DID NEIL ARMSTRONG LAND ON
MOON?? THE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE
the Moon has only one light source, the Sun, the shadows must be in line.
But in this cases, it looks as if there are multiple light sources in moon,
which is not possible.
The foreground of many images of the astronauts on the Moon
are filled in with light, while the shadows remain absolutely black, again
proving that there are multiple light sources.
are no stars in the background from pictures taken on the Moon.
some images, a huge light source can be seen reflected in the astronaut's
visors. This has to be a very bright, nearby source. There is no possibility
of external light source in moon.
ISSUE 5 -
How could NASA take TV images of the LM ascending on Apollo
15, 16, and 17 if there was no one on the Lunar surface to man the camera?
There can't be any pictures taken on the Moon because the
film would melt in the 250° temperatures. Any film exposed to 250° would
indeed melt at that temperature.
The LM engine was very powerful. How come it did not
leave a crater below the spacecraft? Why didn't it kick up any dust when
left by the astronauts are proof that the Moon landings are fake.
This one is also essentially a two pronged argument. First, the Fox show
charged that the LM engine was so powerful that the upper layer of dust
should have been blown away around the LM, so there should not be any footprints.
Others have charged that the footprints should not be there since in the
absence of water as a bonding agent, they should not maintain coherent
shapes and sharp outlines.
Issue 9: There is no dust on LM footpads. --
to Kaysing and Fox, this is the strongest evidence that the Moon landings
are faked. They allege that with the swirling dust from LM descent engine,
the foot pads should be covered with dust.
pictures below show that flags are waving. And they never will. The flag
was on the airless Moon, just as we all knew.
THERE ARE MANY MORE ISSUES ON THIS,
THOSE ARE TOO TECHNICAL
NEIL ARMSTRONG WAS NOT THE
FIRST PERSON TO LAND ON MOON