Moon Hoax Evidence Analysis

...just ignorance, misinterpretation of the photos, and willful negligence. Author doesn't understand squat about Apollo hardware, and has no interest nor desire to learn.
Unfortunate...

I think that there is both real and also fake footage

Was the web page made in 1995 lol.

You're right. When people challenge evidence of a moon landing, it generally takes about five minutes of online searching to refute their objections.

It doesn't matter, though, when you give them the facts, they just don't care.

With the fine dust being about 2" deep in all the photos and it originally fell as 'snow' everything should be covered. That means all the rocks sticking out of the dust. They are dust free, is the vid below an example of how the rocks were 'exposed'.


In the 'mini-craters' the object that made them should be in the bottom of the hole rather than vaporizing itself so there is nothing in the hole that was created.

None of the rocks show any trace of having rolled to a stop that should have left a trail in the dust that was already on the ground.

Some navigation software should be able to use the location and the time to determine if the shadows are pointing in the right direction and are the right length.

I doubt that there was that much trouble going into this

You can take comfort in knowing that somewhere this conversion took place because of you.

' . . . and then he started throwing that logic shit at me, what could I do, I bailed, . . .'

'That Bastard, I hate it when 'they' do that.'

do the hoaxies really expect billowing clouds of dust in a vacuum??? They really need to get their research skills together.

Yes, and you have your research skills in place as, I'm sure, you just researched and tested rocket propulsion in a vacuum. Please post your results!

hint...exhaust overexpansion in a vacuum. Also, remember that the LM descent stage had little fuel (aka "mass) in it's descent stage tanks at landing, so was much lighter (requiring much less thrust) than when it initiated the descent burn.

As ive said before
The photos are the best proof
The un processed film managed to get from earth,through the van allen belts twice and on occasion survived for 8 hours on the moon in nothing more than a thin aluminium box and was able to evade any radiation whatsoever

Un processed film is hyper sensitive to radiation,they still use it to guage exposure to in today.
It leaves a distinctive fogging on the film once processed.


At best they had to fake the photos as the real film didnt make it to the moon and back.Remember the crew said they could see flashes in their eys even when closed.Well that same radiation was utterly destroying the film before it was used.
Its only resistant to radiation once its processed.

They didnt take a photo lab with them

I know this as i spent decades in a photo lab and have seen first had what air port security can do to un processed film
Or we are to believe that the van allen belts and direct exposure to the sun wouldnt result in any exposure to radiation whatsoever

Not one single frame shows any,remember they released every photo
In every trip at no time did something hyper sensitive to radiation encounter any.
The excuse they use is that they used a type of film thats has a low iso thats resistant to it but youll find its bollocks intended to fool someone that didnt work with the very same film for years

hint...once in the vacuum of space thrust is physically impossible since exhaust molecules must collide with other molecules in place to overcome inertia and propel the so called module in a direction. Overexpansion of gas is impossible in a vacuum!!

...neither do you, yet you ignorantly defend it as truth...blatant hypocrisy...

You don't understand basic physics. The thrust is generated by pushing against the interior of the engine's combustion chamber. You've been told this before, but you are again showing us your willful ignorance.

Quantify the radiation you think it should have been exposed to. You'd be the first. If you don't, then all you have is handwaving.

Un exposed film is currently used in any application where people are close to radiation
Its a nice cheap way to show just how much a person has been exposed too

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

The dosage isnt relivant,un exposed film is very sensitive to radiation.If the crew could see high energy particles in there eyes while shut im guessing high energy particles were passing though the craft and every thing inside.An order of maginitude isnt relivant.

Like i said at no point in the whole time any craft that visited the moon did a single frame of film,wether it was inside the craft or strapped to a person on the moon did a single frame of film encounter either a single high energy particle or any radiation whatsoever.

Not a single frame

Something which occums razor dictates isnt plausable

Perhaps it is ignorance, but not willful! So let me understand then, the module is thrust forward by the gases pushing on the engine chamber which is attached intimately to the lunar module and thus the engine itself so by pushing on my back with my hand I can generate forward momentum in my body. And I don't understand basic physics!
Get a balloon, blow it up, let it go. Well, a smart guy like you knows what happens! Put a piece of cardboard attached to balloon over where the air exits and observe
the balloon remain where it is!

The NASA argument is intended for people who have no idea about the subject and are oblivious to the properties of un exposed film

Simply put its not plausable that the film didnt encounter any radiation ant any point once in every single trip.

Dont get me wrong,i still think they went to the moon
I just think they fooked up the photos and out of embarrassment had to fake them.
And were forced to carry it on afterwards

Its not like they could go back and take them again lol

so you can't quantify it then. And I guarantee that you haven't seen every frame to know that none encountered any radiation. Nor have you investigated what protection it did have.

And yet they had pics available within days of landing that matched the video that had been broadcast.

If the cardboard is attached to the balloon, yes. Because it then directs the force to the sides.

Well i can see by the pictures taken that the cameras they used were strapped to the front of the space suit.You can also go see the actual camera.Its exactly the same model thats still popular today but they had a special lens made for focusing with gloves on.
The film is held in a small aluminium box about 3x2 inch ish,since we have evidence some radiation was passing through the entire craft im guessing it would also pass through this box.The exact same setup wont protect your film from airport scanners since ive seen the results.We can also be sure the film on occasion spent 8 hours on the surface of the moon strapped to the front of a suit.Are we to believe that no radiation would be present on the moon ?
And that a thin aluminium box would be able to protect the film from the temperature fluxuations present,it didnt have any cooling whatsoever in the camera.

It would also mean since the film is held in a roll inside the case any radiation would have fogged the entire roll.

But lets ignore the basic facts and focus on magnitude,its impossible that the film didnt encounter radiation when the crew did

The video that was broadcast was of such low quality im betting you could just about do anything and get away with it.

Im guessing youve never actualy worked in a photo lab and have no idea what your talking about when it comes to the handeling of unexposed film

Since there is radiation everywhere you've just declared photography an impossibility.


Pray tell, what type of radiation do those scanners use?
At which energies and fluxes?

Are you even aware that there are several types of radiation?


You are claiming that quantity A (the radiation exposure of the film) was larger than quantity B (the shielding) yet YOU FAILED TO MENTION ANY NUMBERS.
IOW you don't actually have any facts, basic or otherwise, you're just making shit up.

Thank you for proving you've never looked at much of the video. Only Apollo 11 was low quality. The video from every other mission including the video from inside the spacecraft was all far better.

and still no quantification of the radiation expected. I never said no radiation was expected. I'm asking YOU to quantify what and how much YOU say there should be because YOU say what they had shouldn't work. YOU have failed.

That's the way the space deniers roll. They sit around, coming up with dumb assumptions, because they once worked in a photo lab.

From what research I've done, leads me to guess that NASA had no difficulty protecting the undeveloped film. The assumption that space is overwhelmed with high levels of radiation, comparable to an airport scanner, is false.

Well I hate to be on the hoax bandwagon BUT........... Why else have we lost the ability to go to the moon? Can we really buy the fact that the rocket designers did not keep notes? Horseshit! I think they maybe got as far as orbiting the moon but they never "landed" If they did it in the 60s There should be 0 problem with it today.. That would be the argument I would use.. If i was apart of this hoax stuff...