Did Neil Armstrong actually walk on the Moon?
Today many wonder is the walk on the Moon really authentic or is it a cruel deception,was it really a big step for man kind or simply a big step for Photo Shop?Is the walk on the Moon ,rightfully, Americas` pride or was it just a good tool for the predominance in the world?Did America really have the wish and the capacity to conquer the Moon or just to win the Cold war?Was it a great achievement or just a way to win the "space chase"?
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Why did Neil have to steel the Moon?
If we have been to the moon surely we could go back.
Why crash a probe into the mood to see if there is water, after over 40 years of technological breakthroughs why not send another team with a drilling rig?
If there is no oxygen on the moon how was it possible for neil armstrong to take a picture of the flag unfolded. without wind it would have obviously just stayed down
Furthermore there is no need for photographs to prove we were there. The US left behind a reflective half cube that reflects lasers and other EM waves back to the earth to the same spot they came from. Amateur and professional astronomers all over the world have confirmed this, and it's not too hard to do (you just need a powerful enough laser)
the USA had every incentive to lie
There are problems with the pictures
2, there were two astronauts on the moon at a time yet you can see the 2nd in the visor of the first and he has no camera.
3, there are no stars in the pictures, this is space, we can see stars from earth so why not the moon?
4, the land the module is sitting on is reasonably undisturbed, the decent and landing with the firing of thrusters should have kicked up alot of dust and left a crater.
5, Shadows look wierd, they are inconsistent, not always in parallel, some objects in shadow appear well lit.
6, footprints are too clear
7, there are mysterious reflections
2, He does, it is simply mounted at chest level rather than having to be moved up to the visor.
3, The moon’s surface is reflective (hence we can see it so brightly from earth) meaning there is a lot of glare as they were taking pictures at an exposure 1/150th or 1/250th of a second the stars don’t show.
4, the engines were fired before landing so the module landed softly and did not hover while firing its thrusters. Moreover the rocket exhaust fired out sideways rather than straight down.
5, there were several light sources; sun, earth, lunar glare, even reflected light off spacesuits and the module.
6, the lunar surface is a fine powder it compresses very easily, the shape would then remain due to the vacuum.
7, The odd lights in the picture are simply lens flares.
For many of these they would be very silly mistakes, would people believe that there are no stars on the moon, why not put them in if done in a studio, why not edit out those mysterious reflections etc[[8 Moon-Landing Hoax Myths – Busted, National Geographic News, 20th July 2009, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/photogalleries/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-pictures/%5D%5D
All Lies, The Sheeple Follow
What do you think?