THE MOON LANDINGS WERE FAKED – THEY WERE DONE IN A TV STUDIO ! Let’s explore these claims one by one (or at least some of the more common ones…)
() Why are there no stars in the background of the Apollo pictures, even though the sky must be totally clear and dark due to the lack of atmosphere on the Moon?
(2) The Lunar Module's main engine delivered 4,500 kilograms of thrust, so why is there no dust on the footpads of the lunar module, or blast crater in the dust under the lunar module?
() The shadows of the astronauts and their equipment appear to point in different directions, why is this so if the Sun is the only light source? There are two main points those who promote the hoax claims raise about the shadows in the Apollo images. Firstly, the shadows in the pictures seem to point in different directions. Secondly, the astronauts seem well lit at times when they should be in shadow. Both these arguments suggest that artificial lighting was used and therefore the pictures were taken in a studio on Earth.
(5) The crosshairs on the lunar surface pictures sometimes disappear behind an object so have they been added after the images were taken, providing evidence of tampering?
(6) How could the equipment that is shown in the Apollo images have been transported to the Moon, and have functioned in such hostile conditions? An objection that is often raised by the conspiracy theorists is the size of the Lunar Roving Vehicle. The vehicle was 3.1 metres long by 2.3 metres wide, and 1.14 metres high. As the Lunar Module's descent stage was only 4.3 metres in diameter by 3.2 metres high, one might think this would not have left much room for the remaining equipment.
(Source: Nasa - Apollo Moon Landings: A Resource for Understanding the Hoax Claims.) Questions to consider
Why would the American Government fake the moon landings (scientific/historical/political contexts)?
Who would need to be involved in the landings were fake? How many people?
Why would no one who worked on the project come forward to claim they were involved in a fraud?
What would it claim about the current process of science if the claims were true?
Are there clear answers to the points made in this document? What do you think?
Consider the characteristics of a good hypothesis. Does this fulfil them? How does it do so or fail to do so?