The Lunar Landings

Can you believe they put a man on the moon? well they did, and this is the footage with music by Mozart.
By the way the footage is not fake!!

1. Crosshairs appear to be behind objects.

Overexposure causes white objects to bleed into the black areas on the film.

2. Crosshairs are sometimes misplaced or rotated.

Popular versions of photos are sometimes cropped or rotated for aesthetic impact.

3. The quality of the photographs is implausibly high.

There are many, many poor quality photographs taken by the Apollo astronauts. NASA chose to publish only the best examples.[52][53]

4. There are no stars in any of the photos. The Apollo 11 astronauts also claimed to have not remembered seeing any of the stars in a press conference after the event.

The sun was shining. Cameras were set for daylight exposure.[13], pp. 158--160.

5. The color and angle of shadows and light are inconsistent.

Shadows on the Moon are complicated by uneven ground, wide angle lens distortion, light reflected from the Earth, and lunar dust.[13], pp. 167--172. Shadows also display the properties of vanishing point perspective leading them to converge to a point on the horizon.

6. Identical backgrounds in photos are listed as taken miles apart.

Shots were not identical, just similar. Background objects were mountains many miles away. Without an atmosphere to obscure distant objects, it can be difficult to tell the relative distance and scale of terrain features.[54] One specific case is debunked in Who Mourns For Apollo? by Mike Bara.[55]

7. The number of photographs taken is implausibly high. Up to one photo per 50 seconds.[56]

Simplified gear with fixed settings permitted two photographs a second. Many were taken immediately after each other. Calculations are based on a single astronaut on the surface, and does not take into account that there were two persons sharing the workload during the EVA.

8. The photos contain artifacts like the two seemingly matching 'C's on a rock and on the ground.

The "C"-shaped objects are most likely printing imperfections not in the original film from the camera.

9. A resident of Perth, Australia, with the pseudonym "Una Ronald", said she saw a soft drink bottle in the frame.

No such newspaper reports or recordings have been verified. "Una Ronald"'s existence is authenticated by only one source. There are also flaws in the story, i.e. the emphatic statement that she had to "stay up late" is easily discounted by numerous witnesses in Australia who observed the event to occur in the middle of their daytime, since this event was an unusual compulsory viewing for school children in Australia.[57]

10. The book Moon Shot contains an obvious composite photograph of Alan Shepard hitting a golf ball on the Moon with another astronaut.

It was used in lieu of the only existing real images, from the TV monitor, which the editors of the book apparently felt were too grainy to present in a book's picture section. The book publishers did not work for NASA.

11. There appear to be "hot spots" in some photographs that look like a huge spotlight was used at a close distance.

Pits in moon dust focus and reflect light in a manner similar to minuscule glass spheres used in the coating of street signs, or dew-drops on wet grass. (see Heiligenschein)[58]

12. Footprints in the extraordinarily fine lunar dust, with no moisture or atmosphere or strong gravity, are unexpectedly well preserved, in the minds of some observers -- as if made in wet sand.

The dust is silicate, and this has a special property in a vacuum of sticking together like that. The astronauts described it as being like "talcum powder or wet sand".[55]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations

HOW CAN YOU STILL BELIEVE ITS NOT TRUE! YOU WONT BE HAPPY UNTIL YOU VISIT THE LANDING SITE!

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• apollo
• 11
• Neil
• Armstrong
• 1969
• NASA
• moon

[britoca]

why would they risk faking 6 landings in a row, all at different locations? As if pulling one single landing hoax would not be difficult enough, they built 6 more Saturn Vs and all the "studio mockery" you all claim to be fake, and tricked us all perfectly to the minutest of detail... 6 times in a row! you people have a wild imaginations

[Johnsonss5]

U mean that you guys think man didnt land on the moon? Poor country pride man

[charliegoodboy]

The only things faked were the Hoax believer's wives orgasms

[charliegoodboy]

Brightness of moon required very short EXPOSURE TIMES! ask any photographer, that is why space station shots rarely show stars in background as well, even though astronauts often remark about the clarity of stars (and the fact that they don't twinkle because of absence of atmposphere)

[Carrington123]

@nycullaSUCKS Bellend

[LowleyUK]

@nycullaSUCKS Oops a typo - That ruined my entire point for you I guess. let me amend if you cannot,

This means that the stars VIEWED FROM the Moon are invisible.

Wow a revelation, my entire point makes perfect sense now!

[LowleyUK]

@nycullaSUCKS Yes but not if it's not there to be seen, those pictures do not give you 360 degree angles of the entire cosmos do they. You are just trolling because nobody is this dumb.

[nycullaSUCKS]

@LowleyUK

QUOTE: "This mean that the stars on the Moon are invisible..."

The stars on the Moon? I humbly apologize. I did not previously realize that there were stars on the Moon. Nobody told me about that in school, and even Wikipedia makes no mention of it. I am most grateful.

I'll get on to NASA and ask them why they haven't told us about the "stars on the Moon".

Boy, what a dork!

[nycullaSUCKS]

@LowleyUK

I understand all about 'albedo' and 'apparent magnitude', you ignorant ape. None of which accounts for the absolute absence of ANY OTHER celestial body in EVERY SINGLE ONE of those photos and films.

Even Venus can often be observed during the day, you primitive, pseudo-science junkie!

[LowleyUK]

@nycullaSUCKS What are you talking about. Listen carefully, when the SUN shines it blocks out ALL stars in the sky. When the photos in question were taken the Sun was shining, it was daytime on the Moon. This mean that the stars on the Moon are invisible because the brightness of the SUN obscures them. I cannot make that any clearer and I sincerely hope that penetrates the firewall of nonsense holding your mind prisoner. All these pathetic little points really have been debunked.

[nycullaSUCKS]

@LowleyUK

Learn some science? Certainly not from an ignorant cretin who believes the garbage that NASA feeds him!

When the Sun is shining? Pray tell, when is the Sun NOT shining, you irascible idiot? We are talking about photos taken by persons standing on the Moon, a terrain having a 7% rate of light reflection, which in no way could negate exposure of EVERY SINGLE celestial body in the background.

Learn some science? I suggest YOU learn some basic common sense.

Ignorant, gullible idiot.

[LowleyUK]

@nycullaSUCKS Haha, go take a photo of the stars during the day you disabled degenerate, do you have learning difficulties? It's quite simple, stars cannot be seen when the sun is shining, the moon, space, Earth, anyway. Learn some science you waste of space.