10 reasons the moon landings could be a hoax

[bchris02]

This is an older article but I wanted to get everyone's opinions on it. It has 10 very convincing things supporting the idea that we never went to the moon. I typically am not one for conspiracy theorists, but one has to admit that something doens't add up here. Thoughts?

10 Reasons the Moon Landings Could Be a Hoax - Listverse

[PWitty]

The waving flag, light/shadows, no crater from the landing, and radiation belt are pretty easy to explain. The weird objects are just weird. I think the top comment on that article does a pretty good job of explaining those questions.

[mike4ou]

Stanley Kubrick filmed the landing video hoax. Talked to a man who talked to Dr Van Allen and Dr VA said it was a total sham to bilk taxpayers out of billions and give the American people a sense of intellectual superiority among many other reasons.

Science proves that NASA faked the moon landings - Moon landing Hoax - YouTube

Even better watch "The Shining Code" on youtube

The Shining Code (complete film) - YouTube

There are better ones out there ...just dont have time to look them up now.

[Plutonic Panda]

The waving flag, light/shadows, no crater from the landing, and radiation belt are pretty easy to explain. The weird objects are just weird. I think the top comment on that article does a pretty good job of explaining those questions.

I agree!

Here is what the comment said:

-10: The flag was fastened to a Г-shaped rod so that it did not hang down. The flag only seemed to flutter when the astronauts were moving it into position. Without air drag, these movements caused the free corner of the flag to swing like a pendulum for some time. The flag was rippled because it had been folded during storage—the ripples could be mistaken for movement in a still photo. Videos show that when the astronauts let go of the flagpole it vibrates briefly but then remains still

-9: No crater should be expected. The Descent Propulsion System was throttled very far down during the final landing. The Moon lander was no longer quickly decelerating, so the descent engine only had to support the lander's own weight, which was lessened by the Moon's gravity and by the near exhaustion of the descent propellants

-8: Shadows on the Moon are complicated by reflected light, uneven ground, wide-angle lens distortion, and lunar dust. There are several light sources: the Sun, sunlight reflected from the Earth, sunlight reflected from the Moon's surface, and sunlight reflected from the astronauts and the Lunar Module. Light from these sources is scattered by lunar dust in many directions, including into shadows. Shadows falling into craters and hills may appear longer, shorter and distorted. Furthermore, shadows display the properties of vanishing point perspective, leading them to converge to a point on the horizon.

-7: The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that 33 of the 36 Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays. At least 39 former astronauts have developed cataracts; 36 of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo missions.

-6: the stupidest argument ever.

-5: i don't see anything. maybe a spider make a web inside your monitor.

-4: All manned landings happened during the lunar daytime. Thus, the stars were outshone by the sun and by sunlight reflected off the Moon's surface. The astronauts' eyes were adapted to the sunlit landscape around them so that they could not see the relatively faint stars. Likewise, cameras were set for daylight exposure and could not detect the stars. Camera settings can turn a well-lit background to black when the foreground object is brightly lit, forcing the camera to increase shutter speed so that the foreground light doesn't wash-out the image. A demonstration of this effect is . The effect is similar to not being able to see stars from a brightly lit car park at night—the stars only become visible when the lights are turned off. The astronauts could see stars with the naked eye only when they were in the shadow of the Moon.

-3: The "C"-shaped objects are most likely printing imperfections and do not appear in the original film from the camera. It has been suggested that the "C" is a coiled hair.

-2: This only appears in copied and scanned photos, not the originals. It is caused by overexposure: the bright white areas of the emulsion "bleed" over the thin black crosshairs. The crosshairs are only about 0.004 inch thick (0.1 mm) and emulsion would only have to bleed about half that much to fully obscure it. Furthermore, there are many photos where the middle of the crosshair is "washed-out" but the rest is intact. In some photos of the American flag, parts of one crosshair appear on the red stripes, but parts of the same crosshair are faded or invisible on the white stripes. There would have been no reason to "paste" white stripes onto the flag.

-1:Backgrounds were not identical, just similar. What appear as nearby hills in some photos are actually mountains many miles away. On Earth, objects that are further away will appear fainter and less detailed. On the Moon, there is no atmosphere or haze to obscure faraway objects, thus they appear clearer and nearer. Furthermore, there are very few objects (such as trees) to help judge distance.

[Garin]

Why don't we have settlements there today if in fact we landed there. It was hoax IMO

[windowphobe]

Why isn't Ed Shadid asking these questions?

[Garin]

Don't worry bchris I've got enough tinfoil for you also.

[gjl]

If it is a hoax then Google is in on it too.

Google Moon

[BBatesokc]

I'm always amazed when I'm reminded that people believe these hoax theories.

Yeah, I guess I'm just another member of the gullible herd (whatever).

[Achilleslastand]

Why don't we have settlements there today if in fact we landed there. It was hoax IMO

Because.....
Big difference in landing on the moon as opposed to colonizing/living there for months/yrs at a time.

[Stew]

I think the bigger mystery is how come we never went back. That always baffles me.

If it was a hoax then I gotta think Russia, China or some geek in a research lab would have exposed it by now.

[Pete]

We landed 6 manned missions on the moon and attempted more...

