Moon landing

[exe ex machina]

well I'm glad you provided some evidence, even if we'll have to agree to disagree

It's cool Lance and everyone else who disagrees. Just discussion. I don't claim to know it all or much, but just IMO I lean that way, as idiotic as it may be, but it doesn't naturally conclude that a person is an idiot, etc.

 

[exe ex machina]

Why would they spend that much money to satisfy a smattering of loons?

The loons would just claim NASA was faking it again.

Why? Because it would entirely prove or disprove the issue. JFK was questioned, a commission was started to investigate the continued persistence. 9/11 was for a time still highly questioned, and a commission was done to settle the argument. They do from time to time come out to try to dispel the conpsiracy theorists. They don't always tho.

But it'd be pretty conclusive if they did something like that. Especially if it holds up to scrutiny too.

 

[Chief]

In this case nobody credible is questioning the fact the moon landings were real. Just a bunch of loons and people wanting to make money off of them.

 

[Cassius_Clay]

With cancer.

Those NASA blokes sure are smart.

 

[exe ex machina]

In this case nobody credible is questioning the fact the moon landings were real. Just a bunch of loons and people wanting to make money off of them.

You accept 'credible' evidence without even questioning it yourself. Some of the proof they use is contradictory.

They say regarding detail in shadows that shouldn't be there: "That's because the light bouncing off the surface of the moon illuminates everything."

a) There are many shots, I will find you one, where there is total BLACK in the shadows that supposedly should be also illuminated this way.

They say regarding multiple diverging shadows: "That's because the surface of the moon is reflective, creating multiple diverging shadows."

a) I will show you a pic...reflective light off surface does NOT end up being a singlular source of light directly behind and above objects, with the same effect a spotlight or film light does. All this reflective light, off the whole surface of the moon, should therefore be casting the whole scenery in one huge shadow. Instead, you see multiple clear distinct shadows cast from singular sources of light directly behind and above each object.

People just accept info without questioning or analysing it yourselves.

Take the jumping video I showed. If he was on the moon, he would have leaped 6 meters into the air. I don't hear no debunking of that. How that astronaut got pulled up absurdly from the heaviest part of his body (his back/backpack) is absurd. His lightest extremeties - his feet/legs/arms should have pulled him up in a kind of backflip way. Instead the force pulling him is directly pulling upwards from the backpack. Just wouldn't happen.

 

[exe ex machina]

Nasa has admitted they touched up this pic to include the American flag on the total black detail-less shadow on the side of the craft. Anyway, regardless of that, all this surface reflectivity should be illuminating this dark side of the craft. It's no different to hundreds of pics where there is clear detail in the shadows of places where it is argued the moon's surface reflectivity is causing it to be illuminated. This overwhelming surface reflectivity should be illuminating everything therefore. It's either surface reflectivity illuminates everything in one huge spotlight and there are no dark detail-less places, or there is one huge shadow cast over everything but the singular powerful Sun still over-riding that and casting always parallel shadows. The 'surface reflectivity' argument is questionable. You try it yourselves using a spotlight, some toy figurines and a mirror as a surface.

This is just one pic of thousands showing diverging shadows. But, the point is, the argument is that the surface reflectivity is causing these shadows. Pfft. Both shadows are clearly defined, and clearly being cast from direct sources of light above and behind the men. All this reflectivity does not swirl around and gather up as a 'singular' source of light coming from ONLY behind and above the men. It wouldn't swirl up and specifically decide to come from behind them. Why isn't one shadow coming from behind one guy and the other shadow coming from in front of the other guy? Why are they both coming from behind only if all this reflective surface light can do this? In fact, they should each be casting at least 4 or more shadows each if reflective light can do this. In fact, the WHOLE moon's surface reflectivity should be immensely powerful and casting them all in one shadow. Therefore, the sun which is still there, would be sufficiently more powerful and singular to continue to cast a single parallel shadow for each man above whatever the moon's surface reflectivity is doing by casting one huge circular all-encompassing shadow. Therefore, it still doesn't add up that there's some OTHER singular source of light strong enough to throw off non-parallel shadows.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Nasa has admitted they touched up this pic to include the American flag on the total black detail-less shadow on the side of the craft. Anyway, regardless of that, all this surface reflectivity should be illuminating this dark side of the craft. It's no different to hundreds of pics where there is clear detail in the shadows of places where it is argued the moon's surface reflectivity is causing it to be illuminated. This overwhelming surface reflectivity should be illuminating everything therefore. It's either surface reflectivity illuminates everything in one huge spotlight and there are no dark detail-less places, or there is one huge shadow cast over everything but the singular powerful Sun still over-riding that and casting always parallel shadows. The 'surface reflectivity' argument is questionable. You try it yourselves using a spotlight, some toy figurines and a mirror as a surface.

