Profile image
By The Unsilent Majority
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

10 Reasons the Moon Landings Could Be a Hoax

Tuesday, August 11, 2015 9:29
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

CHECK OUT OTHER STORIES BY THE UN-SILENT MAJORITY HERE:

 

When it comes to how shady the United States government can be, there is very little I would not put past those at the highest levels. If you find yourself wondering how I could dare say such a thing about good ol’ Uncle Sam, the you might read a bit about Operation Paperclip, which is directly related to how we allegedly got to the moon. The way I see it, if the U.S. government was doing things THAT awful 70 years ago, God only knows what they are capable of today. For the record though, I personally do not doubt that we got to the moon. Quite frankly, I think we may have gone quite farther, but that’s a whole other story. 

The theory that the moon landings were hoaxed by the US government to assert their victory in the space race over Russia, is something which has grown in popularity over time.

Recent polls indicate that approximately 20% of Americans believe that the U.S. has never landed on the moon. After the Apollo missions ended in the seventies, why haven’t we ever been back? Only during the term of Richard Nixon did humanity ever land on the moon, and after Watergate most people wouldn’t put it past Tricky Dick to fake them to put America in good standing in the Cold War.

In this list I have presented some of the proposed evidence to suggest that the moon landings were hoaxes. I tried to include NASA’s explanations to each entry to provide an objective perspective.

 

#10 The Waving Flag

Conspiracy theorists have pointed out that when the first moon landing was shown on live television, viewers could clearly see the American flag waving and fluttering as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planted it. Photos of the landing also seem to show rippling in a breeze, such as the image above which clearly shows a fold in the flag. The obvious problem here is that there’s no air in the moon’s atmosphere, and therefore no wind to cause the flag to blow.

Countless explanations have been put forward to disprove this phenomenon as anything unusual: NASA claimed that the flag was stored in a thin tube and the rippled effect was caused by it being unfurled before being planted. Other explanations involve the ripples caused by the reaction force of the astronauts touching the aluminum pole, which is shown to shake in the video footage.

 

#9 Lack of Impact Crater

The claim goes as follows: had NASA really landed us on the moon, there would be a blast crater underneath the lunar module to mark its landing. On any video footage or photograph of the landings, no crater is visible, almost as though the module was simply placed there. The surface of the moon is covered in fine lunar dust, and even this doesn’t seem to have been displaced in photographic evidence.

Much like the waving flag theory, however, the lack of an impact crater has a slew of potential explanations. NASA maintains that the module required significantly less thrust in the low-gravity conditions than it would have done on Earth. The surface of the moon itself is solid rock, so a blast crater probably wouldn’t be feasible anyway – in the same way that an aeroplane doesn’t leave a crater when it touches down on a concrete airstrip.

CHECK OUT OTHER STORIES BY THE UN-SILENT MAJORITY HERE:

BE SURE TO GO MY PROFILE’S BELOW AT OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA:

FACEBOOK | TWITTER | PINTEREST | STUMBLE UPON | TUMBLER

 

#8 Multiple Light Sources

On the moon there is only one strong light source: the Sun. So it’s fair to suggest that all shadows should run parallel to one another. But this was not the case during the moon landing: videos and photographs clearly show that shadows fall in different directions. Conspiracy theorists suggest that this must mean multiple light sources are present -suggesting that the landing photos were taken on a film set.

NASA has attempted to blame uneven landscape on the strange shadows, with subtle bumps and hills on the moon’s surface causing the discrepancies. This explanation has been tossed out the window by some theorists; how could hills cause such large angular differences? In the image above the lunar module’s shadow clearly contradicts that of the rocks in the foreground at almost a 45 degree angle.
 

#7 The Van Allen Radiation Belt

In order to reach the moon, astronauts had to pass through what is known as the Van Allen radiation belt. The belt is held in place by Earth’s magnetic field and stays perpetually in the same place. The Apollo missions to the moon marked the first ever attempts to transport living humans through the belt. Conspiracy theorists contend that the sheer levels of radiation would have cooked the astronauts en route to the moon, despite the layers of aluminum coating the interior and exterior of the spaceship.

NASA have countered this argument by emphasizing the short amount of time it took the astronauts to traverse the belt – meaning they received only very small doses of radiation.

CHECK OUT OTHER STORIES BY THE UN-SILENT MAJORITY HERE:

BE SURE TO GO MY PROFILE’S BELOW AT OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA:

FACEBOOK | TWITTER | PINTEREST | STUMBLE UPON | TUMBLER

 

#6 The Unexplained Object

After photographs of the moon landings were released, theorists were quick to notice a mysterious object (shown above) in the reflection of an astronaut’s helmet from the Apollo 12 mission. The object appears to be hanging from a rope or wire and has no reason to be there at all, leading some to suggest it is an overhead spotlight typically found in film studios.

The resemblance is questionable, given the poor quality of the photograph, but the mystery remains as to why something is being suspended in mid-air (or rather lack of air) on the moon. The lunar module in other photos appears to have no extension from it that matches the photo, so the object still remains totally unexplained.

