10 Controversial Moon Landing Photos Explained | 10awesome.com

10 Controversial Moon Landing Photos Explained

Posted In Culture - By paul On Sunday, October 30th, 2011 With 0 Comments

Share This Post

There is much controversy regarding the American Apollo Moon missions conducted from 1969 to 1972. Some people claim that they never happened and it was all a huge hoax.  The shots taken during these moon landings were the fuel that alimented this conspiracy theory. Here are these photos, together with the scientific proof that they were real:

1.  The American flag Waves

moon hoax

The scientific evidence for the waving flag is simple and reasonable, actually: If you look closely, you will notice a stiff wire into the material of the flag. Otherwise, the flag would have just hanged taunt- and how ugly is that? The so called flutter was unintentionally created while the astronauts were raising the flag.

2.  The astronauts were not killed by radiation, as they left the Van Allen belt

moon hoax2

These belts, which protect the Earth surface from the dangerous Sun radiations, are not actually as dangerous as people might think. In order to become harmful, the exposure should have been much longer.

3.  Multiple-angle shadows show that there were multiple sources of light

moon hoax3

This is nowhere near being true: the multiple-angle shadows only appeared because of the landscape: the astronomers took pictures on a hilly site and the sun was at that point near the horizon, thus creating the uneven shadows.

4.  The high moon temperature would have been impossible to bear

moon hoax4

Even though some claim that the sun would have made the Moon so hot that the film and other gears would have melted, this is not quite so: All the landings took place at lunar down, when temperatures are bearable but also, fragile equipment was protected by special canisters. NASA officials would not neglect something as important as temperature.

5. How did footprints appear with no mositure in the soil?

moon hoax5

Moisture is not always necessary: very fine grain dust are easily shaped because of the friction between them, which causes them to maintain their position.

6. The micrometeors would have killed the astronauts

moon hoax6

This one is true: space debris could have easily killed the astronauts. Except that space is so enormous that the density of spatial leftovers remains extremely low (close to none). Also, the suits of the astronauts included a layer of Kelvar which was meant to protect them from such debris.

7. The landing module created no crater?

moon hoax7

Some say that they expected the powerful engines to create a huge crater in the lunar surface. They are wrong though because, beneath the layer of dust, the moon is of hard rock.

8. The rover was so big that it would have been impossible to transport it on the moon

moon hoax8

Actually, this is a special buggy, conceived especially for being transported on the moon, from very light materials. It was also designed to fold up entirely so as to fit into the landing module.

9.  There are no stars in the sky!

moon hoax9

People were shocked about the fact that the sky looks very empty- no stars were visible, thus concluding that the photos must be fake. But, in fact, no stars should have been visible because of the lightness of the objects in close proximity, which made the weak light of the stars to disappear completely.

10. Who made the photos?

moon hoax10

The photo of Neil Armstrong and of the Eagle reflected in Aldrin’s visor is famous all over the world not only for its beauty, but also because it gave place to controversy: if both astronauts (only two walked on the moon at a time) were visible and none has a camera, than who made the pictures? Actually, they had cameras, but they were mounted on the astronauts’ chest, so that they don’t incommode them.

sources and photo credits:

Space.com, National geographic

About the Author

-

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

*