Wrong. The surface wouldn't necessarily always reflect to the perspective of the viewer if the said object is on an angle.

This is just one pic of thousands showing diverging shadows. But, the point is, the argument is that the surface reflectivity is causing these shadows. Pfft. Both shadows are clearly defined, and clearly being cast from direct sources of light above and behind the men. All this reflectivity does not swirl around and gather up as a 'singular' source of light coming from ONLY behind and above the men. It wouldn't swirl up and specifically decide to come from behind them. Why isn't one shadow coming from behind one guy and the other shadow coming from in front of the other guy? Why are they both coming from behind only if all this reflective surface light can do this? In fact, they should each be casting at least 4 or more shadows each if reflective light can do this. In fact, the WHOLE moon's surface reflectivity should be immensely powerful and casting them all in one shadow. Therefore, the sun which is still there, would be sufficiently more powerful and singular to continue to cast a single parallel shadow for each man above whatever the moon's surface reflectivity is doing by casting one huge circular all-encompassing shadow. Therefore, it still doesn't add up that there's some OTHER singular source of light strong enough to throw off non-parallel shadows.

ISSUE 1 - The shadows don't fall right in images taken on the Lunar surface, proving that there are are multiple light sources, like professional stage lighting using high-powered lamps. Since the Moon has only one light source, the Sun, these images (these people claim) "have to have been shot on a sound stage somewhere."

This one is usually based on images like the one above (taken from an Apollo 17 TV transmission), that seem to show the shadows of the astronauts coming from different lighting sources. However, a logical approach to this problem reveals that there is nothing at all mysterious about either the shadows or the light sources. If, in fact, the shadows were cast by different light sources, wouldn't each astronaut have two shadows, instead of just the one each we see here? Of course they would. Yet, in the images that the "Moon Hoaxers" cite, there is consistently only one shadow being cast, indicating that the Sun is (as it should be) the dominant light source.

So, how to explain the seemingly divergent shadows in this image? If you look closely, you will see that the astronaut on the right is on a slight rise above the astronaut on the left. This has not only the effect of lengthening his shadow, but also if the slope is greater in one direction, say to the left of the astronaut on the right, it will tend to flow and elongate in that direction.

It's important to keep in mind that the Moon has a very rough and uneven surface, with lots of slopes, rises and potholes. As a result, many of the shadows will appear to be non-parallel. Invariably, the Moon Hoax advocates will compare these lunar images to flat, smooth terrestrial landscapes, like this one below from David Percy.

In a sense, the Moon Hoax advocates are correct here; there is no comparison to be made from Lunar landscapes and terrestrial ones. But, it is because the surface of the Moon is so uneven, not because there are multiple light sources, i.e. lamps, casting the "wrong" shadows.

 

[Angus1]

The letter C on the infamous "C Rock" is actually a hair or fibre which was most likely dropped there during the printing of the photos. No other photos of this rock show a C and none of the negatives have a c either.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

The letter C on the infamous "C Rock" is actually a hair or fibre which was most likely dropped there during the printing of the photos. No other photos of this rock show a C and none of the negatives have a c either.

Exactly right. I can dig up a photo of that, too, magnified to prove it's nothing more than a hair or fibre on a reproduction of the photo.

All of the myths can and have been debunked. People who refuse to believe this are the ones living in a fantasy land.

 

[exe ex machina]

Explain the jumping then? 1/6th the Earth weight, meaning a human able to jump a meter on Earth would jump 6 meters on the moon. In that video I linked previously, the astronaut jumps about a meter only.

 

[zebbitty]

Explain the jumping then? 1/6th the Earth weight, meaning a human able to jump a meter on Earth would jump 6 meters on the moon. In that video I linked previously, the astronaut jumps about a meter only.

Youre not taking into account any sort of power ratio that he jumps with.You assume his largest jump was a meter on earth and then replicated on the moon equals 6 meters.Ever do big jumps and litle jumps?

 

[zebbitty]

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/spacecraft_planetary_lunar.html

Look at the success-failure rate of Russian unmanned craft to the moon, even beyond 1969.

