In 1959 Bill Kaysing predicted that at that time, the chances of getting man to the moon and back alive were 0.0017%, taking into account radiation and micro meteors. Just two years later US president J. F. Kennedy made his famous speech. "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind or more important for the long range exploration of Space." Eight years later in on 16 July 1969, Apollo 11 was launched on a mission to the moon and back, carrying three people. On the 20 July Apollo 11 landed on the moon. Neil Armstrong stepped out of the Lunar Module in front of a watching world, climbed down the ladder and said those famous words." One small step for man one giant leap for mankind". In doing so, Neil Armstrong won the moon race against Russia for America, and proved to an entire world that the sky is not the only limit. Or so NASA said!
Ever since 1969, a lot of very convincing evidence has been discovered and the people have doubted that America did send a man to the moon, and that was when the Apollo hoax was born. There are three sources of evidence for this hoax: Photographic, video, and scientific.
Wide Spread Conspiracy
In this hoax imagine that contractors, NASA tells everyone about the moon landing conspiracy and pays them for their services that their not giving. Nasa makes an announcement to the public telling them that theirmaking rocket parts. (This is for the share holders.) Then at the first day of work they tell everybody in the factory that they are not really making rocket parts and that if they play this out they will be set for life. Employees that do not comply are threatened from NASA officials. The advantage to this is type of conspiracy that no real equipment has to be made, except for a rocket to go up and a Lander to come down.
If we sent six manned spacecraft to the moon in ten years, then why in thirty years with so many technological advances have not they been back once? NASA says that there was a budget cut and this can be explained for the first ten years after the Apollo missions, because of the buildup of nuclear weapons (due to the cold war) would have cost money that could have been taken away from NASA. And what about the other twenty years? Some people say that the risks are too high to justify another moon landing, but there will always be somebody ready and willing to risk it all, for the good of mankind and scientific advancement. A possibility is that the technology available is still not enough for mankind to go to the moon, because we didn't go to the moon in the first place.
Photographic Evidence
Moon landing photographs are the main argument for the Apollo conspiracy believers, as there are thousands of moon photographs that have anomalies on them. (i.e.: different directions on shadows, things 'highlighted') Because of these anomalies, the photos are believed fake by the conspiracy followers. These people reason "why create fake photos of something that really happened?" The most constant argument that the moon landing photos (and the videos) is faked is simply that there are no stars in the sky. (See all Apollo images).
There is a very reasonable explanation, the cameras that the Apollo mission used, had manual light filters, (a bit like the pupil of ones eye). The Sun reflects off of the moon's surface and the white suits of the astronauts. Making both exceptionally bright, unlike the stars which are so far are quite dim. The cameras on the Apollo mission would be set at a bright setting, so the moon and the astronauts are visible, but the stars are missed because of the flood of light, from the moon and astronauts. Even if there is an explanation for no stars, many photos seem to have multiple light sources shining on the surroundings, casting shadows in different directions, even though there is only one (bright enough) light source visible on the moon (the Sun). The conspiracy believers argue, that the only way multiple light sources could be shining on the 'set', is if the LM landed in Hollywood.
One of the biggest anomalies that appear on the Moon shots are the way in which shadows seem to be cast in totally different directions, even when the objects making the shadows are a mere few feet apart? A classic example in one of the pictures is the shadow of the Lander that is pointing east while the rocks which are a few meters away are pointing south-east. The conspiracists explanation for this is that more than one light source is shining on the moon, a trick used by movie producers, to highlight certain areas.
Another picture shows two astronauts with one of the astronauts' shadows bent .it is said that the angled shadows, come from one long artificial light work this could possibly work, as movie lights do cause that effect. Though it is more likely to do with perspective. If the landscape is viewed from a bird's eye the shadows would be parallel. Though, the conspiracy theorists explanation could work.
Another example is the footage of Earth taken from the Apollo 11 when it was 130,000 miles away. This is the very first view ever taken of Earth on the mission and it seems strange that Buzz Aldrin, one of the astrounats on the mission, would film the Earth when he was stood far away from the window, why would he do that? Surely one would want to come close to the window to get the best picture and also to eliminate light reflections that are evident towards the end of this sequence? But the window frame comes into view on the left of the shot. The camera is not set to infinity either to get the closest shot. The window frame that comes into shot would have been out of focus if it was.
Moreover on all Apollo footage there should be cross hairs or reticules present on the film. These crosshairs were, according to NASA, placed on the film to help calculate distances on the Moon. The crosshairs were actually built into the camera and therefore should be visible on every single picture taken by the astronauts on the surface of the Moon. Incidentally, Jan Lundberg, executive vice president and head of discovery research at AstraZeneca has stated that the only way that one could calculate the distance in the shot using the crosshairs would be if you had two cameras set up to take a stereo picture.
Also all of the crosshairs have disappeared from the film. This is impossible unless the film has been tampered with. The crosshairs should be completely visible in all shots and not hidden behind objects in the pictures. The only solution must be that NASA has gone to the trouble of either airbrushing out certain objects in the film, or added them over the crosshairs!
Scientific evidence
An important factor to take into consideration is the great variations in temperature that the film would have had to endure whilst on the lunar surface. The temperature during the Apollo missions was recorded as being between -180F degrees in the shade to an incredible and 200F degrees in full sunshine. How could the film emulsion have withstood such temperature differences? The astronauts can be seen to move between the shadows of the rocks and then into full sunlight in some shots. Surely the film would have perished under such conditions. If the film used during the Apollo missions had such qualities as to withstand s such differences in temperature, why are Kodak not publicly selling them in today's market?
Some of the lighting on 'official NASA film' is very suspicious The NASA picture shows the astronaut in complete shadow because the sun is behind him, and yet the whole of the astronaut is caught in bright light?
During the Apollo missions, the movie cameras were fitted with special night lenses to compensate for the lack of light. Due to the atmospheric conditions on the Moon's surface, only 7% of light is reflected from the ground (that's the same reflectivity as asphalt). So, taking this into consideration, how did the Hassel lad stills camera manage to pick up more detail than the movie cameras? NASA hasconfirmed that no artificial lighting was used on the Moon's surface, so how can the still camera take pictures that were brighter and sharper than the movie cameras that were fitted with special lenses to compensate for the dark conditions? In one of the film sequences it is interesting to note that the still photos seem to have Aldrin brightly lit, in comparison to the gloomy motion picture images that had the special night lens on it? Artificial lighting appears to be used or has been added to the still photos to show better features on Aldrin's suit and the Lunar Lander. Because of the lack of atmosphere on the surface of the Moon, the shadows would be intensely black.
The reflectivity of the Lunar surface is so low, that light does not even reflect onto the rocks that are on the ground, yet the light in these pictures are so intense, even Aldrin's heel protector on his boot is lit up! Dr. David Groves who works for Quantech Image Processing has done some analysis of these particular shots and has used resources to pinpoint the exact point at which the artificial light was used. Knowing the focal length of the camera's lens and being able to get hold of an actual boot, he has calculated that the artificial light source is between twenty four and thirty six cm to the right of the camera. If the TV footage is actually real, then I could understand this, as the movie images are very dark and grainy, but I believe that the still photographs are definitely faked.
Next the famous picture that shows LEM ,Neil Armstrong and landing site in the reflection of his visor .one of the strange things with this picture is that the reticule that is supposed to be in the middle of the picture actually shows up at the bottom of aldrins right leg ? How can this be when the camera is attached to the cameraman's chest a fact that is easily verifiable by the reflection of the cameraman in the visor?
If Man did go to the Moon during the missions, the Apollo films that we were told were filmed on the Moon are bogus and not the real footage. Evidence suggests that Man could not travel to the Moon's surface, but instead they had to stay in near Earth orbit within the safety of the Earth's magnetic field, but why would NASA and the United States bother to fake such an event and for what cause .
NASA Motives
Proponents of the view that the Moon landings were staged give several differing theories about the motivation for the United States government to fake the Moon landings. Cold War prestige, monetary gain and providing a distraction are some of the more notable motives given.
The United States government considered it vital that the United States win the Space Race against the Soviet Union. Going to the Moon would be risky and expensive, as exemplified by John F. Kennedy famously stating that the United States chose to go because it was hard. Proponents also claim that the United States government benefited from a popular distraction from the Vietnam War; and so lunar activities suddenly stopped, with planned missions canceled, around the same time that the United States ceased its involvement in the Vietnam War.
Bill Kaysing ,well known conspiracy theorist and critic of NASA, .maintains that, despite close monitoring by the Soviet Union, it would have been easier for the United States to fake the Moon landing, thereby guaranteeing success, than for the United States to actually go there. Kaysing claimed that the chance of a successful landing on the Moon was calculated to be 0.017%.NASA raised approximately US$30 billion in order to go to the Moon as well, and Kaysing claims that this amount could have been used to pay off a large number of people, providing significant motivation for complicity. The issue of delivering on the promise is often brought up as well. Since most proponents believe that the technical issues involved in receiving people to the Moon either were insurmountable at the time or remain insurmountable, the Moon landings had to be forged in order to fulfill President Kennedy's 1961 promise "to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."[
Others have made the claim that, with all the known and unknown hazards of traveling into deep space, NASA would not have risked the public humiliation of astronauts crashing to their deaths on the lunar surface, broadcast on live TV. So, with time running out, instead of risking a national fiasco and embarrassment and a cut-off of funding of billions of dollars should some catastrophe happen, it is argued that NASA had to stage and fake the Moon landing to avoid such a major risk.
Involvement of the Soviet Union
A primary reason for the race to the Moon was the cold war. Philip plait states in bad astronomy that the Soviets, with their own competing moon program and a formidable scientific community able to analyze nasa data, could be expected to have cried foul if the United States tried to fake a Moon landing, especially since their own program had failed. Successfully pointing out a hoax would have been a major propaganda coup. Bart sirbrel has responded, "The Soviets did not have the capability to track deep spacecraft until late in 1972, immediately after which, the last three Apollo missions were abruptly canceled
However, the Soviet Union had been sending unmanned spacecraft to the Moon since 1959, and "during 1962, deep space tracking facilities were introduced at IP-15 in Ussuriisk and IP-16 in Evpatoria (Crimean Peninsula), while Saturn communication stations were added to IP-3, 4 and 14", the latter having a 100 million km range. The Soviet Union monitored the missions at the Space Transmissions Corps, which was "fully equipped with the latest intelligence-gathering and surveillance equipment" vasily michen, in an interview for the article "The Moon Programmer That Faltered" (Spaceflight, March 1991, vol. 33, 2-3), describes how the Soviet Moon programmed lost energy after the Apollo landing.
Did Man go to the Moon? It is a contentious issue, considering how ridiculous the question might first appear. Despite the heaps of evidence available to us from NASA personnel, TV archives and museums (not to mention physically returned moon rocks), there is still a grumbling doubt that the whole thing might just have been made up. The movie 'Capricorn One', where fictitious American astronauts were removed from their rocket and driven to a film set in the desert to record their Moon landing, has a deep and lasting resonance with me. It could have been false, even if the Apollo astronauts really did actually walk on the surface of the Moon.
http://www.ufos-aliens.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/2Shadows.rm
