Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Did Neil Armstrong land on moon?? The photographic evidence

Issue 1: Since the Moon has only one light source, the Sun, the shadows must be in line. But in this cases, it looks as if there are multiple light sources in moon, which is not possible.

Issue 2: The foreground of many images of the astronauts on the Moon are filled in with light, while the shadows remain absolutely black, again proving that there are multiple light sources.

Issue 3: There are no stars in the background from pictures taken on the Moon.

Issue 4: In some images, a huge light source can be seen reflected in the astronaut's visors. This has to be a very bright, nearby source. There is no possibility of external light source in moon.

ISSUE 5: How could NASA take TV images of the LM ascending on Apollo 15, 16, and 17 if there was no one on the Lunar surface to man the camera ?

ISSUE 6: There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the film would melt in the 250° temperatures. Any film exposed to 250° would indeed melt at that temperature.

Issue 7: The LM engine was very powerful. How come it did not leave a crater below the spacecraft? Why didn't it kick up any dust when it landed ?

Issue 8: The footprints left by the astronauts are proof that the Moon landings are fake.
This one is also essentially a two pronged argument. First, the Fox show charged that the LM engine was so powerful that the upper layer of dust should have been blown away around the LM, so there should not be any footprints. Others have charged that the footprints should not be there since in the absence of water as a bonding agent, they should not maintain coherent shapes and sharp outlines.

Issue 9: There is no dust on LM footpads. -- According to Kaysing and Fox, this is the strongest evidence that the Moon landings are faked. They allege that with the swirling dust from LM descent engine, the foot pads should be covered with dust.

Issue 10: The pictures below show that flags are waving. And they never will. The flag was on the airless Moon, just as we all knew. The pictures below show that flags are waving. And they never will. The flag was on the airless Moon, just as we all knew.

Source: Lazydesis

Related Posts :

Blog Widget by LinkWithin
:)) ;)) ;;) :D ;) :p :(( :) :( :X =(( :-o :-/ :-* :| 8-} :)] ~x( :-t b-( :-L x( =))


KARAN | April 22, 2009 at 9:39 AM  

awesome discovery...!!

Anonymous | April 11, 2010 at 8:11 AM  

All of these are obviously wrong.

1: The ground isn't flat. The difference in the shadows is easily explained if the lead astronaut is going up a small hill while the following one is descending into a small depression.

2: The moon is a lot darker than you think it is: the moon reflects about the same amount of light that asphalt does. You're comparing a very bright white suit in shadow with fairly dark rock and dust in shadow; of course the shadow on the ground looks darker.

3: How many pictures have you ever taken where you could see something in the foreground and stars in the background as well? With long exposures it's possible, but there's no way you'd get a clear shot of a person in the foreground at the same time.

4: That mysterious light source is known to astronomers as the sun. It's abundantly clear that the light source reflected in the top picture is at the SAME PLACE as the light source casting that shadow.

5: Even in the late sixties, there were such things as unattended security cameras with radio transmitters. The astronauts left one behind specifically so they could get pictures of the ascent.

6: 250 degrees (I assume you mean Fahrenheit) would have killed the astronauts too. Either your 250 degree figure is wrong, or the same thing they used to protect the astronauts protected the film.

7: It did. Armstrong couldn't even see the ground when they landed.

8: Dust doesn't hang in the air on the Moon, because there ISN'T ANY AIR. It falls like a rock. So it wouldn't have traveled far from the spot directly under the lander. Also, the "others" who think the footprints wouldn't hold together clearly know nothing about the characteristics of dust in vacuum.

9: Again, "swirling dust"... it wouldn't have "swirled" the way your Earth-based experience tells you it should have.

10: They're not waving, they're held out by wires sewn into them. Those "waves" were carefully sculpted in.

Anonymous | July 14, 2010 at 4:25 AM  

If the person who posted this crap about the moon landing really belives it was fake,i just want that fool to know that i have plenty of ocean front property for sale in Arkansas!

Post a Comment