However, the US manned craft were ALL 100% successes, even tho their own unmanned Moon and other space launches have a similar poor success-failure rate.

Didnt you say in another quote you wondered why they hadnt been back since?This probably explains it with risk=results.Nothing left to prove now.

If NASA can show thousands of images of the surface of Mars, of deep interstellar galaxies etc, then it would be very easy for them to prove man walked on the moon by sending unmanned craft to the sites of the supposed moon landings, beaming back images of the specific remnants left from those Apollo missions.

So if you dont believe the moon landing you are gunna believe a supposed unmanned probe showing the moon.

 

[exe ex machina]

Youre not taking into account any sort of power ratio that he jumps with.You assume his largest jump was a meter on earth and then replicated on the moon equals 6 meters.Ever do big jumps and litle jumps?

I get your point, but clearly he jumps a meter with heavy back-back saluting the flag is quite an effort. He would be 5-6 meters off the ground on the moon same effort.

Didnt you say in another quote you wondered why they hadnt been back since?This probably explains it with risk=results.Nothing left to prove now.


So if you dont believe the moon landing you are gunna believe a supposed unmanned probe showing the moon.

1. The interesting question is that a huge percentage of unmanned and manned missions fail by both Russia and USA from the beginning of the space age all the way up till now. The only period devoid of any failures are the manned flights to the moon by the USA. Back then especially tho, both nations were continually having craft fail.

2. Putting a robotic probe on the moon is not at all hard to believe. The Russians and Americans had done it numerous times. So one sent to the moon, to the same landing regions, should reveal all the space junk of the Apollo crafts and the flag etc etc. If they're there that will back them up more, especially again that stuff has to hold up to scrutiny. If they're not there, no excuses.

 

[exe ex machina]

Here are three photos from the official NASA archives of the Apollo XI mission...

Tell me what you notice about them, etc.

 

[exe ex machina]

Here are some more interesting pictures worth analyzing...

1. The right side of the craft is in direct sunlight. The left side of the craft all black and lacking detail as it should. Aldrin is facing left, his back to the source of light. Yet in his visor can be seen the reflection of another source of light.
2. Take note of the radio antenna on his Personal Life Support System backpack. Keep that in mind.

1. Suddenly, the radio antenna has disappeared.
2. Look at the reflections in his visor...you can see another source of light in the sky that is similar those I showed in the previous post.
3. Aldrin's shadow is cast forward of him. The shadows of the people/objects behind the camera are being cast towards Aldrin. The shadow of the object on the ground is being cast to the left of picture.

1. Even looking at the large picture you can see the anamolies more apparent in the blown-up ones.
2. On close examination, two distinct lines running the entire width of the picture, like a join, like separate images were spliced together badly, are clearly visible. The first line runs thru Aldrin's knees. On close examination, his legs do not join properly at the knee. The second line runs thru the foot of the craft - it separates the light areas from the dark ones. Magnifying the image, the pixels either side of the line do not match.

1. A small rectangular section of the picture has been inserted into the original picture. Looking at the closeup reveals more detail. The top of the rectangle, in the closeup, runs horizontally from left to right, from the bottom of the pad. It's easier to see on the left side of the picture. Another line is visible near the bottom of the picture. There is a distinct rectangle where the pixels do not match.
2. Note how the pad rests on a hard surface, it has not sunk into the powdery surface. Keep this in mind.

 

[exe ex machina]

1. Suddenly, Aldrin's radio antenna has disappeared again.
2. Clearly visible is the imprint left by his feet. It would appear to be about 2inches deep. Compare this with the craft's pad in the previous picture - the craft is considerably heavier than Aldrin.

1. Aldrin's radio antenna has again disappeared.

1. The shadow of the craft on the ground indicates that this side of the craft is not in direct sunlight. Comparing this with other pictures of the craft, it should be in complete blackness, but it isn't. Importantly, some areas of the gold foil are not reflecting any light, yet Aldrin's suit is well lit with no apparent shadows at all - in stark contrast to the other pictures.
2. Aldrin's radio antenna is back again.

1. These two pictures are just a selection of many that clearly show the very small 'set' that the whole Moon landing of Apollo XI takes place in. There is absolutely no distant crystal clear horizon. The horizon is far too close.

