The moon landings (hoaxed): January 2009

There are many photos that nasa claim is proof of the moon landing that others say is proof of the moon landing hoax. But the fact is, is that their are pictures with errors nasa has trouble giving a reasonable explanation for.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTBIr65cL_E&feature=related shows video footage from when the astronauts were supposedly about to go on the moon and when they "landed." Off course, the 1960s camera and the distance between the earth and the moon would easily have made the images grainy. But if you notice it, the image of the moon from the rocket and the image on the moon tself seem to have a big difference between their clarities. The images from the rocket on the moon and on the surface itself shouldn't have that difference in how grainy it is, because the surface and the rocket weren't that far from eachother in any of the footage, especcially during the landing. But there is a huge difference. It's as if before the supposed "moon landings" the shots were faked, and NASA, for some reason, ended up using different level- technology cameras for the landing and the surface itself. Look at another video, www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SPMOXfELAA. You'll see that at the supposed "surface of the moon," color seems undetectable, unlike the video footage from inside the rocket during the landing.

In this photo, there appears to be an extra lighting on the astronaut, since he's bright in a very dark shadow.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtWMz51eL0Y&feature=related shows a clip of mythbusters looking at this photo from Apollo 11 that was said to prove the moon landing hoax. Mythbusters tried to prove that the photo was real. But they were to quick and seemed to have a will to believe the astronauts.
In the image, you can see that even though Buzz Aldrin is in a shadow, he is brightly lit. The people believing the moon landing hoax theory point out that the shadow should have easily covered him and prevented him from being very bright, in fact, he would be very dark. In the mythbusters video, they said that the reason the astronaut was so bright in such a dark shadow, was because of the moon's reflection hitting the astronaut. It sounds like it makes sense at first, because of the astronaut's white suit. But the moon's reflection is caused mostly by the heat on its surface, not just its sand. Mythbusters didn't use much heat in their experiment to prove this photo real. Compare these three photos:

They have unequal amounts of brightness. NASA claims that the astronauts set foot on the moon during the morning, so the areas where the astronauts first set foot on the moon should be getting brighter and brighter after they first set foot on the moon. But that's not the case. And the photos after the astronauts supposedly "set foot on the moon" go back and forth, getting brighter and dimer. It's as if NASA had different spotlights in different places in different photos. Whether the photo of Buzz Aldrin getting of the ladder is real or not, it still proves the moon landings hoaxed.

And it turns out, any of NASA's photos or video footage of the first moon landing is proof the first moon landing's were all hoaxes. There were missing stars . NASA claims that the stars weren't able to be seen, especially on camera, because of the way it was too dim on the moon's surface. But off course, it would have to be dim for a reason. But stars are their own source of light. And there were no clouds seen in the footage, either. Others for the moon landing theory claim that the moon's brightness with space darkness would be too hard for a 1960's camera to adjust to. But the moon's surface was at the bottom and the dark sky was at the top.

Look at this photo:

Even if some of the photos didn't have to have stars in them, this one and others pointing at the earth should.

And in this picture, there appears to be a crosshair behind an object instead of in front. It looks like during the manipulating of the photography, nasa was putting two or more different images together, when they had a few technical difficulties including whether or not all of the crosshairs were in front of objects. To some people, this is the result of either the camera, the computer or both not being able to show the film clearly. Or maybe NASA did it on purpose, because they thought some people would think it was evidence we did go to the moon because the objects in the pictures were reasonably bright. However, some claim it was bad filming or that it was so bright that through the camera or TV, the light was caused to somewhat "bleed" through the object.

> If you click on this picture and examine it closer, there is a crosshair in front, of the top of Alan Bean's spacesuit, an object bright in a way that part of the lunar rover (in picture above) with a crosshair behind it! The crosshairs behind objects are both flaws and contradictions.

> Whether an object is in front or behind is more powerful than which object is brighter and which one is darker.

