why can I see studio lights on the moon? [PHOTO]

also have a look a the shadow of buzz compared to the shadows of the rocks in front, there is a close light source that ain't the sun....

[link to news.nationalgeographic.com]

swamp gas...
weather balloon
Venus
lens flare
flock of geese

another one....

image - [link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

a lens flare of the sun wouldn't look like that!!!!!

HHHMMMM

Why can't we go back 40 years later...nothing improved in the space industry?

Why are we inventing machines to go to Mars...Hasn't there been enough R&D yet?

The only thing that actually got better is computer effects generation...no doubt we'll "land" on Mars...


But I think we should wait and be second...let someone else prove it can really be done...not like any other country would lie about anything...

Several people here claim to have been on the moon, maybe one of them can shed some light on the subject.

I love how the rocket thrusters on the lander havent disturbed the prisitine moon surface, and how there is no moon dust on the legs...

Apollo 11 is a hoax for sure...

"The fact of the matter is ... it's highly unlikely NASA would make such an obvious blunder if they had spent millions of dollars to fake the Apollo 11 moon landing, Plait said.

"Okay, let's take a step back. NASA's going to release a picture showing studio lights? Hello!" The odd lights in the picture are simply lens flares," he said. "There's a big fat pentagonal one right in the middle that is from the aperture of the camera itself."

...................

OP you will drive yourself insane with this nonsense and keep yourself enslaved for the whole of your life. Please do something more productive like researching the real deceit in the world. The deceit that is in plain view, where your government and presidents lie and are NEVER brought to account. Never brought to account because YOU are obsessed with utter sh*t. It is now expected that politicians will lie for your vote and then never deliver because YOU don't hold them to account, YOU don't demand prosecution for breach of contract. YOU have traded your democracy for a fantasy.

it's a reflection of studio lighting, distance spaced the same in two different shots. you even see the glare it has on the lens.... what a joke...

I'm not going insane, i have known it's a hoax for a very long time, i just never seen these two photos before, it's studio lighting and thats that.... your above quote are just shillery....

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Why not? That is exactly what it should look like.

IF it were studio lights (plural, meaning more than one) then there should be multiple shadows on each object. There are NOT.

Rockets are still largely the same and still extremely expensive. It isn't that we can't go back, it is that noone wants to pay for it.

why should there be dust on the legs? Are you thinking the dust should have clouded up and gottten suspended inthe nonexistent air? There is a disturbance under the rockt engine. There are striations on the ground where some dust was pushed outward.

OK then, find the multiple shadows on each and every object. We're waiting.

We went to the moon and alternate footage was shot by Stanley Kubrick just in case. The alternate footage was what was used, for the most part with some authentic still photos thrown in. There was no way they were going to take the chance of using the actual footage of the moon landing ...too much risk ... too much paranoia about Russia stealing our technology.

Maybe the Moon landing hoax was actually shot on the Moon?

The dust that got into everything, hung around longer than expected, but didn't get stirred up on landing?
Yeah, magic dust, I think you've been huffing it
[link to www.sciencedaily.com]

Nah. More like:
Internal Lens reflections
Temperature anomalies,
You name it , it can be explained away by NASA.

[link to www.time.com]

And the module made of cardboard, tar paper, scotchtape, and lots and lots of gold foil!

Dave McGowan's series "Wagging the Moondoggie" delves into the Apollo moon mission HOAX. It's excellent. And very funny.

there is no disturbance, get me a rocket, and I will show you what it does to dust.... and yes those legs look rather clean for a descent onto the moon

One question: why didnt Russia call fake? Even Russia was in on it? They just decided to let America claim first? How come Russia didnt also fake a landing?

Your pursuit of this topic means Kennedy was not assassinated.

--- Piers Morgan

a lens is curved and it's reflecting the studio lighting.... you can even see the glare (the misty large cloud on the pictures) that's a flare, the lights are reflecting the studio lights

too many shills on this board

I have seen better thunderbirds episode than the one they are claiming here in the 60's

Maybe they touched the photos up. The reason I believe this is because this is a photo that will be internationally seen and why not make it look better than it really does

Russia, China et al...FreeMason . Saturn Worshippers.
Some kind of influential control.
Maybe all politics in those countries right from mid 19th century is just manipulated cosmetic fakery.

Cold war, China being anti this everything.....just fake.
Only way something as big as a potential Moon hoax would work.
Else it would have been out in the open long back.

Na what happen was Russian never sent a man into space they faked it. So America wouldnt cry out lies Russia agreed to let America fake the moon landing. Everyone wins. While everyone was fearing the cold war the guys at the top of both countrys were sitting back laughing. After all they were BFF.