Moon Hoax Images

“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” – Mark Twain

A16 11446551


The very first photo humans saw of our common home from our closest orbiting planet.

This NASA created shot was impressed upon billions of minds at the time Apollo 8 is said to have taken this photo

And reinforced hundreds, if not millions of times in global media.

Van Gough, Rembrant, et al. would be ashamed of such amateurish art work,

Still, billions believed, and still believe to this day, that this is a real photograph.


What do you really see above in the most famous picture in the World?

Suspend belief for a few moments in your life. What do you just see in the above picture?

Look at the “Blue Marble” as it is called. Incredible detail of the Earth, it’s clouds and even patches of green and brown, incredible details from 238,000 miles away.

A perfect globe, even though it is said to be elliptical due to Moon’s gravitational pull, yet never seen.

The deep blue ocean, which covers 2/3’rds of our Earth, is what we are told makes the sky so blue in our atmosphere. Why doesn’t the ocean blue overwhelm the photo from space void of atmosphere, like we see from NASA photos on other planets?

The Moon’s horizon is level and flat right to left, yet due to the Moon being 1/4 the Earth in size and diameter, curvature should be seen easily across such a panoramic shot that was taken from returning from the dark side  of the Moon.

The picture of Earth is crystal clear, yet the Moon blurred and indistinct. With a high speed camera setting to get the Earth in such detail (the Earth has is spinning at 1,000 mph we are told!)…. the Moon should have detail as well, a you will see below in many, many other shots.

And where are those dang billions and billions of stars, Carl, we all see in space from Earth at night? With no atmosphere on the Moon, and the stark, black background of space, they should be overwhelming every shot, yet nary a one.

The Moon is so reflective of the Sun’s rays, we are told, that it lights up or Earth at night so brightly, from 238,000 miles away, that we can see easily see to walk around at night during a full moon. Yet Moon’s surface is shown to be a dull, dusty , least reflecting colors, brown and gray.

Yet the Astronots were able to have no problems with such a direct, no atmosphere Sun with temperatures varying between + 250 and – 340 degrees.

Thousands of pictures have been released from NASA, so examining the official narrative is relatively straightforward. Interestingly, nearly all pictures of Moon missions were not released until 1991 and after.

Let’s chase some rabbits down the a real NASA hole.


My first words of my impression of being on the surface of the Moon that just came to my mind was “Magnificent desolation.” The magnificence of human beings, humanity, Planet Earth, maturing the technologies, imagination and courage to expand our capabilities beyond the next ocean, to dream about being on the Moon, and then taking advantage of increases in technology and carrying out that dream – achieving that is magnificent testimony to humanity. But it is also desolate – there is no place on earth as desolate as what I was viewing in those first moments on the Lunar Surface.

Because I realized what I was looking at, towards the horizon and in every direction, had not changed in hundreds, thousands of years. Beyond me I could see the moon curving away – no atmosphere, black sky. Cold.

Colder than anyone could experience on Earth when the sun is up- but when the sun is up for 14 days, it gets very, very hot. No sign of life whatsoever.

That is desolate. More desolate than any place on Earth.

~ Buzz Aldrin, Apollo 11 and 2nd man to allegedly walk on the Moon.

Moon temperatures make it Impossible to be on the Moon, much less truck around on Moonbuggies, touch hotter than hell moon rocks and set up sensor equipment.

Yet everything, always worked great, we are told, even though man had never, ever experienced such temperatures on Earth. Radio communications, sensors, mobile devices, coolant systems, batteries, buggies, fuel, etc. no problem.

Due to no atmosphere the temperatures range each day on the sunny side ranged  from a – 387 F degrees to a plus 225 F.  The space suits, just millimeters thick and so flexible they creased, keep cooled, no worries mate, depsite having to carry gallons and gallons of water in their packs to run their inner A/C along with batteries, oxygen and human waste tubes and reservoirs.

(For how space suits were made that supposedly kept them in comfort, (see here)

“The thin atmosphere offers little thermal insulation, so temperatures can drop quickly at night, and rise quickly due to the sun’s radiation during the day.” ..with temps varying from – 225 to + 243 every single day and night”..”The thin atmosphere offers little thermal insulation, so temperatures can drop quickly at night, and rise quickly due to the sun’s radiation during the day. Powerful radiation from sunlight on one side of an object, and shadow on the other will create a large temperature gradient. A “thermal shock” can follow, where different parts of an object thermally expand by different amounts, leading to large potentially failure-inducing strains. The effect of thermal shock is more pronounced in brittle materials such as glass, ceramics or metals below the glass transition temperature (ductile-brittle transition temperature for metals)”.(The Lunar Sourcebook (Heiken, Vaniman, & French, 1991)



“One Giant Blunder for Mankind, how NASA lost the moon pictures”,

… read the world news headlines in 2006. Just at the time digital imaging was taking apart the NASA photos, they went lost. (Source)

The missing tapes were among over 700 boxes of magnetic data tapes recorded throughout the Apollo program which have not been found.[14] On August 16, 2006 NASA announced its official search saying, “The original tapes may be at the Goddard Space Flight Center … or at another location within the NASA archiving system“, “NASA engineers are hopeful that when the tapes are found they can use today’s digital technology to provide a version of the moonwalk that is much better quality than what we have today.

At the bottom of this post are the debunker’s replies to many of the pictures many questions asked.

As you scroll down, see how many flaws you can point out and then see how it matches against the pro CGI (Computer Generated Image) specialists)


Many more dissections of NASA pictures can be found here.

Jack White
Jack White 1927-2012

Photographic specialist Jack White took time from his many commitments to help us investigate further into the Apollo photographic record.

Also, here is an excellent narrative and analysis of NASA photo’s and storyline.



“You gonna believe me or your lying eyes?” (Nasa)

 Apollo 11 live footage as well as all prints have come from NASA. Every single one. Here is a highly degreed professional explaining the obvious, and glaring, errors in the photo’s provided by NASA.  If one phot is faked, then all must be assumed to be faked.

In an attempt to disprove our own additional lighting hypothesis, the authors went to Quantec Image Processing-UK which tested a number of NASA photos from Apollo 11. Founder, David Groves:
PhD – BSc (Hons) Class I/Applied Physics.
PhD in Holographic Computer Measurement.
Chartered Physicist and a Member of the Insitute of Physics.

