PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE
Go to Top
Any idiot would be able to tell that this flag is waving. Obviously the only way a flag can wave is if theres wind,
and if theres wind there's air, but there's no air on the moon, so this is obviously filmed on earth. Some Anti hoax
theorist say it stayed in the same position throughout the mission, but if you look closely in the video
its in a totally different position. In the video it looks as if they fold the flag to stop it from waving after
realizing theres a slight wind. They probably replaced the flag soon after so it didnt wave.
Go to Top
This is a famous footstep that the astronauts of
Apollo 11 apparently left behind. What's wrong with this photo is that there's no moisture on the moon,
so such a clear footstep cant be left behind. For example, if you step in dry sand the footstep isn't even visible,
but if you step in wet or damp sand it leaves a clear footstep, like the one above.Another thing, the Lander (which is their aircraft) weighed 17 tons
and sat on top of the sand making no impression but directly next to it footprints can be seen in the sand.
Go to Top
The great thing about the moon is that there's no
atmosphere. Because theres no atmosphere the stars would be crystal clear. Never once did the astronauts mention
the beauty of the stars, and in no photo is there stars in the sky, although they should be extremily visible if
they were really on the moon.
Go to Top
In some of the photos taken on the moon there are
crosshairs. These two photos show an object overlapping part of the crosshair. This isnt possible unless these
photos were later enchanced or modified.The first photo is the top of the moon buggy, and the second is an
instrument used in the mission. The argument against this is that bright surfaces can blur over the crosshairs,
but the don't look blurred and have a well defined border.
>
Go to Top
Heres another defect in the photographs taken on the
Apollo 11 mission. Here you can see that the shadow of the LEM isnt parallel with the shadows of the rocks in the
foreground. The sun is the only light source so these shadows must be the result of multiple spotlights, which can
indicate it was filmed in a studio environment.
Go to Top
Don't the backgrounds of these two photos look
identical. Was there an unimaginable coincidence on the moon that two locations had the exact same background.
The only way this could have happened was if they used the same back drop twice when filming the landings in a
studio. Decide for your self.
Go to Top
Heres a photo taken of a rock on the moon.
Does it look like theres a C engraved in it? How could that have happened? The theory is that it was one of the
many props used in the studio, the C is probably for indicating where that particular stone was to be placed.
Go to Top
This is one of many photos where there's strange
markings in the sky. No one can really tell what they are, but they would have never appeared if they were really
on the moon. The could possibly be the result of spotlights, and the coincident reflections.
Go to Top
Here you will again see strange markings in the sky,
although no one is sure what they are, the line formation can be formed when light is reflected off a mirror at a
tight angle and projected onto a screen. This shows evidence of a solid backdrop.
Go to Top
If you look at the left corner of the horizon you
will realise it is darker than the right corner of the horizon. This shows the light source is a spotlight, because
the sun would have light up the whole area, but a spotlight would only illuminate a small area, as shown in this
photo.
Go to Top
The rocks brought back from the Moon are identical to rocks collected by scientific expeditions to Antarctica.
NON PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE
