Mystery Solved: 2012, Mayans, Eqyptians, Extinction, Ice Age, Pyramids, Obama's Agenda, Apollo Mission Photos

Proof of Apollo Mission Photos Taken on Earth

Everyone has heard the conspiracy theory that the Apollo moon landings were hoaxed.  What a ridiculous thought.  I’ve seen the beautiful color photos and witnessed the Apollo missions myself as a boy in Coco Beach, Florida.  I distinctly remember my father working at the Vehicle Assembly Building and all those mission patches and astronaut autographed photos he collected for me.

I remember the sound of the launch.  Wow, what a sound when those Saturn Five rockets took off.  When the rockets broke the sound barrier, I remember our windows to our home almost exploded.  Others actually did.  I remember my little sisters putting Styrofoam cups over their ears to block the sound.

Recently I have begun to ask questions regarding the still photos in my collection and videos available through NASA and the internet.

I am suspicious now.  Something stinks.

Do you think the photos of the Apollo missions were really taken on the moon?  Yes, you probably do.  Then you should be interested in this NASA Contractor Report # 188427, The Effect of Space Radiation on Flight Film.  Here is the link to NASA.

I have attached this report for your enlightenment.  The author wrote the report in 1995.  The report is located on the website.  Look at the first sentence in the introduction and then read on.

This report states that film technology in 1995 still cannot prevent space radiation from exposing film producing loss of image and non-images due to exposure to cosmic and solar radiation.  The moon has no atmosphere and the sun shines all the time directly on the bright side of the moon.  Astronauts on the surface have absolutely no shielding from the radiation.  All the moon landing film was exposed to cosmic and solar radiation during the lengthy Apollo missions and should have some over exposure issues.   If the films inside the space shuttle show exposure to different degrees at different locations in the shuttle, then these moon photos should also to some degree since they have no vehicle like a shuttle to sheild the film from the radiation.

Now tell me how primitive films by 1995 standards made 20-25 years before these tests were performed in 1995 could result in clear color photos from the moon?

If you still are not convinced, watch this video.

Do you see any flaws in the quality fo the film.  It’s just about as good as it gets.   There is absolutely no fogging of the video what so ever, but there is one more issue.  Watch the rooster tail on the moon rover.  Have you ever seen a rooster tail on a vehicle at the beach?  It looks very similar doesn’t it.  Well, this rooster tail was performed in 1/6 of Earth’s gravity.  If the particles in the rooster tail have 1/6 the force pulling them downward, they should fly about six times higher and take much longer to fall to the surface.  The soil appears to fall at a rate consistent with one g.  This is high school physics 101.  The rover should be surrounded in a cloud of dust, even if the soil is cohesive because dust was reported as a big problem on the moon.  There should be a dust cloud still behind the rover when it comes to a stop, but there is not.  Watch the dirt rotate around the wheel.  Does it look like it is falling to the ground 6 times slower than on Earth.  No, it looks like a car stuck in the sand at the beach with one g of force acting on the soil.

I know its hard to accept the truth at times, but swallow hard, and realize we all have been mislead again.  NASA could not afford to allow the truth to get out.  They needed to give the public something for the billions of dollars being spent on the space race.  This NASA paper also says that the new state of the art, 1995, Kevlar and lead film containers have zero effect in protecting the films, yet we all have seen the moon landing films and videos that appear unaffected.

Bottom line, Apollo films must have been exposed resulting in non-images or severely fogged images. The US did not have the technology to take photos in space during the Apollo missions and most of the films must have been shot on Earth to ensure film integrity.

Have you ever wondered about those videos of the moon walk.  Here is an interesting explanation for them being filmed on Earth.

Can you explain the astronaut that falls on his face and seems to be picked up as a puppet on a string without using his hands?  The other astronaut that you can hear offering to help never touches the downed astronaut.  Can you explain the videos that show the reflections off the wires used to produce the effects?  I’m not referring to the reflection off of the antenna on his backpack, but the other reflections above.   There are many other moon videos with simliar results.  Check them out if you still have doubts.

There is one more thing to consider about this video.  The video shows them moving 1/2 speed.  Gravity is this video appears to have an effect of 1/2 Earth gravity, not 1/6 gravity as one would expect.  NASA slowed the film down to give the illusion of being filmed on the moon.  Oops.   NASA didn’t think we would be smart enough to figure this out.  The masters of cover up didn’t quite cover their tracks as good as they thought, but it has taken about 40 years for the truth to come out.

Don’t get me wrong.  I am almost confident the U.S. went to the moon, but faked the photos as a cold war bluff.  The Russians must of saw the U.S. as so superior in technology at that time that they abandoned their quest for the moon and ended the cold war almost 20 years after Apollo 11 made history.

Do you believe your own eyes?



19 responses

  1. You appear to be cherry picking your evidence, yes the pdf does say that film is affected by cosmic radiation, it then goes on to reccomend to use film types that are not affected by it much

    “Select lower speed films (Speed
    below 400 films) and use reversal
    films for missions that have a
    predicted radiation dose of above
    300 mrads. High speed reversal or
    positive films (Kodachrome,
    Ektachrome, Fujichrome, etc.) will
    have little image degradation due to

    The majority of the Apollo film was rated at 80 ASA, thats way below 400, so when you remember that each mission spent less than 20 hours out on the moons surface with different cameras each time, the amount of time that the film was exposed to the cosmic radiation was not enough to damage it in any way. The rest of the time it was protected by the lander

    If you really are a scientist, then maybe you should have approached this scientifically,

    March 21, 2010 at 2:00 am

    • You make a good point, but here is my view.

      “Motion picture film 7296 showed and average increase in minimum density of 34% and a 15 % loss in the useful density.” Pg.12.

      “Eastman color negative film 5030 showed an average increase in minimum density of 30% and a 19 % loss in average gradient.” Pg. 13

      “Eastman color negative film vericolo 400 was least affected with 14.2% and 10.7 percent. “Pg.13

      Ektachrome p800 PF 5020 affected with increase in density 14% and 11% loss.

      T-Max P3200 PF increase in density of 28% and loss of 3%. Pg. 14

      Tmax 400 PF 5053 increases in density of 25% and loss of 5%
      Pg. 14.

      (34+30+14.2+14+28+25)%/6 = 24.2% – round to 25%

      All these in side a space shuttle.

      NASA would not test films they were not using and they would not use film that worked worse than during Apollo on the space shuttle. So, the film the space shuttle uses must be much better than the films during Apollo.

      This test in 1994 was done inside the shuttle at various locations. The containers were not put out in open space. They were all inside the space shuttle but in different locations with different effects. We could also assume that the shuttle is more protected because the walls are much thicker. The lunar module (LM) was made of tin foil. A protection factor should be able to be calculated and applied if one does not already exist for many of the following. So, just for kicks, let’s make up a standard protection factor and see where this takes us.

      The Apollo program photos must have had more over exposure than the average of about 25 %, and here is the logic behind it.

      The study indicates that by moving to a different spot in the shuttle the exposure can double. Here is our standard protection factor. So let’s use the doubling of exposure as our standard protection factor to set up our test. The paper thin LM, should provide substantially less protection than the films shuttle locations, so for the sake of discussion, double it for putting in a different spot as the NASA research paper says; then double twice again for putting it in a tin foil LM because tinfoil has much less protection than anywhere on the shuttle due to its thickness and pour absorbtion characteristics; which should reasonably give the LM twice the exposure as the storage location. 2x2x2x2 = 16. Now, you’re at 16 times the average shuttle exposure. Add another protection factor (2x) for primitive film because there were almost 30 years of tecnology advancement which warrants a doubling factor. Now on the moon out in the open, there is much less protection, only the camera case, so add a couple of more factors (2×2). Now, you are at 2x2x2x2x2x2x2=128 times the exposure. 128 times is 12,800%. 12,800% x 25% = 3,200%. I’m sure I can find more, but lets stop here.

      This translates to 3200% over exposure; which should result in many more non-images.

      The report says,:”The Shuttle and its cargo are occasionally exposed to large enough amounts of radiation to creat non-image.” What is occasionally?