#5 Slow-Motion Walking and Hidden Cables

In order to support claims that the moon landings were shot in a studio, conspiracy theorists had to account for the apparent low-gravity conditions, which must have been mimicked by NASA. It has been suggested that if you take the moon landing footage and increase the speed of the film x2.5, the astronauts appear to be moving in Earth’s gravity. As for the astronaut’s impressive jump height, which would be impossible to perform in Earth’s gravity, hidden cables and wires have been suggested as giving the astronauts some extra height. In some screenshots outlines of alleged hidden cables can be seen (the photograph above supposedly shows a wire, though it is extremely vague).

#4 Lack of Stars

CHECK OUT OTHER STORIES BY THE UN-SILENT MAJORITY HERE:

BE SURE TO GO MY PROFILE’S BELOW AT OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA:

FACEBOOK | TWITTER | PINTEREST | STUMBLE UPON | TUMBLER

One compelling argument for the moon landing hoax is the total lack of stars in any of the photographic/video evidence. There are no clouds on the moon, so stars are perpetually visible and significantly brighter than what we see through the filter of Earth’s atmosphere.

The argument here is that NASA would have found it impossible to map out the exact locations of all stars for the hoax without being rumbled, and therefore left them out – intentionally falling back on an excuse that the quality of the photographs washes them out (an excuse they did actually give).

Some photographs are high-quality, however, and yet still no stars are shown. Certainly eerie, considering you can take pictures of stars from Earth in much lower quality and still see them.

 

#3 The “C” Rock

One of the most famous photos from the moon landings shows a rock in the foreground, with what appears to be the letter “C” engraved into it. The letter appears to be almost perfectly symmetrical, meaning it is unlikely to be a natural occurrence. It has been suggested that the rock is simply a prop, with the “C” used as a marker by an alleged film crew. A set designer could have turned the rock the wrong way, accidentally exposing the marking to the camera.

NASA has given conflicting excuses for the letter, on the one hand blaming a photographic developer for adding the letter as a practical joke, while on the other hand saying that it may simply have been a stray hair which got tangled up somewhere in the developing process.

 

#2 The Layered Cross-hairs

The cameras used by astronauts during the moon landings had a multitude of cross-hairs to aid with scaling and direction. These are imprinted over the top of all photographs. Some of the images, however, clearly show the cross-hairs behind objects in the scene, implying that photographs may have been edited or doctored after being taken. The photograph shown above is not an isolated occurrence. Many objects are shown to be in front of the cross-hairs, including the American flag in one picture and the lunar rover in another.

Conspiracy theorists have suggested NASA printed the man-made objects over a legitimate photograph of the moon to hoax the landings – although if they really planned on doing this, then why they used cross-hairs in the first place is a mystery.

 

#1 The Duplicate Backdrop

The two photos from the Apollo 15 mission shown above clearly have identical backdrops, despite being officially listed by NASA as having been taken miles apart. One photo even shows the lunar module. When all photographs were taken the module had already landed, so how can it possibly be there for one photo and disappear in another? Well, if you’re a hardcore conspiracy theorist, it may seem viable that NASA simply used the same backdrop when filming different scenes of their moon landing videos.

NASA has suggested that since the moon is much smaller than Earth, horizons can appear significantly closer to the human eye. Despite this, to say that the two hills visible in the photographs are miles apart is incontrovertibly false.

Bonus

The Stanley Kubrick Theory

 

This loose extension of the popular conspiracy theory states that acclaimed film director Stanley Kubrick was approached by the US government to hoax the first three moon landings. There are two main branches of this somewhat implausible theory: one group of believers maintain that Kubrick was approached after he released 2001: A Space Odyssey (released in 1968, one year before the first moon landing), after NASA came to appreciate the stunning realism of the film’s outer-space scenes at that time; another group contends that Kubrick was groomed by the government to film the moon landing long before this, and that 2001: A Space Odyssey was a staged practice run for him.

So what evidence might support such claims? Well: apparently, if you watch The Shining (another Kubrick picture), you can pick up on some alleged messages hidden by Kubrick to subtly inform the world of his part in the conspiracy. The most obvious is the child’s Apollo 11 shirt worn in only one scene. Another supposed gem is the line written on Jack Nicholson’s character’s typewriter: “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy”, in which the word “all” can be interpreted as A11, or Apollo 11.

If you aren’t convinced yet, Kubrick made the mysterious hotel room in the film number 237. Guess how many miles it is from here to the moon: 238,000. So divide that by a thousand and minus one, and you’ve got one airtight theory right there.

Read the story at List Verse here:

 

FOR MORE POSTS ON CONSPIRACIES:

 

The 20 Most Restricted Areas On Earth – #1 is Insane! 

14 Believable Conspiracy Theories 

Top 10 Obscure Conspiracy Theories 

10 Insane UFO Conspiracy Theories That Might Actually Be True 

10 Reasons the Moon Landings Could Be a Hoax 

Ten Crazy Conspiracy Theories About Celebrity Deaths 

FOR OTHER POSTS ON MYSTERIES IN SPACE:

10 Insane UFO Conspiracy Theories That Might Actually Be True 

15 Space Pictures That Will Actually Make You Think 

Breaking Video: Crazy HAARP Weather Explosion In Mid Air

HAARP? A UFO? Time Warp? Top Secret Military Experiment? (Video)

Secret Military Spy Plane (TR-3A) Videotaped in Space (Video)

Cloaked UFO Or HAARP? Lights Over Indiana Top Secret or Cosmic?

