Welcome Guest | RSS
Welcome to science club
Site search
Site menu
Indian Heritage
Social bookmarks
Home » 2015 » November » 2 » IS Moon landing by a human a fake? Decide your self..
4:15 PM
IS Moon landing by a human a fake? Decide your self..

IS Moon landing by a human a fake? Decide your self..

10 Reasons the Moon Landings Could Be a Hoax

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

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

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

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

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

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
 

Mqdefault

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Buzz Aldrin Admits Apollo 11 Moon Landings Were FAKE and Simply A Set (See Tweet)

WASHINGTON D.C. – It is being reported that the Apollo 11 missions, which landed men for the first time on the moon, was in fact fake.

One of the astronauts on the Apollo 11 mission, Edwin “Buzz” Aldrin, confirmed that the Apollo 11 missions were “fake” and that the the videos of the mission are simply showing a setup that was created to simulate how the moon and space would look. “Apollo 11 was not real, none of it was” Buzz Aldrin said in a video he recorded confessing to the Apollo 11 hoax, “I am ashamed to say this but I cannot hide it anymore, it was a setup, like the ones they use in Hollywood films, back in the 60’s, the U.S. was competing with the Soviet Union to achieve space flight supremacy, which was known as the “space race”. We were afraid the Soviets would beat us to the moon so we decided to fake the moon landings of Apollo 11 to say we were greater than the Soviets” concluded Buzz.

This explains NASA’s claim that they had “accidently” recorded over only the high quality recordings of the orginal moon landing tapes in 2006. How can an organization as big as NASA be careless enough to accidently record over, perhaps, their most important achievement to date? Buzz Aldrin also decided to confess about the Apollo 11 missions via Twitter, which was later deleted. It is believed the CIA demanded Twitter staff to deleted Buzz Aldrin’s tweet. See tweet below:

photo-5 copy

We are shocked to discover the truth behind the Apollo 11 mission, which was America’s pride. Not much else is known about how NASA stages the landings, other than what Aldrin confessed. We will update you soon here on huzlers.com. Share your opinion on Twitter including “#Murrica” in your tweet.

Views: 792 | Added by: scienceclub | Rating: 0.0/0
Total comments: 121 2 »
avatar
0
1 scienceclub • 4:27 PM, 02-Nov-2015
PHOTOS: 8 Moon-Landing Hoax Myths -- Busted

July 16, 2009--Forty years after U.S. astronaut Neil Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the moon, many conspiracy theorists still insist the Apollo 11 moon landing was an elaborate hoax. Examine the photographic evidence, and find out why experts say some of the most common claims simply don't hold water.
You can tell Apollo was faked because ... the American flag appears to be flapping as if "in a breeze" in videos and photographs supposedly taken from the airless lunar surface. 

The fact of the matter is ... "the video you see where the flag's moving is because the astronaut just placed it there, and the inertia from when they let go kept it moving," said spaceflight historian Roger Launius, of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museumin Washington D.C. 

The astronauts also accidentally bent the horizontal rods holding the flag in place several times, creating the appearance of a rippling flag in photographs (Apollo 11 moon-landing pictures).
avatar
0
2 scienceclub • 4:28 PM, 02-Nov-2015

Neil Armstrong and the Eagle lunar lander are reflected in Buzz Aldrin's visor in one of the most famous images taken during the July 1969 moon landing

You can tell Apollo was faked because ... only two astronauts walked on the moon at a time, yet in photographs such as this one where both are visible, there is no sign of a camera. So who took the picture? 

The fact of the matter is ... the cameras were mounted to the astronauts' chests, said astronomer Phil Plait, author of the award-winning blog Bad Astronomy and president of the James Randi Educational Foundation

In the picture above, Plait notes, "you can see [Neil's] arms are sort of at his chest. That's where the camera is. He wasn't holding it up to his visor."
avatar
0
3 scienceclub • 4:29 PM, 02-Nov-2015

"My God, it's full of stars!" Arthur C. Clarke's2001 character Dave Bowman famously exclaimed when faced with the vastness of space. 

You can tell Apollo was faked because ... the astronauts made no such exclamation while on the moon, and the black backgrounds of their photographs are curiously devoid of stars. (See more iconic space pictures.) 

The fact of the matter is ... the moon's surface reflects sunlight, and that glare would have made stars difficult to see. Also, the astronauts photographed their lunar adventures using fast exposure settings, which would have limited incoming background light. 

"They were taking pictures at 1/150th or 1/250th of a second," Bad Astronomy's Plait said. "In that amount of time, stars just don't show up."
avatar
0
4 scienceclub • 4:29 PM, 02-Nov-2015
The lunar lander known as the Eagle rests peacefully on the moon's surface in a picture taken mere hours after the July 20, 1969, moon landing. 

