Upcoming SlideShare
×

# Moon landing argument w

1,827 views
1,690 views

Published on

1 Like
Statistics
Notes
• Full Name
Comment goes here.

Are you sure you want to Yes No
• Be the first to comment

Views
Total views
1,827
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
19
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

### Moon landing argument w

1. 1. Moon Landing Argument w/ the ten Pictures Picture #1: The FlagFake: The flag appears to be flapping in the picture as if it is in the wind. There is no air of wind on theMoon so the flapping flag is not possible on the Moon.Explanation: The flag is moving like that because the inertia from when they put it in the ground. It ispossible for them to pull the flag through space and space relies on Newton’s first law; an object inmotion will stay in motion unless acted upon in equal or opposite reaction.Real: The astronauts also accidentally bent the horizontal rods holding the flag in place several times,creating the appearance of a rippling flag in photographsFake: If you look closely at the astronaut’s mask, you can barely see a face. It looks like it is coming frombehind the mask, but the golden masks could only be seen through one way. That way is from the insideto the outside.
2. 2. Picture #2: The HelmetFake: At the time this picture was taken, there were only two astronauts on the moon. They are bothvisible in the picture but no one is holding a camera. Who took the picture then? Another flaw here is asimple little white dot on the helmet. It is on the top of the mask above the man who supposedly tookthe picture. It is unknown what it could be besides the camera taking this picture.Explanation: The cameras were mounted onto the astronaut’s chests. That’s why you see NeilArmstrong’s arms on his chest. There is no explanation from NASA yet what that little dot is though.Fake: Another big concern in the picture are the shadows In the picture, Buzz Aldrin’s shadow pointstoward Armstrong but it appears that the light is coming from the right of Aldrin. The shadows do notmatch up.Explanation: The shadow is pointing the way it should because the light is coming from the upper rightcorner. Aldrin’s shadow points toward the bottom left.
3. 3. Picture #3: The SkyFake: The astronauts made no such exclamation while on the moon, and the black backgrounds of theirphotographs are missing the stars.Explanation: the moons surface reflects sunlight, and that glare would have made stars difficult to see.Also, the astronauts photographed their lunar adventures using fast exposure settings, which wouldhave limited incoming background light.Explanation: The pictures were taken pictures at 1/150th or 1/250th of a second. In that amount oftime, stars wont show up.
4. 4. Picture #4: The LandingFake: The module is shown sitting on flat, undisturbed soil. There is no crater to be found underneaththe Lander. Nor is there any sign of the Landers presence in the soil. No dust was shot up, no nothingExplanation: The Lander’s engines were throttled back just before landing, and it did not hover longenough to form a crater or kick up much dust.
5. 5. Picture #5: The Lunar LanderFake: Aldrin is seen in this picture in the shadow of the Lander. You would think that anything in theshadow would be pitch black, but it’s not. He is yet visible even in the pitch black shadow.Explanation: There was more than one light source. There was the sun and the light reflections from theMoon, Earth, and the Lunar Lander.Explanation: A popular show on Discovery Chanel called Mythbusters wanted to test this myth/conspiracy to find out once and for all if it was real or faked. To test this myth, the Mythbusters built asmall-scale replica of the landing site, allowing them to take a photo which was nearly identical to theoriginal NASA photo. The Mythbusters explained that Armstrong was visible because of ambient lightbeing reflected off of the Moon’s surface.
6. 6. Picture #6: The GroundFake: The astronaut’s prints are too clear for being made on a dry lifeless desert. Prints that well definedcould only have been made in wet sand.Explanation: thats nonsense, said Bad Astronomys Plait. Moon dust, or regolith, is "like a finely groundpowder. When you look at it under a microscope, it almost looks like volcanic ash. So when you step onit, it can compress very easily into the shape of a boot."Explanation: The Mythbuster’s also concluded this conspiracy by first testing what type of sand let afootprint show up better; wet or dry. Of course it was the wet sand though. Then they tested it with areal space boot, with the most moon gravel like substance that can be found on Earth, and a vacuumedchamber. The test worked. The footprint appeared very visible and it had no moisture.
7. 7. Picture #7: The instrumentsFake: With instruments such as the Hubble Space Telescope capable of seeing into universe, surelyscientists should be able to see the various objects still on the moon. But no such pictures of theseobjects exist.Explanation: No telescope on Earth or in space has that kind of resolving power. Even with the biggesttelescope on Earth, the smallest thing you can see on the surface of moon is something bigger than ahouse.Explanation: Though it is not possible for a camera to reach the Moon, it is possible for a laser. TheApollo 15 mission brought an invention into space just for that reason. They brought a reflective mirroronto the moon. It is much like the one on a bicycle. It was specially designed so no matter where thelaser is coming from, it will reflect right back. Once again, the Mythbusters went to the Alameda SpaceCenter where they pointed a laser at the sight of the Apollo 15 sight and a frequence came back provingthat man has been on the moon.
8. 8. Picture #8: The LightingFake: In this picture you see the astronaut, the Lander, the moon and all of these crazy lights. The lightsdon’t look like a reflection off of the moon or the Lander or something, they could only have been doneby studio cameras.Explanation: The only explanation for this is the reflection of the sun off of the camera lens. It is veryunlikely that NASA would make such an obvious blunder if they had spent millions of dollars to fake themoon landing. ConclusionAfter reviewing these eight photo’s, video’s, more pictures, T.V. shows, and a lot more evidence, I havecome to a decision in what I think happened. Though there were flaws in the photos and videos,everything was backed up and had and explanation. I reviewed the vedence tons of times and I thinkthat the Apollo I Moon Landing was not faked.
9. 9. Citations"Photos: 8 Moon-Landing Hoax Myths--Busted." Daily Nature and Science News and Headlines |National Geographic News. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Jan. 2011.<http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/photogalleries/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-pictures/#/moon-hoax-no-stars_10058_600x450.jpg>."The Apollo Hoax." Cosmic Conspiracies - Europes Largest UFOs and Aliens Database. N.p., n.d. Web.28 Jan. 2011. <http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html>."The Great Moon Hoax - NASA Science." NASA Science. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Feb. 2011.<http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast23feb_2/>.way, the, and NASA commissioned RCA. "MythBusters Episode 104: NASA Moon Landing."MythBusters Results — Outcomes from all MythBusters Episodes. N.p., n.d. Web. 1 Feb. 2011.<http://mythbustersresults.com/nasa-moon-landing>.