What's new

10 Reasons the Moon Landings Could Be a Hoax

Maarkhoor

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Messages
17,051
Reaction score
36
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
The theory that the moon landings were hoaxed by the US government to assert their victory in the space race over Russia, is something which has grown in popularity over time.

Recent polls indicate that approximately 20% of Americans believe that the U.S. has never landed on the moon. After the Apollo missions ended in the seventies, why haven’t we ever been back? Only during the term of Richard Nixon did humanity ever land on the moon, and after Watergate most people wouldn’t put it past Tricky Dick to fake them to put America in good standing in the Cold War.

In this list I have presented some of the proposed evidence to suggest that the moon landings were hoaxes. I tried to include NASA’s explanations to each entry to provide an objective perspective.


10


The Waving Flag

flag-waving-moon-landing_9803_600x450.jpg


Conspiracy theorists have pointed out that when the first moon landing was shown on live television, viewers could clearly see the American flag waving and fluttering as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planted it. Photos of the landing also seem to show rippling in a breeze, such as the image above which clearly shows a fold in the flag. The obvious problem here is that there’s no air in the moon’s atmosphere, and therefore no wind to cause the flag to blow.

Countless explanations have been put forward to disprove this phenomenon as anything unusual: NASA claimed that the flag was stored in a thin tube and the rippled effect was caused by it being unfurled before being planted. Other explanations involve the ripples caused by the reaction force of the astronauts touching the aluminum pole, which is shown to shake in the video footage.



9


Lack of Impact Crater

picture1.jpg


The claim goes as follows: had NASA really landed us on the moon, there would be a blast crater underneath the lunar module to mark its landing. On any video footage or photograph of the landings, no crater is visible, almost as though the module was simply placed there. The surface of the moon is covered in fine lunar dust, and even this doesn’t seem to have been displaced in photographic evidence.

Much like the waving flag theory, however, the lack of an impact crater has a slew of potential explanations. NASA maintains that the module required significantly less thrust in the low-gravity conditions than it would have done on Earth. The surface of the moon itself is solid rock, so a blast crater probably wouldn’t be feasible anyway – in the same way that an aeroplane doesn’t leave a crater when it touches down on a concrete airstrip.

8


Multiple Light Sources

MoonLightingDiscrepancy1.jpg


On the moon there is only one strong light source: the Sun. So it’s fair to suggest that all shadows should run parallel to one another. But this was not the case during the moon landing: videos and photographs clearly show that shadows fall in different directions. Conspiracy theorists suggest that this must mean multiple light sources are present -suggesting that the landing photos were taken on a film set.

NASA has attempted to blame uneven landscape on the strange shadows, with subtle bumps and hills on the moon’s surface causing the discrepancies. This explanation has been tossed out the window by some theorists; how could hills cause such large angular differences? In the image above the lunar module’s shadow clearly contradicts that of the rocks in the foreground at almost a 45 degree angle.



7


The Van Allen Radiation Belt

belt.jpg


In order to reach the moon, astronauts had to pass through what is known as the Van Allen radiation belt. The belt is held in place by Earth’s magnetic field and stays perpetually in the same place. The Apollo missions to the moon marked the first ever attempts to transport living humans through the belt. Conspiracy theorists contend that the sheer levels of radiation would have cooked the astronauts en route to the moon, despite the layers of aluminum coating the interior and exterior of the spaceship.

NASA have countered this argument by emphasizing the short amount of time it took the astronauts to traverse the belt – meaning they received only very small doses of radiation.

6


The Unexplained Object

moon-stuff012.jpg


After photographs of the moon landings were released, theorists were quick to notice a mysterious object (shown above) in the reflection of an astronaut’s helmet from the Apollo 12 mission. The object appears to be hanging from a rope or wire and has no reason to be there at all, leading some to suggest it is an overhead spotlight typically found in film studios.

The resemblance is questionable, given the poor quality of the photograph, but the mystery remains as to why something is being suspended in mid-air (or rather lack of air) on the moon. The lunar module in other photos appears to have no extension from it that matches the photo, so the object still remains totally unexplained.



