Make your own free website on Tripod.com

"The Ever so controversial Moon Conspiracy..."

-=Reveled=-

 

PART 1 (TEXT and reasoning)

Reasons For Faking

Many people believe that NASA had realized that it was not possible to go to the moon with the technology available (Computer chips being as powerful then as a modern washing machines chip) so they resorted to faking the landing to ensure a victory of the Soviet Union and keep the dollars coming in for real space projects.

How Odds Changed To Favor The US

Up until 1963 the odds for someone to go to the moon and returning was 0.0017% so it is incredible that by 1969 the odds were 100%.

Sounds From The Moon

The major point which has helped convince me that the moon landing was faked was the fact that when the control room asked a question to the Astronoughts the replies were instant with no delays. This seems strange as even with technology in the 1990's there is a delay from satellite links from the UK to the US. There is about a 0.7 second delay from London to California so how is it possible for instant replies from the Moon ?

There is also evidence that when people go into space there voice goes tense although the Astronaughts voices have been analyzed and found to be normal and 7/10 people said sounded like someone reading from a script.

When Houston are talking to the module you should not be able to hear the responses at least when the module is landing and the infamous "eagle has landed" quote, this is due to the noise that should have been created by the rocket motor which generates several hundred thousand pounds of thrust 20 ft below the astronaughts. The noise would have completely drowned the vocals out.

 

 

PART 2 (picture Exhibit)

Apollo 11:
NASA claims the strange shape 'E' - in this shot taken from the Lunar Module while it was 95km above the moon's surface - is a shadow cast by the Command Module's rocket. But when larger aircraft fly at lower altitudes over the earth, they do not cast such huge and defined shadows.

 

 

Apollo 16:
In this photograph of John Young (panel above) readjusting an antenna next to the Lunar Rover Vehicle (L.R.V.), there is a marker, known as a cross-hair (top left in this panel) 'Q', that goes behind the LRV's equipment. These cross-hairs which appear on all the lunar photographs, are made by a screen of cross-hairs placed between the shutter and the film. The bright, reflected light may have obliterated the fine line of this one, or it could have happened if the image was retouched.

The foreground shows what looks like the letter 'c' on a boulder (top right in this panel) 'R'. Is this perhaps an identification letter left on a studio prop?

The tracks made by the LRV's wheel turn rather oddly at right-angles 'S' (above middle in this panel). These tracks could have been caused by studio technicians pushing the buggy into place. Such clear tracks and footprints require moisture to form and should not appear on the dry lunar surface.

When the lunar module lands on the moon, it's powerful engines thrust out approximately 3000lbs of pressure. All of which should have created a tremendous hole in the moon's surface which obviously would be located under the Lunar Module labeled (E) in this photograph. If you would also notice that in the place marked (F), mysteriously there is a footprint. How could there possibly be a footprint under that stationary spacecraft? They would have needed to placed the LM from wherever it was before to where it is now, previous to the taking of this photo.

This picture is showing a view of the Lunar module. If will look at spot marked (H), you will notice that there is no stars in the moon's sky. If you notice the place marked (G), you will notice that you can plainly see the United States flag on the dark side of the Lunar Module. This could not be a Lunar shot because on the moon, if something is in a shadow you can NOT see it. The reason we can on Earth is because the Earth has air molecules that take light and bend it, spreading it around objects. Light reflects off air molecules and lights up the dark sides of objects. It is atmosphere, bending the sun's light, that makes the sky appear blue. However, on the moon there is no prism of atmosphere to diffuse or bend light so the sky is totally black.

On the moon, the sun's light should be blinding. In fact, the astronauts wear gold tinted face plates on their helmets to cut down 95-percent of the light from the sun.

The darkside of objects in NASA photos should be pitch black, while the lit side should be hellishly bright. Yet, all NASA photos from the moon are softly lit, and they appear to be taken in Earth's atmosphere.

This next picture is also a well know photograph called "Man on the Moon". This picture is very mind boggling to me. In area (B), there is a shadow being cast over the astronauts space suit. Again, if the sun is the only light source and if there is no atmosphere on the moon, the shadow should be MUCH darker.

In the background labeled (C), you can plainly see that the farther back you look it fades darker and darker until finally it's black. This happens on the Earth due to our atmospheric geography, but the moon has no atmosphere which means the horizon should not be faded but should be very sharp, distinct and crystal clear. Letter (D) shows something floating just above the moon's surface. Richard Hoagland, who I introduced you to earlier, claims that if you want to see what NASA doesn't want you to see, just look into the visor of the person being photographed. Here is a perfect example. No one knows exactly what that object is but there's a pretty good guess stated by Ken Johnston, whom I also mentioned earlier.

There is a structure just off of the moon's surface called "the Castle". Any astronaut you ask will tell you that it does not exist. That is because it was invisible to them due to the fact that they had they're visors over their eyes while being on the moon. But there are several pictures that have picked up this so called "Castle".

This next picture is of Alan Bean holding a Special Environmental Examiner container taken from a camera strapped to Conrad's chest. If this picture was indeed taken from a chest Cam, then why are you clearly able to see (L), the top of Bean's helmet? Unless of course he is standing on a huge rock. Where it is marked (M), You can see into Bean's visor. Another example of what NASA doesn't want you to see. Shadows being cast from more than one light source. How can you tell? Well, one light source doesn't make shadows run in non parallel lines. Letter (N) shows the darkside of the test tube. There is a reflection coming from some other light source other than the sun. But it is possible that Alan's space suit is reflecting the necessary light. Label number (7) shows a strange abnormally in the sky. It's not know exactly what it is, but it's there.

This picture is the best though! Look in HIS helmet and if you didn't see two astronauts on the last photo, you will now. There's the 2 men you see in the helmet + the one being photographed. That = 3 men on the moon at once. Remember there were only 2 at a time. Also notice that in the previous photo, the 2nd astronaut has been taken out. Yes they are identical photos.

I find this picture especially suspicious. Notice in the upper right that the shadow of the lunar Lander extends directly to the right - towards the 3 o'clock position. Then how come the rocks in the lower right foreground have shadows that point to the lower right or 4 o'clock position? Shadows from a source of light that is nearly 100 million miles away (the sun) should be parallel! Even if you take into account that perspective would call for a "vanishing point" - or a point in space where the parallel shadows apparently converge, then according to this picture, that vanishing point (in this case also the source for the light) should be within the field of view as indicated where the two yellow lines cross.

Here's another great example of shadows not being parallel! This is from a 'live' TV shot from the lunar surface. Those shadows are way out of alignment! Even taking into account that lunar surface is not quit level here does not explain the tremendous difference in shadow direction. NASA really messed up this one!

Woops! Looks like the NASA "set decorator" messed up placing rock "C" into the set and left the "C" showing! By the way, something else to wonder about - How come none of the Apollo pictures show any lunar "dust" on top of the rocks? You'd think after a few million years, they'd be dusty - unless they forgot to put the dust on them.

 

 

In conclusion to the first conspiracy theory newsletter I ask you do you believe that the Apollo missions were faked? or do you believe there is a reasonable explanation for all of this?

To give us feedback as to what you think please email us at istartweb@hotmail.com thanks for subscribing to our newsletter