The moon landing, obvious hoax ?

Question

The cross hairs being behind objects is 100% proof of photo retouching but is that all that was constructed ?

I think that the US where failing to keep up with other countries in the "space race". Watch a few documentaries on it, it looks very fake. Back grounds exactly the same in different shots etc. What i find interesting is if you stand on a beach the horizon is miles away, although in these pictures it looks incredibly close.

A sad lot for asking questions "nick s" lol, oh ok then. Enjoy your two points.

DrAnders_pHd lol, idiots like me ?. Seriously i love how people just freely call people things on here. We all no they wouldnt outside. Glad your safe behind your computer.

Northern Lad am allowed out the room now thanks.

Answer 1

Who can say?


The theory I'm open to goes that NASA was no way gonna risk broadcasting those guys turning to goo (technical term for it) if something went wrong so they put out a fake.

I believe they landed on the moon. Can I say 100% that the first footage was actually that landing? Nope.

It's irrelavent to me either way sitting here in my chair.

Answer 2

If the landings were shot in a studio then there couldn´t have been any stars in the pictures (the main argument idiots like you come up with for the moon lanidngs being fake). So why are there stars in this picture?
http://www.solarviews.com/raw/apo/as11_40_5874.jpg
And if the americans never went to the moon, howcome their soilsamples match the USSRs soilsamples. Remember the USSR? The ones the US were trying to beat? They had spacecraft on the moon too you know. Had there been anything suspicious about the US landings the soveits would have known. But I guess the soviets and the US were working together, at the height of the cold war, to make the US look like the worlds supreme technological superpower.

Those documentaries are also called "mockumentaries". They are jokes and don´t even try to be anything else. My favourites are the one where they "proove" that the 1958 soccer world cup didn´t take place in sweden. That it was a big conspiracy. And the one that shows that cars actually have minds and that all autowrecks are because of the cars trying to kill off humanity...

Answer 3

The cross hairs being behind objects in NOT proof of retouching, unless that retouching was done by a total moron! Why in the name of hell would anyone retouch a photo and obscure something that should be on top?

What the conspiracy nuts never show you are the many MANY examples where the crosshairs are obscured by only the bright white PARTS of an object. There is more than one picture where the crosshairs are on top of the US flag, and are obscured only by the white stripes. There are others where the crosshair is only obscured by the brightest reflection of a cylindrical object but are clearly visible on the slightly dimmer areas of the same object. Who the hell would retouch a photo like that? The phenomenon is called bleeding. The crosshairs are very fine dark lines, and if a bright white object is in the same area of the photo the emulsion will bleed across the line, thereby obscuring it.

As for the close horizon, the Moon is 1/4th the sze of Earth. Why would you not expect the horizon to be close?

Answer 4

At the time of the moon-landings the USA and USSR were in the middle of the Cold War.
So are you telling me that the Russians would not have jumped at the chance to prove the moon-landings were false!!!!
And who placed the reflectors on the moon which are used to measure how far the moon is moving away from the earth each year????
And the American Secret Service or FBI or CIA or any other undercover service would have had to warn hundreds of American citizens to say nothing under threat of death???
And what about the Australian`s:
SYDNEY, Australia - When Neil Armstrong first stepped onto the moon back in July 1969, perhaps no one was more nervous than a small team of technicians at the edge of the Australian Outback.

That’s because television signals from the moonwalk were first received at the 64-meter Parkes Observatory radio telescope in New South Wales -- and only then relayed "live" to the world.

So all these and many more FACTS put a big hole in your conspiracy theory.
So now you can go back to your padded room for your medication.

Answer 5

In photography, the fact that excess light will go beyond the object that generates it is called 'bleeding'. It is very common. If you have a dark object in front of a very bright object, some light will bleed onto the dark area (on film and on CCD's). This problem was known for decades.

The fact that the light that bled over the cross hairs was left there would be a better proof that the photo was not retouched. Otherwise, that would be the first thing that a professional photo retoucher would have corrected.

Answer 6

Of all the reasons that have been given to explain the stance that the moon landings were faked, the crosses on the camera lens being obscured by the objects in the pictures is one I've not heard explained. Not convinced landings were faked, but the perfectly framed photos despite chest mounted cameras without viewfinders seem to suggest the photos are.

Answer 7

All the refutations of the moon landings are based on pure ignorance, and the love of conspiracy displayed by very ignorant people:

"The lunar surface Hasselblad cameras were fitted with a device called a reseau plate. The reseau plate is a clear glass plate on which is etched small black crosshairs, called "fiducials" by some and "reticles" by others. As each film frame is drawn into place, it is pressed against the reseau plate so that the picture is taken through the plate. This results in an image of the fiducials being superimposed over the image focused through the lens."

Also, an answer above shows just how ignorant people are. Sexy Sam says who was taking the pictures of Neil going down the ladder. Jeez how technical is that, to have a camera on the outside of the lander. Jeez, you've spent 8 years, the work of 400,000 people to achieve this thing, and you wouldn't have a camera in place?

Please people, go and read the real story. You are a very sad lot, believe me.

Answer 8

You can download the latest version of GIMP here: [link]

GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program) is a free software suitable for tasks as photo retouching, image authoring and image composition. GIMP is not as powerful as Photoshop, but it's by far the best free photo editing software on the market. You can augment it with plugins and extension and use it as a professional photo-retouching software. GIMP can be used as a simple paint program or a complex image-manipulation software (thanks also to to a very advanced scripting interface). Don't trust Adobe torrents or downloads from anywhere else, most are backdoored

Answer 9

If it was fake,the technology now can easily find out how the technology in the past what affect people mind to think it is a hoax.And there was not enough reasons and evidence for them faking it.If u think they fake it to show off to the russia and china,u are crazy.It is a risk bigger than anything to try that.Sometimes u must feel it,not doubting when u come across a source from a unknown man saying they did not land.

Answer 10

For God sake, you think a group of rocket scientists would supply such faulty evidence?

"...Dr. Megabrainz, these pictures here where you can see the giant invisible glass wall with the crosshairs painted to make it look like we used a camera with crosshairs in it rather than just simply use a camera with crosshairs in it - do you think anyone will notice that some of the stuff is in front of the giant invisible glass wall and some of the stuff is behind it?"

"Hmmm, I dunno, Dr. Calculusheimer, most people are unbelievably stupid.. but there is that Emm guy..."

Jeez........... I give up. I'm so sick of this moronic nonsense I swear, I will never even look at anothe "moon-hoax" post again, and this time, I MEAN IT!!!!.

Answer 11

The moon landing was all done in the Mojave desert at night. There are no stars in the background because the camera is focused on the light reflecting off the picture, not the stars. Take a picture of the skyline. When you look at the photograph, you won't see any stars. If you look at a skyline and focus on the buildings, you won't see the stars out of the corner of your eye.PS: the user "god bless america" is a crazy retard.