Another photo/image analysis…Image = Imagination


A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images

University Kharkiv by OLEG OLEYNIK, Ph.D.c
Previously of the Department of Physics and Technology
Kharkov State University, Ukraine


AS15-87-11793 (NASA Image)

Hadley: A Study in Fakery
by Professor Colin Rourke


So who has been behind NASA since it’s inception and creation in 1958 that was put under the Dept. of War, later named the Dept. of Defense…….would you believe NAZI rocketeers and scientists ?!?


Wernher von Braun.jpg
Braun at his desk at Marshall Space Flight Center in May 1964, with models of the Saturn rocket family

BornWernher Magnus Maximilian, Freiherr von Braun
March 23, 1912
Wirsitz, Posen Province, Prussia, German Empire
(modern Wyrzysk, Piła County, Poland)

Wernher Magnus Maximilian, Freiherr von Braun (March 23, 1912 – June 16, 1977) was a German and later American aerospace engineer and space architect. He was one of the leading figures in the development of rocket technology in Germany and the United States and is considered one of the “Fathers of Rocket Science“. He was also a member of the Nazi party and the SS, and was suspected of perpetrating war crimes during World War II.

In the late 1940’s through the 1960’s, the United States government brought known Nazi German scientists into the country illegally and quietly through Operations Paperclip (Source). Even the Presidents did not know about this operation until the 1960’s.

Some 3200 scientists were brought over in all an installed in U.S. military and corporate hierarchy. The Vatican provided the passport by establishing “ratlines” as the Nazi’s first journeyed to Argentina and then up to the United States. (Source)

Nazi Werhner Von Bruan was the “wunderkind” rocket builder who designed, built and then launched the deadly V1 and V2 “buzz bombs” that killed tens of thousands of allies in European during WWII.

He was then brought over to the U.S where he started when NASA was founded and ran NASA’s Saturn rocket program for 26 years straight. (Source).

NASA has released nearly ten thousand pictures from space. (source)  Most of the pictures from space exploration and moon landings were released after 1991.



Matthew Boylan, former NASA operational graphics manager, worked for years creating photo-realistic computer graphics for NASA. Now a vocal Flat-Earther, Boylan claims that NASA’s sole reason for existence is to propagandize the public and promote this false ball-Earth heliocentric worldview. Originally recruited because of his skills and reputation as a hyper-realist multi-media artist, he started doing projects like photoshopping various lighting and atmospheric effects onto images of Earth, the Moon, Jupiter, Europa, etc. Having proved himself, and wanting to promote him to do more classified work, a room of NASA higher-ups during a party, as a type of initiatory-rite, explained to him and a few others in detail the reality of the Geocentric Flat-Earth model and how they have fooled the entire world!

Refusing to be a part of their deception, Boylan cut his ties to NASA, began researching the Flat-Earth for himself, and has recently become a powerful voice on the lecture circuit and the internet exposing NASA and their heliocentric hoax. In his comedic lectures he speaks candidly and eloquently about how simple it is using nothing more than Adobe Photoshop and a video editor to create any and every type of image NASA purports to be “receiving from the Hubble telescope.”

He points out how in most ball-Earth videos lazy NASA graphics workers don’t even bother changing cloud structures in ordinary or time-lapse footage; the same shape, color and condition cloud cover often stays completely unchanged for 24 hour periods and longer! Boylan states unequivocally that every picture and video of the ball-Earth, all the Moon/Mars landings, the existence of orbiting satellites, space stations, and all Hubble images are hoaxed. He even quips anecdotes about how NASA officials and astro-nots privy to the Flat-Earth truth would laugh hysterically at the brain-washed zombie public who unquestioningly believe their televisions.







 Said to be the first footprint on the Moon by Neil Armstrong.

Note the lack of impression, or depression. The heel and outside shadows prove the boot print is higher than the surface. The Moon’s surface has little atmosphere with no water so how does the shape even occur? ( Think of being on a beach, with water one gets a footprint but absent of water, just a rough outline.)

Yet now and clear impression and depression made into the Moon soil. Huh?
the One Footed “From Nowhere to Nowhere” NASA Image.

Here we have impressions. If an astronot weighing 1/6th the weight on Earth can make that kind of impression, what kind of impression would a lunar landing module onto the surface create? Note how no impression by LM landing or even a spec of dust. hmmm.

Footprints under LM that should not be there

Now look at the shadows in the above NASA official picture. It is a physical impossibility for shadows from one source, the Sun, to go in two different directions. WTF?

Speaking of Shadows, this is the alleged 2nd Man to walk on the Moon, Buzz “Freemason” Aldrin. This photo was said to be taken by Armstrong when he got on the Moon.

Why is Buzz so well lit w/o shadow, even still partially inside LM, when all the rest of the Lunar Module is pitch black due to no atmosphere?





What kind of impact would these 10 thousand pounds of thrust created to slow the LM of a Moon weight 9,000 pound vehicle, with all the batteries, fuel, astronots, etc. would have on a dusty, grainy, no water. gray moon surface?



The presence of astronauts’ boot prints in the lunar dust under the LM and in the neighbourhood is far more than strange. The exhaust speed relative to the descending LM reached almost 3000 m/s, so all the dust within many meters had to be blown away. Given the distance that the exhaust plume would have spread in the absence of an atmosphere, such a situation is only possible if the engine was shut off at a height of several hundred meters during the landing, raising legitimate concern for the lives and safety of the astronauts.


But reading the transcript of the radio communications between the LM and Mission Control relieves anxiety and allows us to breathe more easily. In the radio communications the astronauts wisely reported the engine picking up a little dust, which partly obstructed the line of view up to completion of descent manoeuvring. So, well done! They didn’t cut the engines off. But there was no time to exhale with relief.  Nevertheless, the very tricky question about the source of the dust under the LM still remains.

The dust couldn’t settle, because in the absence of air it doesn’t settle, but scatters or flies away into space, as on the surface of the Moon the escape velocity is just 1700 m/s. It remains to assume the unbelievable: that the Moon has an unknown physical law, in which the particles of lunar dust have some unthinkable property to be attracted to the place from which they were blown away. Then, even more surprising, there’s no dust in its rightful place on the landing pads which remained pristine – clearly seen in the second picture. In addition to the ever-evolving model of the world, we will have to put forward another hypothesis: particles of lunar dust do not settle at all on physical objects of alien origin. Such is Occam’s Razor.




the view from the Moon is not filtered through an atmosphere, so the stars have many times the luminosity as here on Earth. Even if a camera is stopped down to filter for direct sun, the blackness of space would still show the billions and billions of stars in space due to the lack of atmsphere, yet some astronots saw brilliant, amazing stars, and others saw None. hmmm

Twinkle twinkle little star….where the hell did you go billions and billions of little stars…” (NASA Image)

Simply, NASA could not CGI in stars because any amateur astronomer would immediately know, by the placement of stars in the sky, if the photo was real or made up.


REPORTER I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect. And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?
ARMSTRONG We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don’t recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.

Neil Armstrong is credited as the astronaut with the greatest interest in observing the heavens. He had flown jet fighters at 40,000 feet to observe the clarity of the universe at that rarefied altitude. Yet he man could not see billions of stars from the Moon surface even though their was no atmosphere to opaque the stars?

Wait Found ’em, just took a couple decades 4288 × 2844  Search by image

Space shuttle Atlantis while still docked with the International Space Station


“Outside my window I can see stars – and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon’s presence is defined solely by the absence of stars”.  Michael Collins, coming around from the Dark Side of the Moon in Apollo Command Module.


And M.I.T. Doctorate, Buzz Aldrin had same problem finding billions of stars

I slowly allowed my eyes to drink in the unusual majesty of the moon. In its starkness and monochromatic hues, it was indeed beautiful. But it was a different sort of beauty than I had ever before seen. Magnificent, I thought, then said: “Magnificent desolation.”

It was a spontaneous utterance, an oxymoron that would take on ever-deeper dimensions of meaning in describing this strange, new environment. THEN, for the first time since stepping on the surface, I looked upward, above the LM.

It was not an easy thing to do in a pressurised suit, inflated as stiff as a football, with a gold sun visor jutting out from my helmet. But I managed to direct my view homeward, and there in the black, starless sky I could see our planet, no bigger than my thumb. (from autobiography, “Magnificent Desolation”)


“Wait Found ’em again!  It just took us a decade to capture the billions and billions of stars on our cameras.”

Starry Night; The space shuttle Endeavour—payload bay doors ajar—rushes past Earth while docked to the International Space Station on May 28, 2011.  Photograph courtesy NASA


What Astronots should of seen and filmed while on the Moon.


“Houston, it’s been a real change for us. Now we are able to see the stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. The sky is filled with stars, just like the nights out in Earth”   1st Man on the Moon ~ Neil Armstrong  (Rene, R. NASA Mooned America!, 1994)


Dr Mitchell expounded to the large audience about how his life had been transformed by the voyage to the Moon on Apollo 14. Edgar explained that as the vehicle revolved to allow solar cooling: he was astounded by the alternating view of the Sun, the Earth and above all the incredible ‘heavenly’ view of the stars.

Dr Mitchell explained that the stars were ‘magnificent’, and described them as being ‘ten times brighter’ than when observed from Earth.  In fact he credited this vista with changing his life, as the euphoric effect led him to engage in the pursuit of, among other things, Eastern philosophic studies.

On 21 February 1969 Neil Armstrong visited, for the last time, the Moorhead Planetarium where he had trained eleven times previously, for a total of twenty days. This was for the purpose of perfecting his star navigation and observation techniques.  I described Armstrong as being a ‘dedicated astronomer’ to Dr Mitchell.

‘No he wasn’t!’ was his abrupt and venomous reply. The sixth Moon trekker and holder of an MIT doctorate in astronautics glowered at me, and mystifyingly refuted my historically-corroborated reference.  Determined not to give up, I repeated clearly, ‘Mr Armstrong stated that he couldn’t see stars!’.

This time Mitchell’s reply stunned the large audience – many whom were filming this exchange. ‘He [Neil Armstrong] didn’t know what he was talking about!’, Dr Mitchell exclaimed sharply.  Immediately I received a number of nodded acknowledgments from fellow audience members who obviously were taken aback by this vociferously dogmatic critique of Neil Armstrong’s historical testament.

Many of the audience would have been aware of Armstrong’s interview with Patrick Moore on the BBC’s The Sky at Night in 1970 in which he stated: ‘The sky is a deep black when viewed from the Moon as it is when viewed from Cislunar space (the space between the Earth and the Moon).

The Earth is the only visible object other than the Sun that can be seen – although there have been some reports of seeing planets. ‘I myself did not see planets from the surface, but I suspect they may be visible.’  Cislunar space was described by Edgar Mitchell as the place where the stars were ‘ten times brighter than if viewed from the Earth’.

Edgar Mitchell, Astronot, Sixth Man to allegedly walk on the moon. Apollo 14 (source)


“Vostok II plunged with a rush into the inky blackness of the planet’s shadow, and as my eyes quickly adapted to the change I stared in wonder at the huge stars that glittered like diamonds”.  ~ Ghermin Titov, Cosmonot who orbited Earth 17 times.



Kathryn C. Thornton, Space Shuttle astronaut has orbited the Earth 256 times and travelled over six million miles. She logged a total of over 40 days in Cislunar space. In October 2011, I asked Kathryn if she could describe the stars from her four shuttle voyages. She stated that they were ‘brighter than if viewed from the Earth’ and, surprisingly, confirmed that she had never used a telescope or binoculars to aid her view of the stars from the shuttle windows. (Source)


No Stars even in space?  Also note this pic against “Blue Marble” pic at top. The Earth is 4X larger than the Moon, we are told by NASA.  Think how big the Moon is at night when on our horizon. It should fill the screenshot here, yet is a tiny pea in the far distance. hmmm.



The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.

This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don’t appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid, however they fail to recognize the difference between “seeing” stars and “photographing” stars. The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts’ activities on the surface of the Moon.