5


Slow-Motion Walking and Hidden Cables


In order to support claims that the moon landings were shot in a studio, conspiracy theorists had to account for the apparent low-gravity conditions, which must have been mimicked by NASA. It has been suggested that if you take the moon landing footage and increase the speed of the film x2.5, the astronauts appear to be moving in Earth’s gravity. As for the astronaut’s impressive jump height, which would be impossible to perform in Earth’s gravity, hidden cables and wires have been suggested as giving the astronauts some extra height. In some screenshots outlines of alleged hidden cables can be seen (the photograph above supposedly shows a wire, though it is extremely vague).

4


Lack of Stars

a16_11446551.jpg


One compelling argument for the moon landing hoax is the total lack of stars in any of the photographic/video evidence. There are no clouds on the moon, so stars are perpetually visible and significantly brighter than what we see through the filter of Earth’s atmosphere.

The argument here is that NASA would have found it impossible to map out the exact locations of all stars for the hoax without being rumbled, and therefore left them out – intentionally falling back on an excuse that the quality of the photographs washes them out (an excuse they did actually give).

Some photographs are high-quality, however, and yet still no stars are shown. Certainly eerie, considering you can take pictures of stars from Earth in much lower quality and still see them.




3


The “C” Rock

c-rock-actual-c.jpg


One of the most famous photos from the moon landings shows a rock in the foreground, with what appears to be the letter “C” engraved into it. The letter appears to be almost perfectly symmetrical, meaning it is unlikely to be a natural occurrence. It has been suggested that the rock is simply a prop, with the “C” used as a marker by an alleged film crew. A set designer could have turned the rock the wrong way, accidentally exposing the marking to the camera.

NASA has given conflicting excuses for the letter, on the one hand blaming a photographic developer for adding the letter as a practical joke, while on the other hand saying that it may simply have been a stray hair which got tangled up somewhere in the developing process.

2


The Layered Cross-hairs

sibrel_crosshair.jpg


The cameras used by astronauts during the moon landings had a multitude of cross-hairs to aid with scaling and direction. These are imprinted over the top of all photographs. Some of the images, however, clearly show the cross-hairs behind objects in the scene, implying that photographs may have been edited or doctored after being taken. The photograph shown above is not an isolated occurrence. Many objects are shown to be in front of the cross-hairs, including the American flag in one picture and the lunar rover in another.

Conspiracy theorists have suggested NASA printed the man-made objects over a legitimate photograph of the moon to hoax the landings – although if they really planned on doing this, then why they used cross-hairs in the first place is a mystery.
 
.
1


The Duplicate Backdrop

aulishite-1.jpg


The two photos from the Apollo 15 mission shown above clearly have identical backdrops, despite being officially listed by NASA as having been taken miles apart. One photo even shows the lunar module. When all photographs were taken the module had already landed, so how can it possibly be there for one photo and disappear in another? Well, if you’re a hardcore conspiracy theorist, it may seem viable that NASA simply used the same backdrop when filming different scenes of their moon landing videos.

NASA has suggested that since the moon is much smaller than Earth, horizons can appear significantly closer to the human eye. Despite this, to say that the two hills visible in the photographs are miles apart is incontrovertibly false.

Bonus


The Stanley Kubrick Theory

Sun_Earth_Moon.jpg


This loose extension of the popular conspiracy theory states that acclaimed film director Stanley Kubrick was approached by the US government to hoax the first three moon landings. There are two main branches of this somewhat implausible theory: one group of believers maintain that Kubrick was approached after he released 2001: A Space Odyssey (released in 1968, one year before the first moon landing), after NASA came to appreciate the stunning realism of the film’s outer-space scenes at that time; another group contends that Kubrick was groomed by the government to film the moon landing long before this, and that 2001: A Space Odyssey was a staged practice run for him.

So what evidence might support such claims? Well: apparently, if you watch The Shining (another Kubrick picture), you can pick up on some alleged messages hidden by Kubrick to subtly inform the world of his part in the conspiracy. The most obvious is the child’s Apollo 11 shirt worn in only one scene. Another supposed gem is the line written on Jack Nicholson’s character’s typewriter: “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy”, in which the word “all” can be interpreted as A11, or Apollo 11.

