DEBUNKING THE MOON LANDING HOAX SAYERS

Above from left to right, Buzz Aldrin, Michael Collins and Neil Armstrong.

This webpage sets out to put the record straight that on July 20th, 1969, we really did go to the Moon, land on it, walk on it and return to Earth.  There is quite a lot of evidence that backs this up, the evidence is actually quite straightforward...if you look at it scientifically.

On July 20th 1969 they were the first astronauts to go to the Moon, they went to the Moon, landed, went walkabout, took a few photos, did a few experiments then came home.  Collins however, never set foot on the surface he stayed with the orbiting CM command module in space, he must have drawn the short straw!

There is a lot of information on the internet that suggest that men never in fact landed on the Moon.  I will present an alternative view that suggests that they did in fact go there and I present some strong answers to some of the best so called anomalies that have been made up over the years.  Debunking is actually a fine art but I enjoyed doing all the research.

Unlike the 911 WTC event of September 11th 2001 where the anomalies cannot successfully be written off because they hold water and lots of it, many Moon anomalies do not even hold a drop, hence debunking this hoax myth was not as hard as I first expected...I will say that it wasn't rocket science even though it should have been!

Many anomalies came about as people tried to apply the science of cause and effect, the same science that applies to us here on Earth to be applicable on the Moon with gravity, lighting, atmospherics, energetics etc.  Well of course they are all different when on another planet and allowances have to be made for almost everything.

I would also like to say that nothing is depicted for sure with photos, the old saying the camera never lies   is a lie in itself as the camera can and often does tell great big whoppers.  The camera lies, especially with Photoshop as the below image  testifies.

Hence due to the fact that all images can be manipulated, I cannot vouch for 100% authenticity of the photos on this page, except to say that it is to the best of my knowledge and belief that they have not been digitally manipulated and are all copied from authentic NASA originals.  Thank you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DEBUNKING THE ANOMALIES 

Debunking Anomaly #1. The flag moved and the edges of it twirled up?

The flag had an aluminum stabilizing bar at the top of the material to hold it out, if touched and with zero air resistance in space the flag would indeed move and even twirl the edges up.  In fact the edges will twirl up even more so than happens here on Earth with less gravity pulling on it as well as zero air/wind resistance.  When the astronauts were not touching the flag it didn't move, see Youtube video below for visual proof...

...remember that when the astronauts were not near it, the flag never moved on its own, only when they were near to it or touching it did it move and twirl its edges. The flag did  move at around 02:36 on the video as he brushed past it, touching it.

Conspiracy believers say that it was a draft that did it as he passed by and this would not happen in a vacuum i.e. a zero atmosphere, proving it a hoax.  I again say though, that he was right by it, near it, passing close to it etc, etc, it still did not move without anyone near it.

Also remember that with zero resistance, when the flags material moves there is nothing to stop it moving except inertia and the very low 1/6th gravity.  Therefore when the flag moves, it takes a lot longer to stop, especially with the aluminum rod moving as well.  When they were not touching it or near it, the flag did not move...period.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Debunking Anomaly #2. The shadows fall at different angles proving two light sources?

Yes, shadows fall at different angles here on Earth as well, with only one light source.  Just look at how shadows behave when looking over uneven surfaces and inclines, the shadows will follow the contours of the land, they will not fly over them to keep a straight line.  To make clear, shadows follow contours and not the path of light that makes them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Debunking Anomaly #3. The astronaut was illuminated in a shadow area?

Well of course he was, the Moons surface is highly reflective, just look at the Moon at night to see how bright the reflective dust is.  So much of the light is reflected upwards that even if you stand in a shadow on the Moon you will still be illuminated.  Moon characteristics in the light are not the same as can be applied down here on Earth, there is no atmosphere to interfere with the light either, so it is more pure.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Debunking Anomaly #4.  Sharply outlined footprints could not have been made in a dry dusty surface?

The dust particles on the Moon are all very sharp and jagged under the microscope, this is because there is no erosion on the Moon.  On Earth grainy particles, sand etc are actually rounded or have smooth edges due to billions of years of erosion and hence do not lock together. On the Moon this is different, the grains and dust particles do lock together and hence will always form sharp prints.

There is no need for moisture to achieve this either, as Moon dust was found to be very fine, almost like flour and you can leave sharp prints in flour with no moisture, no problem.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Debunking Anomaly #5. They had no room to take the Moon Rover in the LM?

 That's right, they didn't, which is why it was folded up and packed underneath the LM. The astronauts then assembled it,  It was a very easy snap together assembly with no fine screws or bolts to do up in their heavy gloves.