Bill Kaysing claims that NASA has perpetrated the lie that stars cannot be seen in space to validate the lack of stars in the Apollo photos. This assertion is utterly ridiculous; in fact, NASA has released many photos in which stars are visible. Common among these are long-exposure nighttime photographs of aurora taken by space shuttle astronauts. This example [see photo] is a four-second exposure taken from the flight deck of the shuttle Endeavour.

(note the Endervour is on Earth w/ light pollution and under earths atmosphere )



Remember, every single one of these pictures come directly from NASA Image

Did they use midgets on this moon walk?  (remember, every single of these photos is provided from NASA Image)

NASA has done something very odd, by the way, with the lunar module that it has on display for museum visitors to marvel at: it has staffed it with miniature astronauts wearing miniature space suits (the module may also be scaled slightly larger than the ‘real’ modules that allegedly landed on the Moon).  Did they pick up the ones they sent to the Moon at a used car lot?


in this official NASA Image we see the toys along with the Lunar Module.  Looks like the gold foil was just pealed back to expose the GO USA logo.  Also note the Moon Buggie which somehow fit inside the LM as well all the antenna’s, measurement devices, etc. that had to be installed one unloaded from LM in 200 F + temps.  (Note communication antenna on backpack)

Close up of LEM.  (NASA Image)

Gold tape, heavy crepe paper and gold foil.. Unflipping Real!


Three Men on the Moon???


This is one of the most famous of all Moon astronot pictures. Apollo missions had three onboard. One stayed with the command module while two others allegedly went to the Moon surface. Look in the helmet reflection.

1) If the Sun was so strong, and coming from his left, the visors curve side towards the Sun would be glared.

2) The shading should be much darker on the right side of his suit. Look how bright the light is.

3) Yes, THREE, not two astronots in this photo. One, the photographer, two the guy in the visor background and three, astronot Buzz Aldrin. (look at the angle of the picture taken from photographer)

4) No stars in the background, yet no light pollution like on Earth to obfuscate the stars.


Where’d  Your Antenna go Buzz????

This picture is the best though! Look in HIS helmet and if you didn’t see two astronauts on the last photo, you will now. There’s the 2 men you see in the helmet + the one being photographed. That = 3 men on the moon at once. Also, note other secondary light coming from upper left.

Also note the standard issue Hasselbad camera chest mounted, yet they got such great pics, and the heat of the moon never caused it to malfunction. hmmm


Arthur C. Clarke referred to Apollo 11 as a “Hole in History”.

Here is a study by analyst Jack White. He has studied this moon landing hoax more than anyone. Here, he puts it to the math test to show the impossibility of what NASA is asking us to believe. I visited several official NASA websites to find HOW MANY PHOTOS WERE TAKEN on the surface of the Moon. Amazingly, NASA AVOIDS THIS SUBJECT almost entirely. Two days of searching documents and text were fruitless. But Lunar Surface Journal, one of the sites, lists every photo with its file number. So I undertook to make an actual count of every photo taken by astronauts DURING EXTRA-VEHICULAR ACTIVITY (EVA), the time spent on the surface out of the LEM.

Here is my actual count of EVA photos of the six missions:

Apollo 11……….. 121 Apollo 12……….. 504 Apollo 14……….. 374 Apollo 15……….1021 Apollo 16……….1765 Apollo 17……….1986

So 12 astronauts while on the Moon’s surface took a TOTAL of 5771 exposures.

That seemed excessively large to me, considering that their TIME on the lunar surface was limited, and the astronauts had MANY OTHER TASKS OTHER THAN PHOTOGRAPHY. So I returned to the Lunar Surface Journal to find how much TIME was available to do all the scientific tasks AS WELL AS PHOTOGRAPHY. Unlike the number of photos, this information is readily available:

Apollo 11……..1 EVA …..2 hours, 31 minutes……(151 minutes) Apollo 12……..2 EVAs…..7 hours, 50 minutes……(470 minutes) Apollo 14……..2 EVAs…..9 hours, 25 minutes……(565 minutes) Apollo 15……..3 EVAs…18 hours, 30 minutes….(1110 minutes) Apollo 16……..3 EVAs…20 hours, 14 minutes….(1214 minutes) Apollo 17……..3 EVAs…22 hours, 04 minutes….(1324 minutes)

Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes. Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.

Hmmmmm. That amounts to 1.19 photos taken EVERY MINUTE of time on the Moon, REGARDLESS OF OTHER ACTIVITIES. (That requires the taking of ONE PHOTO EVERY 50 SECONDS!) Let’s look at those other activities to see how much time should be deducted from available photo time:

Apollo 11….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment, operate the TV camera (360 degree pan), establish contact with Earth (including ceremonial talk with President Nixon), unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, find/document/collect 47.7 pounds of lunar rock samples, walk to various locations, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 12….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment (spend time trying to fix faulty TV camera), establish contact with Earth, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations, inspect the unmanned Surveyor 3 which had landed on the Moon in April 1967 and retrieve Surveyor parts. Deploy ALSEP package. Find/document/collect 75.7 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 14….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack and assemble hand cart to transport rocks, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages, walk to various locations. Find/document/collect 94.4 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM.

Apollo 15….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 17 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions). Find/document/collect 169 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph.)


Apollo 16….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 16 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages (double the scientific payload of first three missions, including new ultraviolet camera, operate the UV camera). Find/document/collect 208.3 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph.)

Apollo 17….Inspect LEM for damage, deploy flag, unpack and deploy radio and television equipment and establish contact with Earth, unpack/assemble/equip and test the LRV electric-powered 4-wheel drive car and drive it 30.5 miles, unpack and deploy numerous experiment packages. Find/document/collect 243.1 pounds of rocks, conclude experiments, return to LEM. (The LRV travels only 8 mph.)

