It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Moon Landing-Fake?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 05:52 AM
Im sure you have all had this before! But i am going to post some interesting pictures, which may make you think twice about the moonlanding.

On the moon, there is only one light source, the sun. This is a shot of Buzz Aldrin and Neal Armstrong planting the US flag on the moon. If the sun is the only light source used by NASA on the moon, Aldrins shadow A shadows should not be so much longer than Armstrong's

This is a famous picture labeled "Man on the Moon" I have a poster of this picture hanging on my wall in my room, and it always gives me a chuckle.

If you will look at area B you will notice a shadow cast across Buzz Aldrin's space suit. Once again, if the Sun is the only light source used on the moon, this shadow would have been MUCH darker.
Looking at area C you will notice that the surface of the moon fades off into the distance, then is met with the moon's horizon. In a no-atmosphere environment, the ground shouldn't have faded out, but stayed crystal sharp unto the moon's horizon.

Looking at area D you can plainly see some type of structure reflected through Aldrins helmet. I do not know what it is, but it is there.

In this picture, taken from the LEM, you can see at least two abnormalities. In section E you see an abnormal shadow on the moon's surface. NASA claims that this shadow is the shadow cast by the Lunar Module, but on earth, even when aircraft is flying low to the ground, it does not produce such a clearly defined shadow.

OK, here's the kicker... if you will look at section 3 you will notice there are no stars in the sky. In fact, you will never see any stars in any NASA Moon photographs, or hear an astronaut mention anything about the glorious stars that are visible when out of the earths atmosphere.

if you look in areas 6 and J , you will again see no stars. In area K you will notice that one side of the LEM in covered in shadow, but somehow the symbol of the US flag in illuminated. This very well could have been a touch up job.

This is a picture of Alan Bean holding up a Special Environmental Examiner Container. This picture was taken off a camera that was strapped to Conrad's chest. If the camera was attached to Conrad's chest, the top of Bean's helmet L should not be in this picture.

All of the shadows reflected in Bean's visor M are going off in separate directions, not in parallel lines like they should be.

If you will look at the Environmental sampler that Al Bean is holding, N , The reflection is coming from a light source other than the sun, but it is possible that light is being reflected off the space suit.

There is a strange anomaly in the sky 7 , It is yet to be determined what that might be

In the last picture, I would like to direct your attention to the circled portion of the screen. These Lunar Rover tracks are quite well defined, don't you agree? Well, the fact is, you need a mixture of a compound, and water, to make such defined lines. I don't know if that idea is so convincing, but I assure you, this next one is.

If you look at the rock labeled R you will notice a the letter C carved in the rock. Perhaps a gag left by the props department?

Here is a portion of the previous picture, blown up. Take a look at the cross hairs that appear on the picture. These hairs appear on EVERY lunar picture. These cross hairs are placed between the shutter of the camera, and the film, supposedly. If you take a look at the cross hair on the left, this cross hair was placed behind the lunar rover, you can see the Lunar Rover is in front of the cross hairs.

Why would NASA fake a moon landing?
MONEY. NASA gathered about 30 billion dollars pretending to go to the moon. That means that someone is getting a lot of money in their pockets.

TO WIN THE SPACE RACE -- Back in the late 60's early 70's, Russia and the US were in a heated battle to see, well, pretty much who was better. Once the US realized that they couldn't send a man to the moon, they couldn't just say, "OK Russia, we give up."

Info gatherd from Please read through it frot he full story.

posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 06:59 AM
I know of these things you have pointed out. I have to tell you that I always believed we went to the moon. Iam a HUGE Nasa supporter. But after I watched that show on tv which pointed all those things out, I no longer believe we went there. The thing that bothers me the most is, there is a radiation band surrounding the earth. In order for our astrounauts to get through it they would have to have been wearing lead suits 6 inches thick I think they said. When you look at what they were wearing, the lighting issues, the stars, I have my doubts now. And believe me that upsets me.
Its like watching the movie Capricorn One.
IF it is true that we never went there, it is very depressing because it just means it will take us that much longer to get off this forsaken rock

posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 07:07 AM
about this..We..I mean 'they' went to Iceland. Quite a distance from the moon. But whatever, that's just my opinion.

posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 07:35 AM
lol it was obviously fake i mean im sure anyone would of mentioned the view of the stars

posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 07:57 AM
OK a few things.

1, A camera has an aperture shown on the lens a f=. This denote depth of field, the higher the number the more of an image will be in focus.
Now that picture "man on the moon" shows the background fading. Well of course it will the aperture on the camera was probably fixed to f=2 or 6. If you wanted the whole area in focus you'd need an aperture of around f=32 or higher.

2, The shadow's aren't always so black and white. The mear fact the moon surface is light will reflect light to sum degree (this is why we can see it) So if the shadow on his suit is slightly gray will mean that the area will have had some defused light hitting, from the ground our the other astronuat.

Having said that, there are other pictures you haven't posted that show shadows going in different direction indicating other light sources. I do tend to think the whole thing was set-up. After all how the hell are you going to prove that it didn't happen, you can'y just take a day trip up there.

[Edited on 8-11-2003 by Britman]

[Edited on 8-11-2003 by Britman]

posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 09:08 AM

this makes me believe (fully) we did land....

posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 09:44 AM
Hrm where to start.

Firstly, the very first picture is easily explainable with the an uneven surface on the ground. If there were 2 lights, each astronaut would cast 2 shadows, duh?

In the man on the moon picture, it is easily explainable as reflected light from the surface and probably the guy taking the picture. You'll notice the exposure is higher on this photo as the edges where the astronaut is lit from direct light is washed out in the picture. Also there are stars visible in this picture, owing to the higher exposure.

The thing about the crisp edges on the shadow is just kinda stupid, as earth has an atmosphere to refract light and blur the edges, whereas the moon does not.

The stars arent visible in most pictures as the exposure has to be turned down owing to the brightness of the lighting (ie direct sunlight, brighter than daytime on earth) You could try this yourself, try taking a photo at night, of a subject lit up as bright as daylight, and see if you can get any stars in your picture without the subject being a total washout from over exposure.

The chest camera picture is again just due to the fact that the guy taking the picture is standing on higher ground than the subject. The reflections in his helmet are not parallel as his helmet is a convex reflective surface, not a flat one.

The tracks of the rover are well defined as there is no air to cause any disturbance.

The 'C' is most likely just an impurity that has gotten into the film during processing (eyelash?).

The cross hairs on the left are washed out by the brightness of the part of the rover behind them.

To put them behind the rover would have been a whole lot more difficult back then as noone had photoshop etc, why go out of your way to make one single set of crosshairs different? I think this is also apparent in other shots with brighter subjects.

[Edited on 8-11-2003 by Kano]

posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 09:54 AM
ahh, i found a video, when the guy comes off the lander and says "one small step for man one giant" he turns his head and a focken light falls

it looks real, but for some reson it dosnt "sound" real brb ill try to find the link

posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Dmsoldier
ahh, i found a video, when the guy comes off the lander and says "one small step for man one giant" he turns his head and a focken light falls

it looks real, but for some reson it dosnt "sound" real brb ill try to find the link

That's real, and it's staged, and it was staged for reporters. It's on the NASA site with explainations.

This occurs AFTER The moon landing, BTW. And if you really look at the photos (I saw them as they were transmitted), you'd recognize that there was no way we could have faked that back then.

The "fake" here is people who want to get rich selling you this conspiracy theory. We did go, and when we go back, we can photograph the landing sites and the footprints.

posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 10:06 AM
I think we went. I'm not entirely sure of the stars issue as that could just be a camera problem, but I do think that all other image anomalies are the result of airbrushing out "something" that was on the moon that we weren't meant to see. What that something was, be it extraterrestrial craft or something else, I don't exactly know as evidence stops there. The extra light sources and weird shadows are, IMO, the result of something else on the moon that was giving off light. Same with the crosshairs doing odd things. At one point there was something weird on the picture that we weren't meant to see and it was airbrushed out.

posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 10:16 AM
Thats the whole point, what anomalies?

There were no extra light sources, otherwise everything would cast multiple shadows, have you people never seen a night game of football?

posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 10:23 AM
Wouldn't it be the case if they were airbrushing out things that they didn't want us to see that they would airbrush out extra shadows and leave only one?

posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 10:28 AM
I believe you went to the moon. But i believe the photos which were made to public were altered with to make them more "amazing" and "wonderful".

posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 10:32 AM
I donr know if we landed or not,,,there's some pretyy valid points on both sides! My personal opinion,,,,if we did,,,maybe we found something we didnt like and have no plans of going back and colonizing or anything to that effect. How many times did we go supposedly?

or,,,as my wife points out,,,,

Maybe we didnt go,,and the government said we did,,Hoaxed the whole thing and kept the taxpayers money for "other" projects,,,,I like that idea better,,,sounds more convincing!!!!!

posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 11:40 AM
Until I saw the movie "Capricorn One", with the staged Martian landing... and then, MANY years later, seeing that Lunar Conspiracy on television... I firmly believe we didn't land on the moon... except...

If we didn't land, then how can we account for Aldrins(?) mentioning of distant lights/ UFOs?

posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 11:48 AM
The pictures that "show" a glass dome, a floating "castle", etcetera...

I would love to believe we went... but why have we not since then? Maybe, perhaps... some people are right, that we did go, but are hiding what we found... after all, the best way to cover something up is to create a bigger conspiracy...

posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 11:59 AM
If the moon was covered in things that you didn't want people to see, would you constantly go back trying to take pictures while at the same time cover it up? As shown in the photographs already, its hard to do it without people seeing anomalies. The more you go back, the more chance there is of allowing the irrefutable leak to happen. Of course, people on earth already see weird things in the sky every day so its not exactly something relegated only to the moon.

[Edited on 8-11-2003 by heelstone]

posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 12:23 PM
That day is my birthday 7-20-69 so therfore I believe it's real
Good arguments for both sides though

posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 02:06 PM
I didn't know people actually refute the landing on the moon. LOL

Y'all have too much time on your hands.

posted on Nov, 8 2003 @ 02:11 PM
There is zero good reasons to believe the moon landing was faked.

As far as photo alteration goes, notwithstanding that airbrushing out entire shadows would have been easily noticeable. Why would you go to the trouble to airbrush out all the multiple shadows from every object on the surfact (including rocks etc) then leave them all on random angles.

The easiest way for you to prove for yourselves the accuracy of these photos, is to go and try them out. Take a camera out on a sunny day.

Take photos with a near and far subject, notice the apparent difference in shadow angle. Try to imitate the photos from the moon landing and make all your shadows line up just how you are thinking they should.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in