If you aren’t convinced yet, Kubrick made the mysterious hotel room in the film number 237. Guess how many miles it is from here to the moon: 238,000. So divide that by a thousand and minus one, and you’ve got one airtight theory right there.
10 Reasons the Moon Landings Could Be a Hoax - Listverse

@LeGenD @Nilgiri @fakhre mirpur @Jonah Arthur @WAJsal @Akheilos @haviZsultan
 
.
So why didn't the USSR say anything?

Were they part of the hoax too? :whistle:
 
.
So why didn't the USSR say anything?

Were they part of the hoax too? :whistle:
They suffer many losses and want to end the race but now they are asking prob on US claims

A Russian Official Wants To Investigate The Apollo Missions
Calling for ‘international investigations’ into the ‘murky’ details surrounding the Apollo Moon missions is normally the preserve of 4chan and tinfoil hat-wearers. But now, you can add Russian Investigative Commission spokesperson Vladimir Markin to that illustrious list.

Markin penned a column for the Izvestia newspaper, arguing that U.S. officials have made themselves the ‘supreme arbiters of international football’, in relation to the ongoing FIFA scandal. From there, Markin elegantly seuges to a number of other things that are worthy of an international investigation.

On the list is the 1994 USA World Cup (probably fair enough), war crimes in Eastern Ukraine (hahaha), and, somehow, the Apollo moon landings. According to Markin, the disappearance of the original footage and 400kg of lunar rocks is suspicious, and worthy of an international investigation.


“We are not contending that they did not fly [to the moon], and simply made a film about it. But all of these scientific — or perhaps cultural — artifacts are part of the legacy of humanity, and their disappearance without a trace is our common loss. An investigation will reveal what happened,”

[Translation via Moscow Times]

For the record: NASA admitted it had erased the original tapes, as part of a mass-erase of 200,000 tapes, to save money. The moon rocks, on the other hand, are mostly in storage at the Johnson Space Center. Or are they? Mother Russia to the rescue.

[Moscow Times]
 
.
:lol::lol::lol:

On the point of stars , Some one told me years ago that , Stars are invisible from space :o::lol::lol::lol:
 
.
1


The Duplicate Backdrop

aulishite-1.jpg


The two photos from the Apollo 15 mission shown above clearly have identical backdrops, despite being officially listed by NASA as having been taken miles apart. One photo even shows the lunar module. When all photographs were taken the module had already landed, so how can it possibly be there for one photo and disappear in another? Well, if you’re a hardcore conspiracy theorist, it may seem viable that NASA simply used the same backdrop when filming different scenes of their moon landing videos.

NASA has suggested that since the moon is much smaller than Earth, horizons can appear significantly closer to the human eye. Despite this, to say that the two hills visible in the photographs are miles apart is incontrovertibly false.

Bonus


The Stanley Kubrick Theory

Sun_Earth_Moon.jpg


This loose extension of the popular conspiracy theory states that acclaimed film director Stanley Kubrick was approached by the US government to hoax the first three moon landings. There are two main branches of this somewhat implausible theory: one group of believers maintain that Kubrick was approached after he released 2001: A Space Odyssey (released in 1968, one year before the first moon landing), after NASA came to appreciate the stunning realism of the film’s outer-space scenes at that time; another group contends that Kubrick was groomed by the government to film the moon landing long before this, and that 2001: A Space Odyssey was a staged practice run for him.

So what evidence might support such claims? Well: apparently, if you watch The Shining (another Kubrick picture), you can pick up on some alleged messages hidden by Kubrick to subtly inform the world of his part in the conspiracy. The most obvious is the child’s Apollo 11 shirt worn in only one scene. Another supposed gem is the line written on Jack Nicholson’s character’s typewriter: “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy”, in which the word “all” can be interpreted as A11, or Apollo 11.