> The crosshairs are either perfectly behind or perfectly in front of an object in the pictures claimed to be taken on the moon. If it was an error on the camera or computer, why would appear a "neat" mistake that just happened to appear first on the lunar surface? Something that would cause this is an unnoticed error that accrued while NASA was trying to put different parts together to make one video.

If you also notice, while the astronauts are wearing protective suits due to the heat while the flags placed "on the moon" aren't protected at all from the heat on the moon's surface. In fact, they were even waving in some of the shots. The flag's material would have somewhat melted. If you think about it, the moon has no air with high humidity that could protect the American flag from the powerful heat.

Speaking of flags, if you look in this picture, from Apollo 11, the flag is not producing any shadow that we can see, while the other shadows seem to be close to total darkness. And Buzz Aldrin's shadow is not shaped right, while the spacecraft's shadow is. Some say it's because the sun was either rising or setting and in just the right direction from them.But if you look closely at the plastic on Buzz Aldrin's face gear, on this picture, the upper 2/3 is reflecting, the lowest third isn't. If the sun was setting, in the right position for those kind of shadows, all of the plastic on his face gear would be reflecting, like in this picture:

And if you look at this picture at the "landing" of Apollo 11,

the sun doesn't seem to be in the position for those shadows in the second picture above.

This picture has an error like the one with the American flag. Buzz Aldrin's shadow is reflecting a thin, partly filled in triangle with a line protruding from the top. But his experiment is reflecting a shadow almost as thick as itself. I can see how they would both be long, but why would Buzz Aldrin's shadow look nothing like him, while the shadow of his experiment was shaped like itself and almost as thick as the experiment was? And there are also blobs in the background. NASA says that is a result of bad filming. But the position the blobs are in are in just the place for extra lighting to be, considering the direction of the shadows. Maybe NASA did that on purpose as part of making the filming look bad, which looked realistic for the bad filming that came from cameras at that time, and also for light sources. And now, we notice it.

In this photo, the shadow of Buzz Aldrin looks like the shadow of a pole, while the leg of the space shuttle has a pretty reasonable shadow. It's as if there was some sort of extra lighting on the space suits.

If you notice, many of the pictures on the moon look perfect. So, they probably had a light camera that was easy to take pictures with, right? Wrong. Their cameras were chest mounted on their bulky suits. It's as if the astronauts had help or the photography wasn't done by the astronauts themselves. It would be very hard for them to take perfect pictures like the ones that we see.

In this photo, the towel for the wind experiment and the American flag doesn't seem to have a shadow, while the shadow of the spacecraft is perfectly shaped and looks like it's larger than the spacecraft itself.

Most of these pictures are actually from different pages of NASA's own website: http://www.nasa.gov/. There may be even more picture evidence of the moon landing studio inside their own website than on this page.

What's hard for many people to believe is that the shadow flaws and contradictions suggesting multiple light sources, the crosshair contradictions suggesting technical manipulation and the blobs suggesting a stage is all because of bad imagery from a camera or errors on a computer.

But even more evidence of fraud is being discovered.

If the moon is smaller than the earth, than the earth from the moon should look larger than the moon does from the earth. If you look at a mansion from a small house, it looks bigger than the small house being looked at from the mansion.

But in this photo (below), you can see that the earth looks no bigger from the moon than the moon does from the earth at night.

This is impossible for a real Apollo moon landing. It's really an image from the earth. In real life, what happened is that, NASA took a picture within the Van Allen Radiation Belt, used a small image for it and then put in the background so that it would look as if they were taking a picture from the moon on the earth,or at least to most people. Although you can only see part of the earth in this photo, if you use your imagination or the program paint to "add" the other side or double it, it doesn't look as big as it should be.

One of the best pieces of evidence is that the lunar rover on the moon doesn't leave any tracks on this Apollo picture:

In this picture, you can see the footprints but not the lunar rover's tracks. Off course, as one can imagine, NASA claims that the reason for this error is because the feet of the astronauts would be better at leaving marks than a lunar rover.