Let’s arbitrarily calculate a MINIMUM time for these tasks and subtract from available photo time:

Apollo 11…subtract 2 hours (120 mins), leaving 031 mins for taking photos Apollo 12…subtract 4 hours (240 mins), leaving 230 mins for taking photos Apollo 14…subtract 3 hours (180 mins), leaving 385 mins for taking photos Apollo 15…subtract 6 hours (360 mins), leaving 750 mins for taking photos Apollo 16…subtract 6 hours (360 mins), leaving 854 mins for taking photos Apollo 17…subtract 8 hours (480 mins), leaving 844 mins for taking photos

So do the math:

Apollo 11…..121 photos in 031 minutes……..3.90 photos per minute Apollo 12…..504 photos in 230 minutes……..2.19 photos per minute Apollo 14…..374 photos in 385 minutes……..0.97 photos per minute Apollo 15…1021 photos in 750 minutes……..1.36 photos per minute Apollo 16…1765 photos in 854 minutes …….2.06 photos per minute Apollo 17…1986 photos in 844 minutes …….2.35 photos per minute

Or, to put it more simply:

Apollo 11…… photo every 15 seconds Apollo 12…… photo every 27 seconds Apollo 14…… photo every 62 seconds Apollo 15…… photo every 44 seconds Apollo 16…… photo every 29 seconds Apollo 17…… photo every 26 seconds

So you decide. Given all the facts, was it possible to take that many photos in so short a time?

Any professional photographer will tell you it cannot be done. Virtually every photo was a different scene or in a different place, requiring travel. As much as 30 miles travel was required to reach some of the photo sites. Extra care had to be taken shooting some stereo pairs and panoramas. Each picture was taken without a viewfinder, using manual camera settings, with no automatic metering, while wearing a bulky spacesuit and stiff clumsy gloves.

The agency wants the world to believe that 5771 photographs were taken in 4834 minutes!




This next picture is also a well know photograph called “Man on the Moon”. This picture is very mind boggling to me. In area (B), there is a shadow being cast over the astronauts space suit. Again, if the sun is the only light source and if there is no atmosphere on the moon, the shadow should be MUCH darker.

In the background labeled (C), you can plainly see that the farther back you look it fades darker and darker until finally it’s black. This happens on the Earth due to our atmospheric geography, but the moon has no atmosphere which means the horizon should not be faded but should be very sharp, distinct and crystal clear. Letter (D) shows something floating just above the moon’s surface



(Steven wasn’t the best of class early on but got a lot better at editing and CGI later in his career.)


The official story told/sold in real time to billions in absolute awe and amazement in 1969.

First Moon Landing 1969

The video of the very first moon landing of the apollo 11 mission on July 21, 1969! Neil Armstrong was the first man to set foot on the moon with his now legenday words “One small step for man, a giant leap for mankind.”

The video feeds all came from three NASA owned satellites and beamed into the NASA control room in Houston. All TV stations were required to use the one NASA feed which increased the grainy, fuzzy picture. It was broadcast live and fed around the world. The world was in complete awe and amazement.

” While still on the steps, Armstrong deployed the Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly from the side of the Lunar Module. This housed, amongst other things, the TV camera. This meant that upward of 600 million people on Earth could watch the live feed.”

Who Shot the Picture?

This picture is from Wiki. It is included as the first step on the moon in his bio.  Note the the Sun locations versus the above video. Completely different. Where are any stars? Look how dark the machines shadows are, but Mr. Armstrong is defined.

A low-quality photo of a television monitor showing Armstrong on the lunar module's ladder

Who took the picture? NASA says they had a swing arm from the LEM, that’s some long arm.

Did they send and advance photo shoot team to ready for the historic, never happened before photo op? Pretty cool also that sun was just low enough, to make such dark shadows, except for Mr. Armstrong.  And the slope of that Moon! Did he fall backwards and fall down on his first step? Now that would be a conspiracy, wouldn’t it?


The previous picture is of Armstrong touching the Moon taken from the alleged swing arm camera he lowered down to take the famous shot. How come we can’t see the camera in any pictures such as this? This was taken by Armstrong and shows Buzz Aldrin climbing out and getting ready to climb down the ladder. Where’s the camera that just a minute or two prior, videoed Neil making his decent?  Also, from previous shots we know Buzz is in the shadows, yet the first moon photo shows the Sun on the opposite side.



Maybe there were astro alien midgets on the Moon. At what level was the person who had to take this shot?   note how shadow at waist on astronot does not jive with shadow on flag or on arm.  no stars. flag is waving on no wind moon?  how close were the midgets to take this shot?



A photographer simply added light to the NASA photo and got strange background images.

An observation on the above study by Peter Sault:

The angular size of the Moon viewed from the Earth is about half of one degree. Since the diameter of the Earth is about four times that of the Moon, the Earth viewed from the Moon should appear to be 4X as wide as the Moon viewed from Earth, or 2 degrees.

As it is, the pasted Earth appears to be about one-half the diameter of the Moon from Earth.


Checking Orbell’s information on Armstrong’s astronomical training I found the following on page 238:

The Apollo flights with their improved computer capabilities required  crew members to have a “good visual representation” to perform sextant sightings and navigational computations involving all thirty-six stars being used as the basis for NASA’s celestial navigational system.



One of the most famous pictures ingrained in all minds of the world. Buzz Aldrin saluting the U.S. flag as U.S. claims the Moon for its own…is the official narrative.

Note: No stars. Flat landscape. Flag is waving but there isn’t wind of the Moon, NASA says. Look at the Flag and the shadow of the pole it DOESN’T make.

Sun is coming low (long shadows) and directly at the flag yet no shadow.  Also not how the background is always very poorly defined in NASA pictures.

With Flag Shadow now. Firm flag. Background dull and flat. U.S. flag can easily be seen on the dark side of the LEM. No stars.  Set looks like on a sandy beach and background is non descriptive even though v. high speed film had to be used, which would have large depth of field exposure.



Water for cooling the cabin, oxygen for air and fuel to launch back into space all had to be included in the tiny lower base that stayed on the moon.

The No Ignition, No Dust Rapid LEM Takeoff from Moon

First, how did this thing fly???.  There is no external output of energy. No flame, no blast from the exhaust nozzle. Look again at the above picture of how friggin’ big that thing was. Yet no visual from official sources. And never, ever a glimmer of a star in the blackness of outer space with no light pollution.



