STATISTICS

HOAX NOT A HOAX NO OPINION

TOPICS
1. ORIGIN
2. HOAX CLAIMS 3. MOTIVES 4. SCAN CONVERSION 5. PHOTOS

6. IONIZING RADIATION AND HEAT

7. COMMUNICATION 8. MECHANICAL ISSUES 9. MOON ROCKS 10.LARGE TELESCOPES AND MOON HOAX

11.MYSTERIOUS DEATHS

ORIGIN
1. We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle
-Bill Kaysing 1974

2. Capricorn One
-Peter Hyams 1978 Film showing mars mission

3. A Man On The Moon

-Andrew Chaikin 1994 Mentions that conspiracy were on since Dec 1968

HOAX CLAIMS
1.Complet Hoax:- Van Allen radiations, solar flares
2.Partial Hoax:- The astronauts returned halfway 3.Fake Photograph:- Philippe Lheureux in Lights On The Moon says the photos were faked

MOTIVES FOR CLAIMS

1. COLD WAR:- To win race against Soviet Union.. 2. MONEY:- NASA had raised around $30 billion..

3. DELIVERING THE PROMISE:- President Kennedys words

SCAN CONVERSION
Blueprints and design and development drawings of the machines involved are missing.Apollo 11 data tapes containing telemetry and the high quality video (before scan conversion) of the first moonwalk are missing. Hoax proponents interpret this as support for the case that they never existed. Only the Apollo 11 telemetry tapes made during the moonwalk are missingand not those of Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17.

PHOTOS
6. Identical backgrounds in photos which, according to 1. Crosshairs appear to be behind objects. their captions, were taken miles apart. 2. Crosshairs are sometimes misplaced or rotated. 7. The number of photographs taken is implausibly high. 3. The quality of per the photographs Up to one photo 50 seconds. is implausibly high. 4. The There are no stars in any of the 8. photos contain artifacts likephotos. the two seemingly matching 'C's on a rock and on the ground. 5. The color and angle of shadows and light are inconsistent. 9. There appear to be "hot spots" in some photographs that look like a huge spotlight was used at a close distance.

IONIZING RADIATION AND HEAT

1. The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt and galactic ambient radiation. 2. Film in the cameras would have been fogged by this radiation. 3. The Moon's surface during the daytime is so hot that camera film would have melted. 4. The Apollo 16 crew should not have survived a big solar flare firing out when they were on their way to the Moon. "They should have been fried."

COMMUNICATION
1. The lack of a more than two-second delay in two-way communications at a distance of a 400,000 km. 2. Typical delays in communication were on the order of half a second. 3. The Parkes Observatory in Australia was billed to the world for weeks as the site that would be relaying communications from the Moon, then five hours before transmission they were told to stand down. 4. Parkes supposedly provided the clearest video feed from the Moon, but Australian media and all other known sources ran a live feed from the United States.

MECHANICAL ISSUES
1. crater or any sign ofand dust scatter as was 6. No Theblast Lander weighed 17 tons sat on top of theseen sandin the 16 mm movies of each landing. making no impression but directly next to it footprints can be seen in the sand. 2. The launch rocket (Lunar Module ascent stage) produced no 7. visible The air flame. conditioning units that were part of the astronauts'
spacesuits could not have worked in an environment of no 3. The rocks brought back from the Moon are identical to rocks atmosphere. collected by scientific expeditions to Antarctica. 8. The alleged Moon landings used either a sound stage, or were 4. The presence of deepdesert dust around the module; given the blast put outside in a remote location with the astronauts from the landing engine, this should not be present. either using harnesses or slow-motion photography to make it look like they were on the Moon and acting in lunar gravity. 5. The flag placed on the surface by the astronauts flapped despite there being no wind on the Moon.

MOON ROCKS

Hoax proponents argue that Wernher von Braun's trip to Antarctica in 1967 (approximately two years before the July 16, 1969 Apollo 11 launch) was in order to study and/or collect lunar meteorites to be used as fake Moon rocks.

LARGE TELESCOPES AND MOON HOAX

Hubble Space Telescope should be able to take pictures of the lunar landing sites. The argument runs that if telescopes can "see to the edge of the universe" then they ought to be able to take pictures of the lunar landing sites. This implies that the world's major observatories (as well as the Hubble Program) are complicit in the Moon landing hoax by refusing to take pictures of the landing sites.