Many of the photos presented to
us as "proof " by NASA do more to disprove the validity of NASA claims -
for example look at the photos of the site around the various LM after
they have landed - the dust on the surface under the LM would have been
blasted well clear of the LZ - yet there are photos that clearly show
footprint impressions in the dust in the area directly under the LM and
near the footpads of the LM legs.
In
this shot we can clearly see the ribbed sole prints around the footpad
of the LM. - I wonder who drew the "triangle" in the dust in the
foreground - just in front of the LM footpad??? Was this a marker for
the placement of the "LM prop", it sure is a very "geometicrally
perfect" shape to find by chance on the Lunar surface - and even more
incredible to think that it would still be there after the blast from
the descent motor !!
In
this shot we can clearly see several ribbed sole footprints in the dust
UNDER the LM - and in both this shot and the previous shot there is no
sign of dust on the top of the the footpad of the leg of the LM .
To land the LM on the Lunar
surface the descent engine is powered up to the point of negating the
weight of LM and arrest it's descent toward the surface - even in the
low gravity of the moon this is still a considerable thrust requirement
directed down at the lunar surface and the temperature of the exhaust
from the rocket engine would be in the region of approx. 1,700 degrees
Celcius - in at least one instance the LM commander commented that the
dust thrown up from the surface obscured his view of the surface -
CRITICAL TO LANDING THE LM - it was also claimed that the Laser
Reflector placed by the Apollo11 crew was so badly covered with dust
when they left the Lunar surface by the ascent motor that it was
virtually unusable.
So if the down thrust on landing
did not blast the LZ clean of dust WHY NOT - why are there no signs of
the down thrust at the LZ???? On Earth we see how little wind it takes
to blow a surface clean of dust - and we also see that rock melts at
around 1,000 degrees C - yet the LZ has a good inch or more of dust in
which we see footprints and the dust shows no sign of melting or even
scorching.
Here
is the ascent module, free of the lander frame, blasting off from the
lunar surface - this is one frame from the video of Apollo 17 - note the
landing gear is heavily obscured by dust and particles ( the dust and
particles would have been sprayed at terrific velocity after being
disturbed in nil atmosphere, and travelled some distance, but would
never form into a "dustcloud" as they would in the atmosphere and
gravitation forces here on Earth) why wasn't all the dust blown away
from the LZ by the descent motor?- the ascent motor used HYPERGOLIC fuel
- which issues an exhaust "flame"- but where is the "flame" - was this
just a faked mock up where the ascent vehicle was hoisted by wires in a
studio and some compressed air blown out to raise a shower of sand???
|
 An
artists impression of the separation of the rocket motors of a
Titan Launch vehicle and the ignition of the first stage motor
which uses HYPERGOLIC FUEL - note the flame/exhaust "flare" as the
hypergolic fuel provides thrust. |
|
An actual photo of a test of a
1st. stage motor using HYPERGOLIC FUEL - note the flare of the exhaust -
it is bright enough to light up the area quite well. |
The following link will take you
to another photo of the actual flare from a thruster motor on the Space
Shuttle.
Here is a classic from Apollo 11
- Aldrin descending the ladder - an accomplished photographers nightmare
- lots of reflective material (the gold foil ) lots of total shadow -
lots of glare, this shot would call for clever use of bounce lighting
and precise metering to get this exact shot.
BUT
NASA would have us believe that
Armstrong took this perfectly framed shot in the total darkof the shadow
of the LM with a medium format camera bolted to a chest plate on his
pressurised spacesuit - a camera WITHOUT ANY VIEWFINDER and no flash or
studio lighting. If we believe that then one day pigs will really fly to
the Moon without rockets.
In a great many of the photos
from the Lunar missions we see the contradiction of clearly illuminated
Astronauts casting total shadow - yet the objects such as rocks in the
same photos are silhouettes, but the Hasselblad cameras were not fitted
with any flash - so how was it that the side of the astronauts away from
the Sun could be clearly visible - selective lighting for sure. (NASA
did come up with the lame explanation that the Lunar surface reflected
so much light that the astronauts were easily illuminated - if that was
the case then the rocks would also have been illuminated. I always
thought the "Illuminati" were a bit brighter than this - pun intended.)
A famous shot from Apollo 11 -
Aldrin and Ol' Glory - just the thing for National Pride to swell to
fever pitch on and those cheque books to open - lots of bootprints here
- BUT HEY WAIT ONE COTTON PICKIN" MINUTE - I THOUGHT THERE WERE ONLY TWO
ASTRONAUTS ON THE "MOON" - HOW COME WE HAVE A THIRD BOOTPRINT????
There is clear evidence of a
THIRD PERSON on the "Lunar surface"(???)
Cop this - Armstrong and Aldrin
only had a limited time on the EVA but the tracks around the LZ show
much more activity than would have been possible during the EVA
especially when they had set tasks to perform - and you can clearly see
the imprints of their boots all over the place - AND YOU CAN COUNT THE
RIBS ON THE SOLES OF THEIR BOOTS IN THE IMPRESSIONS - 9 ribs in all the
prints - but in this pic their is a clear impression of a bootprint with
12 RIBS!!!
There is no trail of prints
leading to or away from the "bigfoot" print (this brings to mind the
"incident where Armstrong tripped in the wires of the video camera, in
fact you can see the impression of where this took place, DID A
"STAGEHAND" HAVE TO BE LOWERED IN A CHERRYPICKER TO ASSIST ARMSTRONG UP
IN HIS BULKY SUIT????, anyone who has ever worked in a cherry picker
will testify to how much they move around, DID THE ASSISTANT PLACE ONE
LARGE BOOTED FOOT ON THE SET TO STEADY HIMSELF WHILE HE HELPED ARMSTRONG
TO HIS FEET< AND THAT "ONE SMALL STEP" JUST GOT OVERLOOKED IN THE MANY
BOOTPRINTS NOW APPEARING ON THE SET - BY NOW TOO MANY PRINTS TO RE-ENACT
THE WHOLE SET!!!).
Plus the photo shows clearly two
tracks - one coming and one going for the photographer - if the
photographer came and went HOW DID HE GET BACK TO THE SPOT WHERE HE TOOK
THE PHOTO FROM WITHOUT LEAVING A THIRD SET OF PRINTS??????????
Click here to
see the "original" high resolution photo on NASA page
Look at this photo, "Bigfoots"
print is at 90deg to the track leading to the photographer, slightly to
the left of a line to Aldrin.