Man On The Moon Or Man In The Pictures?

MAN ON THE MOON OR MAN IN THE PICTURES?

Man on the Moon or

Man in the Pictures?

John Wheatley

Holly Roberts/Composition II

December 4, 2001

Abstract

When Americans think about the Apollo 11 landing on the moon, most are proud. That was a great accomplishment for the American people and the people of Earth. Most people would never dream that it was a huge hoax, developed to aid the United States in winning the Cold War. However, there is ample evidence such as pictures, radiation facts, and fallacies proving Apollo 11 never landed on the moon. This is an area most leave untouched in fear of the conclusion.

MAN ON THE MOON OR MAN IN THE PICTURES?

"This is one small step for man, and one giant leap for mankind." These are the famous words spoken by Neil Armstrong on July 20, 1969, supposedly in the Sea of Tranquility on the moon. When most people hear this popular quote, they get a sense of pride as well as hope of interstellar travel. Maybe, when Neil Armstrong got down from that ladder, he was merely setting foot on a dust-covered sound stage in a top-secret TV studio in the Nevada desert. In that same instance, maybe all six of the moon landings were faked. They could have been put together by the United States "Cold Warriors" (secret agents during the Cold War). Evidence has recently been uncovered; things like shadow fallacies in the lunar pictures, radiation belt anomalies, and camera angles. These are but a few of the things preventing some from believing the "not so trustworthy" United States government.

"NASA couldn't make it to the moon, and they know it," says Bill Kaysing, author of We Never Went to the Moon, in an interview for Wired magazine on September of 1994. Bill Kaysing is on the forefront of the rising group of people refuting the lunar landing. He also said, "In the late '50s, when I was at Rocketdyne, they did a feasibility study on astronauts landing on the moon. They found that the chance of success was something like .0017 percent. In other words, it was hopeless." As a reminder, in late 1967, a group of three astronauts died in a horrendous fire on the launch pad trying to go to the moon. Kaysing went on to say, "It's also well documented that NASA was often badly managed and had poor quality control. But as of 1969, we could suddenly perform manned flight upon manned flight? With complete success? It's just against all statistical odds." Kaysing worked as head of technical publications for the Rocketdyne Research Department at their Southern California facility from 1956 to 1963. Rocketdyne was the engine contractor for the Apollo spacecraft. He has provided these groups with a multitude of research proving we never went to the moon.

Photography

Why can't you see the stars in the photographs on the moon? In all of the lunar pictures as well as video, you will notice that there is not even one star in any of them. On the moon, there is no atmosphere, which would lead most to believe stars would be very evident in pictures. In fact, they would be more than twice as bright as they appear on any given point on Earth. For example, if you've ever taken a picture of the moon or sky at night, you would see stars if the film were of any typical quality. Most could even swallow this fallacy if even a few stars were to appear in the pictures. But, not even the brightest of stars appear in these false accounts. Some even say that the stars would be so bright, you couldn't look at them with the naked eye.

The refute for this claim is simple, or so says NASA. The lunar surface is very bright. Brighter than the brightest day in the hottest part of the world. There are no atmosphere or clouds on the moon. In comparison to this bright surface, the stars are very dim. They go on to state it is very difficult to get a photograph of a very dim object and a very bright object at the same time. If you set a camera to take a photograph of the bright object (using a fast exposure) you won't capture the dim object at all. If you set the camera to take a picture of the dim objects, then the bright objects will appear as very fuzzy and over-exposed blobs. The cameras and films the Apollo missions took with them were supposedly designed to photograph activities on the moon's surface. They were not designed to take photographs of the stars. The exposures were set to work with the brightly-lit surface and dim astronauts.

The question to ask here is, if you are trying to be the pioneer of the moon, why wouldn't you want to take pictures of the stars. You would be in a position far enough away from the Earth to where there would be no light interference. You could get some of the best-detailed shots ever taken. Also, in NASA's response they speak of the different types of films used, but never actually identify the typed the used. The simply refer to it as a "specially developed film." If they can develop a manned mission to the moon (the farthest anyone's ever been from the Earth), then why can't they develop film to take pictures of both the astronauts and the stars. Even so, if the moon's surface is so bright, why isn't it black in the pictures like the stars not in the background?

Next comes the quality of the pictures. Amazingly enough, all of the pictures on the lunar landing are perfectly placed and all the important parts are inside of the frames. The famous picture of Aldrin standing in front of the seemingly endless terrain of the moon taken by Armstrong was virtually perfect from a photography aspect. Keep in mind the cameras were mounted on the astronaut's chest pack. If you've ever tried to take a picture without looking through the lens, you can agree. It's virtually impossible to take a seemingly perfect picture like this. So how did they do it, and how did they know where to aim and how to pose to make it look the most intriguing.

NASA's