If you aren’t convinced yet, Kubrick made the mysterious hotel room in the film number 237. Guess how many miles it is from here to the moon: 238,000. So divide that by a thousand and minus one, and you’ve got one airtight theory right there.
10 Reasons the Moon Landings Could Be a Hoax - Listverse

@LeGenD @Nilgiri @fakhre mirpur @Jonah Arthur @WAJsal @Akheilos @haviZsultan
lolzz
 
. .
No Stars Visible in Photographs

The sky is, to use the scientific term, lousy with stars. With the naked eye you can see about 5,000 of them – unless of course it is daytime. During the day, the atmosphere surrounding the Earth scatters some of the light from the Sun (blue light scatters most of all, which is why the sky is blue, and also why the Sun appears red when it's low on the horizon, when most of the blue light from it has been scattered away). This scattered, diffuse light is enough to completely drown out the tiny pinpricks of light from stars that are billions of kilometres away.

At night, when the Sun's light is obscured by Earth, we have a relatively clear view at the starscape.

The Moon, lacking an atmosphere, is different. Even during the day the sky is pitch black. The Sun's rays shine down unscattered to the Moon's surface. Why then are stars not visible in photographs taken by the Apollo astronauts?

The answer is to do with exposure time. Your typical lunar photograph features an astronaut wearing a bright white spacesuit, some white equipment of mysterious and arcane function, and several square kilometres of greyish landscape, all beneath a pitch black sky. Compared to the amount of light falling on the camera from features on the surface, the incident light from the stars is tiny.

If the camera had a long enough exposure time to capture enough light from the stars that they would be visible, everything else in the image would be overexposed and bleached out. Even if you take a photo of the stars on Earth, it's unlikely you'll see much if there's anything even a little bright in the foreground.

Waving Flag in a Vacuum

buzz-salute.jpg

July 20, 1969: Buzz Aldrin salutes the deployed United States flag during an Apollo 11 Extravehicular Activity (EVA) on the lunar surfaceNasa
Imagine you are in charge of shooting the fake Moon landing at Area 51. You are under enormous pressure to get it right. The US government has made it clear that you are to produce an absolutely flawless portrayal of a successful mission to the Moon: so technically perfect that it stands up to the harshest of scrutiny for decades to come. Anything less would cause irreparable damage to the reputation and trustworthiness of the US government.

Today you are shooting the planting of the flag, a scene that will surely be screened thousands times over the coming decades to billions of people. Armstrong bounces over to the flag-holder, unfurls the nylon flag, and places it upright.

At that moment a gust of wind from an errantly open stage door causes the flag to flutter and flap. The director shouts "Cut!" and asks you if you want to reshoot.

"Nah, no-one will notice," you reply.

This is one of those pieces of 'evidence' that can be dismissed almost purely because it beggars belief that the conspirators would be that careless. It has been pointed out by some that faking the Moon landings, rather than actually doing them, would be the more technically impossible feat, but one would have thought that a multi-billion dollar conspiracy would remember to keep the doors shut when they were shooting what was meant to be an airless environment.

In actual fact, the reason the flag moves as if flapping for some time after it was planted is precisely because therewas no air. In a vacuum, things that are moving tend to keep moving, and in the absence of drag from the air, the suspended flag moved back and forth like a pendulum for a few seconds.

Lethal Radiation

apollo-11-crew.jpg

This May 1969 file photo shows the astronaut crew of the Apollo 11 lunar landing mission. Left to right, Neil Armstrong, commander; Michael Collins, command module pilot; and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, lunar moduleNasa/Getty
Astronauts that have ventured outside the Earth's protective atmosphere have occasionally reported a strange phenomenon: intermittent flashes of white light in their field of view, with no apparent source. These have since been found to be due to cosmic rays interacting with the retina, stimulating it to cause the perception of light.

Our proximity to the Sun provides the light and warmth we need to live, but it also means that if we venture outside the Earth's magnetic field we are exposed to something else that the Sun emits in huge quantities – ionising radiation.

The effects of ionising radiation on the human body can be much worse than annoying flashes of light, but luckily for us the Earth's magnetic field protects us from most of it.