      Let’s say occasionally translates to 3%, which is slightly more than a trace and the report didn’t say trace, it say occassionally. Now multiple the 3200% x 3% (0.03), and you have a 96% non-image rate during Apollo. Well, just for kicks, let’s back out a couple of the doublings (2×2). That is still 24% non-image and many more poor images.

      Now this little test may be skewed one way or the other because we dont’ have specs on the material. I will look for the data to strengthen or weaken the case, as necessary, and update this blog.

      NASA doesn’t mention the possibility anywhere of non-images or poor quality photos. There is no way we should have so many perfect photos. You decide for yourself and believe what you want.

      March 21, 2010 at 5:41 am

      • steven

        perhaps the camera housing might be a factor

        May 23, 2011 at 11:34 pm

  2. perhaps the photos respond to our viewing.

    March 23, 2010 at 3:20 pm

  3. chrisp

    There’s no dust cloud surrounding the rover because dust needs an atmosphere in which to stay suspended. In a vacuum, dust particles fall right back to the ground with the same speed as the largest boulder.

    And good luck trying to imagine constructing a vacuum chamber big enough to house actors, vehicles, camera crew, wire crew (to simulate Moon gravity), etc, and be big enough to continuously film the rover traveling ~3 miles away from the lunar lander site (like in Apollo 15).

    And good luck imagining keeping the construction crew used to build that enormous vacuum chamber quiet after all these years. Sure, Nixon couldn’t keep a breaking & entering secret, and Clinton couldn’t keep an intern from blabbing about a blowjob, but the scary secretive government boogeyman can certainly hide one of the biggest hoaxes in the history of mankind.

    January 28, 2011 at 12:55 am

    • The dust does not appear to accelerate toward the ground at 1/6th g. Don’t get me wrong. I believe our astronauts went to the moon and back again. I also think some of the photos were made here on Earth because NASAs photos were not of good enough quality to show the public. The US government can’t keep a secret, but they can make a secret by discrediting and threatening those who tell it. Obama is keeping his records secret. Haven’t seen that birth certificate yet, have you? The Hawaii governor just changed his story. He screwed up and told the secret, got his hand slapped, and now, oops, he misspoke. Now the secret is safe again. See how that works.

      January 28, 2011 at 3:42 am

      • mineonlytoknow

        Obama could have been born in china and he could still be president. He was born into a family of U.S. citizens so he is a natural born citizen. I very much dislike Obama and think that he is just about the worst thing that has happened to this country but he is a U.S. citizen.

        July 25, 2011 at 12:19 am

  4. mineonlytoknow

    Actually the moon is tidally locked with the earth so the bright side of the moon does not always face the sun it always faces the earth so the “dark side of the moon” actually faces the sun at some point and when it is facing the sun it is protecting the other half of the moon from the radiation. You learn that in 4th grade. Get your facts straight.

    July 25, 2011 at 12:16 am

  5. mm

    how did the lunar rover fit in the apollo capsule ?

    how did the film crew set up for armstrongs exit photo shoot one small step for man blooper ?

    how come no telescope could see nor any lunar sattalite since see the flag lunar rover or base left behind ?

    how did anyone survive the van allen belt ?

    how come certain footage survive being beamed back to earth in 1969 but i cant get a clear tv signal from 50km away ?

    how come buzz refuses to swear on the bible ?

    how come armstrongs a recluse ?

    how come nasa lost the original footage ?

    how come nasa admits some footage was filmed on earth ?

    how did they have time to take thousands of photographs with old tech the actual time spent alledgedly on the moon divided by the number of photos = impossible ?

    summing it up how can nasa prove its claims ?

    July 25, 2011 at 5:26 am

    • how did the lunar rover fit in the apollo capsule ?
      It didn’t, it fit inside of one of the equipment storage bays on the outside of the Lunar Module (LM).

      how did the film crew set up for armstrongs exit photo shoot one small step for man blooper ?
      Armstrong deployed the television camera system from the LM ladder, as described in the mission procedures. Audio and 16mm film of him doing this is available online.

      how come no telescope could see nor any lunar sattalite since see the flag lunar rover or base left behind ?
      Larger objects such as the LM descent module and the rovers can be seen from lunar orbit; images of these are available online. The man made objects on the moon are to small to be seen with any telescope on earth’s surface or in earth orbit.

      how did anyone survive the van allen belt ?
      By traveling through it quickly (about an hour) and avoiding the most dangerous part of the belts. Dr. Van Allen assisted with designing a safe trajectory.

      how come certain footage survive being beamed back to earth in 1969 but i cant get a clear tv signal from 50km away ?
      The Apollo communications equipment was more expensive than your television. If you had several large diameter dish antennas, you would have better reception too. Apollo 11 nevertheless had some significant communications problems.

      how come buzz refuses to swear on the bible ?
      He probably dislikes the confrontational attitude.

      how come armstrongs a recluse ?
      He was selected for his skills as a pilot and performance during emergencies, not as being a “people person.”

      how come nasa lost the original footage ?
      The have not. They have lost one tape of telemetry recordings that include a digital format of the video, that could be used to make a better video of the A11 moon walk than is available today.

      how come nasa admits some footage was filmed on earth ?
      They do not.

      how did they have time to take thousands of photographs with old tech the actual time spent alledgedly on the moon divided by the number of photos = impossible ?
      In general, one person spent most of their time photographing (documenting) their activities while the other did the work (largely collecting samples).

      summing it up how can nasa prove its claims ?
      1. Several hundred pounds of moon rocks, the authenticity of which have been contested by not a single geologist.
      2. Artifacts visible on the moon’s surface from lunar orbit, and retro reflectors detectable from the earth.
      3. No credible alternative to NASA’s version of events.
      4. The missions were tracked in progress by the USSR, who had every reason to claim foul if there was any hint of fakery.
      5. Several thousand photographs, hours of video, and hours more of audio.

      December 18, 2011 at 4:58 am

  6. Jochen

    You might want to correct what you said about the dust from the moon rover.


    As it is it’s not consistent.
    And the two previous posters have already taken advantage of your wording of the phenomenon – twisting and turning you further away…

    2 points:

    – Moon has no atmosphere – very important, because that means:
    everything you throw (dust for example…) will fall unhindered and equally fast regardless of weight or size.
    The dust SHOULD show as an perfect arch – it should NOT be a rooster tail.
    There should NOT be any dustcloud – nothing would linger in a non-existant atmosphere.
    You throw it up and it falls down – be it big or small.
    The rooster tail – the shape – is actually proof of it being filmed in an atmosphere – i.e. here at home.

    -moons gravity being only 1/6-th of earths would indeed make the dust fly much higher, but this could be explained away.

    The shape gives it away – especially the small particles are clearly seen to meet resistance – which is the resistance of air.
    Which should not be there.

    Case closed.

    July 25, 2011 at 11:20 am

  7. BobH

    I think you are right. NASA did go to the moon, but for whatever reason the films and images related to the Apollo missions was filmed/faked here on Earth on a sound stage in England by Stanley Kubrick.

    Jay Weidner has a documentary out that makes the case that it was Stanley Kubrick that did the Apollo films for NASA and that his movie “The Shining” his role in the whole affair is revealed in a symbolic but very obvious way. See a good review of the documentary here: . And more here: .

    And an interview with Jay Weidner on the subject here:

    July 25, 2011 at 11:34 pm

  8. ejav

    Who said it was filmed on the moon? I remember the live landing and, it seems to me that it was broadcast live and filmed/recorded on earth when broadcast for archival purposes. This was tv/satelllite imaging at the beginning. No, they did not bring the film back to earth and transmit it, it was all live. Then transmitted and broadcast. Like tv was early on. And the apollo was definitely in space and they also broadcast the sea landing and recovery. Think about satellite communications. Not film. Film is an archival storage unit. Live tv was airwaves.

    August 22, 2011 at 12:14 am

  9. kenny c

    anybody who believes a ship went to the moon, disengaged, then landed softly with a big car, unhooked it in a space suit with pressures necessary and the equivalent of a pressure in a football, (ever try bending a football?) in temperature extremes ranging between 260 above and 260 below with a little heater cooler/oxygen supply is on drugs. add to that the fact i cant take perfect pictures on earth in bermuda shorts on a sunny day, and these pressurized hands pointed and centered a perfect photo without a view finder. then do the math and see how many pictures were taken in the amount of time they were supposedly there, and subtract the time required to travel and take care of moon business and it means they were taking a picture every few seconds. no, the communist scare tool was to get americans to sign off on taking tax payer money and rerouting it into programs to line the sky with spy satelites and dig deep underground military bases and of course send some off shore. masonic nasa is sick , sick, sick. as for how can anybody keep a secret that long…. we still dont know who killed kennedy. the secret to keeping secrets is compatmentalization. those people who worked all over the world did not know what their counterpart in another division or section was doing. put glum armstrong on the serum and he will spill his guts. he cant though because his children and their children will be cast out of the middle temple.

    August 26, 2011 at 2:20 am

  10. Hello Endgametime,
    Thanks for that, I’m a long time fan of outer space. If there’s a documentary on or a book around on astronomy, astrophysics, or space travel, I will probably gobble it up (yes, I’m a Geek, I admit and am proud of it). Naturally, the original lunar missions are some of the most popular for people interested in what I am interested in and I have read a lot about them. I have even seen what feels like every documentary that has been made on the Apollo missions. So of course, I became attracted to this book and decided to give it a read. Well, I have to say, I’m really glad I did. But did it give me anything that I didn’t already know about space and the moon? Nope. It wasn’t supposed to. It gave me something much bigger.
    All the Best

    February 16, 2012 at 2:16 am

  11. David Turner

    I have only one thing to say: Brownian Movement!! See if that makes any difference to all you quasi – physicists!!

    February 18, 2012 at 2:46 pm

  12. evilstoo

    Nice to finally meet a few people interested in alternative views and angles on what our government feeds to us as truth. There are so many issues with the Gamma, cosmic and solar radiation on the moon, temperatures: of daytime hi of about 130°C / 265°F to nighttime lo of about -110°C / -170°F, UV space suits not radiation protected? (we wear Lead for a common xray). These are loose descriptions but the anomaly is in all of them; lunar module made of Tin foil, trajectory speculated as they flew (oxygen/fuel approximated!), camera/negative film/lens that withstood moon radiation and massive temp variations – modern cameras have problems in earth Arctic conditions, no stars in photos other than later missions, doctored photo evidence, no blast craters beneath any LM, the odd moon dust, wind evidence on flags, odd footage of astronauts on apparent wires (falling on face and lifting again without using arms(!), fake moon rock samples given to Museums – they ask alot of questions mostly answered by quasi-politic/science/propaganda consensus – all we do is search for an answer that makes sense of a mystery. The Apollo missions only happened under Nixon, with Kissinger and Rumsfeld in charge! Saturn took Apollo missions into orbit no doubt – but did Apollo go to the moon or just orbit earth and Nasa submit footage of tests done at a huge Moon replica base in the desert..? …before you laugh check out operation code named ASP (Apollo Simulation Project) – a Hollywood style manufactured giant base 32 miles east of Mercury, Nevada, complete with landing strips, underground sets of moon terrain, scale models of the Earth, sun and moon and high-tech sound stages were built. The isolated base was heavily guarded by a vast staff of highly-paid technicians … very strange stuff. There are alot of ANOMALIES with the Apollo missions they are as suspect as 9/11 – in my point of view … the old adage goes ‘if it looks rotten, smells rotten then it usually is rotten’ !! Follow the money is the usual lead – and the Trillions spent on NASA is mindblowing, where’d the money go? Private Investment Banksters? Military Industrial complex hidden Agendas … Nasa is about as honest as NATO, FEMA, Fed Reserve, IRS, FBI and CIA, with many Hidden Operations and Global Government agendas. Look outside the Box and Question everything … “He who never walks save where he sees men’s tracks makes no discoveries.” J.G. Holland

    March 1, 2012 at 5:03 am

  13. CR188427.pdf

    has been removed from the internet!!!!


    March 22, 2012 at 4:10 am

  14. BobH

    CR188427.pdf has not been removed. Check again.

    March 29, 2012 at 11:07 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s