Evidence on fake photos in mission Apollo 11, Part 1

[Tweekerhead]

The windows of the CM and LM were coated with magnesium fluoride, hence the blue hue you see in so many photos', like the ones were hoaxers think they're in LEO.

How about doing a video comparing the LRO images and the lunar ascent and descent 16mm films that were taken. Are you afraid of what you'll find Hunchy?

Nice music as always Hunch.

[crubkings]

@Tweekerhead i think you are either too scared to fake reality or that you are a little softie who wore a blazer, a pair of sandals, shorts and a cap to school and were the teachers pet, its obvious they faked it

[Tweekerhead]

@crubkings First off, I can't really follow your incoherent ramblings.

Anyway what does what you think about me in any way have to do with the subject at hand?

[Daddyo930]

YDDES is obviously a moron. Wouldn't be surprised if he were a mormon too.

[garciah2]

I wonder what this guy didn't do while he was """"""researching"""""" all his """"""""""""facts"""""""""""". Imagine if he apply all this brain power to his World of Warcraft characters. He could rule the whole World!! (of warcraft)

[Daddyo930]

@garciah2 I wonder how much you know about physics period with that statement. By avoiding the subject matter, you try and make yourself appear more knowledgeable yet you know nothing. Give it a rest. Why you trying to get butt off my man's name? Your a bird and a hater.

[drgil65]

I like the details in your findings. I was asking these same questions, their are some questionable findings. I don't doubt that they could have gone to the moon, it just may have been at a later time with the other Apollo missions, we all have to remember the times, it was 1969, JFK had promised to get us to the moon before the decade was over. I also think maybe some of these photos could have been mixed up with late Apollo missions. But it is hard to debate that. Great job on your findings.

[hunchbacked]

@drgil65

That's the whole problem.

Many people admit problems with the footage, and doubt it has been made on the moon, but still think the Americans went to the moon.

But, at least, in this case, there should be a coherent technical documentation about Apollo, even if it is admissible that the conditions on the moon didn't allow to make a decent footage on it. The problem is that even the technical documentation does not make sense and has been very obviously sabotaged.

[hunchbacked]

@drgil65

This pushes me to think that it has all been staged, but that the people who were in charge of the fakings made sabotage to give evidence Apollo is fake, and they have been forced to fake it against their conscience.

The "If you can't make it fake it" of Kaysing is completely true.

For the CIA, it's not important that Americans really went to the moon, what's important is that people believe it.

[drla02]

Great work & detail in explaining the hoax theory(which are based on facts). I didn't hear of the hoax until about 2 yrs ago & have tried to disprove the hoax but every single time I try, it seems to raise more questions than answers. So, it seems that the hoax theory is more valid than the official story. I tell this to my children, b/c they are told in school that we landed on the moon. A question. What do you think about 911? Could you spend some scientific research in that area?

[CT2507]

too many halfbacked theories in this vid... rather stick to the sure ones, like why the astronots are so clearly iluminated in the shdowside of the LEM. or why there are light reflections on their boots when they had no secondary lightsource with them for the photos.

otherwise a good effort.

[hunchbacked]

@CT2507

This was my beginning in the moon hoax.

Since then I have much progressed, especially in the technical domain.

The technical domain is especially important, because some agree that the footage is fake, simulated, but that the astronauts still landed on the moon.

I say they didn't, because even the technical documentation (computer, radar, electronics) is pure nonsense and very obviously sabotaged.

[hunchbacked]

@CT2507

And the geometrical problems are also important, not only the lighting problems.

[CT2507]

@hunchbacked yes, but the geometrical problems can be argued and are not so convincing. like why the flagpole dont show enough shadow. because the topography of the surface in a 3D environment translates very poorly to a 2D photo. and the angle can create some optical illusions. and so on...

unless u find obvious indisputable flaws.

[hunchbacked]

@CT2507

Some geometrical problems can be argued.

But there also are some which have no excuse, which are mathematically, logically proven.