Apollo earth composite revealed 2



The Layered Cross-hairs

Sibrel Crosshair

The cameras used by astronauts during the moon landings had a multitude of cross-hairs to aid with scaling and direction. These are imprinted over the top of all photographs. Some of the images, however, clearly show the cross-hairs behind objects in the scene, implying that photographs may have been edited or doctored after being taken. The photograph shown above is not an isolated occurrence. Many objects are shown to be in front of the cross-hairs, including the American flag in one picture and the lunar rover in another.



“Outside my window I can see stars – and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon’s presence is defined solely by the absence of stars”.  Michael Collins, coming around from the Dark Side of the Moon.


Stage light reflection from studio camera. look at tiny window that Neil and Buzz used to steer over a crater onto moon landing!



The Unexplained Object

Moon Stuff012

After photographs of the moon landings were released, theorists were quick to notice a mysterious object (shown above) in the reflection of an astronaut’s helmet from the Apollo 12 mission. The object appears to be hanging from a rope or wire and has no reason to be there at all, leading some to suggest it is an overhead spotlight typically found in film studios.

The resemblance is questionable, given the poor quality of the photograph, but the mystery remains as to why something is being suspended in mid-air (or rather lack of air) on the moon. The lunar module in other photos appears to have no extension from it that matches the photo, so the object still remains totally unexplained.




Multiple Light Sources


On the moon there is only one strong light source: the Sun. So it’s fair to suggest that all shadows should run parallel to one another. But this was not the case during the moon landing: videos and photographs clearly show that shadows fall in different directions.


Check out the cable wires running down the right side  of this picture
Cable wire along lower left of picture. No stars. horizontal plane. No Flag shadow. Flag is crumpled.



All Photos presented are from Official NASA sources.

If one photo is a lie. they all must be considered fakes.

Magically, this moon buggy creates no tire tracks. (NASA Image)

The Moonbuggy leaves depressions even though the Moon has not moisture to create impressions.




No stars. You can also see the line where the foreground and flat background where seemed.  Maybe DARPA’s photoshopping wasn’t that as developed.  Yet there must of been great pressure on these guys to get out the thousands and thousands of photos said to have been taken.  Another mystery is how the astronots had the time to take so thousands of photos when most moon walks were under and hour.


Moon buggies were used on Apollo 15-17. Impossible for any vehicle to make a straight right angle turn. Also look at shadows on measurement device and rocks. They clearly are going in different directions.



“anyone seen my communication antenna?  I had it a minute ago. Geez…”

How did this machine get there?, depth focus dissapates too quickly. look at extendo sampler arm..

no stars. no moon buggy or tracks.




The Duplicate Backdrop

The two photos from the Apollo 15 mission shown above clearly have identical backdrops, despite being officially listed by NASA as having been taken miles apart. One photo even shows the lunar module. When all photographs were taken the module had already landed, so how can it possibly be there for one photo and disappear in another? Well, if you’re a hardcore conspiracy theorist, it may seem viable that NASA simply used the same backdrop when filming different scenes of their moon landing videos.

NASA has suggested that since the moon is much smaller than Earth, horizons can appear significantly closer to the human eye. Despite this, to say that the two hills visible in the photographs are miles apart is incontrovertibly false.


Below is a NASA-approved image of the rover folded up and ready to pack into its assigned equipment bay, along with a photo of the folded rover allegedly stowed away on a LEM that has clearly seen better days. And here is a brief video clip of the deployment of the folded rover being demonstrated, presumably at the manufacturing plant.

As can be clearly seen, particularly in the video clip, the rover, as initially deployed, was far from complete. It seems to be missing such things as a floor pan, and seats, and cameras, and antennae, and battery packs, and various other components – which raises a few questions, such as where were all the other rover parts stowed? How many empty equipment bays were available to accommodate all the various rover components? And how long exactly did it take the astronauts, given the limitations imposed by their suits and gloves, to deploy and fully assemble a Moon buggy?

GM’s crafty R&D team, led by project manager Sam Romano and chief engineer Ferenc Pavlics, supposedly came up with the innovative folding rover concept in less than a month, and, in July of 1969, as Armstrong and Aldrin were allegedly taking man’s first steps on the Moon, GM was awarded the contract to design and build the rovers. GM quickly teamed with Boeing and got to work, with two significant challenges to overcome – the rover must fit into the assigned bay, and the total weight was to be kept to a maximum of 400 pounds. Also, the team had to move from concept drawings to mission-ready rover in just 17 months.

As with all other aspects of the Apollo program, those lofty goals proved surprisingly easy to achieve. By early 1971, GM and Boeing had already delivered their first mission-ready rover to NASA for final testing and approval. On July 31, 1971, just two years after the contract had been awarded, what remains to this day the only manned vehicle to allegedly land on an extraterrestrial body began kicking up Moon dust.

The finished product looked not unlike an Earth-based dune buggy, albeit with the unique ability to neatly fold away. The vehicle featured simultaneous front and rear steering and steel-mesh tires mounted on wheels that were each driven by their own separate motors. Power was supposedly provided by an array of batteries mounted on the front end of the rover.



Whole lot of instruments to be working so well in so much hear and sun intensity.

(Just think how long it would take to unpack and assemble this in 150 degree temps in big bulky space suits,)
Weight and payload
The Lunar Roving Vehicle had a weight of 463 lbs and was designed to hold a payload of an additional 1,080 lbs on the lunar surface. The frame was 10 feet long with a wheelbase of 7.5 feet. The maximum height was 3.75 feet. The frame was made of aluminum alloy 2219 tubing welded assemblies and consisted of a 3 part chassis which was hinged in the center so it could be folded up and hung in the Lunar Module quad 1 bay. It had two side-by-side foldable seats made of tubular aluminum with nylon webbing and aluminum floor panels. An armrest was mounted between the seats, and each seat had adjustable footrests and a velcro seatbelt. A large mesh dish antenna was mounted on a mast on the front center of the rover. The suspension consisted of a double horizontal wishbone with upper and lower torsion bars and a damper unit between the chassis and upper wishbone. Fully loaded the LRV had a ground clearance of 14 inches.

“Deployment of the LRV from the LM quad 1 by the astronauts was achieved with a system of pulleys and braked reels using ropes and cloth tapes. The rover was folded and stored in quad 1 with the underside of the chassis facing out. One astronaut would climb the egress ladder on the LM and release the rover, which would then be slowly tilted out by the second astronaut on the ground through the use of reels and tapes. As the rover was let down from the bay most of the deployment was automatic. The rear wheels folded out and locked in place and when they touched the ground the front of the rover could be unfolded, the wheels deployed, and the entire frame let down to the surface by pulleys.

The rover components locked into place upon opening. Cabling, pins and tripods would then be removed and the seats and footrests raised. After switching on all the electronics the vehicle was ready to back away from the LM.”



You made it down this far, so enjoy some humor ….

Ha Ha Ha Ha….Ha

CGI animators having a little break from their reality.








The Apollo astronauts used what was, at the time, a special transparency film produced by Eastman Kodak under a NASA contract. The photosensitive emulsions layers where placed on an ESTAR polyester film base, which had previously been used primarily for motion picture film. The melting point of Estar is 490° F, although some shrinkage and distortion can occur at around 200° F. Fortunately the film was never exposed to this kind of temperature. The cameras were protected inside a special case designed to keep them cool. The situation on the airless Moon is much different than in your oven, for instance. Without convection or conduction, the only method of heat transfer is radiation. Radiative heat can be effectively directed away from an object by wrapping it in a material with a reflective surface, usually simply a white material. The camera casings, as well as most of the astronauts’ clothing, were indeed white.

The black sky should be full of stars, yet none are visible in any of the Apollo photographs.

This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don’t appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid, however they fail to recognize the difference between “seeing” stars and “photographing” stars. The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts’ activities on the surface of the Moon.


Da Bunkers blogroll

DID WE LAND ON THE MOON?A Debunking of the Moon Hoax Theory

On February 15, 2001 the FOX television network aired a program titled Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land On The Moon? This program showed alleged evidence that NASA faked the moon landings. This hoax theory has been around for several years, but this is the first time it has been presented to such a wide audience. Since this Website, Rocket and Space Technology, is dedicated to the men and women who brought the moon landings to fruition, I feel the time is right for me to speak out on this topic.

This TV program capitalizes on America’s fixation with government conspiracies by sensationalizing the notion that NASA perpetrated a multi-billion dollar hoax on the world. In my opinion, the FOX network acted irresponsibly by airing this program. What they produced is a TV show filled with sloppy research, scientific inaccuracies and erroneous conclusions. To support such an absurd theory and to cast doubt in the minds of the American public is an insult to the courage of the astronauts and the brilliance of the engineers who worked to achieve mankind’s greatest technological feat. FOX is apparently only concerned with ratings while exhibiting total disregard for the integrity of America’s true heroes.

Some of the most prominent advocates of the hoax theory are Bill Kaysing, author of We Never Went To The Moon, Ralph Rene, author of NASA Mooned America, David Percy and Mary Bennett, co-authors of Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle Blowers and, more recently, Bart Sibrel, producer of A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon. These people, and other hoax advocates, usually point to alleged anomalies in the Apollo photo and video record as evidence of their claims. The FOX program featured many of these claims while providing very little refuting evidence or testimony. Below are my comments refuting both the evidence presented in the TV program and many other common hoax allegations. I invite you to draw your own conclusions, but I suspect you will find the facts speak for themselves.

The likelihood of success was calculated to be so small that it is inconceivable the moon landings could have actually taken place.

Bill Kaysing has claimed that the chance of a successful landing on the moon was calculated to be 0.0017% (1 in 60,000). The source of this information appears to be a report prepared by the Rocketdyne company in the late 1950s. This assessment was, of course, based on understanding and technology existing at the time of the report. As tremendous resources were poured into the problem over the next decade, the reliability studies improved dramatically.

During the mid-1960s the Apollo Support Department of the General Electric Company in Florida conducted extensive mission reliability studies for NASA. These studies were based on very elaborate reliability models of all of the systems. A reliability profile over the course of a mission was generated by computer simulation, and a large number of such simulations were carried out for different scenarios. Based on those studies, the probability of landing on the moon and returning safely to earth never dropped below 90%.

Every Apollo mission before number 11 was plagued by about 20,000 defects apiece. Yet, with the exception of Apollo 13, NASA claims there wasn’t one major technical problem on any of their Moon missions.

This is the claim of hoax advocate Ralph Rene. Although I am unfamiliar with the source of this information, Mr. Rene’s assertion is clear; the early missions had so many insurmountable problems that NASA decided to abandon the moon landings and fake it. Even if the data is accurate, there is a big difference between a “defect” and a “major technical problem”. None of the Apollo missions, with the exception of number 13, experienced a major technical problem that prohibited the crews from successfully completing their missions. Also, the early Apollo flights were test missions designed specifically to shake out bugs in the hardware and procedures. Finally, the moon landings were far from flawless. There were numerous technical problems but, thanks to the skill of the flight controllers, engineers and astronauts, the problems were either corrected or circumvented such that the crews were able to complete their missions with amazing success.

The poor video quality of the first moon landings was a deliberate ploy so nobody could properly examine it. ……………


One would logically assume, by the way, that the LEMs would have been kept safely tucked away within the mother ship until lunar orbit was achieved. But according to NASA, that’s not the case. The official legend holds that the lunar modules were deployed shortly after leaving Earth orbit, about three hours after blasting off, and that they then docked in a nose-to-nose configuration with the command and service modules while both spacecraft were flying through the vacuum of space at either 17,000 or 25,000 miles per hour, depending on the source.



In other words, for virtually the entire 234,000-mile journey from the Earth to the Moon, that flimsily constructed lunar module essentially served as the front bumper of the mother ship. Other than to allow for the creation of the “little engine that could” fable surrounding Apollo 13, which holds that the conjoined spaceships flipped over and the front bumper became the engine, it makes little sense why that would have been done. Not only would it have exposed the fragile lunar modules to the hazards of a lengthy space flight, it would also have required a docking maneuver in outer space (one that seems to go unmentioned in the majority of the Apollo literature).


Amazingly enough, not only were the lunar modules capable of making soft manned landings on the Moon, and of blasting off from the surface of the Moon, and of rendezvousing and docking with the mother ship while in lunar orbit, but they were also capable of docking with the mother ship while cruising from the Earth to the Moon! By my count, those spunky little modules had to dock no fewer than seventeen times during the various Apollo missions, and they performed perfectly every time (twice in Earth orbit on the Apollo 9 mission, and twice on each of the Apollo 10-17 missions, except for Apollo 13, which did not complete the second docking maneuver).


Let’s pause here for a brief moment to reflect on the alleged plight of the unlucky Apollo 13 crew. There were no seats in the LEM as it had been decided that they would just add unnecessary weight. And there is just barely room for two guys in the space allegedly being occupied by three. All three, had this have been a real life-and-death situation, would have been wearing bulky spacesuits, boots, gloves and helmets. Somehow, they had to coexist for four days. During that time, all that would have separated them from the extreme hazards of ou

The Apollo 13 lunar module was exposed throughout virtually the entire mission – all the way to the Moon and all the way back. In all, the eight LEMS allegedly logged some 2,000,000 miles of unprotected space flight and not one of them suffered so much as a scratch. That, my friends, is 1960s technology at its finest.



89 thoughts on “Moon Hoax Images

  1. B January 12, 2019 at 3:43 pm Reply

    Why dont you include Stanley Kubricks confession on directing the greatest fraud of modern times- the moon landing? Published 15 years after his death, as his wish was…


  2. RICHARD DEMUTH July 13, 2019 at 7:33 pm Reply

    My first comment concerns the image of the earth from the moon. We see only part of the earth lit by the sun because the other half is supposed to be in the dark night of sunless space. Yet you will notice that UNlike on Earth, there is NO gradation or twilight between the dark and light sides of the planet. The light doesn’t gradually fade into darkness, it cuts ABRUPTLY into utter blackness so there is a clearly defined “terminator” line!

    In the scene of the LM approaching the orbiter module from the moon we a strange paradox.
    At either side of the lunar module are bulging projections which I would suppose to be the fuselages containing the fuel supply. YET, notice how close to the base of the entry/exit hatch facing us the booster cone is! IF the fuel was burning THAT close to the floor of the module it would have seared the astronauts’ butts as it escaped from the thruster cone!! Furthermore, we are supposed to believe from details in this scene such as the moon in the background BEHIND the lunar module and the triangular cut at the corner of the picture from the orbiter module window frame through which the camera is supposed to be viewing, that the LM is approaching the orbiter for docking connection with it. YET, the booster/thrust cone is NOT hidden at the OTHER side of the LM but visible just beneath it to the right! IF the LM had thrust off from its base on the moon it SHOULD BE approaching the orbiter with its cone BEHIND IT at the base and its TOP facing us! From what I have seen of other pictures of the capsule system, the astronauts entered the LM from the OM through THE TOP of the LM, NOT through its side hatch because the way the LM was positioned on it was so that the landing legs would project forward from the OM, NOT sideways!! The LM was then released from the OM by pressure thrust and turned by its side jets so that the booster cone would direct it towards the moon, at which time when close it would then turn so that the cone would face the moon for landing. What we are seeing in this picture of the LM’s approach to the OM is that it is coming in SIDEWAYS instead of VERTICALLY; UNless it was photographed IN TURN from its base to its top for docking. It’s really even strange that the LM capsule HAS a booster cone because in films I have seen of the capsule’s takeoff from the moon it had NO cone at its base. For it to have had a booster cone at its base APART FROM the one in the bottom of the hull, it would have not only have had to sit WITHIN the hull but to have EXPLODED FUEL into it at liftoff from it; and in the scene of the liftoff we see NO fuel explosion coming out from the LARGER cone beneath the hull!! In fact, it does not even make sense that the hull’s booster cone appears BIGGER than the capsule’s cone because the capsule cone had to do the LIFTOFF THRUST as well as FORWARD THRUST to approach the moon while the hull’s cone only had to provide RETRO-thrust to mitigate the speed of descent onto the moon! Therefore it WOULD have been SMALLER since it was required to emit LESS fuel expenditure than the smaller interior cone that would have emitted MORE for BOTH kinds of GREATER thrust!!


  3. RICHARD DEMUTH July 13, 2019 at 7:41 pm Reply

    In the photograph of the astronaut standing beside some gizmo with the lunar module in the far right background, it is peculiar that the left background of the “lunar” terrain is TOTALLY INDISTINCT, as if it was a paint job, while the right side is full of detail.


  4. RICHARD DEMUTH July 13, 2019 at 7:44 pm Reply

    In the photograph of the astronaut standing beside some gizmo with the lunar module in the far right background it is peculiar that the left side of the “lunar” terrain is TOTALLY INDISTINCT as if it is a paint job while the right side is full of detail.


  5. download July 28, 2019 at 12:45 am Reply

    When some one searches for his vital thing, therefore he/she wishes to be
    available that in detail, thus that thing is maintained over here.


  6. mike January 3, 2020 at 5:03 pm Reply

    I’m a flat earther but you’re making yourself look bad with all the mis-spellings…


    • John Woody September 3, 2020 at 7:20 am Reply

      I just love the use of selected photos to show there was no shadow of the flag in 5874 and 5875. The flagpole was very thin and the terrain where the shadow fell was very uneven. Now take a look at the photo 5905, as the ground gets smoother the pole shadow is evident, the actual far show as big shadow. I wonder if the person who made the erroneous comments were doing so with a scant nod to proper investigation or had done good investigation but only showed a photo that seemed to show there was no shadow. Either way this was in research terms dishonest. A simple bloke like me spent a couple of minutes looking for photos from different angle to show the truth.

      Look at this photo from a different angle showing the shadow, so easy to find.


    • John Woody September 3, 2020 at 3:21 pm Reply

      “Sun is coming low (long shadows) and directly at the flag yet no shadow. ”

      5874 and 5875 show no shadow of the pole, this is because the pole is thin and the surface is deeply disturbed close to the pole.
      I wonder if the person posting this had tried to find any other shots of the flag. If the person had tried, they should have found two photos below that would show a different thing.

      The person who posted the misleading photo either didn’t do proper research or did proper research but did’t want to show the truth, either way I would call their assertion dishonest.

      It just took me a couple of minutes to find other shots of the flag that showed the shadow quite clearly .

      Take a look at;


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: