"I guess if some of the [Apollo] film was spoiled, it's remotely possible they [NASA] may have shot some scenes in a studio environment to avoid embarrassment."
Brian O'Leary

The above statement was made to Graham W Birdsall at the First Pacific UFO Conference, and published in the UK in 'UFO Magazine', September/October 1999 issue.
This comment is important, especially as it was made by an insider. Brian O'Leary was employed by NASA in the 1960s and was trained as part of the Apollo program in 1967 and 1968. For O'Leary to state that this faking is a 'possibility' is highly significant.
Could this be a very loud blow on that whistle?

NASA CONSPIRACY
Were the moon-landing photographs faked?

Nearly 30 years after the Apollo Lunar touchdown a growing number of people believe the whole event was faked. A professional photographer examined the moon photographs for proof.
On July 1969, more than 600 million people - a fifth of the Worlds population - watched in awe as Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the surface of the moon.
In April 1970, the World held its breath as a damaged Apollo 13 limped home after failing to land on the moon. But media and public interest in the Space Race was already on the wane and continued to fade during the remaining missions.
The last men to set foor on the moon were the astronauts of Apollo 17, in December 1972. But even before this, a set of conspiracy theories were spreading, the most radical of which claimed that NASA had faked all the lunar landings - that Man in fact never landed on the moon.
Does the camera lie?
As researchers investigated the photographic evidence, a number of questions arose, leading people to believe that NASA may be hiding something. A leading photo-journalist has cast a sceptical eye over eight key Apollo photographs - allegedly taken by astronauts with cameras strapped to their chests and using no other light source than the Sun - to see how the hoax theory stands to scrutiny...
Certain aspects of the shots - the highlighted flags, the Lunar Modules without craters, the camera's cross hair disappearing behind the image, the abnormally distinct tyre tracks and footprints - are difficult to explain away completely. But perhaps the most intriguing questions is WHY the photographs MAY have been faked, regardless of whether or not Man actually did land on the moon... anyway - lets look at some descriptions of possible evidence - sorry I would scan each picture I am talking about - but my scanner is not up to it... perhaps I could find them on the web and direct you at a later time... meanwhile heres a description of some of the possible evidence within the pics...
Apollo 11.
This image is of Buzz Aldrin standing with the Sun shining down across his left shoulder. Although his right side is in shadow, there is too much detail shown on that side of his space suit. It should be much darker and less visible because the contrast between light and dark is much greater on the moon.
With no atmosphere to pollute the light on the moon, all the photos should look bright and crisp. But the landscape behind Aldrin gradually fades to darkness. This 'fall-off' effect hoax theorists say, should not occur on the moon. But the fading effect could have happened because film is less adaptive than the Human eye and makes objects seem darker the further they are from the camera.
There is a curious object reflected in Aldrin's visor. Some theorists think it is a helicopter, others say it is a 12 metre glass structure. NASA claim that it is a piece of equipment on the lunar surface.
Another Apollo 11 Image.
NASA claim a strange shape in another image was taken from the Lunar Module while it was 95 km above the moon's surface -was a shadow cast by the Command Module's rocket. But when larger aircraft fly at lower altitudes over the Earth, they do not cast such a huge and defined shadows.
Apollo 14.
As the Lunar Module Antares, from Apollo 14, rests on the moons surface, there is no crater beneath its feet, despite considerable amount of dust that would have been thrown up during its descent.
There also appears to be a footprint directly under the module, yet no-one walked on this part of the moon before the craft landed.
On the left of the craft, the words 'United States' are clearly visible, whereas they should be in shadow. Buzz Aldrin himself said that there is no refracted light on the moon, which points to the fact that another source of light was used to take this image.
Apollo 15 & 16.
Shots of John Young and James Irwin - like many Apollo photos - show a lunar sky without stars. Yet with no atmosphere on the moon, stars should be visible - a fact confirmed by Maria Blyzinsky, Curator of Astronomy at the Greenwich Observatory, London.
If NASA could not hope to recreate the lunar sky, they may have opted for a simple black backdrop. NASA claim that the sunlight was so strong that it overpowered the light from the stars.
On the shadow side of the landing modules, there are plaques with the American flag and the words 'United States' quite bright and clearly visible, but the gold foil around the plaques is in near darkness. Studio spotlights highlighting these areas, or technicians retouching the prints, could have caused this effect.
Apollo 12.
In this image Alan Bean holds up a Special Enviromental Sample Container, the top of his head is clearly in view. But the camera taking the shot was fixed onto Charles Conrad's chest, and the ground seems to be level, so the top of the helmet should not be in the photo.
Shadows visible in Al Beans visor go off in various directions, not in straight parallel lines,as expected, suggesting that there is more than one light source. The container Bean is holding is brightly lit at the bottom, yet it is facing away from the light. This may be due to the light relected Bean's suit on to the container, but the rest of the container is not so brightly lit

Back

Home