 

[exe ex machina]

1. Compare all still photographs released post-event to the what people actually saw 'live' on their television sets. Basically, the thing could have been shot anywhere, so poor were the televised images and lacking in utter detail that it would be easy for people to believe compared to the scrutiny of modern times.
2. Also, many of the black and white pictures (see the NASA image archives for examples) from the Apollo XI mission were of quite poor quality, yet the color images from the same mission are well focused and perfectly exposed. In the late 1960's, black and white film processing was more likely to result in a clearer, sharper image than a color print - yet this is not the case in any of the pictures released by NASA. Of a total of around 16,000 pictures taken on the Apollo XI mission, only a mere handful are available on the internet.

1. Again, note how in some pictures the radio antenna is there, and in others it is not.
2. Note how many shadows the flag pole is casting...or at least, casting in the opposite direction that Aldrin's shadow is casting.

1. These are the pictures I posted previously. In case you're wondering what they are, the first black and white image is taken from the Moon. The other two are simulation exercises taken in a studio set before launch, in order to run them thru their paces of what to do when they got on the moon etc.
2. If you notice in the studio simulation pics, if NASA were to touch up the sky and make it all black, as they have admitted doing with thousands of pictures of Apollo XI mission, it would look JUST LIKE all the actual color pictures taken from the moon.
3. As you can see, in the color images, the light sources they use are evident. The big beaming light gives off a claw-mark of light across the darkness in the back. As well as all these tiny spotlight looking dots of light littered across the 'sky'. If you then look at the black and white image of an actual moon shot, you can see the same claw-mark of light on the top left and one of these spotlight dots in the sky, the same kind of spotlight dot in the sky that's visible in the reflection of Aldrin's visor where you can see Armstrong and the craft etc in his visor. This claw-mark residue of light is also visible across the astronaut's shadow in the black and white pic.
4. Also, all these studio lights don't seem to be casting any obvious weird multiple shadows. There probably are, but just in those two simulation pics, you wouldn't be able to even tell.


CONCLUSION
Given the inconsistencies (continuity mistakes with Aldrin's radio antenna), given the claw-marks and the spotlights of light that happened in a studio simulation, and how real that looked to actual moon pics, given that these spotlights appear in some images (the b&w one, and Aldrin's visor), given that in at least a few pics, how objects like astronaut's, flags, objects on the ground, etc, there appears to be multiple diametrically opposed shadows being cast), given how many discrepancies there are with detail in areas where it should be all black, etc, and given how there are no horizon images, but very small closed in sets, it is my suspicion that the Apollo XI was possibly faked in a studio, as is clearly evident how realistic those studio simulations look (if you add the NASA touch ups) and that all the color images which are so perfectly focused and exposed is an indication of this compared to the grainy black and white images from later Apollo missions.

 

[Pessimistic]

A craft did go to the moon - it was being tracked by everyone.

I believe that NASA released some studio 51 pics and footage to sex up the whole thing as the actual phorose woud be very poor and boring.

The question is then did any men actually go on the trip to the moon ?

NASA are their own worst enemies on this. they are so dishonest only a flat denial of any faking will keep some people believing them at all.

 

[Chief]

I love the one about the flag shadow - like you can REALLY tell from that angle and on such uneven ground. Ridiculous.

"the TV picture was real blurry but the photos were clear LOL!!!111"

You mean the TV picture transmitted from the MOON compared to photos taken from a few metres away?

I also read something about the photos being from cams on their chests but they were all clear and focused. Then the point is made that out of thousands of photos on a handful are available. Maybe the others were, I dunno, DUDS? Jeez I will have to be careful on my next holiday when I take 500 photos on the digital camera that none are TOO good or people will think I never went.

Aldrin's antenna? Maybe they did black up the sky and a sloppy touch up means the antenna was lost. More likely it was just a trick of the light and the lens.

The only thing you MIGHT EVER be justified in SUSPECTING is that some photos from trials COULD POSSIBLY have been mixed in to glitz it up a bit. If that VERY SLIM possibility were proven the worst you could accuse them of is trying to show the mission in the best light. If this were EVER shown to have happened my response would be (as yours should be): BIG FRUITING DEAL. But there's no proof, just loony speculation.

 

[exe ex machina]

What's wrong with this image?

There are no rear tire tracks on the moon dust. How is this possible? Because these images have been manipulated, pasted onto a created moon backdrop. Or, the buggy has been placed onto the set by crane.

How come no one has yet tried to read this website...

http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/

Click on the links at the bottom and read each little section. Test your beliefs and preconceptions.

 

[exe ex machina]

I love the one about the flag shadow - like you can REALLY tell from that angle and on such uneven ground. Ridiculous.

"the TV picture was real blurry but the photos were clear LOL!!!111"

You mean the TV picture transmitted from the MOON compared to photos taken from a few metres away?

I also read something about the photos being from cams on their chests but they were all clear and focused. Then the point is made that out of thousands of photos on a handful are available. Maybe the others were, I dunno, DUDS? Jeez I will have to be careful on my next holiday when I take 500 photos on the digital camera that none are TOO good or people will think I never went.

Aldrin's antenna? Maybe they did black up the sky and a sloppy touch up means the antenna was lost. More likely it was just a trick of the light and the lens.

The only thing you MIGHT EVER be justified in SUSPECTING is that some photos from trials COULD POSSIBLY have been mixed in to glitz it up a bit. If that VERY SLIM possibility were proven the worst you could accuse them of is trying to show the mission in the best light. If this were EVER shown to have happened my response would be (as yours should be): BIG FRUITING DEAL. But there's no proof, just loony speculation.

The loons are those who blindly believe. I don't blindly disbelieve. There's just enough discrepancy/inconsistency/etc to cast doubts. With doubts cast, therefore comes the attitude of "leaning towards it being a hoax."

But do you think you'll wake up enough to scratch your head and actually go "hmm, whoa, that does NOT add up" or "hmm, wow look at that, clearly there's a falseness about that fact/image/video/etc"

Or do you just put your hands over your ears, close your eyes and "lalala"?

At no point have you analysed and digested the inconsistencies and discrepancies with an "If i'm shown strong evidence casting doubts, where even NASA has no debunk or flimsy debunk for it, then it will eke away at my unflinching 100% belief in the moon landing". I have yet to see any inclination in any pro-Moon believers to even have any percentage of belief eked away by the evidence of discrepancies that exist. It always seems to be 100% unwavering belief and scoffing the naysayers as loons. But it is obvious to me that any REASONABLE mind would always weigh things up, would always find some doubts/questions/suspicions to be 70-90% in belief at least. A reasonable mind would not blindly believe. I don't blindly disbelieve/believe anything. It just seems far more likely to me it was faked given the amount of evidence - stuff like moon jumps would be 6 meters high, discrepancies in pics, Langley Research Center, archived information, film/photo manipulation techniques easily do-able, Amrstrong and Aldrin's own guilty reactions in their latter years, the whole belt and radiation problems, the regularity of failed manned/unmanned mission per se vs the flawless manned missions to moon, etc etc. More likely.

You call people like me loons when the truth is staring you in the face. Just like the detonation footage of the 9/11 towers. That's the proof right there, along with facts/histories about burning skycrapers etc etc, but the collapse itself is the proof. Same with all these moon landings.

 

[exe ex machina]

You can see the same roof and drop down lights inside the Langely Research Center and in the moon simulation pic.

 

[exe ex machina]

A NASA archive, dated 26 August 1969, copied word for word, relating to Donald Hewes, who oversaw operations/filming with the fake landing and take off. Read it, then think hard about it. Why were NASA phaffing around with fake lunar landscapes, one month AFTER Armstrong supposedly pulled it off for real? Answer, to make the fake film look ever more realistic, when future, higher quality images were broadcast to an already gullible audience.


"Looking down from the top of the gantry on to the simulated Lunar Surface. James Hansen writes: "To make the simulated landings more authentic, [Donald] Hewes and his men filled the base of the huge eight-legged, red-and-white structure with dirt and modeled it to resemble the moon's surface. They erected floodlights at the proper angles to simulate lunar light and installed a black screen at the far end of the gantry to mimic the airless lunar "sky." Hewes personally climbed into the fake craters with cans of everyday black enamel to spray them so that the astronauts could experience the shadows that they would see during the actual moon landing." (p. 375) From A.W. Vigil, "Piloted Space-Flight Simulation at Langley Research Center," Paper presented at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1966 Winter Meeting, New York, NY, November 27 - December 1, 1966. "Ground-based simulators are not very satisfactory for studying the problems associated with the final phases of landing. This is due primarily to the fact that the visual scene cannot be simulated with sufficient realism. For this reason it is preferable to go to some sort of flight-test simulator which can provide real-life visual cues. One research facility designed to study the final phases of lunar landing is in operation at Langley. ... The facility is an overhead crane structure about 250 feet tall and 400 feet long. The crane system supports five-sixths of the vehicle's weight through servo-driven vertical cables. The remaining one-sixth of the vehicle weight pulls the vehicle downward simulating the lunar gravitational force. During actual flights the overhead crane system is slaved to keep the cable near vertical at all times. A gimbal system on the vehicle permits angular freedom for pitch, roll, and yaw. The facility is capable of testing vehicles up to 20,000 pounds. A research vehicle, weighing 10,500 pounds fully loaded, is being used and is shown [in this picture]. This vehicle is provided with a large degree of flexibility in cockpit positions, instrumentation, and control parameters. It has main engines of 6,000 pounds thrust, throttle able down to 600 pounds, and attitude jets. This facility is studying the problems of the final 200 feet of lunar landing and the problems of maneuvering about in close proximity to the lunar surface." Published in James R. Hansen, Spaceflight Revolution: NASA Langley Research Center From Sputnik to Apollo, (Washington: NASA, 1995), pp. 373-378."


