Cosmos/Moon/Moon Landing: Difference between revisions

Just looking at the Apollo Moon LOLander or looking at the faces of the Men who supposedly set foot on the moon, you could easily begin to question the reality of the moon missions. If that was the only evidence, then it could easily be dismissed. However, the further you look into it the more issues you'll find, such as [[Agencies/NASA|NASA]] admitted they destroyed the technology that got them to the moon and they also lost the original footage of the moon landing missions. Welp, there goes any solid evidence the multi-billion dollar missions were legit - Game over! Fortunately there's hundreds of photos and subsequent [[Agencies/NASA|NASA]] screw-ups that can help us decide.

[[Agencies/NASA|NASA]] produced an abundant supply of photos and video footage to support their moon landing. But, it soon became evident that there was something a bit fishy about these photos on the moon; ever noticed that the angle of the shadows do not match up? Shadows are caused by light sources. On the moon, there should only be one light source: the Sun. So, logically, all shadows should be parallel to each other. Only shadows in the photos of moon landing are not. In fact, the shadows in many of the photos run in different directions. It’s almost as if the shadows are caused by… yes, multiple lights on a film set!

On a cloudless evening, you can see an abundance of twinkling stars in the night sky. Surely from the moon, with its lack of clouds and complete absence of artificial light, you should be able to see even more stars with the naked eye? Only, you can’t. In fact, in all of the photos taken during moon landing, you cannot see a single star. Not one. Sure, the photos taken in the 60’s weren’t amazing quality, but these days you can capture the stars in a photo taken from your phone, so shouldn’t the high tech [[Agencies/NASA|NASA]] cameras have been able to pick up something?

In yet another example of the technicians on set just being sloppy, one of the moon landing photos shows a “moon rock” which has a perfect letter ‘C’ printed on it. The perfect symmetry of the letter shows that it is not naturally occurring. Now, it’s perfectly credible that a prop used on a film set would be marked with a reference letter. But there is no plausible argument for the “C” just being naturally weathered into the surface of the rock. As a result, [[Agencies/NASA|NASA]] came up with a different, though no less implausible, explanation for the rock with the “C”. According to them, it’s a stray hair. It can’t be more ridiculous than this!

Everyone knows how dangerous radiation can be: overexposure to it can cause radiation poisoning and even death, so It is should be avoided at all costs. To get to the moon, you have to fly through a band a radiation known as the Van Allen radiation belt. Yes, the space craft had an aluminum coating, but is that really enough to protect a human being whilst they spend over one and a half hours traversing a band of radiation? [[Agencies/NASA|NASA]], of course, said “yes” and that the astronauts weren’t in the radiation for all that long. But an hour and a half still sounds like a pretty long time to be inside a cosmic microwave.

[[Agencies/NASA|NASA]] Astronaut Don Pettit says <ref name=PettitNanosecond></ref>