 1960's, was so desperate to prove their superiority against the Soviet Union, they staged the moon landing from a sound stage in Nevada. Last update 2nd January 2012: (Irrefutable evidence they went to the moon - Apollo 11) editor@theVoiceofReason.com Myth-o-meter 6%-20% of USA said to think it was a conspiracy. UPDATED July 2011! The complete TV transmissions from the Moon - Apollo 11now up. I have uploaded a selection of the best official NASA moon landing documentaries. Apollo 11, Apollo 12, Apollo 15, Apollo 16 and Apollo 17. If this is all a conspiracy surely some of the evidence is in these documentaries? Before all the conspiracy evidence, which is mainly an analysis of some strange pictures that are not what a layman might reasonably expect, here's the proof that they went: The astronauts did actually leave something on the moon that has (verifiably) been used regularly ever since. In 1969 Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin left a mirror device (picture below) on the moon's surface. This is used to measure the distance between the earth and the moon using a laser device from the McDonald Observatory, 4 hours drive from El Paso. (Source: BBC Horizon documentary, What on Earth is wrong with Gravity?) What are the claims, what is the evidence that it ws all a hoax? The best evidence found (so far) that it could be a conspiracy: 1) NASA pictures: Even though the lander landed on a dusty moon, thrusters kicking up a large cloud of dust, there is no dust on the lander foot. How can this be? Some of the dust must surely have landed on the foot if this is a genuine picture. 2) Even though the moon lander created a cloud of dust on it's descent, there is no sign of this under the lander: 3) With the sun behind an astronaut and no additional lighting taken by the astronauts to the moon, how come everything is so detailed in this picture below? The astronaut should be a silhouette but you can clearly see the front of his suit... And how can we see the astronaut so clearly in the picture below when he is descending into a shadow? Mythbusters explains this phenomenon by showing, in an experiment, that the moon reflects light back and shows that the astronaut is visible without the need for a secondary light source. Here is the video that debunks this particular conspiracy theory: And, also, this picture which has the sun behind the lander: You can see in detail everything on the lander with the words 'United States' on it - this should all be in the shadow (as the sun was the only light source on the moon). These pictures are more like propaganda pictures than actual ones. 4) The astronauts took all of the still pictures using a fixed, front mounted camera: So how on earth did they take this picture? He must have been floating up sideways. 5) There is evidence that some of the official pictures have been manipulated, allegedly by NASA. The picture, below, clearly shows cross hairs behind the image (which should never have happened as the cross hairs were burned into the image as part of the photographic process on the mission): (Click picture to enlarge) 6) Film shows a flapping flag (with no twisting of the pole by the astronaut at least definitely in the second sequence) but there is no wind on the moon, how can this be? (This conspiracy point has always puzzled us because if NASA did fake it for $40bn, it would be quite easy to seal off the sound stage to prevent wind interfering with the flag, however look at this video evidence here and consider what you see...) (November 2009) 7) The as17-141-21608 picture which apparently shows an astronaut with no back pack on reflected in the visor of another astronaut... Apollo 17. This is a small version of the large image (click here for the original large version of the file): Looking closely at the visor of the astronaut we see this: The image, above, seems to show a figure with no backpack on. This would be impossible if the picture was taken on the moon. Internet conspiracy theorists say this is a stage hand helping fake the moon landing images... This is a genuine NASA photo http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-141-21608HR.jpg. Here's an explanation: Due to poor image quality you think you see the reflected astronaut facing in a different direction, he is in fact facing forwards... So the reflected astronaut - who took the picture - must have been facing forwards to take the picture on his chest mounted camera. So, look again: Other interesting points: Claim: There are strange pictures which seem to show erratic lighting on the moon, and other discrepancies. There is only one light source, the Sun, so all shadows should be parallel. But it seems that they are not in the picture below... Below we have marked up a possible path of the lighting sources needed to make the shadows in the picture.  In the picture, below, the shadow on the bolder in the top right goes to the left, but the shadow of the astronaut goes straight forward - this is simply impossible with only one light source... (Click picture to enlarge) No stars in the sky, but planet earth is clearly visible. Look at this near perfect picture taken from the NASA 40th anniversary page for the Apollo missions: This just can't be possible, can it? Or is this picture a manufactured montage?   The conspiracy theorists maintain that NASA kept the sky black because it would have been too complicated to fake the always moving stars in it. This picture is simply perfect, was it actually taken on the moon at all? Here is an excellent conspiracy argument backed up with supposed video evidence. It is claimed that the astronauts were filmed on wires to accentuate the fact that they are in one sixth earths gravity. This video appears to show the astronauts being winched up on wires during the live apollo broadcasts. And another clip, here, of an astronaut falling over and then apparently being held up by a wire, stopping him completely falling on the ground (his mid section never hits the ground)... And what on earth is that pole thingie collapsing for, wasn't it supposed to be going down into the soil)? Claim: There is no engine noise behind the voice of the astronaut as it comes down to land on the moon.The sound of the engines should have been deafening. Argument: The microphone is at the mouth of the astronaut. In space there is no sound, thus you couldn't hear the engine noise. Claim: The space suits and the space craft were just not strong enough to fight off the radiation either on the Moon itself or through the Van Allen radiation belt. Argument: They went through the Van Allen belt in an hour, this was not enough time to be affected by the radiation. The astronauts were affected by radiation, they just were not made ill by it as the doses were small. As for 'how did they survive the sun's radiation on the moon if the suits weren't strong enough': Hmmm... well, the suits must have been strong enough if you think the conspiracy is wrong, or they didn't go... Claim: The moon walking, if doubled in speed, looks like running on earth. Argument: Yea sorta... the honest answer to this is we don't have any references to compare it to, the moon is a different environment to anything we know of. You just can't tell if this is genuine or not. Claim: On some of the film footage from the moon there seems to be identical scenery, one with the lander on, one without. Clearly the one without must be wrong as they had not been there before and after they left the lander base was still there. Argument: But there are differences, the backgrounds are not identical if you look closely enough. The Moon is a pretty featureless place and certain mountains can look similar. Claim: Identical backgrounds on different days with pictures of astronauts looking around but we are told this is a different day, how can this be? Argument: It's a simple mistake. Claim: People have been killed and threatened to keep this story quiet, that's why nothing has ever come out. Argument: 750,000 people work either directly or indirectly for NASA - they couldn't keep this a secret. Yes but not everyone has the full picture. It would be possible for a small number of people to know about it as NASA is quite modular - an example would be the guys who made the rivets for the space module wouldn't need to know etc... The astronauts did actually leave something on the moon that has (verifiably) been used regularly ever since. In 1969 Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin left a mirror device (picture below) on the moon's surface. This is used to measure the distance between the earth and the moon using a lazer device from the McDonald Observatory, 4 hours drive from El Paso. (Source: BBC Horizon documentary, What on Earth is wrong with Gravity?) NASA destroyed the tapes of the Apollo 11 landing claiming that their aim was for live television. This is either monumentally short sighted, or evidence of some kind of cover up. (Source: BBC) Argument: This is one of those excellent conspiracy points - why oh why oh why would they destroy this? NASA supporters say it is a monumental cock-up... Postscript: In the documentary A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon, writer/ producer /director Bart Sibrel presents the following NASA video [link here] which we use here with his kind permission. This website now has confirmation that this is taken from genuine NASA footage (apart from the "Talk" speech, so far - I will take another listen to the footage another time). The documentary uses this genuine footage for what seems to be convincing proof that the astronauts faked pictures of the earth from the module by filming the earth through a far window to make it look like it was much further away but while the astronauts remained in a low earth orbit for the duration of what is claimed to be the hoax-mission. But there is another TV transmission that the documentary fails to mention, and there is a copy of the interesting bit here. This video is of an earlier TV transmission (about 3.5 hours earlier) in which the moon is not blocked out and indeed you get to see the window frame through which the earth is filmed as the camera pans back. Below is a still from the 30:28 GET - the bright light is earth as seen through the module window. Added 21st January 2011: A copy of the speech in which John F Kennedy encouraged NASA to put a man on the moon before 'this decade is out' is here. Where could this have been done? Filmed at Area 51 in Nevada high desert. Why would 'they' cover it up? The political demands of succeeding in the space race, to prove USA's superiority in the cold war. US rocket science was not up to the job, this was politically unacceptable. A reader e-mailed in this question: In your article you mentioned that there was no moisture on the moon (which is definitely true) and thus dust can not stick on any parts of the buggy or the lander. Now here's the kicker: What about the famous picture of the foot print on the moon? How can dust stick on the shoes of the space suit? We replied: The footprint on the moon could have been made simply by a dry foot pressing down on dry, deep moon dust. Just because there was an impression it doesn't mean moisture made dust stick to the moon boot that made the impression... the dust could just have been pushed into that impression by a dry moon boot pressing downwards - it's really fine dust up there... Another reader emailed in this question: If the Hubble telescope can see galaxies dozens of light years away, why can't we just turn '1' of our worlds super powerful telescopes at the moon and just see the flag?????? Doesn't SETI have such capabilities? Can't we see car license plates from orbiting satellites with today's technology... show me the flag!!!!!!!! A reader has kindly been in contact and it seems that Hubble can, indeed, see the moon, trouble is it can't see anything as small as the landing debris on the moon...http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=77&cat=topten . As for Earth orbiting satellites, they can only see the Earth (ie allegedly the licence plates) and not up at the moon. This fact may not be part of your average nurse practitioner programs you may be able to learn information like this in astronomy courses or possibly a physics class.

