I just finished watching the video “What happened on the Moon” on Google videos which seriously challenges whether the moon landing(s) really occurred. I found the evidence very convincing. Yet I was rather disappointed that one major piece of evidence was completely missing altogether. This piece of evidence which I would like to explain below is the most damning piece of evidence that virtually any engineer or scientist can ascertain themselves if they are acquainted with optics, calculations of orbits and a good background in math. So if you’ve never come across this before, here it is…Several years ago, the National Geographic magazine published an article showing how a complex mathematical technique was used to scientifically verify that Robert Peary really did reach the North pole.While the article could not verify that he was the 1st to reach the pole, it did layout the evidence that he really was where he claimed he was. The technique, as you probably know, is called photogrammetric rectification. The Navigation Foundation based in Rockville, Maryland carried out the calculations and was able to verify mathematically that Peary really was on a certain latitude close to the North Pole.
The report was given on this link:- check it out http://www.pearyhenson.org/dougdavie…ionreport2.htm
[Q.What is Photogrammetry?
Answer.Photogrammetry is the technique of measuring objects (2D or 3D) from photo-grammes. We say commonly photographs, but it may be also imagery stored electronically on tape or disk taken by video or CCD cameras or radiation sensors such as scanners.
The results can be:
- coordinates of the required object-points
- topographical and thematical maps
- and rectified photographs (orthophoto).
Its most important feature is the fact, that the objects are measured without being touched. Therefore, the term „remote sensing“ is used by some authors instead of „photogrammetry“. „Remote sensing“ is a rather young term, which was originally confined to working with aerial photographs and satellite images. Today, it includes also photogrammetry, although it is still associated rather with „image interpretation“.
Principally, photogrammetry can be divided into:
- Depending on the lense-setting:
- Far range photogrammetry (with camera distance setting to indefinite), and
- Close range photogrammetry (with camera distance settings to finite values).
- Another grouping can be
- Aerial photogrammetry (which is mostly far range photogrammetry), and
- Terrestrial Photogrammetry (mostly close range photogrammetry).
The applications of photogrammetry are widely spread. Principally, it is utilized for object interpretation (What is it? Type? Quality? Quantity) and object measurement (Where is it? Form? Size?).
Aerial photogrammetry is mainly used to produce topographical or thematical maps and digital terrain models. Among the users of close-range photogrammetry are architects and civil engineers (to supervise buildings, document their current state, deformations or damages), archaeologists, surgeons (plastic surgery) or police departments (documentation of traffic accidents and crime scenes) ]
Continue from the above article:-
Some of the parameters required to do this are:
* A photograph showing an object with more than one shadow
* The known (or assumed) time of year and time of day when the photograph was taken
* The focal point of the camera lens
* Probably a few other parameters (but I’m not a mathematician – read the NG article for more info)
By using photogrammetric rectification and having all of these parameters available, it was demonstrated that Peary really was close to the North Pole. The technique can only determine latitude and not longitude. So what if we use the exact same technique and determine at what lunar latitude the astronauts were on when they landed and the photographs were taken. If they really were on the moon when they said they were, we would have the following information:
* the exact latitude where they were relative to the moon’s north pole
* the position of the sun at the time
* the time of year and time of day
* the focal point of the camera is known
* plenty of photos with shadows
By applying photogrammetric rectification, you can verify whether the astronauts really were on the correct latitude (where the Sea of Tranquility is located) or any of the other locations they said they were on subsequent landings. In fact, using photogrammetric rectification with a few other parameters that are also available, it is even possible to calculate the longitude.
I submit this challenge to the scientific community. I urge anyone who is capable of carrying out this challenge to do so as soon as possible. If the results indicate that the moon landing was a hoax, the three old astronauts (Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins) may still be alive to answer to these results.
For those of you with the ability and courage to carry this out and have your results published in a reputable scientific publication, we salute you as one of the greatest scientists/thinkers of our time. I say, Go For It!.
This film shows two different Apollo missions, which are supposed to be in different areas of the Moon, but show the exact same mountains in the background. 
One For The Sceptics Over the past few months I have been having a debate with several members of the International Astronomical Society During my time debating , I was issued several challenges by sceptics who said that if I could show ‘official NASA footage’ showing certain anomalies, then that evidence MAY make them think that something is definitely amiss with the NASA Apollo footage. Needless to say that, as at the time of writing, none of them have come forward and changed their stance.1. Produce pictures showing stars that are taken on the Moons surface. They say because of the very bright conditions on the Moon, stars would not be visible from its surface!
2. Show an example of Movie footage that was taken aboard the Lunar Rover whilst it is in motion. (I asked the society how could the satellite dish at the front of the rover relay the video signal to a satellite or Houston if it was moving all over the place?). I was even told that this footage does not exist?… see below
3. If I could provide film footage of the LEM producing a flame on the Moons surface (This would prove that the movie was not taken on the Moon because the Moons atmosphere and vacuum would prevent such a flame).
That was the challenge… and here is the evidence… 
One of the biggest debates between hoax theorists and sceptics concerns the nonappearance of stars from the surface of the Moon. If the objects in the sky that appear in the film to the left from the Apollo 15 Mission are not stars what are they? We can rule out marks on the lens of the camera or in the film, because these objects appear on various parts of each shot and not just in one place. The sceptics reading this article could perhaps explain why the movie to the right shows light suddenly increase when Armstrong is at the bottom of the lander before his first descent from the Lunar Lander? It certainly is not due to the light aperture being changed on the camera because only the light behind the lander alters and not the actual lander shadow. Its amazing how Armstrong, who at first is in complete darkness on the ladder, suddenly gets lit up when he is halfway down the ladder… Lets remember that there are no clouds on the Moon to obscure the Suns light! The cameraman doesn’t move position by the way… Early in the footage you’ll notice that the LEM managed to park itself in a bright light… how fortunate! That will take some explaining if artificial lighting wasn’t used!
Still Not Convinced?…
Here’s 32 things that need to be answered!
1) Sceptics say there are no stars in the black sky, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. The first man in Space, Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be “astonishingly brilliant”. See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show ’stars’ in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface.
2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad’s camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren’t the astronauts affected?
3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM’s 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?
4) When the LEMs were supposedly leaving the Moon, they should have produced a large bright exhaust flame from the rocket propellant. Instead, zero exhaust. (I have turned this one around and have found evidence of a flame on one ascent of the LEM… just to prove the sceptics wrong!)
5) Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place.
6) The Apollo 11 TV pictures were lousy, yet the broadcast quality magically became fine on the five subsequent missions.
7) In most Apollo photos, there is a clear line of definition between the rough foreground and the smooth background.
Why did so many NASA Moonscape photos have non parallel shadows? sceptics will tell you because there is two sources of light on the Moon – the Sun and the Earth… That maybe the case, but the shadows would still fall in the same direction, not two or three different angles.
9) Why did one of the stage prop rocks have a capital “C” on it and a ‘C’ on the ground in front of it?
10) How did the fibreglass whip antenna on the Gemini 6A capsule survive the tremendous heat of atmospheric re-entry?
11) In Ron Howard’s 1995 science fiction movie, Apollo 13, the astronauts lose electrical power and begin worrying about freezing to death. In reality, of course, the relentless bombardment of the Sun’s rays would
rapidly have overheated the vehicle to lethal temperatures with no atmosphere into which to dump the heat build up.
12) Who would dare risk using the LEM on the Moon when it was never, ever tested successfully? Would you send a relative to the Moon in a vehicle that had never been driven before?
13) Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in “one sixth” gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.
14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low
gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts traveled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.
15) If the Rover buggy had actually been moving in one-sixth gravity, then it would have required a twenty foot width in order not to have flipped over on nearly every turn. The Rover had the same width as ordinary small cars.
16) An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Why didn’t
the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation?
17) The fabric space suits had a crotch to shoulder zipper. There should have been fast leakage of
air since even a pinhole deflates a tire in short order.
18) The astronauts in these “pressurized” suits were easily able to bend their fingers, wrists, elbows, and knees at 5.2 p.s.i. and yet a boxer’s 4 p.s.i. speed bag is virtually unbendable. The guys would have looked
like balloon men if the suits had actually been pressurized.
19) How did the astronauts leave the LEM? in the documentary ‘PaperMoon’ The host measures a replica of the LEM at The Space Centre in Houston, what he finds is that the ‘official’ measurements released by NASA are bogus and that the astronauts could not have got out of the LEM…
20) The water sourced air conditioner backpacks should have produced frequent explosive vapor discharges. They never did.
21) During the Apollo 14 flag setup ceremony, the flag would not stop fluttering.
22) With a more than two second signal transmission round trip, how did a camera pan upward to track the departure of the Apollo 16 LEM?
