A Hoax is unlikely - Explanations. (The Great Moon Hoax)

Member Name: AdvocatusDiaboli

Product:	The Great Moon Hoax
Date:	17/08/01 (371 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: see text

Disadvantages: see text

The recent interest in whether the moon landings were a hoax is a direct reult of a programme recently screened in many countries. In the programme many so called discrepencies were shown to 'prove' that the moon landings were faked in a similar fashion to the faked Mars landings in the film Capricorn One. In this opinon I will study each of the conspiracy theorists key points and give the answers that have been put forward by NASA and many other experts. Much of this opinion is based upon the research of scientists and authors who are given credit at the bottom of the opinion.

Q. Why are there no stars visible in the lunar photos?

A. Why would there be?, everything in the photos is brightly lit which would prevent the stars from being visible. If you are looking for more prrof of this go outside at night near a streetlamp and try and take a photo of the stars, it is impossible.

Q. Why do some objects overlap the cross hairs on the camera?

A. They don't. The fact is that the bright white space suits and lunar modules cause the colour to bleed over the thin cross hairs. You can try this yourself as well by placing a human hair in front of your camera and then taking a photo outdoors, part of the cross hair will be visible but in areas where there is a bright colour present this colour will bleed.

Q. Why do the astronauts have shadows in multiple directions? wouldn't that require at least two light sources?

A. No. The moons surface is unlike earth and there are many jagged little ridges and hills, many of the famous photos show one astronaut on a flat surface and the other on a hill (with two differing shadow lines), if you want proof of this being the effect of landscape then try standing on your staircase while someone else stands on the floor - your shadows will fall in different directions. Further evidence against the claims of multiple light sources is shown by the fact that it would result in
MULTIPLE shadows of different intensity.

Q. How did the Lunar rover fit in the shuttle?

A. Quite simply it folded up to a very small size, diagrams of this are available at the NASA website.

Q. Why do the background 'hills' in the photos keep reappearing at different locations?

A. They are not hills. They are lunar mountains, moving 100 metres away will not make mountains disappear from the background.

Q. Why is the American flag 'fluttering' in photographs when there isn't any atmosphere on the moon?

A. It is not fluttering, it is being pulled back and forth by the astronauts! any photo that does not have the astronauts touching the flag shows a completely stationary flag.

Q. Why can you see objects that should be obscured in shadows? doesn't this prove that there were mutliple light sources?

A. No, it proves that when sunlight hits a light coloured surface some light is reflected into the darker areas, didn't we all learn this at school.

Q. How can the astronauts survive radiation present between the earth and outer space (the Van Allen belt) and the radiation on the moon?

A. The spacesuits were as good as they could bein their day at protecting against radiation. There was damgae done to them although it was only minor, the astronauts who volunteered for the mission knew the risks and still took the trip, similar to the pilots of the bombers that nuked Japan.

Q. Why is there no crater underneath the lunar module after landing?

A. The thruster used to land the module were not as strong as many consiracy theorists suggest so it only removes a layer of 'dust', if you study photos of the landing site it is easily seen that although there is no crater underneath the module there is a no dust unlike the surrounding area.

Summary

I hope I have provided answers to many of the questions posed. For a few hours af
ter I watched the documentary on the hoax theories I did believe that a hoax was possible and immediately looked around th internet for answers, it didn'ttake long to find them. I do not believe that there is any proof that the landings were faked although if anyone else has a question then put it in the comments section and I will attempt to answer it. It seems strange that people are looking so hard into this when there are much more interesting facts surrounding the moon missions. Have a look around at the various sites dedicated to Neil Armstrong's press conference on the presence of aliens on the moon and alongside the module during the trip to the moon or of the repeated use of the phrase 'we have seen Santa Claus' (allegedly a code for aliens) even during missions that occured nowhere near Christmas. In my opinion there is no conspiracy involved with the landings themselves but I do believe that there is something very odd about the events surrounding them.

References :-

www.moonconspiracy.com
Phil Plait

Summary: