Site hosted by Build your free website today!

The Moon Conspiracy

Shaolin Material is on page 2

Identical Photo from NASA at: (

Compare the shadows on this picture found from NASA at: (

***Look at the shadow of the rocks, since they need no attention, their shadows are accurate, unlike that of important things in other photos.***
(i.e. Astronauts, L.M., etc.)

How come you can you see the details of the astronaut in the same photo?
A possible studio light from Area 51?

The astronauts didn't have a flash
on their "CHEST MOUNTED" cameras.

-But Wait! There's more!-
The moon landing was faked! Here's Proof!

Caution: the following could alter your thought
of the U.S. government!
Proceed with caution!

The Moon Conspiracy, written by Mike Thomas
Information gathered on April 2001.

Kennedy had promised Americans that we were going to beat the Russians and other countries to the moon in the early sixties; this was called the “space-race” between countries. In the later sixties, Richard Nixon became president and had the promise of Kennedy resting in his hands. Richard Nixon was involved in scandal at the time and was credited as a liar for his actions. Nixon would need to do everything possible to satisfy the American public, even if it resulted in faking the moon landings. The chances of anyone setting foot on the moon were very slim, but faking the moon landing would be too easy.

In July 1969, millions of people watched in awe as Neil Armstrong supposedly set foot on the moon. No one had any reason to believe otherwise. However, as technology improved through the years, people started to realize how unreal it seemed. Scientists projected a less than one percent chance of going to the moon safely and returning. A series of evidence has accumulated since 1969. This evidence contradicts what NASA and the government said (Sibrel). Could NASA have faked the moon landing and fooled the whole world? Was it that easy? Was it logical that NASA faked it (“Did man…”)?

The evidence that NASA used to protect their innocence were many photos. These photos were some of the hard evidence NASA needed to make millions believe this hoax. There were some problems with these photos though. None of the pictures with astronauts in them show any stars in the foreground. Why is this so? In a non-atmospheric environment like the moon, stars should clearly be visible. Some opposing believers say that it is hard to see stars against the unfiltered sun. But the side in the shadow of the lunar module shows a plaque, clearly lit, stating “United States” while in the shadow. One shouldn’t be able to see this plaque if the sun were the only light source. Maybe the sun was not the only light source. Maybe studio lights could have been aimed on that side of the lunar module (“Did man…”).

Stars missing alone were not enough proof. They were not the half of it. Some photos show shadows of an astronaut as being longer than the other astronaut beside him. The public viewpoint of this is that people over the Internet had the resources to fake the photos themselves. Many of the photos that the sites used, I went and found on NASA’s own website. Another photo shows one object casting a shadow in two opposite directions. Many of the photos have intersecting shadows in common. Rocks on the surface have one direction of shadows, while some ten to fifteen feet apart have shadows that would intersect if they continued. Could this be a product of multiple light sources (“Were the moon shots faked”)?

A photo of Buzz Aldrin climbing down the ladder of the LM shows him, and only him, visible up in the shadow. If the light were reflected off the surface, the entire module would be just as bright. Another photo shows an astronaut’s visor clearly, with the sun directly behind him. The top of the astronaut’s head is also in the picture. This should not happen from a chest-mounted unflashable camera. Were these camera shots faked to look better, or were they just accidents that NASA didn’t think about (Brown)?

Hot Spots
On the moon, the sun does not generate hot spots. But in many photos the horizon in the foreground fades off into darkness. This fall-off effect does not happen on the moon. There is not an atmosphere to make this occur. The moon’s surface should be distinct and crystal clear. This resembles earth’s atmospheric environment (“Were the moon shots faked”). Were these shots faked on earth? Could they have gotten away with that? Why not?

Cross Hairs
An undeniable fact about the photos that supposedly came from the moon was the cross hairs that were permanently etched between the shutter and the film to show originality. Objects in the photo covered these cross hairs. Part of the American flag was over top of a cross hair. NASA offered no explanation for these unexplainable problems. If they were trying to fake the photos, computer revisions offer a good explanation. Maybe some photos of the same object didn’t match other photos. Did NASA alter the photos? If they really went, why would they alter photos at all (“Moon Fakers”)?

Crater-less Surface
One of the most powerful pieces of evidence would be the craterless surface under the lunar module. NASA can only claim that the Moon’s gravity is far too weak for the module to use enough force from the engine to disturb the moon’s dust. The massive engine creates about 3000 lbs. of thrust against the moon’s gravity. This thrust definitely would leave some type of crater in the surface of the moon. But every photo that NASA brought forth of the landing site shows nothing. One photo actually showed a footprint left underneath the module. Even just a smaller engine would have thrown all the dust on the surface underneath the LM away. But this powerful engine supposedly didn’t even move the dust. Even the video that NASA has of the LM taking off from the surface shows no engine fire or ignition evidence. It was as if cables jerked it up. Could this have been a movie set and the cables were meant to jerk it up (“Moon Fakers”)?

The dust on the moon is in a vacuum and does not act like anything on earth. The dust shown in the photos was shown forming clouds. In a vacuum like space, the dust should go up and down like a heavy substance. There is no wind or air to slow it down. The tires from the lunar rover threw dust up in clouds and several photos show this. The dust should have also settled on the footpads of the lunar module, but they seem as if they were wiped clean. The thrust from the engine should have covered them with dust, but they were polished and shiny. Why is there no evidence of dust on the footpads? Why is there no evidence of the rocket being used (“Moon Photography hoax”)?

Video Speed
The videos of NASA’s Apollo missions show the rover and the astronauts moving as if in a light gravitational environment. However, when the speed of the tapes was doubled, they then appeared to be moving exactly like an earth environment. Two videos show astronauts combing the area to conduct their investigations of the moon. NASA says that the two video footages were approximately two to three miles apart. But when the films were placed over one another, the hills they walked on match identically. Could there not have been enough space in Area 51 to move to another location (“Did man…”)?

Flag Flutter
An employee from NASA found a video of their own that shows the flag waving in the wind. The reason the flag is held up-right is because of a metal rod through the top of the flag to make it stick out. So when I say the flag was waving, I'm talking about the lower part without the rod through it, was waving. In space, there is no wind. There is not an atmosphere to hold any air. NASA claimed that the astronaut moved it with his hand. That would be like trying to move someone’s fingers by holding onto their arm. This far out excuse must have been the only one they could think of. Unlike the earth, the moon has nothing in between it and space. The earth has an atmosphere that holds air for people to breathe. Could it be that this was earth? Might that video have been filmed in the desert (“Did man…”)?

"The King of Cover-up"
In the late sixties, Richard Nixon was president. He was considered the king of cover up. With the Watergate scandal and the most pointless war on his hands (Vietnam-50, 000 dead), going to the moon offered a great distraction for Nixon. But when scientists theorized a less than one percent chance of going, he needed an alternative. John F. Kennedy also predicted that the US would go to the moon before the end of the decade. The computers during the sixties were very poor and would most definitely handicap the mission. NASA could only claim that the computers did the simple calculations and the humans did the rest. The technology on the spacecraft in 1969 had less memory than a modern day washing machine, yet it could land us on the moon in an uncontrolled environment. Maybe they realized they could not go and it would have been risk-free to fake it? Would it have been easier for him to just fake the whole thing (Sibrel)?

Solviet Superiority
Nixon and Kennedy were not the only reasons the government possibly faked the moon landing. The Soviets had a six to one superiority over the U.S. They had the first satellite in earth’s orbit, first man in space, first man to orbit the earth, first to put women in space, first crew of three astronauts on one spacecraft, and first space walk. The Soviets were definitely on-track to be first on the moon if it were possible. Would not the Soviets be first to land on the moon successfully (Sibrel)?

Van Allen Belts
The possibility of the U.S. even completing this mission was very controversial. There is a magnetic field that surrounds the earth and creates the radiation belts known as the Van Allen Belts. All missions other than the Apollo missions were below these radiation belts to prevent any harmful exposure. NASA could only deny the fact that these belts exist. Yet scientists say they exist and that to pass through these belts, six feet of lead shielding would be needed to protect the astronauts. The only man-spaced missions, that went past these belts were the Apollo missions, or were they? Even unmanned space flights stayed below the Van Allen Belts to prevent any radiation exposure to them and their instruments. Why has no one else ever gone back to the moon? Could it be that these radiation belts are why we never went in the first place (“The Radiation Belts”)?

Prop I.D.
Recently NASA retouched a photo that was in the history part of its web site. The photo showed the lunar rover and the LM had a rock near the front with the letter “C” on it. Thirty years later, NASA found this problem and changed it. NASA claims this photo never existed on their website. Although, some theorists say it was a prop I.D. Why would NASA even correct this if they really did go to the moon? If they really went, no worries, right? But if they are covering something up, they might need to fix anything to make the people think otherwise. Does this not sound logical (“NASA no-brainers”)?

All of this evidence could not have been fabricated. NASA published most of it on their own secure website and then changed it when people began to get skeptical. The moon landing was the world’s most expensive movie ever made. This was a great distraction from Vietnam and gave Americans a needed boost in pride about their country. No one would expect the government to lie to the public. However, people forget who runs the government: the biggest liars of them all, politicians.

If your not sceptical now, your mind is indefinitely closed
off to reality and the only way for me to prove you wrong is
to take you to go to the moon and show you that there is no flag!
And everyone knows thats impossible!

Shaolin Martial Arts, page 2