----------


Remember, pictures of the Moon missions were not available till the advent of the internet in the 1990's. Film/photographic manipulation isn't overly difficult now or in the 60's or 1930's.

I could show you a picture I made using photoshop of a building of shops and details of people and stuff inside windows etc. It looks totally realistic, and it doesn't even exist.

Here's an example of what can be done to create fake moon backdrops where the images of astronauts under the Langley Research Center cranes could be then welded together...

 

[exe ex machina]

I love the one about the flag shadow - like you can REALLY tell from that angle and on such uneven ground. Ridiculous.

"the TV picture was real blurry but the photos were clear LOL!!!111"

You mean the TV picture transmitted from the MOON compared to photos taken from a few metres away?

I also read something about the photos being from cams on their chests but they were all clear and focused. Then the point is made that out of thousands of photos on a handful are available. Maybe the others were, I dunno, DUDS? Jeez I will have to be careful on my next holiday when I take 500 photos on the digital camera that none are TOO good or people will think I never went.

Aldrin's antenna? Maybe they did black up the sky and a sloppy touch up means the antenna was lost. More likely it was just a trick of the light and the lens.

The only thing you MIGHT EVER be justified in SUSPECTING is that some photos from trials COULD POSSIBLY have been mixed in to glitz it up a bit. If that VERY SLIM possibility were proven the worst you could accuse them of is trying to show the mission in the best light. If this were EVER shown to have happened my response would be (as yours should be): BIG FRUITING DEAL. But there's no proof, just loony speculation.

1. Yes, you can tell. When there's an image like that, it's 'debunked' with "as if you can tell, ridiculous". Yet for whatever anamoly of other pictures the 'debunk' is "you can clearly tell this-or-that".

2. The point of the grainy TV images was to show how it actually looked to a gullible global population at the time. You couldn't tell anything really in any detail, so it was easier for people to just accept. So people go along with it as unbelievable as it seemed back then (yes, people were sceptical). What's interesting is that people who were 20-something or more back in the 1960's don't believe or are more apt to not believe the moon landings than people who were very young or born just after 1969. While people in this generation of moon landing scepticism are more attuned again to being 50-50 about it.

3. Do you even realize what you even said here? You basically said, "oh well, even if they did mix in some of these simulation images on purpose to give the whole thing a better impression, that's ok, they didn't lie, they still went to the moon, no big deal". Do you realize that even if they did go to the moon and they purposely mixed in some simulation pictures, many of which they have long claimed/asserted to be actual moon shots, then that actually PROVES that they FAKED moon images. It would mean many of those discrepancy shots supposedly taken on the moon, aldrin's missing radio antenna, the inconsistency of sources of light and darkness, the very small 'set' images, the reflections in the visor, the flag casting alternate shadow, etc, all these images, if some or most of them are mixed in simulation images on purpose basically proves that the US govt lied about the moon landings. Those pics therefore are NOT Aldrin on the moon, etc. Yet you'd be saying, "Oh well, big deal, it was just a bit of PR to give a better impression". It would mean they've also been making up false 'science' to debunk the discrepancies of those images they claim are actually real. The same images you would say is no big deal if they mixed in on purpose.

 

[exe ex machina]

For future reference, when 'debunking' anything please consult these pages...

http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/APOLLOSCAM/

http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/

http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality/

http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/

http://www.geocities.com/fakemoonpics/

http://www.geocities.com/apollodata/

http://www.geocities.com/apollofacts/

http://www.geocities.com/apollofeedback/