23) Why did NASA’s administrator resigned just days before the first Apollo mission?
24) Another overlooked intriguing fact is that NASA launched the TETR-A satellite just months before the first lunar mission. The proclaimed purpose was to simulate transmissions coming from the moon so that the Houston ground crews (all those employees sitting behind computer screens at Mission Control) could “rehearse” the first moon landing. In other words, though NASA claimed that the satellite crashed shortly before the first lunar mission (a misinformation lie), its real purpose was to relay voice, fuel consumption, altitude, and telemetry data as if the transmissions were coming from an Apollo spacecraft as it neared the moon. Very few NASA employees knew the truth because they believed that the computer and television data they were receiving was the genuine article. Merely a hundred or so knew what was really going on; not tens of thousands as it might first appear.
25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to “see” the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!
26) The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man’s own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions).
27) CNN issued the following report, “The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the ‘Van Allen Belts’ can spawn (newly discovered) ‘Killer Electrons’ that can dramatically affect the astronauts’ health.”
28) In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That’s the equivalent of a simple calculator.
29) If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently maps the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artefacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LEM go?
30) In the year 2002 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.
31) Film evidence has recently been uncovered of a mislabeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes video film, dated by NASA three days after they left for the moon. It shows the crew of Apollo 11 staging part of their photography. The film evidence is shown in the video “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon!”.
32) Why did ALL of the blueprints and plans for the Lunar Module and Moon Buggy get destroyed if this was one of History’s greatest accomplishments?
COULD NASA REALLY HAVE FAKED THE MOON LANDING?
Many people have written to me and questioned my accusations of how NASA could fake the Apollo missions. The majority (most of which are Americans) cannot believe that NASA would fake the photos. Well, I have news for all the sceptics and have reproduced below a little known picture from the Gemini 10 Space walk that NASA faked. The astronaut in the pictures is Michael Collins, who was later to be part of the Apollo 11 mission, and the first picture (1) is of him practicing his Space walk within a high altitude airplane. When Collins finally achieved the Space walk, NASA released several pictures of the event. One of which is picture 2. If you look closely, you’ll see that the picture is in fact picture 1. reversed (see picture 3) and a Space background has been added. If NASA has the bottle to release pictures such as these, why do you think they wouldn’t fake the Apollo missions?
Lets compare the Apollo cover-up with the USSR launch of the dog called Laika into space. She was launched into Space to see what the effects of Space travel would have on a live creature.
It was publicly announced that Laika died painlessly when her oxygen supply ran out, but the truth was finally revealed many years later that the dog had in fact died when the front nose cone of the craft carrying her had been ripped off after reaching Earth’s orbit and that the dog probably died from the intense heat of the Sun.
Further investigations revealed that the nose cone had actually been designed to do this. So, in fact, the makers of the rocket had known that the dog would die even before she was sent into space… this evidence took 30 years to be revealed to the general public.
Thousands of people were employed to work on the Apollo mission, but very few people had access to the complete picture. By giving several people a small role in the missions meant that they would not see the whole project.
Some of the Eleven Apollo astronauts had non space related fatal accidents within a twenty two month period of one another, the odds of this happening are 1 in 10,000…coincidence?
- James B. Irwin (Apollo 15) resigned from NASA and the Air Force on July 1, 1972.
- Don F. Eisele (Apollo 7) resigned from NASA and from the Air Force in June 1972.
- Stewart Allen Roosa (Apollo 14) resigned from NASA and retired from the Air Force in February 1976.
- Swigert resigned from NASA in 1977
Why did they all resign from the ’successful’ Apollo Program?
HOW DID MAN MANAGE TO COLLECT THE ROCK
750 lbs or so were said to be collected on the Apollo missions. This maybe so, but according to official NASA records, only a couple of pounds were actually collected by the astronauts. It would not be impossible to irradiate a rock or put it in a vacuum to get the same results.
WHY HASN’T ANYBODY SPOKEN OUT ABOUT THE COVER-UP?
They have. Bill Kaysing got in touch with his friend, a private investigator from San Francisco called Paul Jacobs, and asked him to help him with his Apollo anomalies investigations. Mr. Jacobs agreed to go and see the head of the US Department of Geology in Washington, as he was traveling there the following week after his discussion with Mr. Keysing. He asked the geologist, ‘Did you examine the Moon rocks, did they really come from the Moon.?’ The geologist just laughed. Paul flew back from Washington and told Keysing that the people in high office of the American Government knew of the cover-up. Paul Jacobs and his wife died from cancer within 90 days!
