 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||
 |
 |
|
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
 |
|
||||||||
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||
 |
|
||||||||
The Apollo Moon Hoax: Page 1
Yesterday I was totally bored, I had nothing productive to do... so I turned on the T.V, and thats when I switched from being bored to being annoyed. The Star Network (in India) was showing a program titled "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On The Moon?". The same program was also aired in the FOX TV network (in USA), on 15th February, 2001.
I really sat up straight and saw what sort of crap, lies, false, fake... and every thing else that my thesarus picked as being synonymous to bulls**t, the program was serving. They know that people are generally stupid, and they would believe anything they are told.
Anyways, the program was a freaking hour long, and the main objective was to show that the Apollo moon landings were faked in a movie studio. The program had a few hoax investigators who claimed to have audio and video evidence, engineering and laws of physics theory, and even testimonies from various NASA employees. Biggest thing they say is that NASA did not have the technical capability of launching a rocket to the moon, with a man in it.
I will now talk about all the evidence that the hoax investigators have put forward and give a scientific explanation of them.
The very first one::
"There are no stars in the pictures taken by the astronauts while on the surface of the moon."
Hey thats right!!! Maybe the director forgot to switch on the backdrop huh? NO. Actually it seems that the hoax investigators were never good photographers. Since there is no air on the surface of the Moon, the light doesnot scatter the way it does on Earth. The things which on which the light falls are very bright, and other objects are dark. And we know one thing for sure-- You cannot capture bright and faint objects on the same picture. Stars are faint objects. The shutter and aperture settings were used by the astronauts to shoot bright objects, like the L.M, the Rover, and the astronauts who were wearing white spacesuits (they were white, and white reflects loads of light, so that it remains cool). Even the pictures taken by the space shuttle, the International Space Station do not have any stars in them, unless the picture was taken to capture the stars.
Second::
"When the lunar lander came down, there was no blast crater formed under the engines. There surely should have been a crater from a rocket which landed on the moon from the orbit"
What the heck are these cretins talking about? They need to keep in mind that the Moon and the Earth are two entirely different bodies. We know that the crater should have been formed by the exhaust of the L.M's engines, which was capable of producing around 10,500lbs of thrust. BUT... while landing, the throttle of the engine was not set at 100%. It was more like 30%, which produced a thrust of 3000lbs. And then again.. The exhaust spreads out rapidly in a vacuum... so the thrust was not concentrated at one place, which lowered the overall pressure. That is why there was no crater formed.
Third::
"As the lander came down to the surface of the moon, the dust was being blown away from the LM, by the LM's exhaust. Still, the footprints of the astronauts can be seen clearly just near the LM."
Alright, let me tell you one thing-- there is no air on the surface of the moon. Here on the Earth, the air carries all the dust far away. But on the Moon, on the exhaust and the inertia of the dust will push it, which is not very far. Therefore, only the dust that came in physical contact with the exhaust was blown away just a few centimeters.
Fourth::
"The pictures taken by the astronauts have some problem with them. The objects in the shadows are clearly visible, such as the LM, the plaque, flag. Since there is no air, the light does not scatter, therefore, the objects in shadows should be totally dark, since there is no other light source other than the sun."
I admit that sun is the only source of light there. And yes, there is no air. So how are the objects in the shadows lit? The moon act as a reflector!! It reflects the light of the sun, and it is more vividly visible because of the absence of air. This phenomenon is known as heiligenschein-- a german word.
Fifth::
"The pictures show that the lunar landscape has lots of rocks which have shadows. But not all the shadows are parallel. This shows that there is more than one light source. If there was only one light source, then all the shadows would have been parallel."
If a light source is near two objects, then the two objects won't cast shadows that are parallel to each other. But this also applies to the light source which is far away, like the sun. But the thing is that the shadows are parallel. Its just that we are not able to perceive it that way in the picture. And if there is more than one light source that they claim, then where the heck are the multiple shadows? It seems to me that two light, two shadows. Everyone needs to know that photographs are only two dimensional representation on a peice of paper. The three dimensional world can be misinterpreted on a peice of paper.
Sixth::
"NASA used the same backdrop for two different pictures. In one picture with a mountain in the background has the LM in front of it. The very same mountain is in another picture, but the LM is missing."
Right, NASA didn't have enough money, so they had to re-use their props in various shots. OK, let me cut the crap out.. obviously, these hoax investigators are not familiar with the term called "Parallax". In the first picture, the image was shot with the LM in front of it. The next shot was taken after the astronaut moved to the side, when the lander was not in the view. Because of the lack of air, its very hard to gauge the distance from one place to another. It would be hard to tell if the mountain is 10 miles or 100 miles away.
Seventh::
"One video shows two astronauts on a hill. A second video, shot on a different day on a different hill, shows the very same hill as the first video. NASA screwed up real bad here."
Where the heck did these people find out that the video was shot on a different day on a different hill? The reality is... the two videos were shot three minutes apart, not a day apart. How the heck did FOX figure out that they are two different days? And yes, it is the same hill.