posted on May, 14 2009 @ 06:20 PM
1) It's not that I absolutely want to believe in a conspiracy just to annoy the NASA, but frankly there are too many incoherences with the color
photos; only with the color photos, but not with the photos of Surveyor which look normal and coherent to me.
The luminosity on the color photos is totally abnormal; on the photos of Surveyor, as well as on the Russian photos, it is normal; when there is a
darker part, it is explainable, you can see there is a hole hiding the sunlight.
But when you see a hill behing the lem and an astronaut, that you can see the direction of the sun by the direction of the shadow, and that you see
that the part of the hill which is logically exposed to the sunlight is very obviously darker than the foreground, there is clearly a problem, and
it's not my imagination, neither the fact that the moon would be an "alien" world.
When you see hills in the background which are much too dark compared with the foreground which is totally abnormally luminous in comparison, that you
find the same hills, totally recognizable by the perfect match of all of their parts, but with another luminosity, I can't find it normal, even with
the best will of the world.
When you also see that there are several clearly duplicated rocks on the photos (there is a video on youtube about that), even the "alien" world
can't explain that.
When you see that the reflection of the sun in the visor on an astronaut who is really floating in space (very regularly circular, with regular marked
spokes) is very different from the ones we see on the visors on the astronauts supposedly on the moon (pentagonal, irregular, poor spokes), you can
always try to explain me it's an effect of the camera, my eyes see it differently.
When you see that the moon reflectivity only acts on the astronauts but never on the moon rocks which are supposed to produce this reflectivity, you
can call it logical, but I don't.
All this doesn't derive from a conspicacy but from pure and simple logic.
2) There are people who use these incoherences to promote the theory that the NASA faked everything, that the man never left the earth, or that the
astronauts just orbited the earth for some days before coming back to earth, I say that it isn't necessary to go that far.
Faking the photos doesn't mean that the missions are necessarily faked; it can also mean that the American government was not trusting the
photographic material shot on the moon, and that it was wanting to totally master the communication.
This leads me to my third point.
3) How could the NASA and the American government be sure that the astronauts would plant the American flag on the moon?
The photos of Surveyor show a rather rocky ground; the astronauts might not ne able to plant the flag on the lunar ground; this ground might be rock,
or a layer of sand with rock underneath, unproper for planting the flag.
There is no way, that the American government could be sure the astronauts would be able to plant the flag on the moon, and if you tell me that it had
the means of knowing it, I will tell you that your level of delusion is extremely high.
In these conditions, what were the options of the American government?
If the astronauts could plant the flag, bravo, it was won.
But what if they couldn't?
Fake it in the last moment?
Impossible! in order to fake it, it absolutely had to be planned in advance, it could not be hastily improvised in case of impossibility of planting
So, if the American government wanted to be sure that the American flag would be gloriously planted on the mooon, and not just thrown on the lunar
ground for impossibility of planting it, the only solution was to plan it in advance, to stage the event, in order to be sure to master it, to leave
nothing to chance.
So, in any circumstance, the American government was sure to show a glorious event, the American flag pompously planted on the moon.