Lee Gelvani another friend of Kaysing, says he almost convinced informant James Irwin to confess about the cover-up. Irwin was going to ring Kaysing about it, however he died of a heart attack within 3 days. Is this evidence that a cover-up is in existence?
WHY WOULD NASA FAKE THE APOLO MISSION?
I think the main reason why the US Government and NASA faked the ‘official record’ is because they could not be seen to be the weak link, especially when you consider that during the 60’s, the USA were at the height of the Cold War with Russia. Also their own President had forecast that before the end of the 60’s Man would be on the Moon. It would be better to try and fool the public and hoax the footage, rather than let their biggest rival in the World strike a huge moral victory by beating them to the Moon.
If man really went to the Moon, why did NASA drop the successful Saturn 5 launch rocket after the last Apollo mission? The shuttle weighs 3/4 heavier than the Saturn 5 Rocket, puts only 1/6th of cargo weight into orbit and costs 3 times as much to launch. Why scrap a rocket that can outperform its newer model? The Shuttle was first flown 2 years behind schedule.
DID YOU KNOW?
NASA could have easily launched the Shuttle on top of the second stage of the Saturn 5 rocket? The first stage would have dropped into the Ocean and the second stage and the fully loaded shuttle orbiter would have travelled into low Earth orbit. The second stages could have then been left in orbit and assembled to make the Space Station, which would have been well on its way to completion by the time the Shuttle was first launched in 1981. They could have had the first launch of the shuttle a whole 5 years before it was finally launched and saved the American taxpayer 20 billion dollars.
Why didn’t Russia even bother to land a cosmonaut on the Moon after the Americans beat them to it??? Many people would say that its because it was too late, but if you want to look at it like that, why didn’t this apply to NASA when the Russians beat America in putting the first satellite, animal, man, woman and space station into orbit? Russia would not have thrown in the towel just because America had beaten them at one single thing in Space!
Not one thing that appears on the surface of the Moon had to be placed by Man. Be it mirrors to reflect lasers from here on Earth to calculate distances or seismology equipment. All could have been placed there by robotic machines. It wouldn’t necessarily need a human to place them there.
Graham Birdsall (Editor of UFO Magazine UK) has commented that during the very first Pacific UFO Conference in Hawaii in September 1999, Astronaut Brian O’Leary who worked alongside the likes of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the Apollo 11 mission during 1967-68, commented ‘ If some of the films were spoiled, it is remotely possible that they (NASA) may have shot some scenes in a studio environment, to avoid embarrassment!’
During Project Apollo, six highly complex manned craft landed on the Moon, took off and returned to Earth using a relatively low level of technology. An 86% success rate. Since Apollo, twenty five simple, unmanned craft with increasingly higher levels of technology have attempted to fulfil their missions to Mars. Only seven succeeded.wATCH THIS GREAT PIECE OF FOOTAGE.THE ASTRANAUT HAS A VERY HARD TIME TRYING TO KEEP THE FLAG STILL AS IT BLOWS IN THE WIND
If Man were so successful at landing on the Moon over 30 years ago, why haven’t we been back? In The Ride report, a report headed by Sally Ride, a former astronaut herself, an estimation was made on how long it would take to make a similar trip to the Moon today. If NASA were fully funded in 1987, they estimated that they could land men on the Moon by 2010, that’s 23 years…
Since it only took 8 years from President Kennedy’s announcement till the first mission, why would it take 23 years to send man back to the Moon for the 7th time?
In 1999 this estimate changed. Douglas Cook, Director of the Exploration Office at Houston’s Johnson Space Centre calculated that Man could go back to the Moon within 100 years…. I’m not holding my breath!!!
Cosmic Conspiracies were recently approached by Jim Oberg, NASA consultant, who was interested in a piece of footage that appeared on this page which showed the Surveyor III probe on the Moons surface, filmed by the astronauts aboard Apollo 12 as it descended onto the lunar surface. Mr. Oberg is writing a book (originally funded by NASA) about the whole ‘Moon Hoax’ subject, in a bid to put a lot of the speculation to rest. Mr. Oberg believed that the film we had (taken from ‘What Happened On The Moon’) was bogus and not original NASA footage, however David Percy and Mary Bennett believe otherwise !!!
Rohit Sharma for Gyandotcom