[CT2507]

@hunchbacked yes, thats true... if they can be mathematically pinpointed without any doubt, then they have value.

[hunchbacked]

@CT2507

For instance, in Apollo 17, I have shown by making a superposition of two photos that the wheel and the camera were incorrectly positioned on the second photo.

And when we visually compare the two photos, we can effectively see that the wheel has been pushed on the left on the second photo, and the camera pulled on the right and turned on the second photo.

So what the superposition of the photos say can be visually confirmed.

[YDDES]

@hunchbacked Are You totally unawere that if You move around an object with several reflective surfaces differently angled, You will see light reflecting from different surfaces when You stand on different spots. Like in the picture at 2:30, for example.

[YDDES]

@hunchbacked The flag about 6:12: It's semi transparent and it's "pointing" almost directly at the sun. The wrinkles create the shadow You point at. No sunlight hits that part, regardless from which side You look at the flag. It's so totally obvious!

[YDDES]

@hunchbacked I could go on for ever about Your misinterpretations, but I have better things to do.

Just two more thing: Did You think the lunar surface was totally smooth and even? It isn't! That's why shadows, from the flagpole for example, somtimes are hidden behind the uneven ground!

And at 8:30 the first photo is taken with an angle to the ground, while the second is taken straight down. A wide lens is used, so the rock seems smaller on the first photo because of the longer distance.

[hunchbacked]

@YDDES

No, but no more is the surface of earth.

But even if it is not, when you see on the photos it is quite flat, there can't be a strong slope.

And no, the fact that there can be accidents of the ground does not explain the disappearance of the flagpole for the following reason: If you take the point where the shadow of the flagpole reappears, the visible part of the shadow of the flagpole should be aligned with the foot of the flag...and it isn't!

[YDDES]

@hunchbacked If You don't understand, You should look at more similair photos of objects casting narrow shadows on uneven ground. Not from the Apollo expeditions, but just random photos wherever You can find them. On an uneven ground, You can't expect that the shadows look "aligned" to anything.

"8:30": I fully understand. As I said: On the first photo, the rock is further away and it's a wide angle lens. That makes it look even smaller. Check any wide angle photos for comparison.

Good luck!

[hunchbacked]

@YDDES

A wide angle lens?

You are imagining things!

No, it was not taken with a "wide angle" lens, it was taken with the same lens.

Why would they use a wide angle lens to take this trivial photo?

The argument of the "wide angle" lens has also been used to justify that the earth was so small; but if it was small because of a "wide angle" lens, the foreground would also appear more distance, and it doesn't.

[YDDES]

@hunchbacked It's not an extreme wide angle lens, but it's wide angled enough. You can see it on several pictures. Objects not very far from the camera "shrink" considerably with the distance. With a wide angle lens, You can be very close to the foreground, which will fill the frame and the background will seem extra distant.

"Experts" often have better thing to do than "defending" something that doesn't need defending. There's no trial going on.

[hunchbacked]

@YDDES

When you shoot with a wide angle lens, the foreground is also more distant.

If you think that the foreground looks the same whether you shoot with a normal lens or wide-angle lens, then I have serious doubts about your competence in photography!

[YDDES]

@hunchbacked No, it doesn't look "the same". Of course the foreground seems more distant, but You can get closer to the object. And, there are of course more or less wide angled lens. If they had used a tele lens on these photos, the rock should have had aproximately the same size compared to the footprints, but that is not the case. As I said: Ask a photographer! And, untill You find one, ask Yourself why anyone should make all the trouble to "fake" this type of photograph.

[hunchbacked]

@YDDES

On this photo, it may not be so obvious whether they used a wide angle lens or not; but why would they have used one just to take a photograph of the ground?

[YDDES]

@hunchbacked They didn't use a wide angle lens just for this photo. They used it for most photos. But, as I said, not an extreme wide angle. But enough "wide angled" to make the rock at some distance to look smaller.

[hunchbacked]

@YDDES

No, wrong, they never used a wide angle lens.

The angle of vision of the Hasselblad is even measurable by using the panoramics that the astronauts did, especially in Apollo 17; I calculated it to 45° (exactly 45.6, but the decimal part comes from the little errors of measurement).

[YDDES]

@hunchbacked OK, just check with a person with experience in photography. He/she will tell You that the photo in question looks quite normal. To be sure, check with more than one person.

[hunchbacked]

@YDDES

On the other hand, on some photos on which the earth appears small, it is absolutely obvious that they are not taken with a wide angle lens, for the foreground looks too close for the photo to have been taken with a wide angle (in particular with the photo taken close to the LM, and the photo in Apollo 17 of Cernan taking Schmitt).

[hunchbacked]

@YDDES

The apollogists will do anything to find a, excuse to what has none!

Why is there no photographic expert to defend the photos of Apollo?

All those that I have seen defend the photos are not photographic experts, even if they think to have some expertise in photography; they are all amateurs.

[YDDES]

@hunchbacked I may not be what You would call an "expert", but I have photographed A LOT during several decades. Using many types of cameras and lenses. And both film- and digital cameras.

But, don't take my words for it. Find a professional photographer and ask. That can't be too hard.

That is, if You REALLY want to find the truth, and not just are seeking evidence for Your prejudicies.

[hunchbacked]

@YDDES

I am looking for the truth.

I have made plenty of photographic tests myself.

That's even how I have found out the remarkable properties of the photographer's shadow.

[hunchbacked]

@YDDES

And, at 8:30, I think you have not understood my demonstration; we see a little rock ahead the footprint on the first photo, and ahead of the boot on the second photo, and it is the SAME rock, for we see the SAME artifacts all around it; yet the footprint is much bigger compared with this little rock than the boot is on the other photo; consequently the footprint is quite bigger than the boot.

[Kapindur]

The thing with the flagpole was explained in an ancient edition of Florida Today back around 1968. There was an article there about how NASA had installed wires in the flag to make it appear like it was waving in the vacuum of space. Years later, when freaks of your ilk began to surface, it was explained in depth in sever outlets that how the Astronauts had to twist and push the flag pole into the hard packed substrate to make it stand up right, hence the "wind" effect. You Idiots.

[SPYK3O]

You Apollo hoax-tards are always good for a laugh. Apparently you people are the shining geniuses that can see through the sham that fooled the entire world. After all the Apollo missions were some of the most documented events in human history.

[fishhead00]

You must have won the blue ribbon at your science fair. Well done!

[VendPrekmurec]

there was no human landing on the moon by Americans, never. Even scientists have admitted it - that there was recorded a video of moon landing in some British studio, before they "went to the moon".

[Kapindur]

@VendPrekmurec And you Sir, are a liar and a raving Lunatic. Get help. Or just make it simple, spare society the expense, and buy yourself a pistol.

Just kidding! Tee-Hee.

You Jerk.

[hunchbacked]

@Kapindur

Typical Apollo nut.

What will you do when NASA admits it was all faked?

Will you commit suicide?

[VendPrekmurec]

@Kapindur Who the hell listens to, wacky USraelian pot head. Here in Europe in fact people never believed your NASA national program, they rather trusted into Russian space program, which was at least honest, but Soviet Russia was also ruled by jews - zionists. Instead they rather trusted to Russians, which is strange... Also modern NASA photos, videos are given to the media rather with computer graphic animations than realistic.

[VendPrekmurec]

@Kapindur The era of Cold war and competitions between Russia and USA went so far that Americans made a fake video in one of the British studios - "in case if the real mission would not be successful" - they would SHOW IT TO THE PUBLIC AND SAY THAT THEY HAVE LANDED ON THE MOON ! There are people very skeptic about this "1. moon landing" with Apollo 11, i personally don't believed that it ever happened. Because somebody does not believe in 1. moon land., does not make him an idiot. 

[VendPrekmurec]

@Kapindur Jewpedia / Wikipedia also deleted so called "Conspiracy theories about 11th September 2011" attack; so ask yourself, is this democratic? You live in some imaginary democratic dreamworld, brainwashing society, where your government is just a theater and nothing more.