The real and only reason that any man ever went in the first place was to prove to the world that the American way was superior during the Cold War. Once we clearly established our supremacy in this area, there was no reason for men to go back and the general public lost interest and thus NASA lost funding.

Having people on any mission is generally a massive handicap. Machines can do just as good a job (as has been proven with the Mars missions) and you don't have to allow for oxygen and food, and having careful landings and getting them back safely.

[Stew]

We landed 6 manned missions on the moon and attempted more...

The real and only reason that any man ever went in the first place was to prove to the world that the American way was superior during the Cold War. Once we clearly established our supremacy in this area, there was no reason for men to go back and the general public lost interest and thus NASA lost funding.

Having people on any mission is generally a massive handicap. Machines can do just as good a job (as has been proven with the Mars missions) and you don't have to allow for oxygen and food, and having careful landings and getting them back safely.

Really? That seems like a silly reason and awfully shortsighted. When it comes to exploration historically mankind hasn't been much a 'been there done that why do it again' type. I guess you had to be of the times for the rationale of sticking it to the commies to make sense. Must have been exciting all the same.

[Snowman]

Here is an interesting perspective from a filmmaker on why it could not have been faked

[Pete]

The US and other countries have sent unmanned crafts to the moon...

But what is left to accomplish? It's a lifeless chunk of rock and dust. How many moon rocks and soil samples do we need?

I'm glad we are concentrating our now limited resources on Mars and other bodies. The Mars stuff was absolutely amazing and there is so much more to explore.

[Stew]

So is Wyoming but people still go there.

[Pete]

Really? That seems like a silly reason and awfully shortsighted. When it comes to exploration historically mankind hasn't been much a 'been there done that why do it again' type. I guess you had to be of the times for the rationale of sticking it to the commies to make sense. Must have been exciting all the same.

Believe me, it wasn't silly back in the 60's!

That's why after the Soviets put the first satellite then the first man into space, then president Kennedy pledged "By the end of this decade we will land a man on the moon and return him home safely".

I'm sure many are too young to understand the significance of this, but Kennedy understood it and so did the public at the time. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were not so much battling each other, they were trying to get other countries to come over to their philosophy and fall within their sphere of influence. When the Soviets persuaded Cuba into communism, it created the most perilous situation quite possibly in the history of mankind: The very real possibility of nuclear war.

A lot of countries were struggling and communism appeared at that time to be a solid choice to lead them out of the mire. And when the Soviets seemed to be winning the technology war, it reinforced the notion that their way was the right path for the future.


If anyone is interested and doesn't mind a big undertaking, I highly recommend Space by James Michener. Like all his books, he weaves fictional characters into historical events and it remains my favorite book. Was wildly entertaining but I learned a ton. (I was still very young in the 60's so I only have vague recall of the history involved).

[Pete]

Here is an interesting perspective from a filmmaker on why it could not have been faked

That was very interesting!


Thanks for posting it.

[RadicalModerate]

I love conspiracy theories and codes.
They imply imagination and creativity.
The ending of the filmed version of The Shining was far better than the way the "original" writer ended it.

[RadicalModerate]

So is Wyoming but people still go there.

One of the main reasons people go to Wyoming is to see Devil's Tower.
You know . . . Where them aliens landed.
I expect it won't be long before visitors report sightings of Fred Phelps hovering in the vicinity.

[kevinpate]

I figure I'll believe the moon landings were a hoax about the same time I believe enjoying good BBQ is a bad idea.

[PWitty]

Really? That seems like a silly reason and awfully shortsighted. When it comes to exploration historically mankind hasn't been much a 'been there done that why do it again' type. I guess you had to be of the times for the rationale of sticking it to the commies to make sense. Must have been exciting all the same.

Going to the moon isn't like most "historical exploration". There's nothing to gain by going back. There's nothing of value there for mankind to exploit, and it costs an unimaginable amount of money to continue to put humans on the surface. There's more to gain by exploring Antarctica than by exploring the moon.

[SoonerDave]

Stanley Kubrick filmed the landing video hoax. Talked to a man who talked to Dr Van Allen and Dr VA said it was a total sham to bilk taxpayers out of billions and give the American people a sense of intellectual superiority among many other reasons.

Science proves that NASA faked the moon landings - Moon landing Hoax - YouTube

Even better watch "The Shining Code" on youtube

The Shining Code (complete film) - YouTube

There are better ones out there ...just dont have time to look them up now.

Utter asininity in all respects.

[SoonerDave]

We landed 6 manned missions on the moon and attempted more...

The real and only reason that any man ever went in the first place was to prove to the world that the American way was superior during the Cold War. Once we clearly established our supremacy in this area, there was no reason for men to go back and the general public lost interest and thus NASA lost funding.

Having people on any mission is generally a massive handicap. Machines can do just as good a job (as has been proven with the Mars missions) and you don't have to allow for oxygen and food, and having careful landings and getting them back safely.

The greatest tragedy of the loss of funding for the last moon missions was that the only thing really "cut" was the operations budgets. The real expensive stuff - the rockets - were already built. One is on display (on its side, in sections) at the Huntsville Space Center (if I'm correct), and the other was cannibalized for the politically valuable but scientifically useless Apollo-Soyuz joint "mission"

[mike4ou]

Utter asininity in all respects.

Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood by their culture , let alone by the masses. Plato ~ 400 BC