RSS XML CONSPIRACY CLINIC

http://www.conspiracyclinic.com/moon.htm 

The Apollo Hoax

Were the moon landings real or were they faked by NASA?

I'll declare my intentions up front. The only reason I have written a page on the moon landings conspiracy theory is to help knock it down. Of course the Apollo moon landings happened. There are thousands of photos , loads of video footage, audio tapes and of course the moon rock samples. However conspiracy theorists still claim that there is 'proof' that the landings did not take place on the moon but were in fact shot in film studios. Fair enough lets look at the main arguments:

CONSPIRACY
Where are all the stars in the photos?
When you see pictures of the astronauts on the moon, the sky is dark and yet you can't see any stars. Why?
ANSWER
The astronauts were out and about on the moon during the day. The sun was above the horizon and was shining down on the moon's surface, the lunar module and the astronaut's white spacesuits. In order to take photos of these relatively bright objects a fast shutter speed was used. This will capture the brightly lit objects (astronauts, Lunar module, moon) but not dim objects (stars). When the astronauts looked overhead they would have seen plenty of stars but with the fast shutter speed on the camera none were caught on film.


CONSPIRACY
The shadows on some photos do not run parallel!! Non-parallel shadows indicate that more than one light source was present (studio lighting) whereas if the photos had really been taken on the moon the only light source would have been the sun.
ANSWER
This a perspective effect that is partly due to the fact that the sun is low in the sky and partly due to the undulating nature of the moon's surface. If there had been two light sources then objects would have cast two sets of shadows but you can clearly see from all the photos that each object casts just the one.


CONSPIRACY
Why does the American flag appear to be blowing in a breeze?
In the vacuum of space this should not be possible.
ANSWER
The flag had a pole inserted across the top edge so that it would be unfurled for the photos and not hanging limply on the flagpole. The Apollo 11 astronauts were not able to extend the horizontal pole fully and it left a crease in the flag. This gave it the appearance of the flag fluttering. The later Apollo astronauts liked the way this looked and decided to also leave the horizontal arm partially extended.


CONSPIRACY
Why weren't the astronauts killed by the enormous dose of radiation they received during the mission?
ANSWER
Much of this argument centres on the Van Allen belts. These magnetic fields around the earth trap particles from the solar winds and the theory is that passing through these regions would have given the astronauts deadly amounts of radiation poisoning. This is true if they stayed in the belts for a long period of time but on the Apollo missions they passed through the belts in about an hour. Also the metal spacecraft protected the astronauts from most of the radiation.


