Moon Conspiracy


Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Moon Conspiracy

  1. 1. Allie Hohmann
  2. 2. <ul><li>This is fake because the flag appears to be waving in the breeze; the photograph was taken from an airless lunar surface meaning that there is no way that the flag could wave in the breeze. </li></ul><ul><li>It is really moving because the astronaut just place it there, and the inertia from when they put the pole into the ground made the pole keep moving making it look like the flag was moving in the wind. The flag pole wasn't very strong so it made the flag ripple </li></ul>
  3. 3. <ul><li>In the pictures, there are no stars in the background. Outer space is filled with stars, so how can this be real? </li></ul><ul><li>The moon's surface reflects sunlight and the glare would have made it very difficult to see stars. The astronauts also were taking pictures at 1/50th of a second; in that amount of time, stars wouldn't show up. </li></ul>
  4. 4. <ul><li>In the picture, the module is sitting on flat, undisturbed soil. When it landed, it should have made a huge impact and crater on the moon's surface. </li></ul><ul><li>It didn't make a crater because the lander's engines were throttled back and didn't hover over the surface long enough to make a crater or kick up a lot of dust. </li></ul>
  5. 5. <ul><li>The footprint in the picture is way too clear for being made on such a dry surface; those prints could have only been made in wet sand. There is no wet sand on the moon, so the landing is fake. </li></ul><ul><li>The print is so clear because the moon dust is a very fine powder and when it is looked at under a microscope, it looks like volcanic ash--a material that when you would step on it, it would easily compress and the footprint would show up very clear. The print would also stay there because outer space is an airless vacuum, no wind to blow it away. </li></ul>
  6. 6. <ul><li>One some pictures of the landing, the shadow's don't run parallel. Non-parallel shadows prove that there is more than one light source. If these were really taken on the sun, there would only be one light source, the sun. </li></ul><ul><li>The parallel and non-parallel shadows are due partly to the fact at how low the sun is in the sky and also due to the nature of the moon's surface. If there were two light sources, there would have been two shadows; the pictures clearly show that there is only one shadow. </li></ul>
  7. 7. <ul><li>I personally believe that the landing on the moon really happened. The government wouldn’t spend millions of dollars to make up a story. The story, if fake, has changed history and the history of science. </li></ul>
  8. 8. <ul><li>&quot;PHOTOS: 8 Moon-Landing Hoax Myths -- Busted.&quot; Daily Nature and Science News and Headlines | National Geographic News . N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Feb. 2010. < >. </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>&quot;The Apollo Hoax.&quot; Cosmic Conspiracies - Europe's Largest UFOs and Aliens Database . N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Feb. 2010. < >. </li></ul><ul><li>“ The Great Moon Hoax.&quot; NASA - Science@NASA . N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Feb. 2010. < >. </li></ul>