[hunchbacked]

@VendPrekmurec

Before I had started to investigate the moon hoax, I had heard about it, but still was not convinced about it.

But, since I have started to seriously investigate, study very attentively the documentation, analyze and ask myself questions, I have started to become more and more convinced about it, to the point that I have now no doubt the whole thing was hoaxed.

I don't feel a wacko for believing in the moon hoax, just someone who saw the light, like Galileo.

[MrToiletface]

neil and buzz are 2 total fakes the only thing u need to know about them is that they love to assfuck each other. they both lick asshole.

[hunchbacked]

@MrToiletface

Buzz is a drama queen, but I still have respect for Neil, for he doesn't brag about the "exploit", he rather seems embarrassed about it.

When you are the victim of a manipulation, that you have been forced to fake something, it is not easy to talk because of the pressure; the only way the engineers could find to talk is to stuff the project with incoherencies, they could not directly talk out.

[yourmajezty]

@hunchbacked they also fake nuke bombs. look it up on youtube.

[Kapindur]

@hunchbacked You are a sic "man", and I advise you to stay away from Mr. Aldrin.

He will kick your pansy ass from here to the next urinal.

You Slanderous Idiot.

[Aurinkohirvi]

I think the flag pole shadow missing is easily explained with the terrain relief. The metallic piece of the harness seems pretty much similar to me.

I also totally missed how you were comparing those boot sizes in the boot print and rock photos.

[hunchbacked]

@Aurinkohirvi

No, the relief of the terrain does not excuse everything: Even if there is a part of the flag's shadow which might be hidden by the terrain, when it reappears, there should be a continuity with the missing part, and there is none: the part which reappears makes an angle with the missing part.

And about the boot sizes: The astronauts were always wearing the same boots, so these ones should make corresponding prints, not prints of variable size.

[Aurinkohirvi]

@hunchbacked

I missed HOW you were comparing the boot sizes. I can't see the comparing of the foot prints there.

I'll take a closer look at that flag pole shadow later, no time now.

[hunchbacked]

@Aurinkohirvi

No, you misunderstood: I compared a boot's size with a footprint's size!

You'll agree that a boot must make a footprint of the same size as the one of the boot?

[Aurinkohirvi]

09:44 the left arm extended in the visor reflection, but folded when the whole astronaut is seen. The arm really seems pretty much extended in the visor reflection, the angle from the elbow to the fingers is completely to the opposite direction. Yeah I must agree it's an extended versus a folded arm. You make a good point!

I'm sure someone explains this with the curvature of the visor, but the arm makes a wide angle change from folded inwards to extended outwards. Curvature can't change it.

[Aurinkohirvi]

07:27 the missing vertical bar. I think this is the strongest point shown here. The bar is clearly missing from the well illuminated photo. We can see the vertical bar in front of the black tilted bar in the dark photo, but in the well illuminated photo the black tilted bar is seen whole and the vertical bar disappeared!

Unless if someone operates LEM so that the vertical bar appears and disappears, you have a case of some sort of fakery. Photo editing maybe.

[Monkeyboysdontknow]

Hunchbacked, this is your 3rd (and last) video I have seen or will intentionally see, and I can't even get through it. You make SO many mistakes and ignorant conjectures, I can't waste my time watching any more. You're just an amature making amaturish claims. Get an education first, then revisit your assertations and have a good laugh at yourself.

[hunchbacked]

@Monkeyboysdontknow

Is this supposed to be refutation?

[Monkeyboysdontknow]

@hunchbacked

''Is this supposed to be refutation?''

Actually, it's meant more to be serious advice.

[hunchbacked]

@Monkeyboysdontknow

I love too much the moon hoax conspiracy to take serious advice seriously.

[zackman40]

good luck, lol get an education you cant lie to the world like this. Plus russia was up the ass watching why dont they just come out?

[hunchbacked]

@zackman40

About Russia, the answer is Gagarin.