  See the  Youtube video of it being unpacked.

Also the wheels were hollow, made from aluminum strips and wire mesh, hence no air was needed to inflate them.  The image below shows a Moon Rover wheel quite well and the botched fender that the astronauts made when they broke the original.

When looking at the Moon Rover, it is basically a flat body with wheels at each corner, the seats and radio "umbrella" give it a look of extra dimension.  With the westerners love affair with his car, its not surprising that they wanted to take one to the Moon with them, if they hadn't then it would  have been suspect.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Debunking Anomaly #6. The crosses (Reseau Marks) etched onto the film as the photo is taken, is behind certain objects?

Note: Reseau marks are those little crosses + + that appear on all Moon photos taken by the astronauts.  They are etched onto the photo via the crosses being etched onto the Reseau plate, a clear glass plate mounted in front of the film in the Hasselbrad camera.

But the Reseau mark is seen behind that white thing? Well this is quite literally a trick of the light, whereas reflected light ostensibly cuts out the cross that would appear on the film by superimposition whereas any bright part of any subject that is backed by dark subject matter will overpower the dark dull objects linear edge, hence the bright part will always appear to be in front.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Debunking Anomaly #7.  There was no dust on the LM's landing pads?

Well of course not, all the dust, what little of it there was, was blown away when the burners were firing.  With less resistance and gravity as here on Earth, the dust was more free to go further away from where it was blown, hence none settled on the LM's pads.  Also the burners only blipped a small blast as there is not the same amount of gravity pulling the LM down as on Earth, in fact only 1/6th that of Earth.

There is actually some dust particles on the landing pads but it cannot be seen at the resolution that the images were taken in.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Debunking Anomaly #8.  There were no crater under the LM's burners?

The LM landed on dusty covered rocky plateau, the finer top dust was blown away but no crater was formed due to very low pressure needed to bring the LM down.  This also applies to no dust on the LM's landing pads.  Don't forget it was not fighting against Earth's gravitational pull but the Moons at 1/6th  the strength, hence 1/6th the power needed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Debunking Anomaly #9.  They just slowed the film down to make it look like they were walking and running on the Moon.

When people have slowed film down to try to emulate this effect, it just never looks right, it never looks how the astronauts behaved even when those emulating suspended themselves from wires to make them lighter.  However, when people have gone into a zero gravity simulator on an airplane that does a parabolic dive they have successfully walked exactly the same as the astronauts did on the Moon.  This it the only time that it can be duplicated here on Earth too, the only other place is the Moon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Debunking Anomaly #10.  There were several light reflections in Armstrong's helmet visor, and also on several photos, this means there were two light sources?

Well of course there were several reflections, they had several visors behind each other, a mirrored one, a clear one, a dark one hence three reflections of light would be seen on the outside, as light passed through each  consecutive layer. Also the Hasselbrad camera had three layers, the lens, the glass Reseau mark plate and its own lens plate, this would also make two or more light reflections on photos as seen in the image above.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Debunking Anomaly #11. Someone filmed the LM from the outside as it took off from the Moons surface.

No-one filmed the LM as it took off, the camera was filming automatically, the camera was preset to do this on a  motorized electronic mount.  The camera is still on the Moon today, it wasn't brought back, the images were sent via modulation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Debunking Anomaly #12. It would have taken too long to get all the equipment back in the LM?

Of course it would, which is why they didn't, they left loads of equipment on the Moon.  They even purposely left items such as a reflector, seen in the image below. This reflector is used today to measure and calculate the distance of the Moon in relation to the Earth.

Observatories can point a very powerful multi Gigahertz laser at the Moon to the co-ordinates of where the reflector is and the laser light bounces back, this is how they accurately measure how far away the Moon is...average 238,857 miles with elliptical orbit distance difference of ± 26,466 miles. (called aphelion/perihelion)  It has also been discovered via the laser reflector that the Moon is also slowly moving away from Earth, at a rate of 38mm every year !  And NO, the reflector was not dropped out of the LM or fired out, it was very carefully and precisely positioned, so it would work properly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Debunking Anomaly #13.  There are no stars in the background sky on any of their Moon photos?

Of course not and unless you use a very different aperture setting on your camera here on Earth, you will get the same effect of no stars being visible in your own photo.  It is something to do with the speed of the film, the camera's aperture etc.  In 1969 a camera could take great photos, but they were still pretty basic affairs and did not have a lot of different settings on them like today's marvels of electronic wizardry, hence detail is missing.

There would be no point airbrushing them out to give the conspiracy theorists more ammunition to argue their flimsy case with.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Debunking Anomaly #14.  The Van Allen radiation belt would have cooked them all to death like a microwave oven.