> There are no markings from the lunar rover in this photo. There should be at least some.

> There should be a space either in front or behind the wheels of the lunar rover, where it obviously had just rolled.

> Look at www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRSpntQ-VtY&feature=related. It shows that the lunar rover should be making completely visible tracks with visible markings on the ground, because of the amount of dust it sends out into the air, even when inside a vacuum.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FGrsXZm-bo shows some evidence that during some of the clips, the astronauts were on wire supports. If you double the speed of the clips supposedly of "man on the moon," you will notice the astronauts appear to be moving in the earth's gravity. David S. Percy is famous for spreading the wired lunar footage theory. But then, mythbusters tried to prove it wrong. See:
www.youtube.com/watchv=YDQPgHkD8A&feature=related
Off course, mythbusters and Percy might both be wrong about the wire supports. Instead, NASA might have used rather lightweight suits and then slowed the motion down by 50%. Or, maybe Percy's right about maybe all of the videos, and mythbusters didn't use the right adjustments, settings or focus that NASA did, faking the lunar landings. There are so many possibilities and pieces of evidence of fraud. Mythbusters didn't do anything near a necessary test.

(Above) This Apollo 16 photo's biggest and most noticeable shadow seems to have a curve, while the object it comes from is definitely not curved. It's as if the shadow was faked in the first place. Shadows of straight objects are straight themselves, except in water. This photo is definitely fake.

Even if the curved shadow was a possibility outside of faked photo, or an area with several light sources, why doesn't the same thing appear to happen in a similar photo from the same mission (Apollo sixteen)? Some who say the shadows on some of the pictures might be curved because of the hill are proven wrong by this photo.

Compare these two pictures, both of Buzz Aldrin from NASA's apollo 11 image galery, www.history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/kippsphotos/apollo.html. In one of the photos, Buzz Aldrin appears to have a sign on the top/back of his suit.

If radiation in space or friction of the re- entry into the earth's atmosphere doesn't prove that the moon "landings" were hoaxed, the photo and video evidence still does.

Suspicious political events and deaths involving NASA's Apollo project:

> Guss Grimson, Edd White, Roger Chaffee were all killed in an Apollo 1 fire inside the rocket they were locked in. They say they heard Guss Grimson, Edd White and Roger Chaffee yelling about the fire before they died. But before the fire, the capsule's communication systems failed. Grimson tried to commumicate, saying: "No, I didn't read you Chuck at all. I can't read you Chuck. You wanna try the phone? How are we going to get to the moon when we can't talk between two buildings? I can't hear a word you're saying." It's as if while others knew there was a moon landing hoax being planned, they didn't and people knew that if they were killed by the radiation, more people would suspect the future moon landings were hoaxed and they would have more proof behind them. Guss Grimson's family claims the death's were no accident, but on purpose. They say nasa knows who it was and they need to tell them the truth. Before the rocket was even finished, people in the North American Aviation were in arguements with NASA of how the rocket should be designed. Before lift- off, the crew showed deep concern about fire hazards. After the believed "accident," the North American Aviation was partly blamed for the deaths of the astronatus. It seems that someone intended for the rocket to be deadly.
See: www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0W9bQ2Jg3A. Some of NASA admits that it was carelesness and that no one thought about whether or not a fire could start in the ground. Right after a phraze procaliming that, however, it was said: "-Let's go to the moon."

> Thomas Ronald Baron was a safety inspector during Apollo 1. After the incident in which several astronauts died, he approached Congress saying the US. may never walk the moon. Exactly one week after his approach, he and most of his family were killed. It was said to be a train accident. But why would it just happen to be a train accident killing a safety inspector of a failed "moon mission" and most of his family a week after he testified against the Apollo project?