This “Alien” Discovery is Throwing NASA Into a State of Bewilderment! 

Elusive Planet X Caught on Video in the U.S. After Sundown (Video)

13,000 Year Old Satellite Orbiting Earth Sending Radio Signals (Video)

Aliens on the Moon: The Truth Exposed

Possible Alien Structures Spotted on NASA’s Image of Ceres 

 

CHECK OUT OTHER STORIES BY THE UN-SILENT MAJORITY HERE:

BE SURE TO GO MY PROFILE’S BELOW AT OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA:

FACEBOOK | TWITTER | PINTEREST | STUMBLE UPON | TUMBLER

 

~ THE UN-SILENT MAJORITY ~

 

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 6 comments
  • LifeIs

    About how variable and how intense the radiation belts are, a new discovery from 2013:

    http://earthsky.org/science-wire/particle-accelerator-discoverd-in-heart-of-earths-radiation-belts

    ‘“Until the 1990s, we thought that the Van Allen belts were pretty well-behaved and changed slowly,” said Geoff Reeves, the first author on the paper and a radiation belt scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory in Los Alamos, N.M. “With more and more measurements, however, we realized how quickly and unpredictably the radiation belts changed. They are basically never in equilibrium, but in a constant state of change.”’

    And: “a significant number of permanent failures on spacecraft have been caused by radiation.”

    NASA had no way of knowing what radiation levels would be on launch day, or on return day.

    High speed electrons produce X rays when they strike metal. http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/physics-terms/xray-info4.htm

    http://www.moontruth.org/VanAllen/ details what the public knew from 1959 on.

    In 2009 we discovered how intense radiation is on the Moon’s surface.

    This is about radiation produced when cosmic rays split atoms on the Moon’s surface.

    http://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/moon-radiation-gamma-rays.htm

    ‘”The moon is a source of radiation,” said Boston University researcher Harlan Spence, the lead scientist for LRO’s cosmic ray telescope. “This was a bit unexpected.”

    Overall, future lunar travelers face a radiation dose 30 percent to 40 percent higher than originally expected, Spence said.’

    It would destroy photographic film, if solar neutrons hadn’t already.

  • Ste Gre

    Russia and China would have had a field day if they knew that Americans never landed on the moon. They monitored the entire trip. Not only the Russians, but tens of thousands of amateur radio operators throughout the world also monitored and recorded the communications and the entire trip using triangulation (except when the spacecraft traveled behind the moon). Do some research starting with a few amateur radio magazines dated during the times of the Apollo missions. CQ and QST come to mind.

    • LifeIs

      Ste Gre the Soviets were complicit.

      Evidence includes the return of an Apollo space capsule in September of 1970.

      http://www.uscg.mil/history/webcutters/Southwind1944.asp

      And, our government’s silence about the Gargarin flight, which any scrutiny shows to be a hoax.

      And, our government’s FINANCING of Soviet grain purchases. “The Great Grain Robbery” it is called.

      http://www.marketskeptics.com/2010/03/great-grain-robbery-of-1972.html

      “The Soviets used $750 million of credit supplied by the United States, plus $500 million of their own hard currency, to purchase corn, wheat, and soybeans. ”

      Your point about COMMUNICATIONS depends on NOT understanding we sent unmanned spacecraft to the Moon during the Apollo hoax flights.

      Those spacecraft relayed the radio transmissions.

      Those spacecraft deployed instruments on the Moon’s surface.

      Those spacecraft produced the TV images of Earth from a distance, and from lunar orbit.

      Do some RESEARCH? I read what was published when it was published.

      And there is no evidence, none, zero, to support manned landings on the Moon. Everything that we were told is easily explained. And the video and photographs have so much wrong with them,
      they are ridiculous.

      • LifeIs

        And we have known since 1963 that some meteorites originated on the Moon’s surface.

        And the Soviets returned samples of the lunar surface with unmanned vehicles, beginning with Luna 16 in 1970.

        NASA’s moon rocks are: (a) meteorite fragments (b) recovered by unmanned craft and
        (c) simulated and (d) misrepresented.

        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8226075.stm “A treasured piece at the Dutch national museum – a supposed moon rock from the first manned lunar landing – is nothing more than petrified wood, curators say.”

        • LifeIs

          http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm

          ” Under ideal conditions (e.g., Antarctica), some lunar meteorites are almost instantly recognizable as lunaites because they have fusion crusts that are highly vesicular. ”

          ” More than 200 named stones have been described in the scientific literature that are lunar meteorites. ”

          “The total mass of all known lunar meteorites is only about 90 kg (199 lbs.)”

  • T. Heywenttothemoon

    :arrow: :idea:

Top Stories
Recent Stories
 

Featured

 

Top Global

 

Top Alternative

 

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.