You can tell Apollo was faked because ... the module is shown sitting on relatively flat, undisturbed soil. According to skeptics, the lander's descent should have been accompanied by a large dust cloud and would have formed a noticeable crater. (Explore aninteractive moon map.) 

The fact of the matter is ... the lander's engines were throttled back just before landing, and it did not hover long enough to form a crater or kick up much dust, the Smithsonian's Launius said. 
"Science fiction movies depict this big jet of fire coming out as [spacecraft]land, but that's not how they did it on the moon," he added. "That's not the way they would do it now or anytime in the future."
avatar
0
5 scienceclub • 4:29 PM, 02-Nov-2015
A moon-landing picture shows astronaut Buzz Aldrin standing on the footpad of the Eagle's ladder, his bent knees suggesting that he's about to jump up to the next rung. (Read "Buzz Aldrin, First Man (to Pee) on the Moon, Sounds Off."

You can tell Apollo was faked because ...Aldrin is seen in the shadow of the lander, yet he is clearly visible. Hoax subscribers say that many shadows look strange in Apollo pictures. Some shadows don't appear to be parallel with each other, and some objects in shadow appear well lit, hinting that light was coming from multiple sources—suspiciously like studio cameras. 

The fact of the matter is ... there were multiple light sources, Launius said. "You've got the sun, the Earth's reflected light, light reflecting off the lunar module, the spacesuits, and also the lunar surface." 

It's also important to note that the lunar surface is not flat, he added. "If an object is in a dip, you're going to get a different shadow compared to an object next to it that is on a level surface."
avatar
0
6 scienceclub • 4:30 PM, 02-Nov-2015
The contrasted lines of a bootprint appear as Buzz Aldrin lifts his foot to record an image for studying the moon's soil properties. Apollo pictures show scores of clear bootprints left behind as the astronauts traipsed across the moon. (Find out more about moon exploration.)

You can tell Apollo was faked because ... the astronauts' prints are a bit too clear for being made on a bone-dry world. Prints that well defined could only have been made in wet sand. 

The fact of the matter is ... that's nonsense, said Bad Astronomy's Plait. Moon dust, or regolith, is "like a finely ground powder. When you look at it under a microscope, it almost looks like volcanic ash. So when you step on it, it can compress very easily into the shape of a boot." And those shapes could stay pristine for a long while thanks to the airless vacuum on the moon.
avatar
0
7 scienceclub • 4:30 PM, 02-Nov-2015
When Armstrong and Aldrin took off from the moon in July 1969, they left behind part of theEagle, the U.S. flag, and several other instruments and mementos, including the seismometer Aldrin is adjusting in the above picture. 

You can tell Apollo was faked because ... with instruments such as the Hubble Space Telescope capable of peering into the distant recesses of the universe, surely scientists should be able to see the various objects still on the moon. But no such pictures of these objects exist. 

The fact of the matter is ... no telescope on Earth or in space has that kind of resolving power. "You can calculate this," Plait said. "Even with the biggest telescope on Earth, the smallest thing you can see on the surface of moon is something bigger than a house."
avatar
0
8 scienceclub • 4:31 PM, 02-Nov-2015
Strange patterns of light partially obscure the upper left part of a picture of Buzz Aldrin setting up a foil sheet for collecting solar particles near the Eagle. 

You can tell Apollo was faked because ...those mysterious reflections come from studio lights on a production set. 

The fact of the matter is ... it's highly unlikely NASA would make such an obvious blunder if they had spent millions of dollars to fake the moon landing, Plait said. 

"Okay, let's take a step back. NASA's going to release a picture showing studio lights? Hello!" The odd lights in the picture are simply lens flares," he said. "There's a big fat pentagonal one right in the middle that is from the aperture of the camera itself."
avatar
0
9 scienceclub • 4:52 PM, 02-Nov-2015
APOLLO  MISSION CONSPIRACY THEORIES ANSWERED Why are no stars visible in the Apollo photos?
The Apollo landings took place during lunar mornings so the stars were not bright enough to be captured on camera.
Who filmed Neil Armstrong take the first steps?
A video camera was fixed on an extending arm to swing out and capture the historic moment.
Why did the heavy Landing Modules make no impression on the surface, while the astronauts' footprints did?
The layer of lunar dust on the rocky moon is thin, so was blown away from the landing area by the descent engines. This dust resettled by the time the astronauts left the module.
Why does the flag wave?
It was rigged with a rod and wires so that it would look as if it was unfurled and blowing in Apollo photographs.
Why didn't the Lunar module show a flame when it took off from the Moon?
The fuel used does not produce a flame in a vacuum.
avatar
0 Spam
10 babu • 4:58 PM, 02-Nov-2015
who started actually US or Russia..............
1-10 11-12
avatar
Live feeds update
Country
Flag Counter
Visitors
www.scienceclub.ucoz.com
scienceclub.ucoz.com
This Website Visits
Site news
Calendar
«  November 2015  »
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930
Google +