> John F Kennedy was President while nasa was planning on going to the moon and he was putting hard effort into supporting them. But during his Presidency, he was murdered. It could have been parts of nasa trying to pressure people into helping them and believing in them through a tragic death. Maybe they thought John F. Kennedy was putting too much effort into it himself and that he might find out the truth. Although Johnson, his Vice President who became President, also put a "risky" amount of effort into it, the secret service had recently been invented and he was expected to have faith in NASA as part of his sadness for John F. Kennedy. Both of those ideas seemed to be true. Johnson didn't believe in NASA's hoax and no President in America has been assassinated since the secret service was invented that we know of.

> Richard Nixon was President while the first moon landing was said to occur. But his glory didn't last too long. Nixon turned out to be a cheater. He literally, after being caught, asked if he could retire from his Presidency. Like Kennedy, his Presidency ended suspiciously.

What likely happened to John F. Kennedy was he was assassinated because some of NASA was afraid that unless they could pressure the people to have faith in them through a devastating death, someone would end up discovering the fraud while they were trying to help with the Apollo project. If they were thinking that way, they were probably right. Few people in America believed in the hoax and then said so years after Apollo 18 and then generations after that were sometimes pressured into not even questioning the Apollo project. At first, it was probably partly because of the Kennedy assasination. Now, it's because people are trying to pressure the people younger than them into having faith in the Apollo project because they are afraid to question supposed "heroes" who were claimed to have went to the moon and come back.

Most of NASA was trying to put man on the moon. But some of them were planning a hoax, because they feared the radiation in deep space. They knew they could not survive the heat and radiation on the trip. But Guss Grimson actually was trying to get to the moon. The hoax planners inside NASA didn't want him to die before the trip was halfway over. That would rise suspicion. So, Grimson's death was something they were picky about. Frauds were also inside the North American Aviation and put traps inside the rocket. This may be what Baron had interpretated. It seems he thought that someone inside wanted to fake it. Because whatever Barren said, it seems Baron was dead for a particalarly big reason. 10 astronauts died in freak accidents, sometimes during their own training. Could this be because NASA was hiding their vulnerability to the dangers of deep space? It's obviously the truth. No astronaut has died or suffered from an accident in outer space, yet there were several astronauts who died in suspicious and freak accidents based on technichal difficulties that occured on earth? Why would that be? Some scientists of the time of the Apollo project were shocked and angry at NASA for continuing the Apollo project even after all of those astronauts died suspiciously. Could it bee that the reason NASA's concience was so still against some of the scientist's opinions because there was more than one reason not to believe them? Yes, it was.

Barren was claimed to be killed by a train in an complete accident. It was exactly one week after his testimony and a rare death that was unlikely to happen to anyone. Someone could have easily killed them with hand in hand combat that didn't involve guns, then put his car on the tracks ,with him and his family inside it, hijack the train, destroy Barren's car, and then give the train back to the original driver and forcing him not to say a word. Or, maybe the train owner himself was trying to help the murderers cover- up for their crime.

President John F. Kennedy's death was selected at just the right time so that people would think he died because of his speeches he made against slavery.

Richard Nixon was President while NASA was said to send man to the moon. But later, he turned out to be a cheater and he retired from Presidency. Although he is clearly not the only President who cheated, he is the only one that asked to be dismissed. He clearly was hiding something. Nixon was John F. Kennedy's old opponent during the election that John F. Kennedy won. This sounds like no coincidence. The probability is that Nixon was cheating along with the hoax parts of NASA so that people would trust him more. But after he was caught, he was forced to admit his cheating against the opinions he was against. He asked to leave his Presidency behind him probably for more than one reason. The probabilities are that:

> All of his effort to gain worthless trust had only lead him to success for so long. His depression was either more than he could take or more than what he would take.

> If he was caught and kept going as President, more and more suspicion would rise both on him and NASA. He had made deals with the hoax parts of NASA and was afraid of their betrayal.

