Did We Really Land On The Moon? debunked. There is also a video of a flag flapping on the moon, but how, when there is no wind?

Transcription

1 Moreno 1 morenoissac04@gmail.com Issac Moreno English 8 2/29/18 Did We Really Land On The Moon? How do we know we ever landed on the moon? Some people believe we did, and some don t. There is some evidence pointing to the disappearance of stars in the photos taken, however that can be debunked. There is also a video of a flag flapping on the moon, but how, when there is no wind? Or objects with double shadows, a spaceship that lands and doesn t make a crater, perfect, degrading footprints made by the astronauts, and a few more I will talk about. Although people come up with reasonable explanations, it can make you question everything you re seeing. With all these reports that state the July 20, 1969 moon landing was staged by NASA due to the occurrences in the evidence, they can also be proven true. First off, I will talk about information about the Apollo 11 mission, and why people believe it was hoax. The astronauts that explored the moon in the Apollo 11 mission were Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. The Apollo 11 mission is the supposed first U.S. mission to land on the moon. Morgan Whitaker s article, Did We Really Land On The Moon? said that, About one in every 15 people you meet potentially millions of Americans [believe the moon landing was a hoax]. It could be a possibility that we faked the Apollo 11 moon landing because at the time we were in a space race (known as the Cold War) with Russia. We were competing on our superiority of technology, military firepower, and our political economic system. We ve had advanced technology decades before the Apollo 11 moon landing, so it s very likely we could ve faked everything, with special effects. Dean Burnett s article, The Moon Landings Were

2 Moreno 2 Faked. even stated that The US government of the 60s and the 70s were unerringly honest about their dealings, give or take the occasional massive conspiracy. Secondly, I will talk about stars. In many of the pictures taken on the Apollo 11 mission, outer space seems to have a deficiency of stars. The sky looked pitch black, and the absence of stars intrigued many people. But why are there no stars in the background? Some people say the sky was edited in after shooting the fake moon landing. But they could ve also edited in the stars right? Actually no, if they were to edit in stars, some people, especially astronomers, would eventually find out that the stars look very fake, and expose NASA. However, these theories can be proven false because of something called light exposure. With extreme light mirroring off of the moon from the sun, the camera cannot pick up the light of the stars in the background. A camera works by focusing light rays through a lens onto a piece of plastic film coated with light-sensitive chemicals. The chemical turns dark when light strikes it. The more light, the darker it gets. Is what Jay Windley s, Photography Exposure, article stated. Another topic I ll talk about is flags flapping on the moon, and weird shadows appearing in photos. A flag cannot flap on the moon by itself, it s impossible. Obviously, there s no wind on the moon, because space acts like a vacuum to air. According to NASA, there s a reasonable explanation for that too. Morgan Whitaker s article, Did We Really Land on The Moon, also said, Unfurling a piece of rolled-up cloth with stored angular momentum will naturally result in waves and ripples. This statement doesn t make me believe though; I believe it was a draft of wind when filming on set. However, NASA could be telling the truth or lying. The second topic, shadows, is interesting too. In one of the photos taken, the astronauts and the lander s shadows are going one way, but there is a shadow from going the other direction. If the sun is the source of light, why is there another shadow? Some people say it s because of the uneven land causing

3 Moreno 3 weird shadows. Or the light of the sun reflecting off of something shiny, causing it to create more than one shadow. I personally don t know about this one, because it could ve also been a light from the ship. Next, I ll talk about how when the Eagle landed, it didn t create a crater. Why wasn t there a crater when the Eagle landed? Or at least dust flying everywhere from the thrust? Shouldn t a 32,500 lb. ship create a crater when landing? It could have been lowered onto the set with wires, or something. But no, this has an explanation too. Apparently, when they were landing the Eagle, they used less thrust to create less of a crater. And no dust cloud is explained because of the sun s radiation and solar winds. It causes the dust to stick grain to grain on the surface, creating no cloud of dust. Although the dust is so fine, it doesn t explain how nothing was left untouched. Speaking of fine dust, that leads me to the perfect footprints made by the astronauts after the end of their trip. After exploring, there is an aerial photo of the ground they covered, and the footprints seemed to not have been degrading. Surely, the footprints would be almost gone by the time they left, but they were still there. As if planted beforehand, to show the astronauts where to go, and were made to not disappear, so the astronauts didn t get lost. But people say this is explained because moon sand that packs tightly like volcanic ash or beach sand. This means that the footprints wouldn t degrade because they are almost imprinted onto the moon. Adding to that, there is also no wind on the moon to wash the footprints away. The last two conspiracies I will talk about is a rock with a C on it, and photos taken with the same backdrop. Stage props are usually marked, to show where they belong on a scene. And in a photo taken by one of the astronauts, you can see a C carved into a rock, just like a stage prop. This is interesting, because it adds to theory that it was all faked, but this has a reasonable explanation as follows. There could ve simply been a hair on the photo while copying it or a defect while developing the photo. Also, the C Rock

4 Moreno 4 only shows up in one photo, proving it could actually be a hair or a defect. Next, there are photos supposedly taken miles away that have the same background, as if it was a backdrop. If you are miles away from an object, i.e. hills, it should get smaller as you go farther away but it appears not in the photos. This could be explained with the parallax effect. Parallax is a displacement or difference in the apparent position of an object viewed along two different lines of sight, according to Wikipedia. Meaning the farther you go, the object will still look the same size because it acts as a sort of illusion. There is also no pollution or air to cloud the photos taken, that could also be why they look perfectly alike miles apart. There is a lot of information of debunking the conspiracy of us never landing on the moon, as I stated some in the text, and here are some points to consider. One thing to always think about is a reasonable explanation for questions you might have. Don t always jump to conclusions; stop to think, is it reasonable? We ve also brought back moon rocks to prove that we ve been on the lunar surface. The rocks have all the qualities of an object directly from the moon. What I believe is that: we did go to the moon, but filled in the details, with a stage, that we didn t catch on camera. This could be reasonable if we didn t get footage of something extraordinary, so we filmed it back here on earth after the exploration. The conspiracy that we never landed on the moon on July 20, 1969 is very interesting. A lot of evidence can point to something suspicious, however it can be proven false. With reasonable explanations for almost everything, it is rare for something unexplained. I believe there is something definitely suspicious going on because there is a lot of other things the government covers up. Unfortunately, it all can all be proven false with explanations. I also believe that we did land on the moon at one point, but somehow faked some of it. A lot of the pictures look genuine; however, some look tampered with. But only NASA will ever know the real truth, after all, they re the ones behind it. And with all these reports that state the

5 Moreno 5 July 20, 1969 moon landing was staged by NASA due to the occurrences in the evidence, they can be proven true.

6 Moreno 6 Works Cited Burnett, Dean. The moon landings were fake. The Guardian, Guardian News and Media Limited, 13 December 2012, Accessed 14 February Davis, Scott. Do We Really Know We Landed On The Moon? National Space Centre, NSC Creative, 15 June 2017, spacecentre.co.uk/blog-post/know-moon-landing-really-happened/. Accessed 8 February Did We Really Land On The Moon? YouTube, Uploaded by Good Mythical Morning, 18 August 2014, Parallax Wikipedia, 25 March 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/parallax. Accessed 14 February Windley, Jay. Photography Exposure. Clavius, Accessed 26 February Whitaker, Morgan. Did We Really Land On The Moon? AOL.com, 7 October Accessed 8 February 2018.