CONSPIRACY
The cameras were mounted on the astronauts chests and would have been very difficult to line up. How come the photos are so good?
ANSWER
The astronauts were given many hours of training purely on taking good shots of the moon. NASA had spent a fortune getting there, they weren't about to leave things to chance. They used specialist cameras from the top manufacturers and extensively tested them. The films were protected from the extreme temperatures of the moon in special canisters and when they arrived back on earth each of the hundreds of frames were individually developed by specialists in their own lab. Any dud photos that were taken would not have been published.


CONSPIRACY
Why is there no blast crater?
When the lunar module landed it should have made a large crater.
ANSWER
By the time the LM was near the landing site it was descending quite slowly and the guidance rockets would have been powered down to less than 3000 pounds of pressure. Unlike on earth where most of the thrust from the rockets would have pushed air downwards and created vertical streams of pressure to disturb the dust, in the space vacuum this pressure disperses in all directions much more evenly and this creates less disturbance of the moon's surface hence no big crater.

These are some of the main arguments that the conspiracy theorists put forward and as you can see with the appliance of science and a bit of common sense they quickly fall apart. Now lets turn the spotlight around 180 degrees and see how the conspiracy holds up when it is examined.
Here are a few of the questions I would like answered by the pro-hoaxers:
RUSSIAN WHISTLEBLOWERS
The moon landings were the culmination of a fraught space race between the Americans and the Russians. Both nations threw the kitchen sink at trying to get a man on the moon first. Now if the Americans were hoaxing the whole thing the Russians would have quickly latched on to the fact that none of the audio or video transmissions were actually coming from the moon. Why didn't they step forward and declare the whole thing an American sham and gloat about it for the next two decades? It is simply not feasible that NASA could have duped the Russians. On the other hand maybe the Kremlin decided it was such a great wheeze they would play along with it.

THE SCOOBY DOO FACTOR
As we all know when somebody tries to pull a scam like this it normally ends up with the bad guys saying "and if it hadn't been for those pesky kids we would've got away with it."
There would have been hundreds if not thousands of people in on this conspiracy and yet nobody said a word. Surely somebody would have let the cat out of the bag. The astronauts, the NASA management, the NASA technicians, the film crews, the people who created the moon stage, directed the film, dealt with the outtakes, the scientific advisors who would have needed to be on hand to oversee every aspect of every bit of film , video or voice transmission to make it as authentic as possible. Surely some of these people (if not most of them) would have had a guilty conscience and picked up the phone and rung the Washington Post or NBC...surely.

IT'S OK GUYS I'VE HAD AN IDEA
Another question I would like answered by the pro-hoaxers is this.
At what point did the hoax begin?
From Alan Shepard's 15 minute flight that made him the first American in space to the Apollo moon landing, many many missions were flown to try out new technology, gain experience and learn exactly how to get to the moon. The Mercury missions extended the amount of time and earth orbits the astronauts were spending in space. The Gemini missions developed the astronauts ability to manoeuvre and dock space craft and the Apollo missions took the astronauts, first into moon orbit and finally to its surface. Everything was done in relatively small steps. At what point did NASA and the US government decide that rather than land on the moon it would be far easier to con the population of the world with the biggest, most complicated, costly and risky hoax the world has ever known? Never that's when.

FURTHER READING
If you would like to read more about the moon hoax arguments, I would suggest having a look at the following:
Bad Astronomy. A very well researched site that which is essential reading for anyone interested in this subject.
Moon Hoax. Another site that explains away the great mysteries of the Apollo photos etc.
Ian Goddard. This is great. Ian Goddard has reproduced a lot of the 'discrepancies' in the Apollo photos using models. Well worth a look.

Read about the Space Race

Return to Home Page

http://www.astrocentral.co.uk/moonhoax.html