Some radiation gets captured in the magnetic field and forms a deadly layer tens of thousands of kilometres above the Earth called the Van Allen belts – too high to affect space shuttle astronauts or communication satellites, but potentially deadly, the conspiracy theorists claim, to the Apollo astronauts who supposedly traversed them.

The problem here is a conflation of two concepts. Some people get confused about the function of the Van Allen belts, thinking that they protect us from the radiation, and that space outside them is awash with deadly radiation. In fact, for most of the distance between Earth and the Moon the radiation level inside the Apollo spacecraft were only slightly elevated.

They still had to pass through the belts, but the mission was planned so that they spent the minimum amount of time inside them.

In total, the Apollo astronauts received a radiation dose of about 10 milliSieverts, which is approximately the same as a CT scan (or one year living in Cornwall).

There are many other theories that have been put forth over the decades, and without exception they have all been debunked, often after only the barest amount of applied logic. There are, on the other hand, many pieces of evidence irrefutably showing that over the space of 3 years, 12 men walked on the surface of the Moon and returned back to Earth.

Mirror mirror, on the Moon

july-20-1969-buzz-aldrin-walks-surface-moon-neil-armstrong-taking-photo-reflected.jpg

July 20, 1969: Buzz Aldrin walks on the surface of the moon. Neil Armstrong, taking the photo, is reflected in his visorNasa
As well as footprints, flags, golf balls and $38m automobiles, the Apollo astronauts left something else on the surface of the moon – a large mirror, similar to a cats-eye reflector.

The moon is fairly reflective, but surprisingly its albedo (the amount of light that it reflects) is only 0.12 – about the same as coal. The reason it appears so luminous and white is partly because of its contrast with the blackness of space, but also because the Moon's reflectivity is fairly directional (light falling on the surface tends to reflect back in the same direction, making full Moons especially bright).

The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment improves on both these characteristics, providing a surface on the Moon that is extremely reflective and very directional.

As a result, it is possible to fire a laser at the Moon's surface and, about 2.4 seconds later, detect the reflected beam. By measuring this time interval exactly, we can measure the distance to the Moon so precisely that we know, for example, it's getting further away by 3.8cm a year.

These experiments have been repeated independently multiple times since 1969, and none of them would have worked if that mirror hadn't been left there by the Apollo astronauts.

The Size of a Conspiracy is Inversely Proportional to the Odds of it Remaining a Secret

nixon.jpg

July 24, 1969: US President Richard M Nixon welcomes the Apollo 11 astronauts aboard the USS Hornet. Already confined to the Mobile Quarantine Facility are (left to right) Neil A. Armstrong, commander; Michael Collins, command module pilot; and Edwin E. Aldrin Jr., lunar module pilotNasa
The Apollo programme involved thousands of people working towards a single goal. Every stage of the mission and every component of the spacecraft was planned in meticulous detail by experts from dozens of different specialities. If the goal of the programme wasn't to put someone safely on the Moon and return them safely, it seems incredibly unlikely that someone wouldn't have worked this out.

The amount of effort it would have taken to maintain the conspiracy seems so great, that actually landing on the moon seems on balance the simpler option (relevantMitchell & Webb sketch here).

Even worse, the conspiracy would necessarily have to extend beyond Nasa. The moon landings were independently confirmed by nations all over the world – including the Soviet Union.

There reaches a point where if your hypothesized conspiracy involves the collusion of both sides of the Cold war then you're attributing so much power to the conspirators that there seems little point trying to uncover it.

Returning to the scene of the crime

In what you would hope would be the final headshot to put down the Moon landing hoax zombie once and for all, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has taken several high resolution photographs over the last few years of all six Apollo landing sites.

The continued popularity of the Moon landing hoax conspiracy theory is odd, given the continuing accumulation of evidence against it.

Part of the reason may be that with the advent of Photoshop and the increasing use of photorealistic special effects in movies people have become used to the idea that images and videos can be convincingly altered, forgetting that these techniques were virtually non-existent in 1969.

Another part may be due to a growing distrust of government, and a growing list of scandals showing that, yes, sometimes governments do conspire against their citizenship.

But any theory, including conspiracy theories, must be based on evidence, and nothing that has been offered as evidence against the Moon landings holds water.

A human walking on the Moon is one of the greatest ever human achievements, and it is disheartening and frustrating to see people try and erase it from history by insisting it never happened. When Buzz Aldrin was accosted by a conspiracy theorist who called him "a coward, a liar and a thief", it's hard to blame him for his reaction.

Donald Sinclair is a former physics teacher and lecturer who now works as a medical physics researcher / imaging scientist in cancer research at one of London's top hospitals.
 
.
They suffer many losses and want to end the race but now they are asking prob on US claims

LOL the USSR was far from a spent force in the late 60s and 70s. They hit their highest peak in the mid 70s right after the US had to evacuate from Vietnam.

They actually gave their Luna mission flight plan to the US so that no conflict with apollo (debris etc) could occur.

No time to go into each and every one of these hoax claims...so here you go

apollo hoax debunking - YouTube
 
. .
So why didn't the USSR say anything?

Were they part of the hoax too? :whistle:
they were themselves not very sure what to do.... the whole world remained silence on WTC event (so did Russia).. that was another anti-physics demonstration . :P
 
.
LOL the USSR was far from a spent force in the late 60s and 70s. They hit their highest peak in the mid 70s right after the US had to evacuate from Vietnam.

They actually gave their Luna mission flight plan to the US so that no conflict with apollo (debris etc) could occur.

No time to go into each and every one of these hoax claims...so here you go

apollo hoax debunking - YouTube
 
.
.
People basically end up believing in conspiracy theories and can distort science to back them up anyway they want....and stop up their ears to any counter-argument.

NASA moon landing hoax: New photographs should silence conspiracy theory | Daily Mail Online

Third-party evidence for Apollo Moon landings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why the hell no other nation ever tries to go moon after that what was the reason why the hell they are so behind.


Documentary - Moon Landing Hoax Part 1
All that tax money they stole.


Documentary - Moon Landing Hoax Part 2

Documentary - Moon Landing Hoax Part 3
Documentary - Moon Landing Hoax Part 4
Documentary - Moon Landing Hoax Part 5
 
.
Shock ! Stanley Kubrick Filmed Fake Moon Footage !! - Proof !

“My husband directed the fake moon landing” says Stanley Kubrick’s widow
"My husband directed the fake moon landing" says Stanley Kubrick's widow - FIRETOWN! | FIRETOWN!

According to DARK SIDE OF THE MOON, the most important film of its kind since Oliver Stone's JFK - or since Rob Reiner's This is Spinal Tap, at any rate - images of Neil Armstrong's walk on the moon on July 20, 1969 were shown to the world through the lens of master film-maker Stanley Kubrick and were staged on the same Borehamwood, U.K., soundstage where Kubrick made his landmark film, 2001: A Space Odyssey.
http://www.thelastoutpost.com/site/1362/default.aspx

Is it impossible to travel to the Moon, because of the Van Allen Belt?
MAD Scientist: The Van Allen Belts and Travel to the Moon

7/31/06 Coast to Coast AM --- George Norry
11p-11:30p PT:
Buzz Aldrin, Buzz Aldrin | Astronaut, Apollo 11, Gemini 12
one of the Apollo astronauts, joins the show.
AUDIO:

http://www.apfn.net/pogo/A002I060731BB2.MP3

Thursday, July 13, 2006: The original high-quality video tapes of Apollo 11, which were apparently sent by NASA to the National Archives and then were returned to the Goddard Space Flight Center, have gone missing (see the pdf by John M. Sarkissian). The quality of the video broadcast to the world on television was of much, much lower quality than the video originally received – or manufactured! - by NASA. Obviously, if you were going to fake the moon landing, you might have a motive to ‘lose’ the high-quality tapes, where artifacts of faking could be seen. This was by far the biggest moment in the American space program. You’d think they would care about hanging on to the evidence.



 
.
Back
Top Bottom