> Some of the hoax planners inside NASA were wanting a more trusted President.

> He feared he might be assassinated, like his old opponent, John F. Kennedy. The secret service might have a harder time putting the effort into protecting him that they were supposed too. He thought his protection at the White House wasn't enough and he was more comfortable having no strong protection if people felt less reason to assassinate him.

> He thought he would have a better reputation if he quit and pretended it was for the people's own good, that he wasn't able to be President.

The theory that NASA terminated the astronauts who were trying to go to the moon, while others helped pull off a giant hoax has some sense behind it. The astronauts in the the Apollo project who died all died on the earth but the ones who were claimed to go into space all survived, even though Apollo 13 was said to have a dangerous accident that got close to killing 3 astronauts. So, it's easier to survive in space than to avoid a freak accident on earth? No. There was obviously something wrong with the moon landings.

The most suspicious is probably the cold war and the events of the space race that was in it.

Americans and Russians were on a race to the moon, determined that whoever won the race would be known as the world dominator. When Russia sent sputnick, the first satellite into inner space, the Americans were terrified. Some even thought we might be headed for extinction because of Nuclear bombs. Assumptions were being made that Russia was going to drop Nuclear bombs on America from space. Meanwhile, America was having trouble sending rockets high above the ground. Suspicious deaths and technical difficulties were NASA's big problems. According to those who believe in the moon landings, in three years, America went from where they were to a time when they weren't able to get far of the ground to a time when they could go to the moon in 2 years and then Russia who three years before then, was in the lead, didn't go to the moon for 40 years after America's supposed "moon landing." This exchange was extremely unlikely at the time and it still seems suspicious.

Russians, supposedly using spy sattelites accuse America of hiding a studio in "area 51," a place at the Vedas high desert, which is so heavily guarded, that if you went in, on purpose for any reason, or on accident, or even if you were mentally ill, you could be shot and murdered. The government says it's where some military flight and bomb testing, training and practicing occurs. But what part of the government is definitely going to be honest about a place that they'd guard with innocent people's lives? Why would there be 80,000 guards and none betray this murderous way of secrecy? Were the guards divided, not only into different parts, but into different intentions? Probably so. There has been reported betrayel in American surges in other countries, so shouldn't there be betrayel in area 51? Either their hiding truths about betrayel, or the guards are devided into different intentions.

The summarary is simple yet, curious:
John F. Kennedy was assasinated, a cheater took over after 8 years, 10 astronauts die in suspicious deaths, along with Thomas Ronald Barren, who feared the program could be stopped dead in its tracks, and it all happened in a space race in the Cold War, a result of American and Russian paronia of each other, while area 51 was and still is suspiciously and horrificly unreasonably protected and hidden. Coincidence? Why shouldn't anyone doubt it? Something was wrong. The government was untrusworthy. So, they were obviously hiding something big. The one theory with photography, video footage and other strong evidence behind it is the moon landing being faked. The suspicious deaths and political events show the government could very well be hiding something. The photographic evidence, the video evidence, the radiation in deep space and the dissability to re- enter the earth's atmosphere are all proof that the government was hiding something and they show exactly what it was that they were hiding.

Engine noise from a rocket and the lift off.

The engine noise in a rocket is over 200 dB(A). That's loud enough to kill someone in close range if they weren't shielded. Where the astronauts were was a location feet from the engine. And NASA's designing for a sound system that could hear through all of that noise was innacurate. The microphones being inside the spacesuits and the walls being between the engine are the only parts of the sound system made to allow the astronaut's voices to be heard through all of that noise. That's not enough to keep engine noise powerful enough to kill anyone up close.

The moon landings (hoaxed)

When NASA hoaxed the moon landing, they left us some hints of the hoax inside their media by accident.

Related websites:

Followers

Suspicious political events and deaths involving NASA's Apollo project:

Engine noise from a rocket and the lift off.

Other links

Questions or comments?