It very well may have except that they were travelling too fast at some 20,000 mph for it to take any effect, they were only subjected to it for a few minutes.  The belt is not very wide, just a thin band of consolidated radiation, it is not like a Nebula as some suggested.  Also, the CM / Command Module was radiation shielded inside, don't forget it was the CM that went through the belt not the weaker framed LM.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Debunking Anomaly #15. There was a prop marked with a letter 'C'.

To start with there would be no need to mark props out with characters, or there would have been literally thousands of props and letters thereof, for each rock on the Moon.  The letter C has in fact been deduced as a small hair that got onto the negative, looking like a letter C, this was not seen in the original photo.  The original photo is rarely shown on the net as people are just interested in putting this one up.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Debunking Anomaly #16.  There was only about thirty people who knew about the hoax, so it was easy to keep a lid on it.

In fact it has been estimated that as many as 500,000 people were in some way involved or connected with the Apollo space program, including friends and friends of friends who are kings of gossip at the best of times. All of them would have to have kept silent over all these years, without so much as a murmur to anyone on the outside.  Surely some would have been tempted to sell any such hoax info to a TV station or written a book of their personal accounts. Nobody involved in the program had so much as an inkling of a suspicion that it could be an elaborate set up and therefore it stands good ground that there was no hoax.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Debunking Anomaly #17.  In 1967,  three astronauts Gus Grissom, Edward White II and  Roger Chaffee were burnt up at Cape Canaveral launch pad.  It is said that they were going to " spill the beans  " on a possible hoax Apollo program.

I say, that whenever famous persons die in an accident in this world there immediately and automatically follows the conspiracy theory.  If you think about it, what famous person has ever died in an accident that was not blamed on conspiracy...answer none.  So I would just throw this one out with the bath water.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Debunking Anomaly #18. How could they take photos in their space suits, there was no way to look into a viewfinder with their helmets on?

They didn't have to use a viewfinder, the Hasselblad 500 camera was fixed to the chest in a harness, it had a viewfinder on the top rather than the back of the camera, either way a certain amount of luck was involved to get a good picture, but with practise anything can be done as this was.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Debunking Anomaly #19.  Neil Armstrong was photographed on the set, backstage getting his camera ready.

On the contrary any photos of the astronauts on so called sets or backstage were actually taken during their training.  They had to train rigorously in full space suits and gear every day preceding up to the mission, because once up there, there was no immediate turning back, so they had to get it right first time, a tough challenge indeed, but with all their training coming together they successfully accomplished all of their tasks when on the Moon.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Debunking Anomaly #20.  They supposedly left the Moon in the LM but it was not brought back, because it didn't exist.

It existed alright, the LM connected to the CM, the two astronauts got out into the CM then the LM was jettisoned where it crashed onto the Moons surface.  This was actually measured on seismometers that they put on the Moon and signals sent back to Earth.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE PROOF EMERGES

A recent Indian satellite with the Moon being set as its main destination has actually taken some photos of the equipment left on the  surface thereof, these photos will soon be available for public scrutiny.

The information below was copied over directly from internet source.

The Chandrayaan-I  Indian Moon Mission  The images captured by a hyper-spectral camera fitted as a part of Chandrayaan-I Moon mission has reconfirmed the veracity of the Apollo 15 mission," said Prakash Chauhan, from the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO). NASA's 12-day Apollo 15 mission in 1971 was the first designed to explore the surface of the Moon in great detail and over a long period. But it and others in the Apollo project, including the Apollo 11 mission in 1969, when astronauts first stepped on the Moon, have been the subject of a catalogue of conspiracy theories ever since. Below Chandrayaan-I takes off...destination the Moon. Chauhan said Chandrayaan-I, which India launched in 2008, located the Apollo 15 landing site by identifying disturbances on the Moon's dark surface. " The disturbed surface is bright " he said, in a presentation in the western state of Goa, where a conference on space missions is being held. " Our images also show tracks left behind by the lunar Rovers which were used by the astronauts. " US, Japanese and Russian scientists have previously found evidence of Apollo 15's landing site by studying photographs.  Chauhan said Chandrayaan-I's findings were further, " Independent corroboration " of the landing, adding to other evidence of the Apollo missions, including photographs and analysis of rock samples. The images were among 70,000 taken by the Chandrayaan-I craft before the mission was aborted. Scientists blamed a computer malfunction for cutting communications with the orbiter. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Sources... www.spacedaily.com www.chandrayaan-i.com/index.php All rights reserved. © 2010 Agence France-Presse. Copied with permission for educational purposes from Agence France-Presse

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~